Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal
![]() | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Following a discussion on Talk:Main Page, a competition for redesigning the Main Page has been proposed. The Main Page was last redesigned in March of 2006 (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page) and some editors would like to solicit ideas for a potential redesign.
Some reasons why a change might be a good idea:
- 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- It is outdated in parts.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.
Wikipedians can submit proposals using a subpage of this page, for example Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Username, then adding it to the relevant section below based using {{subst:MPRP|subpagename}}. After an as yet undetermined period of time, some method will be developed so that the community may determine which is the best design and whether it should replace the current design. At this point, the process is in a very preliminary phase. Please discuss on the talk page.
Any designs that are identical to the current design aren't needed, as there will be an option to vote for the current design.
Note:Do not create sub pages from your proposals. Instead, create them in your userspace (e.g. User:Example/POTD).
|
Submissions
Tweaks of the current page
These designs have the same general layout of the current main page, but with different styling:
AMK152
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Portal columns are too small in 800 x 600, causing the image and the portal name to be split over two lines in some cases. MER-C 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Calibas
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Sorry, but no on the smiley. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what I thought - "ummm, no". MER-C 12:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry, but no smiley. Jonathan speak out 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ishikawa Minoru
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Same as AMK152 (above), but slightly worse. MER-C 07:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Jackl
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Same as AMK152. MER-C 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Now broken at 1280 x 960. MER-C 12:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Two In the news sections is a tad much. SpencerT♦C 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Lights
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
- Green text may cause problems for the color blind. MER-C 12:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
MZMcBride
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- FWIW, it looks equally good on FF3, IE, Windows Safari, Maxthon and SeaMonkey, at screen widths of 800 to 1680. user:Everyme 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
- Emphasises written text over gratuitous shiny and colorful graphical elements, thereby both conveying the spirit of the project and better fulfilling its function by omitting a never-recurring and thus unuseful color scheme.
Cons:
- Bland colour scheme
Comments:
- I love it. This is the best proposal, bar none. user:Everyme 17:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Love it! Best one yet. No extraneous pictures, finally! Lunakeet 19:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- love this proposal content and alignment. Can improve colour scheme to something a little more attention grabbing. --Wiki Roxor (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- But why make it attention grabbing? Let's let the reader decide, they will read and follow their intellectual interest. Also, the color distinction currently used, while not particularly harmful in any way (as opposed to, say, image icons in the titlebars and all such glittery stuff), signify nothing of use to the reader. 78.34.138.100 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) = user:Everyme
Based on the current page
These designs are similar to the current page, but with significant differences, such as content rearranged:
Juliancolton
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. MER-C 07:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments: Contrast in this piece is quite stunning. --Zblewski (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There are now two search boxes if we choose this one. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Highfields
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
5theye
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
88wolfmaster
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
*Looks ugly with all that white space under POTD at 800 x 600. MER-C 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments: Suggest moving some content under the sister projects and moving the projects to the bottom. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco5
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK however the columns don't line up vertically at 800 x 600. MER-C 08:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Aquillyne
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Artyom
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. POTD is marginal. MER-C 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)- Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out to me. I had to remove the "Community portal" link from under the Welcome message, as it is already linked in the left navigation panel. Would've been even better if we could move the "Site news" link from there to the left nav - I have never seen/used it before, but found it pretty useful. ARTYOM 01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- POTD still looks like a fairly tight squeeze - could you try it with a wider image such as this one? MER-C 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. I put that image in the POTD and set its width to 300px. I guess we could go with that width, doesn't look bad at 800x600 resolution. ARTYOM 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- POTD still looks like a fairly tight squeeze - could you try it with a wider image such as this one? MER-C 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments: There are now two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Blackhole77
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Excessively large header causes significant horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600 and takes up the whole screen. POTD looks silly at this resolution. MER-C 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
CrazyChemGuy
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 12:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Pretty good! ≈ MindstormsKid 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Eitch
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Hereford
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Significant borkage at 800 x 600: {{cent}} overlays portals and other areas, POTD looks whacked and dead space. MER-C 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- rm {{cent}} --HereFordPublic 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments: There are two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hereford (2)
