Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Main Page

5,115 bytes added, 21:05, 29 April 2019
this is no longer a place for general discussion
{| class="wikitable"
|'''Please note''': This is not the place to discuss about the wiki or to request help, such would go [[BetaArchive_Wiki:Administration|here]]. Please use this page only to discuss anything related to the <u>main page</u>.
== Main Page, Index section ==
''"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. --[[User:AlphaBeta|AlphaBeta]] ([[User talk:AlphaBeta|talk]]) 19:33, 3 December 2018 (GMT)
I was directing that towards gabegriggs1 but your fine Alphabeta
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 --[[Image:neptuneflag.png|14px]][[User:Dans34|<span style="color:vlue">Dans34]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Dans34|<span style="color:tomato">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub> </sub> 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 --[[Image:neptuneflag.png|14px]][[User:Dans34|<span style="color:vlue">Dans34]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Dans34|<span style="color:tomato">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub> </sub> 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 ? --[[Image:neptuneflag.png|14px]][[User:Dans34|<span style="color:vlue">Dans34]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Dans34|<span style="color:tomato">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub> </sub> 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 <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> --[[Image:neptuneflag.png|14px]][[User:Dans34|<span style="color:vlue">Dans34]]</span><sup>[[User_talk:Dans34|<span style="color:tomato">Talk</span>]]</sup><sub> </sub> 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 -[[User:SistemaRayoXP| 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? [[User:Gabegriggs1|Gabe]] ([[User talk:Gabegriggs1|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). [[User:X010|X010]] ([[User talk:X010|talk]]) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (GMT)

Navigation menu