Talk:Main Page

Main Page, Index section
Shouldn't Index be an seperate page? Otherwise when the index is done, the main page is not an simple overview, or a nice compact welcome page. - Rob Jansen 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, i think the index on the main page should be just the main categories listed (Operating systems, Applications, Games, Corporations, etc.). - Fzajac 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was what I was trying to say, but couldn't think of the words. Just main categories listed on home page, with a more button if needed. I've cleaned it all up so it looks nicer (no [edit] things everywhere and anywhere, but if someone can make the Index bar go full width, that would be nice. --Rioter 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the top index bar is in the same section as the Microsoft one. I tryed, but failed, the bottom section and the index box need to be seperate, then it should work. --- Rob Jansen 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did it. colspan="4" was enough. After all don't forget it's just a table... :) - Fzajac 21:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew it was something stupid like that :P --Rioter 22:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, ignore what i did on top but check my new idea for the index: User:Fzajac/SandBox/Main_Page:) -Fzajac 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can get the stats next door to the welcome bit on the same line then that would work nicely. Categories are much better. +1 from me --Rioter 10:36, 20 March 2010 (GMT)


 * OK, i've updated the index. I still need to work out how to get the statistics right so i didn't update anything else yet :)
 * Anybody could suggest any more popular applications with more betas? Also, how can i link to a category? Each time i try, i just add the article to category instead of just linking... nvm i got it ^^ -Fzajac 13:36, 20 March 2010 (GMT)

Individual Pages
Comments on this ( Just the colors)  ? > http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Windows:95:224 --Dans34 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just left the comment in your discussion page about it - Fzajac 17:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming System
While it is a good naming system, but remember, that when using large ones, especially with capitals and small letters, they are different. Main_Page is different from main_page

And also, maybe we need to stick to the shorter versions: Windows:Longhorn:6.0.3683.0, instead of Windows:Longhorn:3663.lab06_N.020728-1728

The longer the title, the more there can go wrong and more needs to be redirected, so that the BA wiki is more of a redirection wiki then an wiki. And the buildtag is only for XP and higher, below that, it are only numbers. Also, the complete buildtag for the one described above is: Windows:Longhorn:6.0.3663.lab06_N.020728-1728

Please, discuss this and not only comment with, No were are doing it that way, because while it does make sense, the titles are too long. Rob Jansen 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for the "6.0" part of the build. It's the kernel version that is the same for all Longhorns - when an article starts with "Windows:Longhorn" it's like it already says NT 6.0, doesn't it? Still, i think that using the lab, date and time in the title is important, as there are many different builds with the same build number and sometimes even the same lab. Using only the build number in the title will require often another page, directing to the specific builds or writing about few builds on the same page (ex. AFAIR there are 5 or 6 Longhorn 4050 builds, imagine 6 articles on 1 page, or even worse - mixing all of them in one section). And about redirections - they are made by defualt when moving articles. They need deletion. - Fzajac 18:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not goes for Windows XP, the early compilations are Pre-Beta builds they were 5.00 kernel, in the Technical Beta and the rest of its life, it is kernel 5.1 --- Rob Jansen 18:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, you're right. Sorry, my mistake. However, i will wait for sysops rights before moving any more articles because i don't want to create more mess now :-) - Fzajac 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Upload Link ?
Whats with the upload file link in the menu bar ? --Dans34 12:51, 20 March 2010 (GMT)
 * Fixed --Rioter 18:56, 22 March 2010 (GMT)

Naming System
Hello, wouldn't it be a good idea to replace the colons with backslashes? MediaWiki then threats the page as a subpage and displays a navigation bar on the top of the page, that would make the navigation much better. --AlphaBeta (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2013 (GMT)

this is a good idea but its an option that would need to be enabled for it to work http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Subpages and considering that the current sysops dont even visit anymore its not lickly to be enabled -- Dans34 Talkundefined 00:58, 1 August 2014 (BST)

Advanced Members?
It still says Advanced Members group instead of FTP Access group, which is confusing for new members--Ovctvct (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2014 (BST)

Unprotect Main Page
It's over 3 years since it was protected last. Can the main page now be unprotected so that we can make useful edits to it? --X010 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (GMT)
 * You have to contact the admin since anyone could put porn images on the front page. Or get rid of everything and yes I know you can reverse pages but what if it happens every minute. Not a single admin would want to do that. --Nedvire (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2015 (BST)
 * Doubt that would be anywhere a bit thing, with the strict membership rules , this should not be a problem. I am not asking for the main page to be unprotected fully , just to be unlocked to the level of any other page. --X010 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2015 (BST)

Gabe's recent edits
It looks like you copied and pasted betawiki.

My Edits
I have removed the text in the featured article section. All that was done was it was built upon pieces of BetaWiki's code. Otherwise, there aren't many visual similarities because I've changed many many aspects of the page.