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. MER-C 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Five Fifteen
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Onecanadasquarebishopsgate
NOTE: I have updated the design slightly on 18th July, all comments made on screen settings before the 18th July may no longer apply. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Significant horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600.MER-C 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. My comment below still stands. MER-C 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Not that Similar to main pageElectrical Experiment 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I find those color boxes look *really* tacky. TFA and OTD are surrounded by heaps of dead space at 1280 x 960, the dark blue blob should be centered and read less like a promotional. The bullets are indistinguishable against the blue background. MER-C 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is "consensus" misspelled? I can't remember where I saw that on there. CCG (T-C) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Red Thunder
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. Java required. MER-C 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- I don't agree with having sounds in the header. Firstly, our OggHandler doesn't make it obvious what those little grey buttons do or that Java is required for it to function properly. Firefox users would get a nasty hanging surprise when they click on them because OJI is teh suxxor (I'm not sure about the new interface). And besides, not everyone has Java (configured/enabled) for internet browsing. MER-C 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like the fact that FLs are (finally) being put on the main page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
RyRy
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- POTD (22 August) breaks at 800 x 600. MER-C 07:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- I absolutely love how the DYK and ITN sections switched places! —Animum (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) I actually think DYK is more looked at then ITN, so a switch would make users and others look at them more. Seemed like a good idea for me. ;) -- RyRy (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nice one, RyRy5!! I love the navigation bar design! Keep up the good work ;-). doña macy [talk] 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Macy, but my username is just RyRy, not RyRy5. ;) -- RyRy (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- This one is impressive! I think the Image:Wbar purple.jpg is unnecessary. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ryan
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- DYK header looks borked to me. shoy (reactions) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments: Why is it that all the main sections have an image next to it, except WP:DYK? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Scottydude
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Breaks with lots of dead space at 800 x 600. MER-C 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Scottydude (2)
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Same as Scottydude (1). MER-C 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
SusanLesch
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Search bar overlays user links ("my talk, my preferences, ...") and parts of the tabs at 800 x 600. It also is non-functional, but I suspect it is a placeholder. MER-C 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- MER-C, thanks for looking. Yes it's a placeholder. I don't see any support for tweaking static content or for moving search to the top. So count my blessings, they moved the search box up a section which was a great improvement. SusanLesch (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
SusanLesch 2
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Same as SusanLesch (1) above. MER-C 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Tlogmer
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600, but no other borkage. MER-C 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
- Green text could be a problem for color blind people. MER-C 11:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Wintran
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Zrs 12
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- POTD borkage, horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. MER-C 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
- POTD too small, caption takes up more space than the picture. Can be fixed by having the picture over the caption with increased resolution, but there may be problems with panoramas. MER-C 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Xenus
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600, no other borkage. MER-C 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Significantly different
These designs are somewhat similar to the current page, but with major differences, such as additional content:
AndonicO
Withdrawn, see [1]. |
---|
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros: Cons:
Comments:
|
CRGreathouse
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- The borders between the top four elements should be horizontally aligned, which would eliminate dead space beneath TFA at 1280 x 960. Swap GA and POTD - POTD needs the space more than GA. Icon for featured list needs changing. I'd also swap sounds and lists. MER-C 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ChyranandChloe
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Dudemanfellabra
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- In 800 x 600, the caption for POTD is larger than the picture. MER-C 08:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Five Fifteen 2
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- "Portals" should be vertically aligned to the top and DYK shouldn't be centered. MER-C 10:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Gnangarra
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros: Multiple TFA's
Cons: concern over 3 column section, at 800x600 resolution or less
- This one isn't too bad at 800 x 600, although the line wrapping on the first TFA is ugly. MER-C 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Hazelorb
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
- POTD far too small, the caption is bigger than the (featured) picture. MER-C 11:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Ikzing
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Dead space under "On this day" at 1280 x 960 but can be fixed by shunting sounds and lists up and expanding POTD to width=100%. I'd advise against sounds because there's only 18 featured sounds and that number isn't going to change particularly quickly. MER-C 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
