Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal

Previous discussions

• The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader.
• It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy)
• It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles.
• The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position.
• Links to better-used pages should be added.
• There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles.

See Archive 3 for most relevant discussions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

…But to summarize the opinions there:

• Icons: Generally negative
• Content sections and Featured content: More featured media, combine sounds with picture for "media", DYK with GAs, and no community info (Signpost)
• Self-description: Opposed to additional information
• Search bar: No consensus; discussion shifted towards highlighting it on the sidebar
• Two featured articles: No consensus; possibly beyond the scope of this project
• Interlanguage links: Remove to sidebar, like all other pages

Hopefully this will prove to be a springboard for other comments. I'm not sure exactly what "New Proposals are now closed" is supposed to mean; my impression is that anyone can try out an idea as long as they stick to the MP formatting, because we are worried about content, not style, at the moment.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed to notice, and I think you are correct. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus about removing the language section to the sidebar, I'm going to remove it from the proposal. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. See also the local embassy among the various links immediately below.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes that can be made

Other areas of Wikipedia

Editable List: Show what you mean:

• Search — A brief help page about searching for articles.
• Table of contents — A basic outline of Wikipedia's topics.
• Index — An A to Z listing of Wikipedia's articles.
• Featured content — The best that Wikipedia has to offer.
• Questions — A directory to where you can ask questions.
  • Reference desk — Post a question for volunteers to tackle your questions.
  • Help desk — Post a question about using Wikipedia for volunteers to answer.
• Help — Learn about using Wikipedia.

• Village pump — For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies.
• Community portal — Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas.
• Site news — Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

• Arts
• Biography
• Geography
• History
• Mathematics
• Science
• Society
• Technology
• All portals

---

This list has been cited to be outdated:

• Help desk — Ask questions about using Wikipedia.
• Reference desk — Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.
• Village pump — For discussions about Wikipedia itself, including areas for technical issues and policies.
• Community portal — Bulletin board, projects, resources and activities covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas.
• Site news — Announcements, updates, articles and press releases on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Local embassy — For Wikipedia-related communication in languages other than English.

Per Goals, the Local Embassy has been proposed to be removed, and perhaps we can rework this section entirely. In the order of aestetics, perhaps we should enclose it in a box similar to the featured content, therefore giving a consistent look. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose putting it in a box similar to TFA because of the distinction between dynamic and static content. Dynamic content is templated in and changed either daily (TFA, OTD) or at least frequently (ITN, DYK). Static content is permanent, like these links. We need to distinguish between the two because otherwise we imply that the links change often, and makes them harder for someone skimming the page. As for the links themselves, I suggest an arrangement like this: Search (because it's the most effective if you know what you want), Table of contents, Index (two common features of books, in the order you'd find them in a book), Portals, Categories (two things you would not find in books, with the more reader-friendly one first), Featured content (we've done enough self-promotion already; if we can link it someplace else, cut it), Reference desk (last to reduce the strain on the real people), Help (no longer about finding articles), Wikipedia in other languages (the last resort; easy to cut if you like). Yup, no news, no no village pump, but remember: the MP is for readers, not editors.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but aestetics is another issues, and perhaps I should of splintered that in another subsection. We are omitting the Local Embassy, from there I feel there is too much left to implication, can you show what you mean (I gave you a list we can mess with). ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to use the "Find an article" list from my draft that you linked to (somewhere on this page…); I've posted it in the edit-able list. (Alternatively, they can be put at the top of the page without the explanations.) The Help and Reference desks have been moved down, but retained. The embassy is gone, per your reasoning (though we need the links on the left sidebar). The remaining three items are all aimed at editors; someone out of the loop probably won't find them much use, especially if they don't want to edit. My logic for the new list is explained in the previous post.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this opens up some space in the header, and perhaps we should merge these two sections so we can start looking at this hollistically. Additioanlly, there are still quite a few more links, perhaps we should make it into two columns, and shorten the descriptions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the Portal:Contents page. When I think of "Table of Contents," I think of something like the A-Z or Categorical indexes. Both of these pages (Categories especially) accomplish what I think of when I think "Table of Contents," so I don't think Portal:Contents is necessary. Also, Portals and Categories are pretty much the same thing; in my opinion, only one (Categories) should remain. I think Wikipedia:Questions, which informs people where to ask which questions, should be included somewhere, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines may need to be included; teaching people how to go about certain tasks would be helpful in my opinion. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In a book the table of contents is the list of content in the order that it appears, but Wikipedia has no definite order. Portal:Contents has good general info, but Portal:Contents/Overviews more closely matches the expectation. It's the article counterpart to the Portals and Categories links. There's probably no point having three similar pages linked in one place (they're linked to each other at the top and new users might not immediately get the difference). Besides, many portals are not well maintained and going through categories has always felt like crawling through the air ducts (like any good spy movie). I've cut them both and changed the link under TOC above. I'm still leaning towards Reference desk over Questions because the heart of the latter is Help:Contents and the ref desks, but I'm open to advice (or using both). WP:LOOK, which I found at Questions, is the new search link. You can try them in a list or in the header.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Per ChyranandChloe's suggestion, two columns would be great. Shortening the descriptions and just making the link title more descriptive would also help navigation. I am uncomfortable about having the "Find an article" links at the bottom of the page, however. Pretzels^Talk! 19:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a page that I think suits my idea of a "table of contents"; this page can be located at Portal:Contents/Lists of topics. This link provides not just articles (as in Portal:Contents/Overviews), but lists of topics, which I find more helpful. Lists appear more like a "traditional" table of contents than articles do. I still support leaving Categories in the list because I see categories as the most useful organizational tool on the site. Much like my rationale for linking to topics instead of overviews, categories show articles in a semi-listlike environment, which in my opinion is the most organized method of navigating the site.

I still don't support linking to the Reference desk. I see it as a kind of forum if you will of learning actual material. One goes to the reference desk to ask a question about a certain topic, and it's answered. This, in my opinion, is what the site itself is for. I think we should focus more on getting people to search through Wikipedia to find the answers to their questions (which is, in fact, a suggestion on the reference desk page.. they tell you to search Google or Wikipedia first before asking them). If we link to Wikipedia:Questions, the user gets a much more broad perspective of questions. This page tells them where to ask which questions (and even provides a link to the reference desk.. but with more emphasis on searching).

Also, I found another link I like: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. This would be a replacement for the Guidelines link I proposed earlier. Instead of having an extensive explanation of what policies are (without naming them) and why we have them, this new page simply lays out briefly tips on how to become a "successful" Wikipedian.

Replacing reference desk with Questions and adding the Simplified ruleset (linked in my working proposal as "Guidelines") would move the focus more from just asking someone a question to getting the user to utilize searching through the site and finding their answers independently. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would preserve the reference desk. Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is an essay written in an informal tone. Although useful, I think we need more justification before placing it on the main page let alone swapping it with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. For the remainder, if we do two columns, I think we can do both. I've reentered Site news, community protal, and Village pump. They may not be essential to a person intent only on reading, however, for new users it is perhaps one of the few places to start—I'm testifying for evidence, it's how I started (when the welcomming commitee totally left me out of the loop). Lastly I've arranged the list of links acending from focused on the reader to focused on the editor. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels: Moving the entire section up would be too unwieldy, but I agree it needs to be prominent, which is why I support adding just the links between the header and dynamic content. The links must be short (crowding, small screens) but self-explanatory. I'm still loath to put community content on the page, but I prefer SR to P&G - it's not as overwhelming. Is there a better name for it, though? Also, perhaps we can link WP:INTRO again. If we put the article stuff up top, and the community stuff on the bottom…maybe. I still like Reference desk because of the real-word analog, which implies a reputable source. I would like more users to weigh in on that. As for Portal:Contents/Lists of topics, it's like the Portal and Category pages, or Portal:Contents/Overviews, which uses articles, except Lists of topics uses lists. The more I think about it, using lists might make sense, because a Table of Contents itself is nothing more than a list. I'm not sure whether I prefer lists or articles anymore, but I do prefer lists to categories. The former are organized by some meaningful criteria (chronologically, geographically) where categories are alphabetized (arbitrarily). If you're looking for something in an alphabetical list, you know what you want - which means you might as well search for it.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we migrating some of the links that were on the header into this new section. In my opinion, it would be more orgainized this way. There's still space, and we can concentrate on shortenning the list at a later time. Per HereToHelp, let's put in the Intro link. As for portals, I think it should be in a seperate section—it doesn't seem to make much sense to put it in the header. After we've finished organizign the links, we'll look at the header. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The jump-to links, suggested by 88wolfmaster and discussed under #Header link reduction, would need to go at the top of the page to be functional. I'd put them where we currently have all the portals because we can arrange the links in a pattern that mirrors the content itself. I think the space between the header and dynamic content (can we call this the subheader?) can hold find-an-article links on the left and Help/Questions on the right. (This important content is likely to be looked over so I don't think we should reduce the opacity of the text, as suggested at #Color scheme.) Below the dynamic content we have a little more space (and this text can be a little lighter). You can put Community info, if you like, and of course the sister projects there. I'm not sure how much we need the portal listings, or if we do, would they be portals? --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think putting the portals in its own section rather than cluttering the Header would be a good idea. Lastly, can we concede on temporarily placing the links above into the main page draft? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Header

