Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Centering Featured media[edit]

Currently featured media is aligned to page left, but I think centering images and other media would be better. I like the style in this design, not only is it centered, but the item is in a frame. I think this lends it a little more importance, and makes the item seem more central. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's contact the POTD wikiproject and see if they want to comment. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The large amount of white space on the sides looks strange. It gives the impression that's a formatting error or missing content. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xasodfuih; it looks out of place. I think Featured Media should actually be moved into the left column (as in this design). There is a method of keeping panoramas from breaking the template that involves converting the columns into divs instead of using tables, and that was the main reason people didn't support this in the original competition. I think with this new fix, though, the idea is perfectly plausible (and actually works every day on that design, regardless of image size). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ho, hum about that:
  • I fear that media with odd aspect sizes may cause problems when there's less room to work with.
  • The two columns are unbalanced at the bottom. This could be fixed by adding more stuff to the right columns, but that content is of lesser importance. At least I never read the "on this day" stuff.
  • The alignment gets worse with three items on the left and two on the right. Not incredibly upsetting, but it's worse than what's currently on the redsign proposal.
  • Finally, this moves the DYK area where most people would need to scroll to see it. The conceptual question to ask here is: do we want to emphasize featured media more than new articles? Xasodfuih (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About odd aspect sizes, this organization has been present in my design since about October 2008, and it's looked fine to me every day.. if the image is larger than 400px in width, the text is moved to below the picture, so the text won't be squished to the right. Yes, the two columns are of different lengths, but in my design, I made the left column 60% wide to make it a little shorter (and make the right column a little longer) and make up for the length difference. Every time DYK is updated, ITN (and sometimes OTD) modifies its template to preserve balance between the two columns on the current main page.... I think the same thing would be done with the new design. ITN and OTD would just add a few more blurbs to balance out the page. Also I put some code at the bottom of User:Dudemanfellabra/monobook.js that makes the columns equal in length; if this design is implemented, that code could be put in the common.js... And finally about DYK... In my opinion Featured Media is just that.. Featured. It deserves to be higher up than new articles that may or may not be up to par. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this for a while, and I'm opposing giving featured media priority over DYK on the main page, i.e. putting featured media above DYK. Wikipedia should still be mainly about articles, not trying to compete with photo.net. Take for instance today's featured media, File:Dew_on_a_Equisetum_fluviatile_Luc_Viatour.jpg; the companion article, Guttation, is too short to even be a DYK. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You raise an interesting point. I've always hated that the article that goes along with the featured pictures are normally extremely sub-par, but the pictures are featured nonetheless. I've thought about suggesting that POTD (and even DYK/ITN... every section on the main page) should check the links in their templates to make sure that they're at least DYK length and/or quality (even if they never were a DYK). I think this should be a requirement for any link on the Main Page; if there isn't an article of necessary length with the picture in it, POTD should postpone the picture until the article is expanded. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

Just a suggestion... perhaps we should organize this page so it's easier to see all the ideas floating around. I'd suggest we first define what we definatley want on the Main Page. Once we reach a consensus, then we could define how the things we want will look on the Main Page. What do you think? --PostScript (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was organized by various issues, but as the discussion got underway, it became difficult to separate the active discussions from the inanctive ones, hence a massive archiving binge. Go through the archives, it's all there. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was organized before, and we have a list of what we want (top of archive 4); how to accomplish the tasks seems to be where the challenges are. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've been out for the holidays, and when I come back, this talk page is completely different. What happened? Why are people archiving ongoing discussions? I say we bring back the old structure (What can be changed, what can be introduced, what can be removed, etc.) because this style is getting us nowhere. There is still an open conversation about the languages section.. another about the "Other Areas of Wikipedia" section.. and another about the header (and possibly more).. We need to bring back these conversations and restore the organization of before. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I'm not too eager to go back at it…but we still don't have anything useful.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a start[edit]

