Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From CATUG wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Remove Facebook Group: Our historical sites are listed at CATUG_websites#Historic_sites)
(Move administrators' MediaWiki links to Help:Contents)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
--[[User:Vdanen|Vdanen]] 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Vdanen|Vdanen]] 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  
== Mediawiki links/info ==
+
= Mediawiki links/info =
  
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.
+
For links to help administrators with technical wiki stuff, see [[Help:Contents]].
  
== Getting started ==
+
= Remove Facebook Group =
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
+
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
+
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
+
 
+
== Remove Facebook Group ==
+
  
 
I'm thinking we can do without the link to the Facebook Group (just linking to the page instead), to avoid confusion. Or, is there a good place to put it for its "historical value"?
 
I'm thinking we can do without the link to the Facebook Group (just linking to the page instead), to avoid confusion. Or, is there a good place to put it for its "historical value"?
Line 18: Line 13:
  
 
:Yes, that would be [[CATUG_websites#Historic_sites]].  
 
:Yes, that would be [[CATUG_websites#Historic_sites]].  
:But would it be premature to remove it? I don't understand the changes on FB. [[User:N Reid|N Reid]] ([[User talk:N Reid|talk]]) 16:58, 20 January 2012 (CST)
+
:Slightly disappointed that you had to ask, because there is a signpost of how to find that right under the Facebook link that you are talking about! It's meant to get people exploring using the Categories, but apparently it is too cryptic in practice. Oh dear. Perhaps I need to build more familiar-looking index pages.
 +
 
 +
:As for the FB Group: would it be premature to remove it? I don't understand the changes on FB. [[User:N Reid|N Reid]] ([[User talk:N Reid|talk]]) 17:05, 20 January 2012 (CST)
 +
 
 +
:: I've visited the historic sites page, I guess I just wanted sure if it had value there or if that was ideal for a Facebook Group. I have mixed feelings about continuing to promote the group. Since Groups are primarily "private," it seems, now, I think the Page might be better to focus our promotion on. When people participate in it, they visibly "like" us (unlike the way it is for new groups). Perhaps I'll bring this up on Ops and see what folks think.
 +
 
 +
:: --[[User:Tbutler|Tbutler]] 19:49, 20 January 2012 (CST)

Latest revision as of 08:32, 21 January 2012

As you can see, each page has an associated talk page where people can put comments about the contents of the page without actually disturbing the page contents directly. Great for collaboration. --Vdanen 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki links/info

For links to help administrators with technical wiki stuff, see Help:Contents.

Remove Facebook Group

I'm thinking we can do without the link to the Facebook Group (just linking to the page instead), to avoid confusion. Or, is there a good place to put it for its "historical value"?

--Tbutler 21:43, 14 January 2012 (CST)

Yes, that would be CATUG_websites#Historic_sites.
Slightly disappointed that you had to ask, because there is a signpost of how to find that right under the Facebook link that you are talking about! It's meant to get people exploring using the Categories, but apparently it is too cryptic in practice. Oh dear. Perhaps I need to build more familiar-looking index pages.
As for the FB Group: would it be premature to remove it? I don't understand the changes on FB. N Reid (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2012 (CST)
I've visited the historic sites page, I guess I just wanted sure if it had value there or if that was ideal for a Facebook Group. I have mixed feelings about continuing to promote the group. Since Groups are primarily "private," it seems, now, I think the Page might be better to focus our promotion on. When people participate in it, they visibly "like" us (unlike the way it is for new groups). Perhaps I'll bring this up on Ops and see what folks think.
--Tbutler 19:49, 20 January 2012 (CST)