We can put the portals below the dynamic content (I'm not sure that they have to be there at all, but if they do, that makes them less prominent and easy to remove). In their place can go 88wolfmaster's jump-to links. I'm still unclear what we're putting in the subheader (that space between the header and dynamic content, where we currently have Overview · Editing · Questions · Help). What's going there and what's going in a bulletted section with explanations below the dynamic content?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need portals at all.. I mean we have links to any way possible that you want to find an article. Simply clicking on Table of Contents will take you to all of the different areas of the site... and there's a search bar of course.. so I mean.. why are they necessary? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is to find a topic of interest instead of flipping through each article and rely on the links inside to direct you to another article in the same topic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But we can only offer a very parochial list of portals on the MP. If we link to a list of portals, readers can find any topic of interest they link. This doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with the lists, which function like a table of contents with several layers of hierarchy. ("Ooh, look at all these types of dance/dead kings of Scotland/logical fallacies/three letter acronyms/WWII battles/units of measurement/genetic disorders/classical symphonies/nuclear explosions!") I still oppose categories for reasons mentioned above (alphabetic listing is useless with a search bar, not very user friendly).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I second HereToHelp that perhaps a breif list of portals is all we can do with having it be too lengthy. If there is little opposition I can implement it into the draft and see how it looks (I'll wait until thursday)—we can go from there to see what we can do. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But what about jump-to links and what TOC is piped to? I've outlined most of my concerns in above posts. I would like responses to them, please, because this design is a community thing. If I have to concede a list of portals below the dynamic content to get stuff in the header, that's an acceptable compromise to me, even though I don't think portals belong at all.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some more discussion about these things too. As of now, I think the only people I've really heard discussing actual links and inclusions in the header are HereToHelp and I. Does anyone else have an opinion? My ideal header doesn't include portals; I see them as unnecessary. With links to Contents, Categories, Index, and Featured content as well as a search bar in the left column, there are already ample methods to find an article from the Main Page. My proposal doesn't include "jump-to" links (partly because I don't think they're necessary.. the page isn't that long..), but I'm open to finding a way to incorporate them if needed. I still think TOC should link to Portal:Contents/Lists of topics because lists IMO are the best method of finding information on the site. I've also included a few more links at the top of the page that I think should be included such as Tutorial (linked on the current main page as Editing.. Help:Editing will replace this link), Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset (linked as Guidelines. I feel as if the essay format is more inviting to new users and presents the information in a less overwhelming method than Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines), and FAQ. Another addition to the header is Wikipedia:Mobile access; while this isn't really imperative, I believe that as the market of mobile internet grows, there will be a more pronounced need for mobile sites. Giving exposure to Wikipedia's mobile version will make it easier for mobile internet users to be able to use Wikipedia anywhere. Also, my proposal has changed the layout of the header, making "Welcome to Wikipedia" much bigger and more pronounced and also redirecting some of the links in the tagline. There are many subtle changes in both of our designs, but either no one is noticing them, or no one is commenting on them. Without comments, this redesign is doomed to failure; we need serious discussion about little things like this as well as major things such as DYK vs. GA and Featured Lists below. Any comments will be appreciated. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting design; have you not linked to it before or have I been blind? I like the white background under dynamic content; it makes it feel more professional and less color-mad. Mobile Access might be worth having. I like placing it where it can be seen on cell phones, but "Welcome to Wikipedia" needs to be the first thing seen by screen readers. Can we have browser detection that automatically routes cell users to the mobile cite, en.mobile.wikipedia.org? Or at least shows that link only on phones; it should lead directly to the mobile page and not the info page still formatted for big computers. The Wiki globe is a nice piece of eye candy but we already have it in the sidebar, it makes reading the text harder, and it doesn't always display in certain browsers. I like the bigger text but the header itself seems bloated. I agree with (Table of ) Contents and Index; I dislike categories for reasons I will reiterate: they feel like the back door, and if you're looking for something by topic, use the lists that are ordered (usually chronologically) rather than the alphabet. If you know what you want, use the search bar. I don't think the date and time are necessary; people have clocks and it's stated under OTD. I also think we an have some more help links, maybe just under the header. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

When I'm reading Wikipedia, I use both categories and portals. I use categories when I'm researching a topic and want to move up and down a hierarchy from that topic. I use portals especially when I'm first familiarizing myself with a topic, and want to know how others have organized a presentation on that topic. Both approaches have been very useful to me. BrainMarble (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether to have a short list of topics on the Main Page, or to have Main Page links to other pages containing extensive lists of portals and categories, either choice is workable for me, as long as whatever is on the Main Page is clear to us as readers. On the project page right now, I do see a short list of portals and a link to "all portals", then a link to categories. But right next to the categories link is a link to "contents", which to me is an amibiguous term, not as clear as saying "Wikipedia's contents". I wouldn't normally click on an ambiguous term, not having the time in a busy day to go exploring all the Main Page links already there. But when I clicked on "contents" just now, I found on the next page that there are such things as timelines and spoken articles. I hadn't known about these at all before now, and would have continued missing them altogether if I stuck with only clicking on the clearly stated links on the Main Page. BrainMarble (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We've been using Portal:Contents/Lists of topics for Contents because it most closely resembles a bulleted list. (The main article is usually the first thing linked in those lists). I prefer Table of Contents because it is clearer and slosely resembles a book, implying authority and credibility.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've linked to it before haha.. several times. The white background was deliberate; I think the current colored background makes the reader's eyes strain. The white background feels less strained and also gives the section a more professional look. Do you think we may be able to discuss doing that in this proposal? Kind of like a new topic section: White background. About the mobile thing, most mobile phones will re-route [en.wikipedia.org] to [en.mobile.wikipedia.org] automatically, so like I said.. the link is not really imperative. But the page itself has some information about other methods of mobile browsing of Wikipedia such as OperaMini, WAPedia, and MiniWiki.org, all different methods of searching Wikipedia on a mobile device. Most phones automatically re-route to en.mobile.wikipedia.org, so most people don't even know about these other sites. About the background image, the code for that image is a background:url() thing.. if you look at the source code (through your browser.. the actual HTML of the page) of any Wikipedia page, you will see that the globe in the top left corner uses the background:url() method with the link to display that globe. Since this method is used on every page (in every section of the Wikimedia Foundation), I see it as eligible to put in the design. If they can't see the background picture of my header, they can't see the background image of the link in the top left.. 99.99% of people are able to see the background image, so we needn't worry about the small percentage that can't. About the time at the top, yes it is in OTD, but the people at OTD say the only reason it's in OTD is because it's nowhere else on the page. I'm pretty sure that if we put the date/time at the top of the page (where users are more likely to look for it), it will be removed from the OTD template. The only reason the time, in my opinion, is needed is to show that Wikipedia operates on UTC and not local time for anyone. That would explain why for some people Wikipedia may seem to have the wrong date at certain times. About the "Contents" v. "Table of Contents", I'm impartial. I think "Contents" is no less ambiguous than "Table of Contents", but whichever works with me. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the image works technically; we'll see if it works aesthetically. I could go for article count and time on the right side of the header if it's deemed we don't need jump-to links. In the subheader (the gutter below the header) we can have "find and article" stuff on the left and help on the right. I think that we have decided to put most such links (except perhaps portals) above dynamic content (have we?), which means no explanation other than the linked text. I dislike the placement of such links in your design because some links get in the way of screen readers and others make the header thicker (vertically) than it needs to be. So much for placement; on to content. Feel free to edit:--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated the design. I still like the old one better, but this will do. Thoughts? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the background image is distracting, but we'll see how it turns out. I think we should remove the gutter below the header and group them together in the section below the dynamic content (possibly in other areas...); to me having links strewed around like that can become very messy and would likely deter new users from finding everything they need. In my opinion the header serves the purpose similar to an infobox for articles: it provides several breif and explicit fact and then moves on. In the next order, I think we're conceding on removing the portals from the header—whether or not we will move it into a section below the dynamic content we haven't seemed to discuss yet. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Better. I like the bigger name and the stats off to the side. I think that the book is worse than than the globe; while we can take the matephors of a book (table of contents, index) for familiarity and reputation, a direct image goes to far against WP:NOTPAPER. I still think that categories are unnecessary and not very useful, I'd like a third opinion. I still like Search and maybe Featured Content. FAQ and Guidelines still seem like they're focused on editors. I still like placing them in the gutter, but whatever works. I say ax the portal links and put the main link up with everything else (cats can stay too). If it's too much content, though, cut cats, portals, and the ref desk. I also favor leaving "Welcome to Wikipedia" unlinked, with free encyclopedia leading to About and anyone can edit going to Introduction.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to give such prominent position to the time. Can we not create a completely new header, instead of fudging around with the old one? Links in the gutter look messy and there's too much stuff up there - we need to make a clear focus on WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA and the few links people actually want to use. The rest can go further down, with the portals. And the Main Page is for wannabe-editors too, so being editor-focused is no basis to remove links. Pretzels^Talk! 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm with Pretzels in that rebuilding the header is in our best interest. However, I think we need to clarify out discussion into a explicit and simple criteria. We have a lot of opinions and individual points we want to get across, and cramming several of them into prose leaves some to be omitted by the next user. Below is a redbox, place what you feel should be added, should be removed, and we can see if we can achieve a consensus on any one of those points. Some are listed in both boxes and that's where I feel we have disagreements. Start a new h4 for the discussion of those points you guys want to tackle first. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Header: arbitrary edit point

Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit	17:39, Sunday October 10, 2024 (UTC) Currently hosting 6,898,599 articles in English.
	Table of contents · Categories · Index

In response to discussion about header links, I've once again updated my design, this time a major update. I've reverted back to the header with the globe background, but changed a few things. The time and date are still in the header because I think it is needed to show new readers/contributors that Wikipedia operates on UTC and not their local time. This was a main reason for adding the time in the OTD template; new people kept asking why the dates were wrong and such, so the DYK people felt it had to be added. You can ask them, since it's been added, the questions have decreased slightly, but I believe placing Wikipedia's time and date at the top of the page will bring more attention to the fact that the site operates on UTC. I do think, however, that there should be someway to redirect the UTC link to an article that explains why Wikipedia uses UTC instead of local times (of which I'm not aware.. is there one out there?). This, in my opinion, would be a great tool for explaining why the content on the Main Page "has the wrong date." I removed links above the header (because of the screen reader thing) and placed them in a new section entitled "About Wikipedia"; I believe this to be a better name that "Other areas of Wikipedia." It includes all of the links from the previous header strapline plus a few more that have been discussed. The navigation links (Table of contents, Categories, Featured content, and Index) are still in the header. I believe this to be a better location for them than in the About Wikipedia section because they're more about finding a specific article or topic of interest, and have little to do with "About Wikipedia." If someone comes to the main page simply looking to find an article, they will quickly see these links and be able to find what they're looking for. Also, I've removed the box from the Wikimedia Foundation section and created a static vs. dynamic difference. I believe the About Wikipedia box is the way to go. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your system for arranging links; now if only we could agree on what to put where. I still think that Who Writes Wikipedia is, though logical, not the first thing users need to see. (You can link it from Introduction if you like.) Leave Wikipedia unlinked, or have "anyone can edit" go to the intro. For UTC, try Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#When is the Main Page updated? Why do you have the wrong date in Selected anniversaries?. I like the idea of putting a select few content links up top and it eliminates the need for the gutter, which we can eliminate. As for what links to put there, I've voiced my opinions and would like to hear others. I like the distinction between static and dynamic content and we anevaluate the links under "About Wikipedia" (nice title) later. I would like a normal looking header rather than the small bold one, though. But on the whole: coming along nicely.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the header into the discussion so we can don't have to jump back and forth. I like it as it get rid of gutter and the portals (guess we don't need to get into each topic in detail). However the article count only applies to English. Perhaps we can renamed it from "Currently 6,898,599 articles" to "Currently hosting 6,898,599 articles in English." I'm with HereToHelp that WP:INTRO would be better. In the choice of links, they're nice, but I think we should alphabetize it or apply some kind of organization. Secondly, one question I have on mind is about the Portals. I'm not saying we should bring them back, but similar to the TOC, index, and so forth, perhaps we should swap the Featured content (which seems out of place) with Portal:Contents/Portals.