I've made a draft of some ideas (at least for the header) at User:Davidpk212/Main Page. What do people think? I'll be adding more things as time goes on. Davidpk212 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the last issue over the header: don't stack the text over the header since the two may become a blob of gray on low-contrast monitors. We also got rid of the gutter (where you stuck the portals list) for a reason (see archive 4). Right now I believe most of the people who would be or are involved in the MPRP are taking a break so that after the holidays we can start without the cold shadow of past disputes. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your proposal the big date is distracting (and of questionable usefulness), left alignment of text on the right edge looks unprofessional. The huge white space in the middle makes me wonder if there's something missing. In the current (proposed) design "Welcome to Wikipedia" captures attention. Although it's not a terribly useful message per se, it does have a good alignment with the FA box underneath and guides you to it. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

I have noticed that this link is being taken off in the new design. However, I would like to point out that the definition of portal is "to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content". If it's taken off the Main Page, then you just lost the purpose of "entry points". We don't need a link to every major subject's portal, but I believe we should have at least a link that points to Portal:Contents/Portals so readers know what they will expect to see. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current presentation of Portals on the Main Page, and I do not think this aspect of the Main Page should be changed. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your sentiments, I don't think less entry points on the main page is the best approach. This current proposal design seems to be moving towards a minimalist form. I like the approach taken in this design (screen shot only, preview link broken). Although there has been general disapproval of portal images, having more links in the welcome bar makes the main page a springboard for browsing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The twelve enumerated are a sort of portals category. I like Jennavencia's design as well, however the rationale behind getting rid of the full list was to help reduce information overload. We want it to be appealing not overwhelming. Another option rather than reentering the full list of portals categories would be to simply add the link "Portals" to the list. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely phrased. Over-simplifying can do more harm than good. We can add that portal link between "Table of Contents" and "Categories" OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portals and categories might get axed to cut down on info overload, but I never understoof why we have one but not the other. (Is the term "Portals" self-explanatory?)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they click on "All portals", they will see the definition of Portal instantly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I have an alternative proposal. We would be interested, of course, to include the Portals (Categories, ect.) links while reducing the chances that a reader would be overwhelmed by the links. In my view, the overload comes from the fact that the list of links provided in the header are out of place. There is a second section which contains relatively similar information, and that is "Other areas of Wikipedia". If we migrate these links, all the links would be grouped together. This stems from the idea of a hierarchy in layouts, the reader does not have to read the whole page, only the parts he or she may be interested in. So rather than being overwhelmed by having to travel back and forth among the header and "Other areas". They can simply look in the "Other areas". ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of moving everything to one place, but I don't think moving browsing links further down the page is a good idea. I seem to recall that in the link test/study thing, links at the top of the page got way more traffic than at the bottom. Moving everything down would risk the links not being seen or used at all. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.. while I supported taking most of the header links out, the header is still the most viewed part of the page. Only the essential navigation links should remain there. I didn't support portals originally because I didn't think new users would see the word "Portals" and magically know what they were. It took me a while to figure out exactly what they were (and btw most portals are kind of abandoned). The only way I'd think about supporting a Portals link would be to include an explanation of what they were.. maybe like "Portals (?)". The same could be done with categories (Help:Categories) so it doesn't seem like we're singling portals out. I think TOC and Index are already recognizeable to the general public, so explanations would be unnecessary. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I always thought the old design didn't provide a chance to explain to the public what is a portal. I have implemented your suggestion. As for categories, is it really necessary since this term is commonly used in general (both on & off-wiki)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question mark looks a little out of place. Besides, if people have to click on it to find out what it is, they may as well just click the Portals link, and we should have an improved description there. I've always thought that Wikipedia's browsing system is thorough, but not very user friendly. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I could go for that. I think the top section of Wikipedia:Portal (the blue box) and the description on Portal:Contents/Portals should be combined, expanded a little bit, and moved to the top of Portal:Contents/Portals. Placing the description at the top of the page (directly under the strapline) makes it more noticeable than its current location. To promote uniformity, the same could be done with Categories, Topics, Overviews, etc.. all the links in the strapline. All descriptions should be moved to the top of the page.. kind of like a lead section. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I've have more than one occasion where I get to a page, and it takes me a good couple of minutes to figure out why this page exists and how I should go about using it. There needs to be more effort to translate these navagational pages into something new users can understand, rather than specialized tools for the wikielite. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question mark "?" looks very awkard under Firefox after the change. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search bar[edit]

