Talk:Main Page
From NANOG
Please use the sections in the discuss to keep the threads sane. The little plus sign up at the top adds a new section. --jzp 11:39, 26 August 2006 (GMT)
Redirected inappropriate content. Main page is complete. Please discuss content changes on the nanog-faq@nanog.org list.
Contents |
main page structure
My bad, made an edit, but it seemed to make sense. I will leave this to you all. The main page, IMHO, should be small and simple enough for the newest of newb to be able to click once and see what they need to see. If we have to drill down, perhaps we can look at a two clock flattening and how search works and detail that instead?
--Marty 22:27, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
That two click calendar reference really has to go.
--Marty 22:32, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
The People link has to go as well. Perhaps pointing it at Corporate
Participation section that holds corps then Category:People instead?
--Marty 22:34, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
A Acronyms and Definitions page would be nice to link from the Main page.
FWIW.
--Marty 02:22, 11 August 2006 (GMT)
Yes it would - wouldn't want to duplicate effort elsewhere, so wiull dig out some "good" indexes. any suggestions? Re: corporate participation - not sure what the focus on one over the other when it should just be both. fixed categorization of this page as a people. --jzp 12:46, 11 August 2006 (GMT)
Let's define Vendoritis. Vendoritis
--Marty 01:17, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
"nanog-inspired"
NANOG inspired? Uh, I propose we remove that as redundant. We already have a list of these organizations and we are North American focused. Let's stay that way. If we want to go inspire someone, I suggest we tell those groups we inspired them and see how they react.
agreed. any claims of inspiration could go on the specific page, eg NZNOG if someone wants to say it is so. perhaps a tag for "operator groups", or just leav 'em tag-less as their linked into the Other Operations Groups. Some orgs (eg, apricot) do actually trace their origination to NANOG.
yeah, im sure, but the nationalist argument goes both ways usually and while it is likely ok for them to say it, I bet someone there would feel like it's not ok for us to say it. nitpick, but likely IMHO.
What are we going to do about inspired? That seems to be undecided. Let's take it off. I don't think it makes sense to be honest and it elongates the main page.
--Marty 00:04, 26 August 2006 (GMT)
the only people who have comments think it is useless so clobber it. request a delet or just make it a redirect. --jzp 11:41, 26 August 2006 (GMT)
End user resources
Access Network under End user seems mighty gratuitous. "Home or Personal Network Issues" since we're targeting end users. That seems more descriptive.
--Marty 00:54, 24 August 2006 (GMT)
Why don't we change "Home and Small Business" mumble, and colo to be Personal Colo Resource? Colo list is a misnomer I think. ??
--Marty 00:01, 26 August 2006 (GMT)
Change the section title if you want, but be sure to go hunting in the wiki for cross-links. Personal colo is only one kind of issue not relevant to nanog - all the hosting shopping foo and which "cpanel" is better kind of stuff on webhosting talk, etc are not relevant and better resources exist. further discussion should really be on that page. --jzp 11:46, 26 August 2006 (GMT)
We've got rogeuness and I don't particularly like the fact that at least the main page changes
are being made without consultantion. Im tempted to revert then.
Can we get some explanation AND discuss in here as we have in the past?
--Marty 14:40, 30 August 2006 (GMT)
So discuss then. What is 'rogue' about End User Resources? Do you think it shouldn't exist? Is the wording wrong? Somebody delete a subsection? Vague handwaving won't lead to improved content.
As for the change I made to another section, it is self explanatory. A link to an external site was changed to a link to a wiki page which I had started. It still covers exactly the same topic but it does it in a better way than a redirect off the site.
Michael Dillon
We've agreed to discuss changes to the main page at least. Perhaps that's gone by you.
--Marty 15:01, 30 August 2006 (GMT)
style sheet, structure, teamwork
Applied the rest of the jzp style sheet to the bottom half of the site, remvoed the undiscussed links on the front page, and cleaned up redundant links. Most have edit notes.
--Marty 20:37, 4 September 2006 (GMT)
I hadn't changed the two-list-item things to columns since it wasn't much of a space win [shrug]. If there is a desire to have a standard of discussion-before-changes, that kind of establishment of mechanics belongs documented somewhere. That usually leads to requiring a time limit for people to see & comment, can head donwnthe admin-overhead of 'approved' or 'vetted' changes, etc etc. --jzp 22:42, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
I hadnt really been approaching it like that more like a courtesy for 24 and then making a move on it since people who care are watching. I think if there is a "problem" that may make sense although I do think there should be a few real "editors" and some sort of access limits on the main page be enacted for expectation, link quality internal and external, etc.
--Marty 22:46, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
banning michael dillon
any chance we can ban michael dillon from editing? he's not following style, he's creating redundant links, and he's generally a non cooperating twat.
No opinion, other than "can't co-operate without ground rules". If there's any rhyme or reason to something, we should expressly say it, IE "The main page should be lightweight and minimal scolling". --jzp 14:23, 16 September 2006 (GMT)
the 'colo issues' thingy
re: colo issues. It really doesn't seem to fit where it is and should go back to the end user space as perhaps Enduser Colo. I think the warning was relevant, but it just 'aint' that big of a deal. This is definately not commercial grade colo stuff so i think thats why it makes sense to push it down the hiearchy a bit.
--Marty 04:00, 15 September 2006 (GMT)
Actually, it was expanded into a more general datacenter and colo framework. I think the original intent of identifying end-user colo as 'not a nanog thing' makes sense, as does the datacenter stuff. perhaps they both stay, just pull the end-use colo stuff out of the existing, or to make it less hassle for existing cross-links move the new datacenter initial framework into a different page. --jzp 14:26, 16 September 2006 (GMT)
wiki maintainers
points at nanog. this isnt an official vehicle of nanog and the faq maintainers arent the only wiki maintainers so im planning on removing the link from the front page.
--Marty 08:09, 15 October 2006 (GMT)
End User Info
Home Networking Info could be called "General pointers for customers and end-users or something. Im proposing a change to the front page to make that more sensible. --Marty 00:19, 21 October 2006 (GMT)
meeting calendar
Propose to remove the word "Future" from the "Future NANOG Meeting Calendar" and just call it NANOG Meeting Calendar.
--Marty 00:21, 21 October 2006 (GMT)
Put the data shared at Community meering yesterday up over under Current events. We should likely just re-create the local calendar article and migrate the info there. See the Current Events talk page. jzp 12:46, 5 February 2007 (GMT)
People, companies and groups
Might be good to have a link to highlight the Sponsors (subset of organizations). jzp 17:37, 7 February 2007 (GMT)
No concerns raised, so added. jzp 18:25, 27 February 2007 (GMT)
Meeting sponsors fixed. Undiscussed 'benefactors' makes sense, so clarified. Please don't change the main page without discussion. jzp 21:32, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
Issues facing operators
What's it supposed to be about? Does it really belong under "NANOG General Information" where the rest of the stuff about NANOG the organization/NANOG the meetings, or is it more suited for "Network Operator Resources"? jzp 04:35, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
How do issues and resources correlate?
--Marty 05:50, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