I'm with HereToHelp, that About Wikipedia can come later. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I took off "in English" (the link especially) because I'm pretty sure users will know that they are on the English Wikipedia.. I mean the text is in English, so it's kind of a given (and why link to English language? That's useless IMO). There would be no reason to think that "6,898,599" referred to all Wikipedias combined.. The English Wikipedia (though largest) isn't somehow "above" all the others; it is simply one language in a list of many. If the number appeared on the Spanish Wikipedia's Main page, people would assume there were that many articles in Spanish.. or on the French page in French.. they wouldn't assume that their Wikipedia was egotistical enough to assume ownership of all others. The same should be able to be said for the English Wikipedia. Americans are ignorant and don't know there are 200 other countries with multiple languages out there (stereotype.. sorry), but that is not our fault. This would not be a problem in any other language, so why deal with it here?

Also, about the links, I took out WP:INTRO because I think WP:ABOUT does a better job of describing the site. ABOUT is in a Wikipedia article format instead of the tabbed format INTRO is in. Also, ABOUT spends more time talking about the history, etc. of the site and focuses more on research/reading first as opposed to INTRO just jumping into editing.. Yes we're trying to attract editors, but more people than not use Wikipedia solely as a means to gain information - they've never edited anything. If you talk to newcomers about reading and get them comfortable with that then slowly work your way into editing, they will be more likely to edit rather than just being like "here's our crap; edit it." I still like Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia because it gives some nice information about how you don't have to be a rocket scientist to edit the site; anyone can... thus "anyone can edit."

As for the Portals link, I don't really like Portals as I've mentioned, but I agree that Featured content seems out of place. I'd like for it to be linked somewhere on the page, but there's not really a good place. In my proposal, I link to TFA and POTD, but each has its own little box.. there's no central "Featured Content" box.. just its individual parts. I'm not exactly sure where to put this link, but that seemed like the best place for now; putting it in the "About Wikipedia" section wouldn't really fit with the rest of the information there either haha.. Can anyone think of a better place? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I never thought of it that way, but by saying that everyone can write Wikipedia, it's a more subtle invitation to edit. I'm not sure which to use, so let's move on. I like labeling article count because it raises awareness of the multilingual aspect; the link should be to a page to that extent (or nonexistant). I agree that we need to link Featured Content but there's no place for it. (Maybe at the end of TFA or the featured content column -- which will probably require more content!) I suppose Search has fallen out of favor. We can put Index by TOC, since you'd find them both in books. Then Portals and Categories, in that order, since Portals are more user-friendly. Some of the designs had some sort of serif font for Welcoem to Wikipedia; can we use that to look a little more formal? And what would it look like to put the globe on the right?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think we should add "in English"; let's wait for consensus. I commented out Featured content until we can find a place for it.. I also applied the serif font and made the letter small caps to appear more professional. You can mess with the position of the background image by modifying the background-position parameter, but I think it doesn't look as good on the right.. it makes that side look very cluttered and the left look essentially empty.. that's one of the main reasons I support the globe.. without it over there, that side looks empty; with it, the header is balanced IMO. I still like Search, but not for the header.. it's in my "About Wikipedia" section. About the arrangement of the links, I think TOC should go first and Index should go last with whatever else in the middle.. that's the order in a book. I still don't like portals, but if I'm outnumbered, I'm out numbered haha. I also modified the way the time was displayed to allow us to have more control over the UTC link. I still haven't been able to find a satisfactory page about why Wikipedia uses UTC (maybe we should write one?), but I think that would be an ideal link for this situation. As of now, UTC is unlinked unless someone disagrees. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have Categories but not Portals. Yes, indexes go in the back of the book but categories don't go in them at all, but it's okay to have the index at the end. The globe can stay, I guess; the typeface is a definite improvement. For UTC, try Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#When is the Main Page updated? Why do you have the wrong date in Selected anniversaries?.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really link that link.. I mean it's just two lines of information. I'm looking for something in the form of WP:ABOUT except for dealing with UTC. Also, when I click on that link, something in Firefox doesn't make it go directly to that section for some reason.. so if I have the problem others are bound to have it. I would rather link to an entire article than to a section. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have disagreement over "in English" clause. Stating that the article count is simply implied does not hold true to me, especially to the reader who does not understand the massive gap between languages in Wikipedia. Most users don't travel between languages because of the simple language barrier, for example if they're reading an article filled with jargon — it's much easier to understand the jargon while it's at least in your first language rather than your second. As for egoism, I'm not viewing this from such an aggressive standpoint; we aren't rivals and we aren't paranoid. All three top language Wikipedias (Spanish, German, and French) all have "in (their language)" for clarity and I think so should we.

I'm still defending the adding a link to a list of portals, although there should at least more discussion there. As for WP:INTRO and WP:ABOUT, I don't know where to place my opinion, I find that both are acceptable except "about" appears to better fit the context better than intro. "free encyclopedia" yields the definition, not a beginners guide to editing. As for "Who writes Wikipedia", perhaps intro would be more appropriate, but I'm not casting opinion there. This is the best articulation I can think of for our linking problem and let's solve this first. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "in English" should be included but the link should be to some multilingual coordination page; I've added one to the header above (hope you don't mind). UTC should go to a page about how Wikipedia's timekeeping is structured (if such a page exists…). I've rearranged the order of the links in a way that I think makes more sense; I feel that it should be arranged logically, not alphabetically. Furthermore, while WWW is theoretically a good link, it is part of a complex hierarchy of help pages and is not particularly welcoming to newcomers, drawing a line between the volunteers and the readers and tossing out a lot of jargon. We need something more encouraging, along the lines of "Who writes Wikipedia? You can!". I think the Introduction is therefore much better and have linked it. Please consider my arguments (and read WP:WWW), but if you still disagree you can revert my edits to the sample header.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article: Too much content

I believe the current TFA displays too much content on the Main Page, making the text feel unnecessarily "heavy". I think this detracts user interest and reduces the number of visitors to the featured articles themselves, especially visitors not attracted by the FA topic at first glance. This is worsened by the fact that it does not separate paragraphs (which the full articles do) making the text even harder to read.

The point of displaying FAs on the Main Page is not to make people stay on the Main Page and read them there, but to catch their interest so they visit the articles themselves, much like the lead paragraphs on news sites that link to the full articles. By reducing its length by 50% I believe we would get a significant increase in FA readers and visitors from the Main Page. - Wintran ^(talk) 14:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all these points, and admire how well you have explained them. I also think the featured article could be made more attractive by using a larger image size and possibly larger text. Pretzels^Talk! 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not bigger font, but a bigger picture I could go for, if it doesn't screw up the formatting on small screens. But as for shortening the text, sure - but that's something to take up with the FA people.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to contact the FA wikiproject to see how they're running it. Unlike the POTD, they do not seperate their content into separate modules, and because of this we cannot create a custom template like we did with the POTD. As much as I enjoy manipulating the content to fit our design goals, we do not directly create or format it: we simply import it into a global scheme. The POTD template I am referring to is User:ChyranandChloe/Workshop 6. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics

The main page is the most obvious and influential advertisement on Wikipedia, and within my opinion this aspect is perhaps more essential than the self-promotion of the various feature content groups. I do not feel that we can send the a proposal to the community unless we can accomplish several goals:

1. Professionalism, as Wikipedia becomes a more authoritative, it needs to become more austere. We are now beginning to concentrate on appealing to more knowledgeable users, experts, and by that we are not here to waste their time with eye candy. Therefore we have toned down the colours and removed unnecessary shapes, boxes, and so forth—that may become distracting; and thus lending greater emphasis to the feature content: the meat of Wikipedia.
2. Enticing, the main page is still an advertisement, or rather a promotion. We need to make it engaging and appealing. Therefore when a reader comes onto this page, they need to feel as if they don't want to leave it until they've read all or most of the content and still want more. The first step is to get them to pay attention to the page; the second is to keep them on it.
3. Organization, the main page need to be organized enough that the user will have little or no difficultly distinguishing the different types of content. So far we have distinguished dynamic and static. The FA, DYK, ITN, POTD, and so forth is dynamic, the remainder is static. One capability in aesthetics is to subtly guide the reader to distinguish the two.

I've omitted Usability, since this belongs in a discussion of its own. We can subsubsection (level 4) from here over specific points. We can go over some of our independently developed proposals to see what's been done. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

5theye
88wolfmaster
Alexfusco5
Alvaro_qc
AMK152
Aquillyne
Artyom
Blackhole77
Calibas
ChyranandChloe
Combined proposal (Scottydude)
CrazyChemGuy
CRGreathouse
Dudemanfellabra
Eitch
Electrical Experiment (2)
EricV89
Five Fifteen 2
Five Fifteen
Futurebird
Gnangarra
h2g2bob
Hazelorb
Hereford
HereToHelp
Highfields
Ikzing
Ishikawa Minoru
Jackl
Jennavecia
Kollision
Kollision2
Kpalion
LaraLove
Lights
Mangler13
MindstormsKid (2)
MindstormsKid
Miserlou
MZMcBride
Nat/Alpha
Nat/Beta
Nat/Gamma
NickPenguin
Onecanadasquarebishopsgate
Polishname
Pretzels
Pro bug catcher
Red Thunder
RichardF
RichardF2
Ryan Postlethwaite
Ryan
RyRy 2
RyRy
RyRy
Scolaire
Scottydude (2)
Scottydude
Soxred93
SusanLesch 2
SusanLesch
Tabbed
TakuyaMurata
Tlogmer
Trevor MacInnis
WBOSITG
Wintran 2
Wintran 3
Wintran 4
Wintran
Workshop 14 (ChyranandChloe)
Xenus
Zrs 12

While we're currently focused on content, these are very good points to bring up. The first two points are a balancing act, although if you take austere too far, you get into dreary and lifeless, which is almost as bad a gaudy and flashy. Also, thank you for taking up the dynamic/static distinction. It also helps as far as not going overboard with formatting. I agree with your points, but they aren't the primary focus at the moment.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the primary focus at the moment in your opinion, however this is perhaps the primary focus in mine. There is no significant change in content, only a minor revamp. Therefore in order to make this proposal worth the consideration of the community, we have to do more than just a few renames and rearrangements. Additionally, this aspect was the first element on the charter that began the proposal, I think it deserves more attention than its getting. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as differences of opinion on style don't get in the way of consensus on content. So far, so good.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, let's get started with a color scheme. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic-static design focus

In order to distinguish the static content from dynamic content:

• In static content we can:
  • Lighten the text from being solid black to dark gray
  • Or by changing the opacity to approximately 90%, and therefore slightly lightening the static content
  • The reason for this scheme is that it give a feeling of depth: which subtly guide the reader to start with the dyanmic content, the featured content. By this it accomplishes two things: (1) It allows the reader to quickly catch onto what would be most interesting and therefore prevent them from simply clicking away, and (2) It prevents the reader from becomming overwhelmed by the amount of content, it tells them to "start here" and if you're interested "move to here"
• In Dyanmic content we can colorize slightly to be most disginguish, the current scheme accomplishes this

ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Color scheme

The blue and green look rather similar. It might be premature, but if we're moving all featured content to one column, can we make it a gold color? I think that would work well with the blue that we have.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gold would be a good choice for featured content, partnered with the associated star. Pretzels^Talk! 04:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but that's a pretty invasive reconstruction of the main page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The star is better than most as far as icons, because it's fairly clear and commonly used; it would be good to visually link the star and featured content early on. That also might give us an opportunity to link to Portal:Featured content. My biggest concern is how would we balance it on the other side, the ITN/DYK/TDIH (formerly OTD) column. There isn't an easy label for them like Featured Content; they're just what's left over. (My best idea is "Day to day," but that might us trouble with Day to Day.) Neither is there a corresponding icon, and I'm worried about having only one icon on the MP. Changing the hue might be more intrusive but won't leave us with an icon and a label with no conterparts.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The In the news / This day in history column should be narrowed and without a background. This would alleviate the above worries, while providing more of a visual path for the reader. We could use an idea from a very early proposal of mine: merge the two into a section simply headed with today's date. Pretzels^Talk! 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think removing the color would take too much emphasis away; Featured Content is only half of the dynamic content. I like today's date, though that would be dynamic and Portal:Featured content is static (and you're not supposed to link headers, anyway). That, and we still don't have an icon. You might be able to find one, but it's not going to match the Featured star and I don't think it's going to be commonly used elsewhere.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My point is that if we use too much emphasis, it's no longer emphasis - that's how I feel about the current main page. If we emphasise featured content visually over the other sections, it will appear far more professional. The page is already slightly weighted towards the left, let's go with that and be bold.