Just a note to alert those who aren't already aware, there is currently a proposal to move the search bar to the top of the sidebar, as has previously been discussed before in Main Page redesign discussions. PretzelsTalk! 00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas of Wikipedia[edit]

Now that we're back from the holidays, how about a new (actually old.. but received little attention) proposal. It's been determined before that the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section contains out of date links. To remedy this, we've redesigned the links in the header, but we've also taken out some fairly useful links that I feel deserve to remain on the page. I propose changing the name of the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section to the more suited "About Wikipedia" and linking to the following (seen in context at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2):

  • Help — A general help directory about anything and everything Wikipedia
    • Questions — An outline of where to ask which questions
    • Help desk — Ask volunteers questions about using Wikipedia
  • Navigation — An explanation of wikilinks and other methods of navigating the site
  • Search — A brief help page about how to effectively search for articles
  • Editing — An explanation of how to edit Wikipedia
  • Current projects — On-going projects on which editors are currently focusing
  • Reference desk — Ask volunteers encyclopaedic questions about a variety of subjects
  • Mobile access — An explanation of how to access Wikipedia from a mobile device
  • Contact us — Information about how to contact Wikipedia

The links are strategically arranged.. Help sections come first since that's probably the first thing users will look for. Questions next because new users will want to know where to ask what (FAQ as a sub-link.. kind of like saying "Here's where to ask questions, but read this FAQ to see if your question already came up").. Search and Navigation go together to aid in finding articles.. then comes the editing section, which explains verbally, then hands-on (tutorial) how to edit a page and gives new users some guidelines to follow. Then Mobile access for the growing mobile market (iPhone, smart phones, palm pilots, etc.).. and finally Contact us.

I think this arrangement complements the header nicely by re-adding some of the important links that were taken out and removing some of the lesser used links in the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section now. Comments? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links removed are:
  • "Help desk" I really believe in the "Help desk" and "Reference desk", and I don't think they should be removed; they would supposedly be encompassed under "Questions", however I feel they should be more prominent.
  • "Reference desk" see above
  • "Village pump" no comment
  • "Community portal" no comment
  • "Site news" links to the Signpost, removed because we want to be more reader focused
  • "Local embassy" removed under our original instructions since this has cited to be outdated
ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more links to the div above: "Current projects," which links to WP:Community portal and "Pages needing attention," which leads to WP:BACKLOG. These show the reader what's currently going on and what they can do to help Wikipedia... a great way to encourage editing. The purpose of the main page is to attract readers, but subtle invites like this can increase our editors as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Help" and "questions" have a high degree of overlap. It's also quite confusing having both "questions" and FAQ. "(Where to ask Questions)" should be added to the FAQ and Help, but there's little point in having it on the main page. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why should Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset, which is merely an essay be featured on the main page under the "guidelines" link? That essay is quite poorly organized, by the way. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Navigation" should be indented under "Help" if its going to be kept at all. Does anyone have stats about how often that page gets accessed? Xasodfuih (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say get rid of Questions, FAQ, Tutorial and Guidelines. Questions and Faq can both be reached easily from the Help page, and while tutorial may be helpful, it and guidelines I think are better introduced once people start editing. If I'm not mistaken, they are traditionally included in a standard welcome message. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could see getting rid of Tutorial and Guidelines, but I think Questions and FAQ (or at least one of them) should remain. If I had to pick one, I'd pick Questions because it's more encompassing. Navigation, being a major part of Wikipedia interaction, should remain. I never got a "welcome message" when I came to Wikipedia, so I'm sure many others didn't as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've update the links; what do you guys think? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. And really? You didn't get a welcome message? I got one on my talk page from when I joined. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Nope.. never got anything.. I think I joined around March 2008 or so.. I pretty much had to figure out everything on my own haha.. it's all good though. After being here so long, I've pretty much learned my own way around. About the proposal, I'm gonna wait until I get a few more comments, but if everybody is ok with it, I'll go ahead and add it in. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, and for a period of time I felt quite confused since I really didn't know where to start; but like Dudemanfellabra I figured out. I believe we should re-add the "Reference desk" and "Help desk" under help. They are very specific in nature, but I believe in human support in addition to the odd list of pages. I think we should add "Policies and Guidelines", we need to introduce it somehow. I'm with Nick on the remainder. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and Guidelines are a major header on the Help page; if a user is looking for a policy, (s)he will most likely click on help anyways (partly because it's the first link), so I don't think policies and guidelines should be added. About Help and Reference desks, I've mentioned before that they're both covered under the more encompassing Questions link. I think if we include these two links, people will automatically click on them because they see "real people".. well in my opinion, we should focus on getting them to use the site and what's already there before asking someone a question and being redirected to a page that they could have easily found themselves with a little work. In essence, I'm trying to lessen the workload on volunteers at these desks and open up new users to exploring the site. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the Questions link makes me think that even by putting a main page link, the service would not crush under it's own weight. The people are helpful, and it looks like all questions get answered, even ones that are a little outside the encyclopedia's scope. If anything, by getting lots more attention, it'll blossom into something amazing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see what you mean, I concur on Policies and Guidelines. I think the "Reference desk" and "Help desk" is extremely useful, so useful it may in time rival some of the commercial tools (e.g. Yahoo answers). In my opinion this is perhaps one the best ways to introduce the reader to the community. Since we are focusing on the reader, they likely do not want to copy edit articles or the like, but they do have questions. In being reader focused I believe that we should make an emphasis with these two links. Other than that I think we concur on the remaining points, let's go ahead and implement it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I've added the "Reference desk" and "Help desk" to the mock up here on the page, what do you guys think? If there are some more opinions out there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought I'd replied to this already haha. I changed the code up there to what I had intended to include in the proposal. The reference desk, since it doesn't apply to only Wikipedia, shouldn't be under Help. Help desk handles only questions about Wikipedia.. which fits under Help.. but Reference desk handles questions about everything haha, so it shouldn't go under there but in the other column. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nice; I like it. The only thing left that I see that needs to be done is to sorten some of the descriptions. For example "Ask volunteers encyclopaedic questions about many different subjects" could be reduced to "Ask volunteers encyclopedic questions on a variety of questions" (or shorter). ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display GA list (proposal)[edit]

