Talk:Main Page

From CAGwiki

Contents 1 Messed up search? 2 Notable/Infamous Members? 3 Main page organization 4 CAGwiki:Manual of Style 5 Requested articles 6 Handling CAG forum links - Please chime in 7 Where to start 8 Something to add

Messed up search?

It seems that whatever I type into the search box somehow gets a ';' placed in front of it after I hit enter. Someone care to fix that? Gamefreak 22:45, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

That's something that's handled by the MediaWiki Engine, so it's not something we can fix unless there's a newer version that fixes it. The search results are still valid, so I'm guessing it's not something that's a big priority for them.

But thanks for noticing. Radjago 04:12, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

Notable/Infamous Members?

• I don't know about this Notable/Infamous Members section. It seems like it could quickly devolve into a popularity contest, and the open "anybody can edit" format of the wiki software doesn't make things any better. For example, I was toying with the idea of making a wiki "Coolest man on earth" and having it redirect to my profile, but decided that we should be keeping this as objective as possible. I'd rather keep the ego-stroking to a minimum. Any thoughts?--evilmax17 23:25, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
• I agree that it could be difficult to determine who to include and who to exclude. There are some forum members, though, past and present, that for better or for worse have contributed to the culture of CAG. DragonLordFrodo, for example, was an interesting chapter in CAG history and the image of his chest still frightens CAG veterans today. DenisDFat, though he is no longer active in the community, was a hotly debated member in his time, with numerous fans and detractors. There were famous scammers (ChrisXE comes to mind) in the trading section. Some members are renowned for their bettering the community: Shrike has done much to maintain the trading forum and investigate deals gone bad, while Dave "Mighty Slacker" Olson has a term on the forums named after him. If we are to write a history of the CAG community, some of these people would be difficult to exclude. However, I do agree about the potential for the section to turn into a popularity contest. Maybe we should devise some sort of guideline for who to include. If this would be too subjective or difficult, it might be best to leave off this section.Wet Ninja 23:45, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
• I think its probably worth a try. Since the CAGwiki editing is not open to the public, it seems like it should be fairly easy to keep it under control. Besides, whats the worst thing that could happen...we have too many entries? We can always do house cleaning. My $0.02 CheapyD 10:53, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Main page organization

• Since I became an editor of the CAGwiki, I've added a lot of stuff (placeholder links, mainly) to the main page. I think I added too much, because it seems like the main page is getting a little cluttered, primarily the sections I added, which may be a bit too detailed for the main page. Does anyone have any ideas or tips on how we should organize the main page, and how we can prevent it from becoming cluttered in the future? Wet Ninja 00:18, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

• I'm wondering if "CAG projects" needs its own section. I could see that put under CAG community, and just having a link to "Category: Projects", rather than listing them all. The front page still needs a little bit of reorganizing, but that's one thing I think we can examine for now. moiety 07:56, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

• I'd agree with moiety there, the content is good, probably just too low level for the main page. Link to the CAG projects page and then it can be more detailed. --botticus 08:35, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

• Also, writing CAG before everything seems a bit redundant. The title of the main page informs us that it is the CAG Wiki. So for the subsections: "Information" rather than "CAG information", "Original content" rather than "CAG original content". Thoughts? --moiety 11:57, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

The same thought has occured to me as well, agree that the ones you mention should be changed. It might make sense to go with the CAG prefix in some cases such as for CAG scoops? wubb (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Here's what I was thinking. Information, Guides, Original content, Community, and History can be written alone. Editorials and features could also be written minus the CAG prefix. I agree that CAG scoops and obviously CAGcast keep the prefix. I'd like to see the Projects subsection eliminated and housed under either Original content or Community, and even then, not even a section, but just a link to Category:Projects. I'm still tossing around ideas in my head for some of the sections on the main page, but I think as we add more content to the Wiki, the content of the main page will eventually fall into place.