Regarding a date icon, any Nuvola-type calendar could be used, but an icon is probably unnecessary here. Pretzels^Talk! 10:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. How about you sandbox it, post a link here, and I'll make up my mind once I've seen it? More featured emphasis might justify an icon for it and not for the other stuff (would a calendar icon have to update daily?), but we'll need more than one article and one image (media) for it to work. Try the yellow, too; see if you can get it to be gold.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get the color to look gold while retaining the standard saturation and lightness (see HSL and HSV) but playing with it a little more liberally I got this:

Today's featured article Iron Man was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Co-created by writer and editor Stan Lee and designed by artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in 1962 and received his own title in 1968. Shortly after his creation, Iron Man became a founding member of the superhero team the Avengers, with Thor, Ant-Man, the Wasp and the Hulk. Iron Man stories have been published consistently since the character's creation. Iron Man is the superhero persona of Tony Stark, a businessman and engineer who runs the weapons manufacturing company Stark Industries. When Stark was captured in a war zone and sustained a severe heart wound, he built his Iron Man armor and escaped his captors. Iron Man's suits grant him superhuman strength, flight, energy projection and other abilities. Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) portrayed Tony Stark from 2008 to 2019. His portrayal popularized the character, making Iron Man one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes. (Full article...) Recently featured: "Bad Romance" Galileo project Changi Airport MRT station

Any takers?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] This is great. I'm very impressed with how good that looks colourwise. My botched attempt is a lot more "toned down" but is not half as effective. We should see how this looks combined with the proposals for 50% of the text and a larger image. Pretzels^Talk! 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

White background

It has been discussed above in the Header links section that the background to all the sections should be white instead of tinted blue and green. The current tints make the page look color-crazy and strain the eye in my opinion. With a white background, there is less color and more professionalism. An example of how the sections would look with a white background can be found here. Any comments? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps slightly offwhite migh work better?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not every piece of content - regardless of whether it's dynamic or static - should have a background, these things are for emphasis. Pretzels^Talk! 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, sandbox. White:

Today's featured article Iron Man was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Co-created by writer and editor Stan Lee and designed by artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in 1962 and received his own title in 1968. Shortly after his creation, Iron Man became a founding member of the superhero team the Avengers, with Thor, Ant-Man, the Wasp and the Hulk. Iron Man stories have been published consistently since the character's creation. Iron Man is the superhero persona of Tony Stark, a businessman and engineer who runs the weapons manufacturing company Stark Industries. When Stark was captured in a war zone and sustained a severe heart wound, he built his Iron Man armor and escaped his captors. Iron Man's suits grant him superhuman strength, flight, energy projection and other abilities. Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) portrayed Tony Stark from 2008 to 2019. His portrayal popularized the character, making Iron Man one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes. (Full article...) Recently featured: "Bad Romance" Galileo project Changi Airport MRT station

Meh. Try it with a neutral offwhite:

Today's featured article Iron Man was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Co-created by writer and editor Stan Lee and designed by artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in 1962 and received his own title in 1968. Shortly after his creation, Iron Man became a founding member of the superhero team the Avengers, with Thor, Ant-Man, the Wasp and the Hulk. Iron Man stories have been published consistently since the character's creation. Iron Man is the superhero persona of Tony Stark, a businessman and engineer who runs the weapons manufacturing company Stark Industries. When Stark was captured in a war zone and sustained a severe heart wound, he built his Iron Man armor and escaped his captors. Iron Man's suits grant him superhuman strength, flight, energy projection and other abilities. Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) portrayed Tony Stark from 2008 to 2019. His portrayal popularized the character, making Iron Man one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes. (Full article...) Recently featured: "Bad Romance" Galileo project Changi Airport MRT station

Or a less intense yellow:

Today's featured article Iron Man was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Co-created by writer and editor Stan Lee and designed by artists Don Heck and Jack Kirby, the character first appeared in 1962 and received his own title in 1968. Shortly after his creation, Iron Man became a founding member of the superhero team the Avengers, with Thor, Ant-Man, the Wasp and the Hulk. Iron Man stories have been published consistently since the character's creation. Iron Man is the superhero persona of Tony Stark, a businessman and engineer who runs the weapons manufacturing company Stark Industries. When Stark was captured in a war zone and sustained a severe heart wound, he built his Iron Man armor and escaped his captors. Iron Man's suits grant him superhuman strength, flight, energy projection and other abilities. Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) portrayed Tony Stark from 2008 to 2019. His portrayal popularized the character, making Iron Man one of Marvel's most recognizable superheroes. (Full article...) Recently featured: "Bad Romance" Galileo project Changi Airport MRT station

 

#ffffe1

 

#fffff1

The original is the top swatch; the new one is on the bottom. It's a subtle change, but I prefer the new (f1) to the old (e1). Now we have to get the blue (will it be blue?) to match, which I can do pending acceptance of the gold. However, it's only worth doing if we keep Featured Content in the gold column, which probably means adding either another article or a list.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Becareful since the background of talk pages are off white (#f8fcff), while article pages are purewhite. This subtle differnce in color can skew your color perception, which when you see pure white it give a slight tint of yellow. (If you are using an LCD, look at the screen slightly sideways — my post is colored purewhite) I think I like the f1 as well. Is it possible to have all the featured content in gold? Perhaps, rather than sticking to the previous color scheme we can use gold and light-gold for all the featured content. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Header link reduction

The current header is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think that this is overload of links that are not particularly helpful. The words [[free content|free]] [[encyclopedia]] look like [[free encyclopedia]], which is something MOS says not to do. I also question the value of explaning ourselves viia encyclopedia articles when we have pages tailored to do just that already. I suggest "Welcome to Wikipedia, the [[Wikipedia:About|free encyclopedia]] that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''.", which looks like this: Welcome to Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We direct traffic to the about page if you want to know who we are, and most of the traffic will be drawn by "anyone can edit," which bolds the existing link to the Introduction.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of elements in the header can be combined with the sections in the appendicies (e.g. Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects). There are two elements I am pursueing to move: Portals, and the links below the header box. So let's look into developing the scheme for the appendices for these two new sections. Also, before we start proposing designs, is there anything you want to add? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's overlinked at all, but I do think the links should be changed. In fact, in my proposal (the updated version), I proposed "[[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]], the [[Wikipedia:About|free encyclopedia]] that [[Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia|anyone can edit]]." which displays as "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra: That makes sense logically, but I think people will click on what's provocative, the idea that anyone can edit. Besides, it's also last, so viewers will remember it more strongly than previous links, and their memory and focus deteriorates with each link you add. ChryanandChloe: I really like 88wolfmaster's idea of having jump-to links at the top of the page (they're in the header). I would like to see "On this page:" to clarify what they are, but they could clue the reader in to what's on the page, which is especially helpful for small screens. Perhaps we could put these links where the portals are now, and the "Other areas of Wikipedia"/"Find an article" between the header and TFA/ITN? That would make that information much more visible without getting in the way of the dynamic content. See my sandbox. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with HereToHelp's argument about user's "memory and focus", I do prefer their simpler proposal for the links (minus the bold). Instead of a weird psuedo-sentence, however, it would be better to use "Welcome to Wikipedia" as a header, and the rest as a slogan. Pretzels^Talk! 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I could drop the bold and punctuation if that's what people want.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we're moving a lot of the links to the currently titled "Other areas of Wikipedia" and developing "Portals" section. #Other areas of Wikipedia. In a matter speaking, I think we need to revise the header from being a link farm, as it currently is with the portals and so forth. HereToHelp, I like 88Wolfmaster's as well, and I think that's were we're headed towards by unloading the links into other sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Combining Other Languages and Sister Projects

The Languages section has been removed, although I do not significantly oppose it, where was the discussion for it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Previous discussions section, HereToHelp's summary of the archived discussions seems to promote consensus. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank's for clarifying. Moving the Other languages wasn't explicity discuss in the previous discussion, I don't think, but I guess it's passed unless someone else opposses it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't. We don't want to do something one way on the MP and then another everywhere else. That's why I oppose an additional search bar.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat the Main Page differently from "everywhere else". It's not an article, it's a navigation aid and display board for those articles, and as such performs a completely different purpose. Pretzels^Talk! 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The other language Wikipedia's have been established enough to no longer require an section for endorsement on the main page. I think we can simply add a link to the language coordination page in the current titled "Other areas of Wikipedia" would be sufficient. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that they're fairly unobtrusive (unnoticeable?) on the side of the page.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you explain? Because couldn't being less obtrusive be beneficial? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've actually had a change of heart. I think we should keep the languages; interlanguage links aren't really publicized anywhere, and I believe the Main Page would be a great place to inform people of them. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I had no idea what that list was, and it took me quite a while (a month maybe?) to figure it out. If on the main page we provide a description of this list, new readers/editors will not encounter the same dilemma. In my proposal, I added the following:

The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to including any and all languages for which there are Wikipedians willing to contribute. There are currently over 250 languages, and users can also request a new language. In the left column of every article (including this page) there is a list of interlanguage links to articles about the same subject in other languages. Some of the largest Wikipedia languages are listed below:

English · Deutsch (German) · Français (French) · Polski (Polish) · 日本語 (Japanese) · Italiano (Italian) · Nederlands (Dutch) · Português (Portugese) · Español (Spanish) · Русский (Russian) · Svenska (Swedish) · 中文 (Chinese) · Bokmål (Norwegian) · Suomi (Finnish) · Català (Catalan) · (See the complete list...)