JoeSmack
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600, POTD marginal, followed vertically by a large blank. MER-C 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
LaraLove
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- I don't think you're going to get the geolocation thing - it disrupts caching = massive server load, plus all the requests to an external geolocation database (I wonder if they can handle it). I suspect a WONTFIX from the devs. MER-C 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment on that. I figured it wouldn't be doable, but I figured I'd put the idea out there just in case, as it would be handy. A lot of people commented that the main page is too amateur. I figured this would help jazz it up. :) LaraLove|Talk 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- A tweaked version of this is now used on Simple English Wikipedia. Jennavecia (Talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Mangler13
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- POTD is teh borked at 800 x 600, and it isn't a panorama. MER-C 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Miserlou
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- For the typical reader, "highlighted" is synonymous with "featured", which can lead to problems. There's a lot of dead space under "on this day" at 1280 x 960, but this can be nuked by shrinking the over-sized portal icons. I don't particularly like POTD being right at the bottom, but then again I'm extremely partial in this area. MER-C 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Nat/Alpha
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Bad line wrapping on TFA, POTD is of marginal width and dead space problems at 800 x 600. MER-C 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Nat/Beta
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- While the three column layout doesn't break outright, it does get quite ugly at 800 x 600 - the columns go out of whack because POTD is too small. I suspect a panorama might just push it over the edge into a horizontally scrolling abyss. There's also significant dead space. MER-C 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nat/Gamma
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
- Lots of wasted space in the "Portals"/"Sister Projects" sections. At 1440×900, about 1/6 of total space (or 1/5 of usable space) is blank. According to User:MER-C (below), there is also dead space at 800×600. We shouldn't crowd all available space, but there seems to be a lot of importance given to the stuff on the right. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
- There's some weirdness at the bottom of the right hand column. At 800 x 600 there's also some dead space in that column. Can you provide another POTD so we can assess how this design fares with wide images? MER-C 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Polishname
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- In 800 x 600, the second column is only a couple of inches wide and the first is marginal, probably because POTD is too small. Fine in 1280 x 960. MER-C 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Pro bug catcher
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- "A multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia..." is a sentence fragment. That said, I have no other gripes. Definitely a contender, well done. MER-C 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Soxred93
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- There's the potential here for some suckage on lower resolutions when POTD throws up a wide image. How does this design handle such images? MER-C 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Trevor MacInnis
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- POTD (July 15) crappiness at 1280 x 960, and it isn't even a panorama. POTD template needs a redesign to always have caption under text, but even then it's too small. MER-C 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
WBOSITG
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Featured portals are that important? POTD is way too small, the caption currently takes up more space than the picture. Dead space in the lower right corner at 1280 x 960 can be eliminated by moving FPo down, splitting the right column under OTD and filling the gap with POTD. (And no, I wouldn't use a point and shoot camera as the icon for POTD.) MER-C 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- To answer in order: Yes, they are - they are one of the most overlooked areas of Wikipedia and displaying them prominently should spark interest in this area. I simply used the POTD template currently used on the Main Page - a new layout would be needed to make the caption less prominent. I will promptly fix the remaining two issues. Thank you for your input into my design. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree - 20% of all portals being featured != overlooked. Going back on topic, the dead space problem is fixed. One more issue - I had a look at it in 800 x 600 and there was horizontal scrolling, which was introduced in this diff. MER-C 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but we only have 500 portals - we could use many more. They are a great way to display information on one subject graphically. I'll try to get rid of the horizontal scrolling. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree - 20% of all portals being featured != overlooked. Going back on topic, the dead space problem is fixed. One more issue - I had a look at it in 800 x 600 and there was horizontal scrolling, which was introduced in this diff. MER-C 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Wintran 2
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- I guess this could be said for both Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 2 and Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 3 (And 4), I think that there should be more of a description for featured articles. Just the short summary of them seems to make them boring to me. Soley for Wintran 2, I don't like that there isn't a WP:DYK on the main page, as that is one of the main 3 things I look at every time I come to wikipedia, the Featured Article, DYK, and News/Recent Deaths. I also feel there is tons of blank space everywhere. No offense, but I am not liking this one too much. Good work though. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very insufficient space for POTD implies this is a non-starter. The small size is self-defeating - they're *featured* pictures hence we want to see the details without squinting. And besides, panoramas won't fit. MER-C 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's also unsustainable because the FP promotion rate is between 1 and 2 per day. Please don't burn me out. MER-C 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. The point was to include featured pictures from a few days before as thumbnails below the current featured picture, so the update rate would remain the same. However, I believe the POTD section to be the weakest part in my design, and the one I gave the least time, so please don't pay too much attention to it, or tell me how you'd like me to improve it. I'll give it some work when I get more time. - Wintran (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's also unsustainable because the FP promotion rate is between 1 and 2 per day. Please don't burn me out. MER-C 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's a severe problem, there was horizontal scrolling (not good) at 800 x 600 and if that was fixed then POTD width would be very marginal. I think the current way of displaying POTD works best - the ones that don't allocate 100% width to POTD tend to break. I recommend you set your display to 800 x 600 and have a poke around with your designs. MER-C 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wintran 3