I've made this proposal to improve visibility of the GA process (and reviews in general) on the main page. This change is related to the following proposal to improve the referencing of articles (discussion). Xasodfuih (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal, but please discuss all changes to the proposal here before making any edits. I don't support adding this to the main page. There has been detailed discussion about GA on the main page (look in the archives at the top of this page), and so far, I don't think GA has gotten any support. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly different from Lapman's proposal:
  • there's only a list of articles; so it scales if the GA review rate speeds up significantly
  • it's in a much less prominent place and does not single out an article
  • it avoids the adjective "good" (I'd like to see unified review process for B/GA see the links above)
  • it's right above to the list of other internal process areas of Wikipedia
  • has an explicit pointer to the process, and an invitation for (new) editors
  • the above four points visually suggest work in progress fairly well methinks, but it could be improved (smaller font; move under "Other areas" heading?)
  • another important point: in the list format GAs will be advertised right after they are promoted, so they're unlikely to have degraded significantly (some FAs have had more than 2 years delay between promotion and main page display; granted they were about dead people)
Xasodfuih (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed, since this gives the reader too much about the background operations of Wikipedia. We are not that desperate for GA or FA reviews to begin advertising it on the main page. Furthermore I believe the proposal needs more refinement as a whole (looks like the POTD), perhaps you could created a sandbox in your userspace and expand on the idea. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this discussed? This is clearly the most likely idea to gain traction on the main page. I think it is very sound. It gives GAs less exposure than DYKs in all honesty even though they are higher quality. I support this idea. It will get resistance from the TFA army though. Look at the opposes above 1. I oppose this idea becaue vaguely related ideas have been opposed and I oppose this idea because it exposes the reader to the review process. I don't think either of these is really valid, but the army will do anything to keep GAs off the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of it. The POTD has a nice way of 'finishing' the content on the Main Page - as you read down it is the last user content before the barrage of help and interwiki links. Adding a list of recently reviewed articles will appear, to the average reader, as meaningless. How many non-editors would know about the GA process? Featured Articles are noticeable, if not known by name, as the star has begun to earn a reputation. Secondly, most content editors already know about GAN. The 'you can help' will inevitably bring new users who do not know the criteria to review and get involved in the process. While they may do that without the 'you can help' link, we hardly want to encourage users to be reviewing GANs on their first few edits. ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a way to give GAs as much exposure as DYKs without haveing a problem with the novice reader jumping into the process.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the GAs need exposure? The recently reviewed articles stands out, as it is a open door to the engine room of Wikipedia - something many readers may be turned away by. ∗ \ / (⁂) 05:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the proper question to ask if you want to expose the reader to wikipedia be why does DYK need exposure. Clearly, GAs are higher quality than DYKs. Supporting the current main page format makes no sense since GAs are higher quality than DYKs and deserve relatively more exposure for the betterment of the project. Why do you think we should put more emphasis on DYKs than GAs. We just need to rework the format of GAs so that the novice does not jump in to the editorial process. Maybe we could just remove "(you can help!)"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<-- unindent. DYK should not be discounted as less useful simply because the articles aren't the same quality. DYK has never been about showcasing our best work, it shows the reader that you don't have to be a professional writer to edit. DYK almost counteracts the intimidation that some potential editors may experience after seeing the quality of the FA. DYK can draw people onto pages that they never knew existed, onto the side of Wikipedia that is constantly developing. Yes, the articles aren't great, but it states that these are our 'newest pages', almost as if we are inviting the reader to see our works in progress. Showing our newest pages allows the reader to be assured that Wikipedia is not stagnant - similar to the effect seeing an article in the ITN section strikes of relevance.