I edited some of the links to articles I thought better explained the material. Also, I think the word cloud-esque method of displaying the languages works better than the languages section on the current main page. I also combined the "Languages" section with "Sister projects" and renamed the whole thing "Wikimedia Foundation." For a look at the entire proposal, click here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the putting it in a box (dynamic vs. static) but I like the idea of combining the two. Sister projects, with icons, is much more prominent. Do we still include the list in the sidebar?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in the description of the interlanguage links it says "(including this page)", so I planned on keeping the sidebar list so as not to break uniformity with the articles. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a box, but I was going for more of a "Do you like the section title/contents?" type thing. The only thing I could think of to relate sister projects and languages was "Wikimedia Foundation." --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I like "Wikimedia Foundation" as a heading. We could use the simple box that the interlangs are in now with a standard ==header== for both pieces.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)  Done I might be getting ahead of myself, but I like the idea as well in combing the two sections. Nevertheless, I'm assuming that we aren't touching the languages in the sidebar, right? To me this isn't very essential and I feel that both methods (with or without the other language section) is acceptable. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I love the new languages explanatory text, but totally disagree with merging it with sister projects. There's no logical association between other languages of this project and completely different wikis. Besides, the links to other projects should come last seeing as they are the least related to Wikipedia.

On a brighter note, if nobody objects, I'm going to swap out the old sister projects section for this new, cleaner version. Pretzels^Talk! 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the cleaner (clearer) explanations. Specifically, though, I think "species" is a little ambiguous. Wikispecies is a fairly odd project to begin with; perhaps "species taxonomy" or "species classification"? Wikisource also seems a little vague. "Source texts" or "scholarly text" might work better.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the updated Sister Projects. The table forces a scrollbar on lower resolutions (800x600 specifically) because it is 5 elements wide. I also don't like the bigger, bolder text. Having this section's text larger than all the others would make the section appear to be more important. Maybe we can redo the sister projects section if that's wanted... but this is definitely not the answer. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I enjoy the new sister projects, nice job Pretzels. However, Dudemanfellabra has a point on accessibility, but I'm not sure about redoing the entire section. I don't have an opinion over text size. I have to proposals to solve this:

1. the first is to cut the number of columns from six to four, however in even smaller screens we may get horizontal scroll, and in larger screens we may get unwanted blank space.
2. the second is a little more complex; after working on the new {{Gallery}} template. I can write the code that would allow the number of columns to be determined by the width of the screen and the width of the elements; there's no Java Script involved and to my knowledge it is compatible on all main-stream web browsers.

Out of bias, I'm leaning towards the second solution, but I'd like a go ahead before I do an implementation, below is some sample code—there's some tweaking left to do, but I think this is a good representation of what I'm talking about. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Wikinews News

Wiktionary Dictionary & thesaurus

Wikibooks Textbooks & manuals

Wikisource Source texts

Wikiquote Quotations

Wikispecies Species directory

Commons Free media

Wikiversity Learning tools

Meta-Wiki Coordination

Is it possible to have center the last row of content? For example, if three columns are used it forms a row of four, another row of four, and then a row of two aligned to the left. Can we put that in the middle? --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've adjusted the table to four columns so it fits on 800x600 better, reduced the text size, and centred the bottom row as requested. I also shifted round the projects slightly so that Commons and Meta can sit together. Pretzels (talk · contribs)

Much better.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of blank space between the columns and it'll only get worse as screen resolution increases. I've applied the patch detailed above that would allow the number of columns to be determined by the window width and the size of the elements (resize your window and see for yourself). I'm not sure what your opinions are on this, except that you want it to fit on 800x600 windows, and if its against a consensus feel free to revert. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are more than fifteen sister projects, we enumerate only ten (linkhere). Perhaps we should apply the update that would enter the rest. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have the major ones; many of those unlisted are self-referential and not reader-facing. Personally, I liked Pretzel's implementation because it centered the last row. I don't think whitespace is a problem. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally liked Pretzels version more than the current one as well; it worked on 800x600, and looked the same for all users. After looking around, though, I like the template at the bottom of this page the most... not sure how much different (if any) it is than Pretzels, but I support adding Pretzels's shorter descriptions to that template and leaving the text size alone as I've mentioned before. I've done this on my design if you want to take a look. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

proposing centering the table on the page. --88wolfmaster (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured we had the major ones, but my intent is that at least we went over it. Wikimania, BugZilla, Incubator, Test Wikipedia, and Mediawiki are the ones we do not have. In my opinion is it possible add a link like (more...) to the end to state there are more wikiprojects than the ones enumerated. In organization I like pretzels grayed out reduced-size text, it gives a more professional feel in that we can quickly scan through the titles without being held back the by the descriptions. It's subtle, and a challenge to describe, but my position is with Pretzels. I prefer my design, because when I switch to a 1680 screen (let alone a 1920), the gap between the elements in the sister projects become so great that it looses cohesion, and becomes four separate columns. This is in my opinion of course, and that's my justification for defending it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, for some reason, I didn't even recognize the reduced text. I don't really mind reduced text, but the top part ("Wikipedia is part of the non-profit, multilingual, free-content Wikimedia Foundation family.") being bigger than everything else on the page bugs me. I can accept the smaller text (though in my proposal, I used only 90% instead of 75%.. and I also darkened the color to #555 instead of #777 so it contrasts more with the white background. On my Mac, color differences are less apparent than on my PC, and it was semi-hard to see the lighter grey), but the bigger text I won't support. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization in Headers

I think the the first letter in every word of the headers for all sections should be capitalized. Lowercase headings look really unprofessional. "Today's featured article," "Did you know...," "This day in history," etc. should become "Today's Featured Article," Did You Know...," and "This Day in History." --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but everywhere else they use sentence case ("Capitalization in headers"), per MOS. Again, let's not do something one way here and another way everywhere else. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. I didn't know that haha.. I've always capitalized. Guess I should go change my edits haha. Is there any reason sentence case is used? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe it's easier than trying o figure out what should and shouldn't be capitalized.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, by using the capitalization scheme set by the WP:WPMOS, I think their rationale was to cut down on the number of captial letters which would make it difficult to distinguish the proper nous from the rest of the title. I think we and justify a position against the WP:MOS; however, out of habit, I'm not exactly willing to go against it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additions that can be made

Rename: "Today's featured picture: to "Today's featured media"

There appears to be a consensus here. If there is opposition, please state your grievences. ChyranandChloe (talk)

I strongly support this idea. It would allow similar content to be featured together (see the Beethoven mockup), in turn allowing more media to have a chance to be on the MP. Of course, such sets would need to be designed and approved on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, this is an important precedent for Featured lists (below) because many lists are similar or in two parts. That's assuming people like FLs in the first place, but talk about that under the next header please. Having featured collections brings up a point about diversity: should we coordinate between TFA, TFM, and possibly TFL? On one hand, it might be neat to feature a bio of a former US President, a picture of the White House, and List of Presidents of the United States, but except in extenuating circumstances (say, Election Day), I feel that we should strive to have diversity between our featured sections. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ok then. ChyranandChloe (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name is the easy part. How do we get the POTD people to use sounds from time to time. That, and just having an image might not best represent the new idea. I could template that Beethoven mockup if you like, but then it wouldn't update daily…--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to have multiple media types featured. However, I see a problem if audio-files start replacing images on certain days, as I think having a featured picture on the Main Page greatly increases its attractiveness. If the picture is complemented by other media types, that's nice, but I don't like it being replaced by them. - Wintran ^(talk) 14:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory I agree - we could pair an optical illusion with a Shepard tone, animals with their calls, politicians with their speeches - but occasionally you'll get sounds that don't have corresponding images. So while I could go for an encouragement to incorporate sounds into groups, I don't think it should be required.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not necessary to use audio files instead of pictures and so forth, but simply to provide the option to do so. This give more flexibility to the wikiprojects innvolved. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think renaming to Today's Featured Media would be very confusing, to say the least. Regarding the recent change of the Image: namespace to File:, it would be more in line to name it Today's featured file. Pretzels^Talk! 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you better explain? Because "File" would be technically inclined and would be working against WP:CSB, furthurmore I don't see to justification to promote any file: which can include executables, docuemtns, and so forth. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just that I've not seen our non-article content referred to as "Media" anywhere on WP, but the namespace for that content is called File. Pretzels^Talk! 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Media = Images + video + sound. Media ≠ "non article content," which can be lists, portals, categories, talk, administration…--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename: "On this day" to "This day in history"

I like "This day in history." "On this day" could confuse some readers into thinking the following content had all happened ON THIS DAY (as in.. this day in 2008). Then they'd start reading it, and be like, "What the heck? Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked this year!" Of course they would figure it out after reading one or two, but what I'm getting at is that if we put the word "history" in the title, the reader's brain is already thinking about history (past years) instead of mistakenly thinking about on this day (this year). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your reasoning, as it would make the title more clear. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we change that in the draft?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)}22:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the ellipses on the DYK and OTD

Remove the ellipses on the DYK and OTD

The ellipses appears to be redundant and unprofessional, and I am proposing to remove them. It does make complete sense with "Did you know... From Wikipedia's newest articles:". ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen "Did you know that…" used elsewhere, but I'm not sure "On this day…" works as well, especially since it's "On this day… 1950 – Something happened." and not "On this day… in 1950, something happened." I could go for the second syntax structure, or for removing the ellipses in favor of "This day in history" or something similar.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about changing from "Did you know..." to "Did you know". It is not essential to me, but I want to know what you guys think of it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 DoneI've removed the ellipses. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduce Today's featured list

One of the great things about a new redesign is that it gives us a chance to update the MP to reflect new developments in Wikipedia. We've seen the great success of Featured Lists over the last year or so, and I think it's time that we honor the lists and the project with a spot on the MP with Articles and Images (soon to be media). I've created a mockup, {{Today's featured list mockup}}, which we can incorporate into the design to see if it works or not. TFL (we could usurp WP:TFL from a semi-inactive Wikiproject) would be a great additional to our daily showcase.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the mockup, there are two things I'd like to go over before we begin drafts with the Featured Lists installed:

• Do we have enough featured lists or potential featured lists to run in its own section
• Will it be too much featured content on a single page; perhaps we should link to the Featured content page.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For the first point, there are 1120 Featured lists, which is more than three years' worth if we did one a day. We won't, because some are in two parts or are asking to be combined (like song listings from six Guitar Hero games). Even so, go through the Signpost Archives and you'll discover that the FL people are incredibly prolific, often featuring about fifteen or twenty lists a week (we only need seven). I think it's very sustainable. We should definitely link to Portal:Featured content if we can find a convenient place to do it. They're already running FL snippets, except with alphabetical lists they just have a bunch of As; with the mockup I tried to find the more interesting or useful words. As for Featured Content inundation, that's subjective. I guess the only way to know is to make two mockups, with and without, and ask for (non binding) opinions.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't support a new section for featured lists. I'm fine with allowing lists to be on the main page, but I think they should be included with today's featured article. Lists are articles... they're the same thing. With today's featured picture, we changed it to today's featured MEDIA by adding videos and sound. The section still appears the same, except on some days, the featured item will be a video or a sound instead of a picture. We should do the same thing with today's featured article - some days the article would be a list and others it would be a regular article. Most featured lists have a descriptive lead section, so when a list is featured, the lead section would appear on the main page, and the (more...) link would be changed to (See the list...). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support the new section for the featured list; but before we'll begin a draft, lets have to modulate it into pieces like: the excerpt, title, read more, archive, and so forth.This will give us much more flexibility in the future.
• Next off, how will we keep the content balanced? Is it its own section like the Today's featured media (TFM)? Do we merge it into a column with te TFM? Will we introduce a selected GA to keep it balanced?
• Lastly, will there be too much featured content? There are five now, with the TFL that'll be six. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's idea is a minimum, but then there'd be too much content (all 1000+ lists, several dozen? hundred? unshown articles, and about three weeks worth of new stuff every week). I'm afraid nothing (relatively speaking) would get to be shown. Some might argue that this means we can be more selective in out FAs/FLs, but I'd argue that if it passes the featured gauntlet, it should be allowed to be shown on the MP. Others say we should have two articles a day; I'm saying one should be an article and one should be a list. As for formatting, again please see User:HereToHelp/sandbox, which has the nice benefit of putting all Featured content together. And as for too much content, I think the best way to judge that is to make different versions and compare.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to address and explore the point where we would have to say "Is there too much featured content". I'm not against, but I think it would be beneficial to understand how much we can put into the main page before it becomes a problem. Also do we have support from WP:FL? Or should we check. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I got mixed support from the FL people. As for Featured Content overload, it's something that's very difficult to evaluate in the abstract. I would like to see and evaluate a mockup, perhaps like this one. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of ~1100 FLists, 394 are about sports or video games, 301 about music or media (mostly episode listings). Compare Image:FL barchart by number 2008-11-30.svg vs Image:FA articles 2008-11-16 bar.svg (that's a gross modern content bias). It's not PC to keep repeating, but FLs are drastically easier to build than FAs. See also the earlier survey results and various comments in the 3 archives, plus previous proposals. There is a significant and strong opposition to the idea, and no chance of consensus to add a new section for FLs. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Introducing GA to main page

There is a discussion and it has established a consensus where GA should appear on main page provided that there is a process/mechanism that stops GA with below-par quality from appearing on main page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I favor introducing it in DYK, which would greatly improve the quality of articles there. I am opposed to one singular GA a day, or highlighting it (them) as merely "Good" and not "Featured". Doing so would steal thunder from Featured, lowering standards. Oust the new articles (occasionally barely more than stubs!) instead.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be more fair (to Wikipedia authors) and more appreciated (by Wikipedia readers) to introduce a second featured article. - Wintran ^(talk) 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Firstly, I don't think it's fair that new (but still cruddy) articles can show up on DYK, but GAs cannot. (I said above that I do not advocate giving FAs the same prestige as Featured articles.) Secondly, people put a lot of work into Featured Lists, shouldn't they get a chance, too? I'm worried about how sustainable two FAs would be. According to the Signpost, we feature just over seven articles a week, while we get about twenty lists a week. If we use 14 FAs a week, we'll eventually run out. The other thing is grouping. Would we have to have two related FAs every day? Or do we risk featuring a politician and an insect on the same day, and what does that imply? (We can have the articles displayed in a random order, though.) --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is the section about the inclusion of GA on main page, not the section to discuss whether 2 FAs are displayed per day. If you wish to discuss having more than 1 FA on main page (and problems for doing so), create a new section. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think GA belongs in the DYK section. I don't think the DYK process is set up in a manner conducive to including pre-existing content, so the only GAs that would be workable through DYK are likely newly promoted GAs. Which some have stated would be unfair to all the already existing GA articles. I think the best place to incorporate GAs would be under the (one) FA for the day. There could then be a section called "Other articles you may be interested in..." And there would be, say ,5 or 6 articles listed there that would be selected from among GAs and FAs (and I think FLs should be eligible as well). The articles could be selected randomly from among all topics, or (what I think would be best) would be to select one article (or list) from each of several categories (we could use the GAN classification as a starting point) - say one article from science and mathematics, one from social sciences, one from arts, one from everyday life, and one from "other". Rlendog (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think GA should be added to the DYK section as well. Instead of updating DYK on the main page every few hours, it should be reduced to once a day with 6-8 good articles. As it has been said before, the main page is for readers... not editors. The theory behind DYK is that a reader will be attracted to the lackluster article and be somehow inspired to turn it into featured material. That, sadly, is not the case. Most of the articles on DYK are mediocre at best, and I believe they turn more people away than they attract. One of the main reasons some professors and high school teachers don't allow their students to use Wikipedia is probably these sub-par articles. Linking to them on the main page for all to see can't help this fact at all. If all the articles in DYK were at least GA material, the section would be much more attractive, and fewer people would be turned away. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it's clear that both sides (GA in or not in DYK section) won't come to agreement anytime soon, can we modify the project page to see how it looks under both circumstances? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think HereToHelp's underpromoted proposal does something similar to that. If we move the POTD back into its original place, and move the GA below the FA, perhaps we're going somehwere. One thing I'd like to question is whether that is too much featured content; the main page is perhaps the most obvious advertisement in Wikipedia, and overwhelming the reader could cause them to question which to reader first, or whether they want to read at all. User:HereToHelp/Sandbox. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If we put GAs links next to the FA, they should be related material, but I think links in the text itself do the job better. I would like GAs to be in DYK, but if that doesn't work out, I could see a "Selected Good articles" section (placed below featured content, naturally) with a variety of articles. Would we list them, or provide a short blurb? How much of a blurb, considering we're trying to trim the FA "teaser"? Could it work? Perhaps. But I still think DYK is the ideal solution - we need to get the stubs off our welcome mat.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Try add it in and see how it looks like. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WAIT here guys. WP:GAN already has a massive backlog. I don't suppose that any of you guys will help with that if GA's go to the main page (not trying to be mean, that's serious)! I, for one, would not want to deal with that flood to GAN... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed widely in several other fora. How about a straw poll to see where the consensus lies? The most likely alternatives seem to be:

GA included in DYK

• Support This is my favoured option. It would provide a good venue for highlighting GAs, at the same time as it would raise the average quality of the DYK section. It also seems obvious that this should be reserved for new GAs, as this would encourage GA creation. "Fairness" doesn't enter into it; the main page is there for the reader, not for padding the ego of individual editors. Lampman (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• support, on the understanding that it's open to GAs promoted in the last week, irrespective of when the DYK fact was introduced ino tthe artcile and by how much the article has been expanded in the last X days. --Philcha (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just want some clarification, does that mean the GA must have been a previously-DYK (regardless of when) before it can be shown? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think what Philcha is saying is that GAs in DYK space shouldn't have to comply with the normal criteria for DYKs (newly created or x5 expanded), they should simply have been recently promoted to GA. With this I would agree. Lampman (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I could see a list of potential problems. Some GAN have been stuck at that stage for ages. By the time it's given the GA status, it is no longer "newly created". Same problem goes to expanding 5 folds, does the expansion has to take place within a few days before listing it on GAN? Qualify as long as expansion took place with no time limit? Or expansion took place during GAN review phrase? There are too many kinks to it that I believe GA should be better off with its own section and doesn't need other departments (such as FA or DYK) to superimpose and enforce their own rules onto GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see the problem. The old rules will be disregarded in favor of newly-promoted GAs; when we run out, we move to older ones. I estimate that at the very minimum we need 5 GAs a cycle with 24 hour updates. How many GAs are promoted a week? Hopefully at least 35.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Right.. We're not saying GAs would have to comply with DYK rules.. They wouldn't have to be massively expanded in the past few days (as nearly zero GAs are).. They would just have to have been recently promoted to GA status. The section could still be titled DYK (unless we want to change it), but it would just have new GAs instead of recently created/expanded/crappy articles. This would mean the end of DYK as we know it.. no more newly expanded stuff on the main page.. just new GAs..

Yes current GAs will miss out on it, but I mean look: When DYK was first instituted, there had already been thousands of articles created and expanded.. they missed out on DYK and weren't featured on the main page. As of now there are already thousands of GAs that will have the same fate. They will miss out on being featured on the main page just like the articles before DYK were first implemented.

In other words, this whole discussion (in my opinion) is about replacing DYK and all of its current rules and regulations with a new DYK which only includes recently promoted Good Articles. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Dudemanfellabra, there is no reason why "newly promoted" should be more of a problem with GAs than "newly created" is with DYKs. Currently, over 200 GAs are created a month, on average, so about 7 a day. The problem is that a lot of these are on hurricanes/roads/TV episodes, so including all of them would seem a little farcical. If we include only one GA per DYK update (4 a day, c. 120 a month) we would be able to present a wide variety of subjects. This would also create less drama with the DYK crowd. Babysteps... Lampman (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Will increase quality of DYK without stealing thunder from TFA.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agree with HereToHelp --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My question is how are we to implement this. We aren't the DYK wikiproject, we simply import the content. A consensus here would be fairly meaningless because we can't extend it to the DYK. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, and I'm agreeing with ChyranandChloe. This wouldn't be the place to discuss it, since whether or not GAs are included in DYK would have no effect on a redesign proposal. Introducing GAs to DYK was already proposed at WT:DYK at some point, where I think it failed to get any meaningful support. Spreading the discussion into unrelated places isn't very efficient, so if this is the option you'd like to pick among the ones listed here, please consider discussing it at the dyk talk page instead. - Bobet 13:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - and not only do I oppose, but I repudiate this attempt to circumvent debate with an ill-considered poll. This needs to be discussed much more thoroughly before leaping into a poll, but I should add that this issue has been discussed several times at DYK already and never reached consensus. New articles and GAs are not a particularly good fit, and if you want to start featuring GAs on the main page as well, I would suggest giving them their own slot. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand a little on my reasons for oppose - it seems to me that GA is not a very rigorous process in any case, it requires just one person to do a review, and many GA articles are actually not very exceptional at all - they are basically just thoroughly wikified articles of average length. We already get lots of submissions to DYK which are probably as good if not better than your average GA, they are by no means all stubby little articles. So if GA's are not actually that special, why feature them? GA subject matter also leans toward popular culture topics which enjoy the support of fanbases, or subjects which have plenty of easily available references, so they don't represent the same broad spread of subject matter that we get on DYK.