Additionally, I got some of the trading pages going, so I don't know if those would be front page material. Or rather, a main trading page could be made and linked under Community, and this main page would have all the links to the trading pages. --moiety 13:05, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

• I went ahead and moved Projects under Community. It's still a subsection for now, with a link to a (to-be-created) Projects overview page and a link to the Projects category. If we don't keep the Projects overview page, I'd say we can eliminate the subsection and just link to the category. If we do keep the link to the Projects overview page, though, maybe we should keep Projects as a subsection of Community. What do you all think? Wet Ninja 13:25, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

• I was thinking about adding a link to the CAGwiki discussion thread on the forums to the main page. What do you all think? Wet Ninja 22:06, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

It could definitely be used as the basis of the About page. CAGwiki was announced in a CAG forum thread on DATE. wubb (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

• Because the main page isn't yet finalized and doesn't provide convenient access to a lot of the pages (yet), maybe we should add a blurb about using the recent changes link to see some of the newest/most recently updated pages. That way, users could find pages that aren't linked from the main page and use the links on those pages to find other pages. Thoughts? Wet Ninja 22:06, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

• Definitely think the main page could use some reorginaztion. Anyone got any ieas? CheapyD 05:06, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

CAGwiki:Manual of Style

I've created CAGwiki:Manual of Style to be the place where we set down standards and iron out how we want to handle things. Currently a blank page :-) Please chime in on the talk page with any wiki wide concerns on formatting and style. wubb (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Requested articles

I've created CAGwiki:Requested articles as a place to request important pages for creation. Please add some to the list! wubb (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Handling CAG forum links - Please chime in

Update: I've added a Links section to the Manual of Style detailing the consensus we've arrived at here. Feel free to continue discussing it. I plan to move this entire section to the MOS's talk page after a couple days. wubb (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Discussion on CAGwiki talk:Manual of Style as to how to handle links to the CAG forums at the bottom of a page. The way I see it there are 3 (well maybe 5 really) choices of where to include them:

See also

External links

New Header

CAG threads

CAG forum links

CAG links

I think it's pretty important we come to a consensus on this as a good portion of the wiki's articles will have links back to the forum and we need to handle them consistently. Let's get a vote right here, just say which format you prefer and then we'll go with the one I want to anyway  :-) (We'll count a vote for any sort of New Header together vs. the tally for either standard Header sections FTW.) wubb (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

CAG links is my vote. I don't know about CAG threads because it won't always be a thread, but that may be pretty nit picky. wubb (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

I vote for CAG links as well. That way, it can include links to the CAG homepage as well, not just to forum threads. Wet Ninja (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

CAG links for me too. Obvious enough in meaning, generic enough for widespread use. --botticus 23:29, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

I want to toss this out just to get some opinions on it: should we do one See also section with three subsections -- CAGwiki links, CAG links, and External links, or should we just make the three separate sections? Also, what should the order be? I'm not sure how I feel about three sections vs. one section with three subsections, but I vote for this order: CAGwiki links (which will be called See also if we keep the three sections separate), CAG links, and External links Wet Ninja (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Interesting suggestion, but my preference would be to make them three seperate top-level sections. I do agree with your order for the sections. See also -> CAG links -> External links wubb (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

I vote CAG links, but we should still use External Links for non-CAG links. We could think of it as "External to CAG". Also, we should think about header order. For example, we could say that CAG links should always come before See Also and External Links. --evilmax17 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Where to start

Until we re-organize the main page, should we add a link to the top of the page saying that a good place to start browsing would the list of categories? Something like: "Not sure where to start? Browse the categories." Wet Ninja (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Something to add

Could someone write an article explaining why CAGs always make jokes involving glitter? I want to know the orgin of this. RedComet 13:16, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

Good idea. I think we should have pages explaining all the inside jokes in the forums. I don't get to spend as much time in the forums as I used to, so I'm not familiar with some of the recent jokes, including ones involving glitter. Otherwise, I'd create the page. Maybe one of the other editors knows, though.Wet Ninja (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

I think it originated in a post by Soodmeg in this thread in the OT Forum Radjago 00:10, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

I have a problem with making the cag comic a thumb ins the cag comic section.Does any one to to fix this?Thanks