Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:04, 7 April 2002

Should this wiki show 'meta.wikipedia.com' or 'metapedia', rater than just 'wikipedia' on the front page and elsewhere? Dave McKee

Yes! :-) --LMS

There is a serious bug in the links to bug reporting and acquiring source code on the meta.wikipedia main page. It makes it difficult to report bugs!

Upon clicking them a message appears and an infinite loop appears in progress until back paging:

Message

You are being reidrected to wikipedia.com

Warning Cannot add header information - headers already  sent by (output started at  /home/groups/w/wi/wikipedia/htdocs/fpw/wiki.phtm/:5)
in /home/groups/w/wi/wikipedia/htdocs/fpw/wiki.phtml on  line 81

The original bug I wished to report is that there is a line wrap (actually a refusal to wrap in the rendered page delivered) problem in the article http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Discussion+on+business+models+and+organizational+charters+applicable+to+large+free+wikis

Discussion+on+business+models+and+organizational+charters+applicable+to+large+free+wikis

The above was copied from the meta.wikipedia main page and bracketed but does not implement a link to the existing document. Perhaps it is an interwiki link or needs to be relocated to meta.wikipedia and original pages and links deleted.

Update: Preview shows that this file now has the rendering wrap failure. Perhaps this is my browser interacting badly with the editor or render engine? Using Navigator 4.7/Win 98 at the moment. user:mirwin

OK, the original text is now carefully framed to be neutral. If you don't agree that Sanger's departure has created some governance questions that we should keep front and center for now, you can always move that part off to a file called "governance" or something. But it seems at least as central as the software concerns to me. We should at least solicit an opinion from the people who show up at meta, in a way that makes it quickly useful to the rest of us, e.g. value system

If you see that the meta has been "neutralized" to the point where all mention of governance has been removed, by all means, restore it, this is going to be everyone's responsibility... sooner or later some consensus will arise. There aren't a lot of us using the meta anyway.

Oh, and apologies, 207, I should have framed it better the first time around. I didn't intend to try to set priorities for meta "as a whole", more like reflect the stuff that has repeatedly come up in talk pages. All the links solicit other people's opinions about wiki, I am not trying to impose that, and the only reason governance matters now more than other topics is Sanger's departure. That's it that's all.

Revision as of 16:00, 6 April 2002 edit 24.150.61.xxx (talk) governance - equal in status to intro, software, and essay list? ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:04, 7 April 2002 edit undo 24.150.61.xxx (talk) apologies, 207, you're right, it was poorly framed Newer edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:

	If you see that the meta has been "neutralized" to the point where all mention of governance has been removed, by all means, restore it, this is going to be everyone's responsibility... sooner or later some consensus will arise. There aren't a lot of us using the meta anyway.		If you see that the meta has been "neutralized" to the point where all mention of governance has been removed, by all means, restore it, this is going to be everyone's responsibility... sooner or later some consensus will arise. There aren't a lot of us using the meta anyway.

			Oh, and apologies, 207, I should have framed it better the first time around. I didn't intend to try to set priorities for meta "as a whole", more like reflect the stuff that has repeatedly come up in talk pages. All the links solicit other people's opinions about wiki, I am not trying to impose that, and the only reason governance matters now more than other topics is Sanger's departure. That's it that's all.