Wikipedia talk:Contents: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 75: Line 75:


:'''Oppose''' "Contents" conveys the meaning of the page adequately. Renaming the page to "knowledge hub" is unnecessary and would frankly be a waste of time. [[User:Macbrew|Macbrew]] ([[User talk:Macbrew|talk]]) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' "Contents" conveys the meaning of the page adequately. Renaming the page to "knowledge hub" is unnecessary and would frankly be a waste of time. [[User:Macbrew|Macbrew]] ([[User talk:Macbrew|talk]]) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' sounds a lot like a marketing buzz word, whereas contents describes it better. [[User:Zippybonzo (alt)|[[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] &#124&#59; [[User talk:Zippybonzo|alt]] &#124&#59; he/she/they]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo (alt)|talk]]) 08:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:30, 7 September 2023

Wikipedia milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Redesigning this page

I think that this page should be redesigned to look more like a table of contents page. This page is more about a table of contents for multiple tables of contents and I would like to see it look more like a list of articles. Pinging Sdkb to see if he/she has some ideas on what we do to improve the page. Other editors are welcome to comment as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing sounds more like Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews. Overall, it's tricky to ascertain who is ending up at the contents page and how they might best be served. People just don't browse Wikipedia via a table of contents; they almost always have a topic in mind and search for it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: I have made some changes to the contents page. I have put the vital articles on top since they are Wikipedia's most important articles. What do you think of the design so far? Do you think it could be improved to serve most readers? You said that readers come here for all different reasons and was wondering how we could improve the page. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Beat/the evidences

Bassline Boys attracted controversy, on the other hand, with their single Warbeat (1989), which sampled the voice of Adolf Hitler. Rhythm Device single Acid Rock (1989). Click on the links (evidences). "Warbeat" is a 1989 new beat song by the Belgian electronic music group and new beat band Bassline Boys. Frank De Wulf (Rhythm Device) was born in 1968 as the youngest of three sons. His brothers introduced him to new music and soon he started to create his first tape mixes. In the 1980s, he had his own radio show, Seventh Heaven Radio. In 1985, he began working for SIS radio. He also had his first jobs as resident DJ in two clubs in Gent. When New Beat became popular in Belgium around 1988 De Wulf started to produce his own tracks. One of his first hits was the 12" Acid Rock which he released with his project Rhythm Devic Luckal5962 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign

@Moxy: I think this redesign has potential (and I would appreciate attempts to improve instead of immediately wiping it off after 5 minutes ). I think css could be added that adapts the table somehow so that it stacks vertically (with one table cell per row), for example, what the Main Page and WP:CBB do on mobile. Do you think this solution would be acceptable? Do you have any other issues with this design you'd like to air? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is now implemented using display:table-row;. See the two subpages here (1,2) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Gallery that causes side scrolling or mass mobile scrolling to reach information as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images. Page should be as simple as possible. Last thing we need is a nav aid page to be a scrolling nightmare. As we know most only scroll ONE time and if all they see is a few images each scroll (or next page button) they will move on and not get the info they need data. KISS principle should apply to our help pages Wikipedia:Help Project/Guidelines. Moxy- 16:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery navigation recently added to Wikipedia:Contents I feel adds a bunch of needless clutter to the page. Sure it may look nice, but it doesn't help with navigation all too much. In fact, I would even say that it hinders navigation more than it does to aid it (especially on low-res displays). Macbrew (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2023

Requested move 5 September 2023

Wikipedia:Contents → Wikipedia:Knowledge hub – I feel like that the title of "Contents" doesn't give a good overview of what this page is about. The title of "Knowledge hub" would be a much better title so that people are more inclined to explore this page. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed Wikipedia:Knowledge hub is so obscure its not even a blue redirect. KISS principle .... lets keep this were people can actually find it.Moxy- 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Knowledge hub seems too gimmicky, contents is simpler and a better name. ULPS (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While "knowledge hub" sounds fancier, the title "Contents" describes this page concisely and accurately. I would not be able to tell what "Knowledge hub" does from reading the title alone, but I can from "contents". I don't think this change is necessary. Ca talk to me! 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider a title like WP:Resource center. Interstellarity (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all the above opposition. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As someone trying to understand the topic structure of WP calling this page Contents is useful (and has a well-known meaning) while knowledge hub is much less clear. Providing a structured outline of content within WP should be the aim as far as possible. Probably a specialist use but still very helpful for those that need it. Amanda Lawrence 11:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Contents" conveys the meaning of the page adequately. Renaming the page to "knowledge hub" is unnecessary and would frankly be a waste of time. Macbrew (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sounds a lot like a marketing buzz word, whereas contents describes it better. [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] | [[User talk:Zippybonzo|alt]] | he/she/they (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents&oldid=1174254680"