Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

Revision as of 19:09, 5 April 2006

copyright

what is the copyrigt policy for contributions to this wiki. pd, gfdl, creative commons??? I think pd would be the best.

Well, NSwiki:Copyrights doesn't exist yet, but NSwiki:Policy says NSwiki is licenced under the GFDL. -- Crimmer 14:29, 5 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Oh, and please sign when leaving notes on talk pages. You can do this by inserting ~~~ (3 tildes) at the end of your message, or if you want to include a timestamp, ~~~~ (4 tildes). -- Crimmer 14:46, 5 Oct 2004 (GMT)

What Crimmer said. However, I'm not planning on running around and enforcing my GFDL rights - basically, steal what you want, as long as you acknowledge NSwiki. --Goobergunchia 19:03, 5 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Added link to Nation and Region templates

This seemed to be a fairly important new-user item, so I thought it belonged on the main page. I still have to delve to find the InfoBox links on the help pages. It needs to be a one-click wonder. -- Frisbeeteria 03:05, 6 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Put the New User section in its own table -- Frisbeeteria 03:39, 6 Oct 2004 (GMT)

iLoad

So vhat is the deal vith zee upload, eh? Will we ever be allowed to upload things to the Wiki to store here, or is it just one of those things that we're never going to get for it's too complicated, uses too much space or cost too much money, eh? Just curious. Fodian Federa 21:08, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Uploading doesn't work because the PHP that NSwiki is running on is in safe mode - I can't fix it, although I may ask my ISP to. --Goobergunch|? 22:18, 20 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Completely irrelevant

Just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that today, 25 October 2004, according to the little main page counter, NSwiki officially had 1337! pages. :) Iansisle 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Slight Typo

In the "tip of the day" cell, the URL pointing to the Recent Pages section of the wiki has an underscore (ala recent_changes) rather than it being all one word (recentchanges). This results in a broken URL that points to an invalid page. Since I am not of sufficient privilages to edit the main page, I thought I'd point it out here. --The Mindset 20:04, 28 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Since the content is actually linked to Template:totd, you do actually have the right to edit that ... but I'll grab it. Thanks. → Fris Θtalk 20:11, 28 Nov 2004 (GMT)

A Bit Redundant?

I'm just curious as to why the Main Page is also the featured page on the Main Page? It seems a bit redundant, as the "featured article" just repeats information that can be seen by looking directly to the right. Is this a blunder or was it supposed to happen like that? Just curious. Khen 13:08, 1 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Pardon, directly below, not to the right. Khen 13:11, 1 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Now that it has finished, I can safely say, April fools! Rechze • (talk) 23:26, 1 Apr 2005 (GMT)

New Featured Article?

We've had the current Featured Article for a while. Anyone feel up to finding a new one? Khrrck 23:30, 15 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Instructions for doing so are at NSwiki:Featured articles/Archive/changing the featured article. You don't have to be a sysop to do it, and I got tired of being the only one who ever did it. → Fris Θtalk 19:14, 16 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Though I have nothing to suggest (specifically of an article), I think we should have something other than a conlang as our featured article -- at least, the past two were. Matsu 00:34, 27 October 2005 (GMT)

New Tip of the Day

Maybe it's time for a change? I was particularly thinking NSwiki:Tip_of_the_day_archive#Sneak_preview might be a good reminder.Gruen2alk 23:03, 26 October 2005 (GMT)

Talk:Main_Page put on protection indefinitely

In order to put an end to the linkspamming on this page by certain IPs, I've put this page on protect status. I've been thinking - it's definitely possible to have the discussion for the Main Page somewhere else so that it's not linkspammed, and so that this page is not linkspammed after we leave it - this seems to be the only page they're attacking anyway. If you have any comments/questions about the protection of this page, don't hesitate to message one of the sysops. --Pacitalkia 05:39, 21 November 2005 (GMT)

I've moved it to this new title and unprotected it in an attempt to avert vandalism. It's important that we keep discussion of our main page open, though, because it's the front door of NSwiki. Perhaps we could impose an automatic indefinite block on those who linkspam this page if linkspamming starts up again? → Ceo \ squawk 04:20, 4 February 2006 (GMT)

Move the pagecount up?

I believe it would be a good idea to move the amount of articles from the bottom of the page to the top (moving it into the "we are building an open-content encyclopedia" part. what do you think of this idea? --swilatia 01:23, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Personally, I think that entire section would look better on the top of the page, under the welcome paragraph. Here, I've made a mockup of what might be good. My only concern is that it may make the top of the page have too much information. Dymero 07:30, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Anyone? Bueller? :P --Dymero 07:25, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Dymero's version looks OK. –|–– Ceo \ rant 13:27, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Fine by me. Gruen2alk 13:34, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

I agree. but I believe we will need support from more people before we do this. --swilatia 21:27, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

I like Dymero's version, although I'm not exactly sure why there's an mdash in the second paragraph. --Goobergunch|? 22:42, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

That's just because I basically copied and pasted the entire paragraph, and then integrated the article number into the first paragraph. It can be removed for the actual main page. --Dymero 23:52, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

Okay, five people support. should we do this, or is there not enough support still? --swilatia 00:38, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Not sure about the rules around here, but I know that Wikipedia's general standard is overwhelming support, or a week without overwheming opposition, and it's almost a week, and it has overwhelming support thus far. --Dymero 08:12, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm slightly concerned that it will push the Featured Article 'below the fold' for people with smaller screen resolutions, but overall I support the idea. --Safalra 11:49, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Yea, I mentioned that above. Maybe there's a way of condensing the text? I'll look into it. --Dymero 00:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT) -- Ok, I've tried to condense it without removing any of the important information, so take a look.

Perhaps this could work? Ceo \ rant \ rave 03:46, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

Well, that creates the problem of having some important information on the bottom. However, I did like the move of the disclaimer to the bottom. I don't think of it as pertinent as the other information. I moved it down on mine version, and the Featured Article problem seems to be fixed in my opinion.

OK, that looks good. I think we'll need Goobergunch's permission to move the disclaimer to the bottom.

Well, it's been a couple weeks, and no word from Goobergunch. I've left a message on his talk page about this. The history shows he was here yesterday (albeit removing some spam), and no objections. I'm not entirely sure of the rules around here, so I don't know how long we're supposed to wait, but can this go forward? »Dymero|t 03:23, 31 March 2006 (GMT)

Sure, go ahead. --Goobergunch|? 10:54, 31 March 2006 (GMT)

I actally am against moving the disclaimer down, because t will bring us back where we started, with important info on the bottom. --swilatia 12:37, 31 March 2006 (GMT)