GAs on the other hand, don't have a niche to fill. FA covers the showcasing aspect, the 'look how good we are' section, DYK shows the stuff we are working on, what would a GA section do? Yes, a lot of work goes into a Good Article, and yes, the authors deserve some recognition but there isn't really a point in putting an article which is not our best work on the main page simply to glorify its author. Having a recently reviewed section would simply confuse the reader - many do think that the FA articles are finished, and can understand that the New Pages are works in progress, but the GA section? I'm not sure it has an appeal.∗ \ / (⁂) 12:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the glorification argument? Did anyone mention having the author's name mentioned? Do you think it would be impossible to explain to the reader that there is an intermediate stage along the quality scale somehow so that they can see work that is further along? If we want readers to understand the progression as you say, we could show them first stage review articles. I just don't understand the logic that DYK deserves more exposure than GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand the logic in why GA should be included, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree? :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is this. On the main page you have our best work in FAs and FPs and other samplings of our work at DYK, ITN and SA. The samplings all serve to depict work on WP. Work on WP goes from stub through FA and TFA quality. DYK and GA articles are two intermediate steps to FA. It is arbitrary to choose to feature the lower quality of these two on the main page and not the higher. There is not very sound reason why we should feature the lower quality of our intermediate stage work, IMO. Please note that there is no glorification argument presented.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we feature lower quality work than GA on DYK is that not only does it encourage article creation, I believe it provides a better insight into the amount of effort put into reaching FA class. DYK is the start, FA is the end (or close to it). GA is an arbitrary stage, merely another point on the spectrum. Why not include A-class articles? Or B-Class? All of those are classes on the internal rating scale, and are higher quality than DYK. They are usually rated by one editor, much like GA. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion yet, but I'm just wondering, how accurate is it to consider DYK as a "first step" on the way to FA? Sure, some DYK articles do go on to become FA or GA (there is even a wonderful and super sexy table that keeps track of them) but many more get pretty much ignored after their 15 minutes of fame (I don't know how many exactly, but my guess, from counting the entries at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dyktalk, is about 15,000). I don't think that necessarily changes either of your arguments (since DYKs are still new content, no matter what their future holds); I just wanted to point it out. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many DYK become stagnant after their moments in the spotlight, but many GAs stall at that level, and I'm sure the trend would continue if they had access to the Main Page. That, to me, is not a huge concern to me. DYK and FA contrast each other to the extend where we don't need to show the middle ground. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know my argument is good when it takes three people to try to distract me from making my point!-) Welcome to the fray. DYK is not the start. DYK does not accept stub-class articles which are the start. DYK is just as arbitrary an intermediate step as GA. My point is being missed by all. I am not suggesting replacing DYK with GA. I am suggesting adding another intermediate stage as in the proposal at issue here. That proposal only augments the main page by showing the fastest growing of the reviewed classes. The other classes of articles are not significant stages. I wish I could find the relevant image showing this extraordinary growth that was shown at the ongoing A-Class debate. Getting back to the issue, other classes do not have dedicated wikiprojects and such. A-Class and B-Class are less important in the sense that A-Class is even under consideration for being eliminated and B-class does not require review. If you want to show the beginning and the end you should find interesting stubs and contrast them with interesting FAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most DYKs are the beginning - they are mostly new articles. But alas, there is no point wasting more server space, I'd prefer see some other peoples opinions rather than my own. :P ∗ \ / (⁂) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the time dimension they are the beginning, but in terms of quality they are intermediate. FA and GA ar not based on time, they are based on quality. On rare occaision I have had an article make GA before becoming a DYK, so it is not always the case that DYK is first (see Talk:Scott Smith (mayor)).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recoloring the featured contents[edit]