I also think having a number of short articles featured on the front page is not necessarily a bad thing, not everybody wants to dive into longer articles, that's what the FA section is for. The shorter DYK articles also in my view act as encouragement to potential new editors - people can look at them and think "hey, I could write an article like that!" It makes wikipedia look less imposing.

Another concern is that we already usually have more than enough articles to choose from. That is not the case at the moment, because the introduction of a bot, an increase in the standard length of a DYK update, and possibly fewer submissions over Christmas, has us currently faced with a temporary shortage of hooks, but this is the first and only time in my experience that this has happened. Usually it's the other way around. My concern is that if we start adding GAs to DYK, more people are going to use GA as a backdoor method of getting their articles on the front page, which has the potential to completely overwhelm the project, especially given the lack of rigour in the GA vetting process. So I currently see few compelling reasons for adding GAs to DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Gatoclass. New articles + GA is bad, and there needs to be a hell of a lot more consensus before we dismantle an effective, selective, well-established review process to replace it with something completely different. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't mind GA having some way of getting on the main page, as it should be recognized. But doing it through DYK is a terrible perennial idea imo. Wizardman 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 33#Radical suggestion, a recent discussion at DYK talk where Lampman brought this same proposal and it was met with almost universal disapproval. Furthermore, in general I am against giving GAs a face to the outside world; as someone else (I don't remember who) has said before me, the GA classification can be confusing to WP outsiders (since the fact that only a small portion of articles are marked as "good" might imply that the rest of the encyclopaedia is trash) and that GAs don't always undergo super-rigorous review (although they sometimes do, depending on the editor; Mattisse and Moni3, for example, are excellent reviewers)—DYK articles don't undergo extended review either, but they don't purport to be as "good" as GAs do. GA should remain a Wikipedia-internal thing. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. New articles and fivefold expanded articles - the current DYK-worthy categories - are similar enough that it makes sense to include them together, but we still get people confused by the inclusion of the latter in DYK. GAs are sufficiently different that putting them in the same box will seem convoluted and messy, and confusing to the majority of our readership who aren't even aware of the existence of such projects as FAC, GAN and DYK. DYK is to showcase new content, not good content; the more people who see fledgling articles in need of non-daunting improvements the more new editors we can attract. Also, I know it's hard to keep track of all the perennial proposals to avoid remaking them, but in this case a post to WT:DYK to gauge interest, let people know and check for previous such suggestions would have been useful. Sorry to sound so critical - good luck with the rest of the proposal. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments in the section above. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely contrary to the purpose of DYK. Everything currently on the main page has a distinct and unique purpose apart from the other content on the main page. DYK's purpose is to demonstrate the dynamism of Wikipedia in the constant creation of new content (either by new articles or by significantly expanded one). An article that has been 5x expanded on the way towards GA is fine but adding GAs to DYK, just because they're GA dilutes the purpose and, if anything, adds redundancy to the main page. In the larger scheme of things it is redundant and counter-intuitive to have FAs (representing our "Best") and GA (representing our kinda, sorta not quite "best") on the main page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK serves a useful purpose in drawing attention to newly created/expanded articles. By bringing viewers to those articles, it encourages editors to expand the scope of Wikipedia into new areas and subjects. Additional eyes on the new articles also helps them improve more quickly than they otherwise would. Cbl62 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK is supposed to provide a chance for new articles to be improved. As Lampman says, the main page is there for the reader; we are not going against that. While providing the reader a chance to see an interesting new article (I admit most of them are mediocre, but they are definitely not rubbish) and if you spot a mistake or a problem while you're at it, then correct it or try to improve it if you can. A DYK article is usually read by a few thousand readers, but that doesn't mean everyone goes there to edit it. Those who do will make sure that the article is improved, whether it is by adding a citation or some more info or even a minor rewording. If we get rid of that and put GAs in that place, the main page will become just a showcase. I have nothing against GAs appearing on the main page or their editors getting some recognition for their efforts, but replacing DYK (which serves a completely different purpose) is not the way to go about it. Chamal ^talk 06:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• STRONGLY Oppose DYK is for new articles a/or greatly improved articles. Period.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal If the latter above meets the GA nomination standards, DYK is should automatically be trumped by GA.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It reverses the point of DYKs as presentation of recent, fresh effort. GAs, usually, are a product of longer collaboration. NVO (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Personally, I don't think GAs don't belong in DYKs. DYKs are for new articles or recently improved ones. I think GAs should have a place on the main page, somewhere else. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 08:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There has recently been a great inflow of "Oppose" votes here, and it should be pointed out that this has occurred after what was essentially inappropriate canvassing by User:Cirt and User:Chamal N. The action violated both Campaigning (biased tone) and Votestacking (partisan forum) rules. This happened on 8 December, and while opinion went overwhelmingly for "Support" before that date, as can be seen above, it has all been "Oppose" since. Unfortunately this discussion has gotten little attention from the general community, so it is easy for one project to drown out legitimate voices, but that doesn't justify braking the rules. I was hoping for a reasonable discussion here, and I have to say I'm disappointed at this gross violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

In any case, there seems to be an understanding here that including GAs in DYK is somehow an internal decision for the DYK project to make. It seems clear to me that community-wide decisions on changes to the Main Page overrule the individual projects. But let's take an example– here are two possible layouts of seven DYKs and one GA:

DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK GA

DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK DYK

GA

On the left the GA is included in DYK, on the right it has its own section. In both cases DYKs have been reduced from eight to seven, to allow room for the GA. This is within the prerogative of the redesign, surely we all agree that individual projects cannot decide how much space they are allowed on the Main Page? So is the one on the left a matter for the DYK project to decide, while the one on the right is a matter for the redesign proposal? To argue this seems like a meaningless technicality to me. Lampman (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? There is nothing in the least inappropriate about alerting members of a project whose function is being debated. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As for your claim about DYKers assuming this should be "an internal decision", I've seen no such statement - though I certainly think DYKers are obviously amongst the best informed people to consult when their part of the wiki is under discussion. I really think you are tilting at windmills here. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lampman, thanks for providing the link to those canvassing activity. I knew something was fishy because more interest generated in last 24 hours than for whole 7 days since the straw poll began and Lampman showed the proof. One thing I'm sure is that there is not a single proposal to remove or eliminate DYK, but to add GA to main page by putting it under DYK or to create a section on its own, which I think the canvassers (mistakenly or purposely) misunderstood the proposal and relayed the wrong message to the rest of the crowd. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this nice, wikipedia style, - redefining DYK privately and keeping the "DYK mob" in the dark? Why weren't they notified in first place? NVO (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GA included in TFA

Both

GA section on its own

• Support. Trying to impose the rules from another system (such as FA or DYK) onto GA is destined to face problems and issues. There will be incompatibility issues or upsetting others because they "think" GA drags down the average of the quality of their work. The best way is to make a section on its own and use its own rules to govern it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that sating "Here is a realy good featured article, and here are some merely Good articles" will degrade the quality of the work. I want the Good-ness to be ancillary. By contrast, GAs are better than most things under DYK. Even putting GAs in a separate section doesn't solve that problem.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• GA and DYK have completely different goals and merging the two would require significant changes to DYK which are not within the scope of main page redesign. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps allow new GAs in to DYK while retaining (more selectively) some new and expanded articles, too?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Then why does GA have to be in DYK? We didn't say you have to choose either DYK or GA but not both. Both systems exist together in harmony is the best approach. We want to be broad and won't restrict future expansion by imposing things like new GAs go under DYK while old GAs go somewhere else. Creating too many sets of rules will be confusing and hard to understand. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm amenable to allowing old GAs a chance (though probably only one chance) in DYK. I favor allowing new (and possibly old) GAs in DYK, along with any article that meets the current criteria, with the assumption that with more articles to pool from, we can be more selective. (New articles may still be very weak; GAs may reflect systematic bias, such as a lot of obscure hurricanes but not much art.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to see how this would work out in terms of main page balance and the like. I support the principle of the idea, though not there yet on the practical side. Wizardman 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - In general I am against giving GAs a face to the outside world; as someone else (I don't remember who) has said before me, the GA classification can be confusing to WP outsiders (since the fact that only a small portion of articles are marked as "good" might imply that the rest of the encyclopaedia is trash) and that GAs don't always undergo super-rigorous review (although they sometimes do, depending on the editor; Mattisse and Moni3, for example, are excellent reviewers)—DYK articles don't undergo extended review either, but they don't purport to be as "good" as GAs do. GA should remain a Wikipedia-internal thing. Please note that this isn't a matter of me thinking GA is lame and I'm a way better editor than that; personally I have two GAs to my name and no FA, and I still don't want outside recognition for my GAs. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Then why are other languages showcase their GAs on main page? Sorry, but your arguments just don't sound because DYK criteria is unknown to WP outsiders as well. It's time to bring GA to par, not finding PR-related reasons to shoot it down. And if you ask an outsider what constitutes an FA, their answer will be "err..." or "don't know". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact that other language Wikipedias do it doesn't mean it's best for us (or even for them - we don't have to agree with their decisions). For instance, most languages don't produce enough FAs to have one on the page every day so putting GAs there makes more sense. As for non-editors knowing what's going on: DYK says 'from Wikipedia's newest articles' which is fairly self-explanatory (even if the details of WP:DYK aren't), and the fact that an FA is an in-depth and neat-looking article that can get featured on the main page gives, I feel, even the uninitiated a basic idea of what they are without going into details. If they do want details they can click the little gold star without digging into talk page headers. But if we add GAs to the class of publicly visible article-types then the precise difference between FAs and GAs - and by extension the details of/existence of the FAC/GAN processes - will become relevant to readers confused about the distinction. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support only for recently promoted or recently reviewed articles (recently = say, within one year. Many older FAs would not pass even DYK review today).NVO (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither

I see nothing about GA that should allow them to be on the main page anymore than an article that has been peer reviewed should be on the main page, when it comes down to it GA is the opinion of only one other editor. DYK is meant for new articles and I don't think they should be included there. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean GA isn't useful, I have moved dozens of articles up to that status, I just don't see them as particularly special. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as given in my comments above—GA should be a WP-internal classification. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - WP:GAN already has a massive backlog. Without more reviewers, GAN would not be able to handle having more noms. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support for reasons same as above Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per IvoShandor. GA is essentially a more thorough peer review and is levels apart from FAs which undergoes more rigorous scrutiny and are aimed to clearly represent our "Best". If we start featuring GA on the main page then way not "A" Class, which many projects consider above GA? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah - like in WP:MILHIST, it's almost identical to a FA nom! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A-class does not appear on all projects, and each project has its own criteria. This inconsistency makes it hard to compare or judge articles that are both in A-class but belong to different projects. GA, on the other hand, has a consistent criteria (same as FA) throughout all projects. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That still misses IvoShandor's point. There is nothing about GA that is special enough to deserve main page recognition. Unlike FA (and some projects' A-criteria), GA is still just the peer review opinion of one editor. It doesn't matter that it uses a "FA-like criteria"--a GA article still isn't an FA if it hasn't gone through the rigorous FA process. What makes a GA article deserving of special recognition over a Wikiproject (such as WP:MILHIST) adopting the same "FA criteria" and applying it to their A class articles? They're both still not FAs. As I mentioned above, it is somewhat redundant and counter intuitive to feature "our very best" and then make additional room for our "kinda, sorta, not really quite our very best". If a GA author wants main page recognition, why don't they go through the FA process? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Yet those "kinda, sorta, not really quite our very best" appears on main page as "in the news" and DYK, which are worse than GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah, but neither ITN nor DYK purport to be our "best content" (which FA does and GA attempts to do in a little brother sort of way) but rather they serve the completely different purpose of highlighting some of the "best traits" of Wikipedia--our dynamism in creating new content (DYK) and stay recent and up to date (ITN). FA, ITN and DYK all serve important and unique roles on the main page--a niche that GA doesn't have. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Which part of GA says GA articles are the best in Wikipedia? If GA doesn't have a specific niche, then create one! Time to stop discredit GA just to make FA looks more prominent. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Please don't take my words personally. I'm trying to demonstrate what IvoShandor's noted above-that there is "...nothing about GA that should allow them to be on the main page anymore than an article that has been peer reviewed". While FA, ITN and DYK do have distinct and unique purposes to be on the Main Page, GA has none. The folks that should be concerned about creating a "niche" for GA are the ones who want to see it on the main page. Till then, there simply is no rational or encyclopedic purpose for GA to be there. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates on news items

One idea I've been experimenting with that got quite a lot of support in the straw poll was adding dates to ITN. The reason for this is that users expect news to be associated with dates (which is standard on the web today) and that news notices without dates is confusing. An event spanning over multiple days are generally connected to the event's starting day, so this is not a problem.

Here's an example of how this could look. - Wintran ^(talk) 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and it shouldn't be too hard to implement.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this decision belongs to the Wikiproject responsible for the featured content. A lot of what we're doing is to use it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Some events span multiple dates... how would this be handled? Pretzels^Talk! 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As Wintran said, "An event spanning over multiple days are generally connected to the event's starting day, so this is not a problem." The beginning date would be listed. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

This is getting to point where its stagnating in the same circular discussions, every thing on this page has been discussed and argue many times IMHO its time to move forward. I suggest;

1. that a small working group of editors be given some automony to create two final options,
   1. one reflective of the current format taking into account the discussion that have occured
   2. another without restriction to format, based solely the discussion.
2. then present them to the community for a discussion over fixed 4-6 week period.
3. the we can spend 2 weeks documenting process changes required for each design.
4. send the final designs as formal proposal to whole community.

While the group makes these pages everybody can work on how we identify the final result. Gnangarra 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think discussion has stagnated at all.. if anything it's just begun. We're thoroughly going through each individual section of the main change and discussing why or why not we want to keep it and/or if we'd like to change it. If every single part of the page has tons of discussion behind it, every single part of the page will come together and have reason. Example: We're just beginning to discuss portal links and whether or not to combine them with the "other areas of wikipedia" links or just to throw them out completely. Another area of discussion is about how we want to designate what is what (dynamic vs. static; featured vs. non-featured; etc.) with color schemes, opacity, and/or size. In my opinion, there is still loads to discuss. Hurrying through something makes the final product crappy and thrown together. If we want to change the Main Page of Wikipedia... that everyone sees every day, we need to commit more time to coming up with a rational logical layout for the proposal. Rome wasn't built in a day; chill. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Furthermore, having two versions will likely create unhealthy division and (gasp) polling. Once we have cemented what content we want, then we can progress to designing as a group. Currently, color scheme is on the table because it can be applied to any design and takes its roots in content types. (That, and I have yet to see a formatting presentation that I consider superior to what we have now.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not stagnation, very few points have been recirculated and there is plenty of promise in many of the discusions. After the consensus to end exeriment of independently developed proposals and return to the more stable method of consensus based discussion, I feel that the MPRP has just begun. We can address these issues as they come, and I feel that there will be a very likely chance that this proposal may leak into 2009. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I havnt been here for awhile

I havnt been here for awhile did they decide to keep the main page?Hereford 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NVM i figured it out.Hereford 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Change

I think we should change the banner to this:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Hereford 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all under discussion: what do we do with the portals, what links to we use in the title, and color scheme. Personnaly I favor white at the top (static content) but you can bring up that point in the appropriate section. Sandboxing is welcome, but the project page associated with this talk page generally will not be updated without a clear consensus. But please, jump right in - the more the merrier.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think that looks horrid. But we need to change it thats for sure. Here is a quote I found from a journalist on the web "and so when one goes to it, one kind of goes onto Wikipedia, finds first of all this ugly colour scheme". Count Blofeld 11:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Link. That's an interesting piece, but the colour scheme is certainly not a main part of the commentary, and merely come across as a personal dislike. Nevertheless, I agree the colours are what I would expect to find on the internet ten years ago. Pretzels^Talk! 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well I always use my own main page but I have never been a fan of pastel colours anyway. The front page by default is far too weak as our "cover" undoubtedly, seems most of you agree. I would equally support a redesign in page formatting, an improvement of the wiki logo and the background around articles visually enchanced as much as I would support a main page change. The question is can we make a consensus and will any result actually be implemented? Count Blofeld 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed, the sky blue banner is counter to Wikipedia's color scheme and I find it to be distracting (I haven't seem people putting HTML together like that since the ninties—that is a museum piece). Also please move this discussion under the second Changes that can be made or archive it, we need to stay organized on what we are doing. Also Hereford, I apologize that you haven't been here a while, but please read #Previous discussions and links thereof. I don't think it's a good idea to jump on and off a ship while it's sailing, you might get left behind. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost any shade of blue is a lousy background color because it makes the standard link colours hard to read. The current colour scheme has the advantage of being well-known, and I see no benefit in making readers learn a new one. Users want to scan, not read (Jakob Nielsen), and changing any of the "signposts" that they process subconsciously forces them to start reading in order to find the links and other gizmos they want to use (sportspersons will recognise this: it takes a while to adjust to an unfamiliar playing field because the fences and all the other things they see out of the corners of their eyes are in the wrong places, so they have to look for the lines, etc.) Hence I also oppose changing any aspect of the UI unless there are clear benefits for readers. --Philcha (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The layout is functional, easy and good. But the color scheme is very, very, ugly. We need aesthetics too.  Marlith (Talk)  00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this Count Blofeld 12:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article mentioned above was from April 8, 2006 (from a presentation Jason Scott Sadofsky gave at the hacker convention Notacon) - things have changed a bit since then (amboxes, popularity, cleanup). More importantly, the last Main Page redesign ended in March 2006, and the main page looked like this until March 19 (when it was changed to this). I doubt he wrote his presentation in the intervening two weeks...
• The box above has poor accessibility and is aesthetically ugly - the color doesn't match anything else in use on Wikipedia, and gives a low contrast with the text (making it hard for some people with vision or screen problems to read).
• The portals themselves are of debatable utility - they tend to get constructed and then forgotten about. I'd prefer for them to be removed altogether (as mentioned numerous times previously by myself and others). Using something like {{Contents pages (header bar)}} instead, or as a starting point, makes more sense. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Main Page formatting

I've borrowed and changed some of the code from Dudemanfellabra's proposal to make the proposal look more like the actual main page. The code moves the page up so the header and slogan aren't visible, and mimics a white background. Sorry for the mass of edits trying to perfect the numbers. Pretzels^Talk! 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Can you show us the link?  Marlith (Talk)  00:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh... it's this article haha.. at the top, click the "project page" tab. This is the talk page of that article. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I like knowing that I've actually arrived at the MPRP rather than the current main page in that I can simply spot the title. The administrators applied their own custom code, my assumption is display:none for the header. I'm against applying a relative position for the main page for two reasons: when we export it to the current we'd want to remove it, which can be a hassle; and second it cuts the left border of the content module. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

...You just removed the code in one edit. How is that a hassle? I didn't have a problem with the left border, but if there is a problem (which browser are you in?), it can be fixed simply by modifying margins. The code makes the page look more like it will look when/if we copy it over. I've readded the code (modified a little) and added a banner across the top of the page so people don't get confused. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a collapsible header, which should satisfy everyone. It is displayed by default. Pretzels^Talk! 12:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it looks too much like the current page but with things moved around and resized! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify Highfields, and I think you're getting into another topic; we'll probably run that one later. Dudemanfellbra, I'm using Google Chrome, which uses web-kit as its rendering engine. I think it's essential that we match the background colour with that of the current main page (project pages use an offwhite, the main page uses pure white) so that we are sure to get the colours right when we're experimenting; this works in your favor. But my argument is we'll have to cut some of that code out when we export it in the final draft, because the real main page has their own custom features that allows the cut the header without going to the measures we are invoking. I'm sorry if the revert was too extreme, and the hassle is in that in the argument above. I think it's more ammendable if we separate the code that is the draft and that of the proposal (porposal, header, so on). I've applied the patch. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG. All these months of discussion and thats what you're proposing? Hardly a change Count Blofeld 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look through all the discussion on this page, we're discussing tons more.. such as white backgrounds on dynamic sections, creating a completely new header, changing the color scheme and possibly including gold for featured content, and many other things. We're in the discussion stage right now, though, so we can all come to a consensus as to what exactly we want. If you read the box at the top of the proposal page, you will see it says discuss everything before editing; that's what we're doing. The current state of the proposal page is by no means our final design. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible section headers

Seeing this sandbox of the main page, I was inspired to give more focus to one box. Instead of using five separate section headers (TFA, ITN, etc.), there could be one box where TFA is now and five section header rollover links in a box to the right. This may seem out of place for an encyclopedia but I see many key benefits to structure the main page in this way:

• Users have a chance to see all five sections at the top. No scrolling is needed and users are more likely to interact with this dynamic content.
• There is more room to display static links (like portals or help) outside the main box that contains the five sections.
• The text could be enlarged (as seen here.)
• Because of the larger box, the featured picture section would double in dimension.

There are also potential problems with this idea:

• I don't think MediaWiki is ready for mouseover reactions.
• Some may see this change as morphing Wikipedia into a portal site. This feature is simply meant to improve use of screen space.

I don't want to develop this idea too much until I have a general understanding of what the community thinks. Reactions? --Blackjack48  ♠^t ♣^c 02:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a little unclear as to what you're proposing, but you mean one section at a time fills the entire space, right? Yeah, it's probably too advanced to be implemented technically. But if someone can help BlackJack sandbox it, I'll certainly consider it. (Sandboxing gives us a concrete idea of what we're dealing with, and proves that the technicals are feasible.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how it would be implemented...but it does sound good. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)