Gabe

My Edits
I have removed the text in the featured article section. All that was done was it was built upon pieces of BetaWiki's code. Otherwise, there aren't many visual similarities because I've changed many many aspects of the page.

Also, I will mention that BetaWiki isn't the only site with a "Did you know?" section. Wikipedia contains a Did You Know section as well. Same with a featured article section.

Gabe

Gabe,

I know but it is too easy to tell you copied their front page. I do support the idea of a Did you Know and featured article section.

Rob

I am well aware that Wikipedia and other websites also contain "did you know" and "featured article" sections. In fact, the Wikipedia landing page has been my main source of inspiration. Now, back then I was entering uncharted territory, so I didn't have the privilege of being able to scrap an existing wiki's home page layout and had to came up with a layout of my own. It's sad to see you guys copy without a grain of creativity, because I am pretty sure you can do much better than this. --AlphaBeta (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2018 (GMT)

Betawiki folks aren't too happy with what you are doing. (talk)

"This isn't any different from them and us taking the exact same code from Wikipedia." Yes, it is different. You're not just combining Wikipedia's code with ideas of your own, which is what I did and so did BA Wiki, but blatantly ripping off BetaWiki's main page, including the ideas behind it. --AlphaBeta (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2018 (GMT)

I was directing that towards gabegriggs1 but your fine Alphabeta

WILSON2bGg

Can we just revert it back to the old page? Yes, this is under construction. But the code, stolen from BetaWiki barely works and it looks ugly.

I agree revert back and mess around with the homepage on your own userpage before you push the changes -- Dans34 Talkundefined 01:20, 3 January 2019 (GMT)

Guidelines Page
Due to there being people wanted, we need some rules on what to do, how pages should look, etc. Would you agree

yup -- Dans34 Talkundefined 20:38, 5 January 2019 (GMT)

Windows Centro
whats with all the centro builds that have no information in them at all, whats the point in putting them on the wiki ? -- Dans34 Talkundefined 16:31, 10 January 2019 (GMT)

They all need to be done. I haven't installed them yet to see what they have or what to put in their pages.

Cool, would you mind signing your messages with --~ -- Dans34 Talkundefined 18:04, 10 January 2019 (GMT)

Ok, no problem. - WILSON2bGg

I forgot to add, if you look at the stub category, thats pretty much a bunch of builds that need some major work. --WILSON2bGg--

Don't just fill every page
Some of these builds are all practically the same. It's better if we don't fill them all. Rather we could include them all on the release's page, and write some text about them. It's not a need to have a page for every build, because some are almost identical (Perfect example: LH 4020 and 4032) If you still don't understand me, tell me and I'll try to clear it a bit -User:SistemaRayoXP

Ok, but I still think there is a reason to add an infobox, some text and basic pictures in a gallery. You do remember the point of BA is to preserve old software. Thats what I am doing creating pages........ -User:WILSON2bGg

Preserving does not mean stubbing and then filling
Most of the stub pages did exist before you signed up. The problem is that we shouldn't have lots of stub pages about every single build, because that's not just inefficient, also difficult. Most Windows builds don't change a lot between short numbers, like for example the final Whistler builds. Better have some consistency, and try creating pages only for important builds, like for the Milestone builds, the Release Candidates, the first Alphas, you get my point This way we can have a more organised wiki. The best thing you can do, is to create a page ONLY if you can type on it more than 10 original paragraphs. Now, with original I mean that these don't exist anywhere else on the wiki, or at least that they are way different from any other in the wiki.

Example, a list of features of several builds contains the same 10 features over and over again from build 9910 to 9930. Why? Because these builds do not change a lot, and you can't write many different stuff about similar builds, because they are very similar. So a solution is that you would only write one article containing all the new features in the first build of a batch of similar builds and incorporate the corrections or "bits added and removed" for each build of this "batch of builds". The "batch of builds" is a Milestone.

So taking this criteria in mind, you would write in the Vista article only one article per Milestone, and include in this or in another article the inidivual sections for each build inside this Milestone. It's hard for me to explain this, so I will organise an article this way to show you what I'm referring to - SistemaRayoXP GMT-6 15:46 11/01/2019

Mac OS X is now just macOS
Recently the Mac Operating System has changed names. To refer to OS 10.0-10.5 you must say Mac OS X. To refer to OS 10.6-10.11 you must say OS X. To refer to OS 10.12-10.14+ you must say macOS. To refer to OS 6-9 you must say Mac OS or MacOS Classic. So in resume macOS is completely valid for OS X


 * Yup got it. What do you think about making them two separate categories? Gabe (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (GMT)
 * They still represent the same thing in the end, and hence would just redirect the old name to the new name (which I did some time ago). X010 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (GMT)