I remmeber we've brought this up before, about recoloring the featured contents to a sort of gold color; and that we were about the implement it. However, before we do so, what do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me :D Garden. 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the current scheme and don't like the change. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of changing the colour, but that particular shade of yellow/gold feels a little washed out. Maybe something slightly more vibrant. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've created a mock up so the question now is how willing we are to implement it. I've gathered the code from HereToHelp's collection in archive 4, there are several varietys and we can get more by tweaking the colour values. The reason I assume why it is slightly washed out is so that it does not draw too much attention to itself, nevertheless we can change that. See the example box for the variations. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current green color. The Wikipedia:Featured articles portal and all it's subpages are green (ditto for WP:FP and purple). I suggest you ask that page/project's participants for input.
Changing the colours of the other boxes makes more sense, but only if there is a rationale behind doing so - not just to 'prettify' things. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Header code fix[edit]

CaC Sponsored

Welcome to Wikipedia

Monday 04 April 2024 (UTC)
6,818,585 articles in English
Table of contents · Portals · Categories · Index


Dudemanfellabra Sponsored

Welcome to Wikipedia
 Monday April 29, 2024 (UTC)
6,818,585 articles in English
Table of contents · Categories · Portals · Index

Not too long ago David brought up the issue that the faded globe background collided with the text "Welcome to Wikipedia". Before the background was set to 200px left center from the center of the header box, and when the screen window was resized the globe would crash into the text. This should be corrected now, although some tweaking may be necessary. The second optimization is by determining the breaks when the screen is significantly downsized, the text is set to break between "encycolopedia" and "that" in the slogan, and "Portals(?)" and "Categories" in the right column. I've also slightly downsized the text size in the slogan so that it would not be longer than the "Welcome to Wikipedia". Are there any objections? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it caused horizontal scrollbars on 800x600. While it fixed the text overlap problem, it messed up other things with smaller resolutions. I still don't see how the text overlapping is "inaccessible" to some people; can someone explain that to me? What exactly (I know you said screen settings, but like do you mean gamma settings, color saturation.... what?) makes the text hard to read? I can read it fine on my computer as well as several others that I've accessed it from. I've been working on nbsp's and the like for better aesthetic compatibility with smaller resolutions at User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2, though, and have made small changes/optimizations to the code. Mind if I copy it over? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was brought up by David, you can find it in archive 4 under "Assorted comments". The aspect which I am specifically addressing is that the text overlaps the background image: in low contrast monitors (supposedly the old, burnt-out ones—ask David for clarification) it would essentially become a blob of gray. The fix was particularly easy and is displayed at the top along with yours. In order to prevent the text and the background from stacking, I had to downsize the text to be closer to the current main page's. There's a slight overlap at 800X600, but it's very slight and I don't think it'll be as serious of an issue. I don't think I should decide, let's let someone else, they need to be involved. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slight overlap? Read the first sentence: horizontal scrollbars on 800x600. I don't care if the text was 200px away from overlapping the image; it had scrollbars, and that's not good. I would have been fine with the "fix," but it was hardly that. About 30px of the header was off the page, causing the user to have to scroll right to see it. Like I said: While it fixed the text overlap problem, it messed up other things with smaller resolutions. I remember you saying you sometimes get in a hurry and just skim-read... but I mean dang, that was the first thing I said. I don't mean to sound angry, but please read every word in comments and make sure you comprehend them before replying. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't skim read. The horizontal scroll issue should be fixed in the "proposal" above. Is it not? I'm sorry I omitted that in my comment, I thought you'd get it when you'd test the proposed headers. "it messed up other things with smaller resolutions" is a bit vague for me, are you talking about how the text wraps? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my fault. Sorry about that; didn't notice the proposal box above. I see what you're talking about now; sorry for going off haha. Apparently I was the one that skim read :P. I don't really like the smaller text; after all, one of the main reasons for redesigning the header was to attract more attention to "Welcome to Wikipedia." I also don't like that there is no space between the article count and the links (TOC, Portals, etc.). This lack of a line break jumbles up the right side.. not to mention that the padding is really large on low resolutions. I would like the date/article count to be top-aligned and the links to be bottom-aligned to kind of "edge out" the box.. it's more aesthetically pleasing. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) That's a pretty big list, and I'm not necessarily in agreement with you (larger text::unprofessional/big enough; article count spacing/links list::unnecessary/easily fixable; padding::helps center header; jumbled line breaks::fixed). I would really like more opinions from someone other than the two of us. Seriously. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a widescreen monitor (1440 by 900), and on the first, the letters are really far from the logo, while on the second the overlap is just slight. If you shrink the window size, both designs have text overlap at 800 by 600. My preference is for larger text in the welcome banner, since if it's going to overlap for some it might as well overlap for everyone, for consistency. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed The logo and the text should not over lap at 800x600. After this issue, I think the MPRP is effectively complete. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to offer feedback on the appearance. I find it tasteful, inviting, and clear. --Arcadian (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The gray in which the letters from the globe are painted is too dark to be placed right under the text "Welcome". It causes momentary visual confusion as to which letters you're supposed to be reading and it looks unprofessional. Try the squint test—no article on the wiki I guess nobody here ever heard of it. See [1]. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development ongoing?[edit]

This page has been rather quiet in the past weeks. Is there still development ongoing in this proposal, or has it completely stalled to a standstill? --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "proposal" was a failure from the start and should be tagged {{historical}} or simply {{failed}}. After seven months of back-and-forth nonsense, the only proposed changes are so insignificant that bringing them to the attention of the wider community would be utterly pointless. It's a shame so many editors have already wasted their time on this thing, but keeping it going will not change the fact that it was a wasted effort. It was a nice idea in theory, but the execution killed it. - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, sadly. At one point, it appeared that things were turning around, but that proved not to be the case (for reasons on which I would prefer not to elaborate). —David Levy 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's still under-development by the looks of the history. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the sudden wading in of uninvolved editors halfway through, who saw fit to force the project to abandon all previous proposals, and clearly had no understanding of how to put together a design, that killed it - a long time ago now. The design this endless discussion resulted in does not even begin to compare to the top three designs from the straw poll. There's little point in continuing after this silent sabotage. PretzelsTalk! 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal was a debacle from day one, Pretzels. Instead of a collaboration to determine what elements of the main page could be improved (and how), it was a free-for-all "competition" to create countless designs (containing whatever arbitrary combinations of elements struck the designers' fancy, most of which were infeasible and/or opposed by consensus), with no regard for why the current main page was set up in the manner that it was.
But at no point did anyone demand that these drafts be abandoned. (In fact, a major objection to the straw poll was that its outcome did amount to the abandonment of most designs in their entirety.) We merely wanted people to engage in the collaborative, discussion-based approach that I described above. (You know, like a wiki?) Unfortunately, most contributors—disillusioned by the realization that they'd wasted a great deal of time and effort trying to win the "competition"—already had left. —David Levy 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"silent sabotage" is a gross mischaracterization. You do yourself no favors by using such poorly chosen words. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) There's discussion now, let's wait a bit longer before we make any serious decisions. We can go over competition mentality and so forth in another discussion, I don't see the substance or the potential progress from being so defensive about the particuarly points of view that you may have. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to continue to discuss it, they're free to do so, I don't see why it needs a special tag to declare it dead, though it ought to be renamed to reflect the current status. Something like 2012 main page minor tweak proposal perhaps. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient time has gone by. I've tagged it {{rejected}}. --auburnpilot talk 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I think the conclusion from this is that an open ended redesign proposal is bound to fail given the nature of the wiki consensus process. I suggest that in the future focused proposals should be brought up instead: clear goals should be stated of what redesigning some part of the main page is trying to achieve, and also explain to the editors that lack knowledge of web/graphic design why the proposed changes are an improvement—then go for site-wide RfC. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add an ongoing issues and events section[edit]

Main post at Talk:Main Page: Please respond there :)

I'm proposing the addition of an 'ongoing issues and events' section to the main page. The reason is that there are ongoing issues which are current and relevant, regardless of when they start, which appears to be the guiding principle regarding how long links are displayed in the current events section.

Currently, a list is kept on the current events page as a sidebar. My contention is that some of these are of interest to most people who visit the main page, and deserve thus to be there. Featuring these on the main page would also generate more attention for them, driving up interest in developing them further, and with more depth.

At issue for me is the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. I think its currency, broad relevance, potential impact, and probably lengthy duration indicate its importance with regard to current events. Further, the topic has serious depth, as how it affects different countries is complex and requires treatment.

Certainly, for this one issue, just keeping it sustained in the current events portal would work, and Im wondering what current events people think of that (this is crosslinked there). But there are other ongoing issues of interest, are'nt there? They aren't "news," in one sense of the word. But they are news, in quite another. Thoughts? -Stevertigo 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see what you mean. The weather, for example, at the minute, i.e. the Victorian bushfires and the snowfall on the Irish Isles. Weather events such as these tend to get more development than articles such as 2009 Gabonese helicopter crash, 2009 Kenyan oil spill ignition, Enten controversy, ATryn, Titanoboa all of which have been ITN this year but in reality are just a flash in the pan. This sounds like it would be useful, particularly in the event of any historic or ongoing event on the scale of September 11 attacks, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake or 2008 Mumbai attacks - the type of event that ITN seems to have been built on. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, however before we begin; what would your justification be if I said no? You have to remember that if we propose this, everything will be vetted. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A US$1.4 billion fraud is just a flash in the pan? Are you serious? P.S. According to [2] the insurance cost of the fires may be ~AU$500 million. While the insurance companies are obviously not commenting yet [3] and there is clearly a financial cost beyond that covered by insurance, in pure financial terms, it seems the Australian bushfires are probably comparable to the fraud (although it's unclear how much money of the fraud has been lost but then again there has also been estimates of up to 226 billion yen involved). Of course it may seem heartless to look at pure financial terms when ~180? lives have been lost and one of the worst natural disasters ever in Australian history in such terms, but then again it's possible the Enten controversy is the biggest fraud in Japanese history and its likely many many lives are going to be ruined by the fraud given that 37k people were involved. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological events[edit]

Perhaps another section for meteorological events such as hurricanes, storms, unusual amounts of snowfall, solar and lunar eclipses of note that are about to or are currently happening? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan proposals[edit]

Here:

  1. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Calliopejen1
  2. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Casliber
  3. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Chexmix53
  4. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Deathgleaner
  5. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Jennavecia_2
  6. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/LesleyAnnWarren
  7. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Main_Page_Draft
  8. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Morrismaciver
  9. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/MySurvivorPartay
  10. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Nat/Gamma/Content
  11. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Proposal_Candidate_2
  12. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Proposal_Candidate_2A
  13. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Proposal_Candidate_3
  14. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Proposal_Cannidate_1
  15. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Shekure
  16. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Yaki-gaijin
  17. Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/tompw

(from WT:DBR) Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal&oldid=1137349915"