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Same as Wintran 2. MER-C 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wintran 4
Browser/screen resolution compatibility: 1280 x 800 (checked by JoeSmack Talk)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Same as Wintran 2. MER-C 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Alvaro_qc
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- The style here is generally inconsistent, especially between the two columns. Rounded rectangles in right column are unclosed, which looks bad. POTD is marginal. There exists significant dead space under "other languages" at 800 x 600. MER-C 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Done the dead space and the POTD, About the "rounded rectangles", I like how they look. Alvaro qc (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've only changed the problem - now the picture is smaller than the caption. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is because it has the exact size so it will fit perfectly in 800x600 resolution, and I don't think so it is too small, it has the same size as the POTD of french, italian, portuguese and spanish wikipedias. Alvaro qc (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've only changed the problem - now the picture is smaller than the caption. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
MindstormsKid
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 1280 x 1024 with Firefox is good. (checked by Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! at 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC))
- 1280 x 960, 800 x 600 OK, though there might be a few problems hidden under other featured content. Columns seem a shade too small. MER-C 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- The bright colors (red, teal, and lime especially) kind of hurt my eyes. Maybe just because I'm in a dark room. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Ow, my virgin eyes. MER-C 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Full redesigns
These designs are almost completely different from the current page layout:
EricV89
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
- Incomplete. MER-C 11:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Futurebird
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- Should be a great candidate for a minimalist design intended for dial-up/fraudband/mobile users, but the casual user might find it a bit boring. There's also a large amount of dead space under "sister projects" that padding DYK cannot hope to cover at 1280 x 960, which can be eliminated by shortening the interwiki list or adding something else. MER-C 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr Grim Reaper
Design deleted
|
---|
Browser/screen resolution compatibility: Pros: Cons: Comments:
|
Pretzels
Browser/screen resolution compatibility: Coded in percentages - adjustable width and text size. Pretzelschatters 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- I like the "advanced search" link, but it's a pity the feature is so crappy. DYK is only one line, are you going rotate these randomly? POTD is a shade too small, it needs width=100% for wide images. I'd swap TFA and the ITN/OTD amalgram and rename "areas of study" to something else ("portals", perhaps?). MER-C 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Renamed Areas of Study"" to "Topic Portals" - it's important we don't assume non-wikipedians will know what a Wikipedia portal is.
- Many people have said POTD needs to be 100% for panoramas - if you look back at the featured picture archive, there are next to no panoramas so it would be foolish to misdesign the Main Page soley for their sake.
- The idea of the DYK is that it changes every day, as consensus was that many of DYK's facts were obscure and uninteresting. This way we should be able to find one good fact p/day.
- Re swapping Best of Wikipedia and the Today section: the featured articles' subjects are likely to be of no interest to many users. A selection of news points, however, are more likely to have wide appeal. Also, the Best of Wikipedia box is very text-heavy and quite a lump to read, as opposed to Today, which is bullet points with a large graphic. Thanks for your points! Pretzelschatters 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- POTD breaks at 800 x 600, that's why it's too small. MER-C 03:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the comment "if you look back at the featured picture archive, there are next to no panoramas ... so it would be foolish to misdesign the Main Page soley for their sake": Even one featured panorama image such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and that may be enough to break the design on your current proposal, especially on an 800x600. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Panoramas can be thumbnailed, or a middle section selected. We have to remember this is just a promotion of a picture, not the actual picture page. Anyhow, less than 1% of internet users use 800 x 600, and the layout doesn't break, the image just gets neatly cropped. Pretzelschatters 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the comment "if you look back at the featured picture archive, there are next to no panoramas ... so it would be foolish to misdesign the Main Page soley for their sake": Even one featured panorama image such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and that may be enough to break the design on your current proposal, especially on an 800x600. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- "This is [...] a promotion of a picture" therefore you should show the entire picture. You also have vastly underestimated the amount of users on 800 x 600, see my comment under AndonicO above. A 20% crop on a typical 4:3 picture due to design constraints is unacceptable, and reducing the thumbnail size causes the caption to be larger than the picture and/or making people with higher resolutions squint to see the detail. MER-C 08:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect! A very eye-catching design. However, I'd like to comment that the header is a little too plain and could really use some improvement. 206.188.48.230 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a fantastic design - fresh, eye-catching, easy to use and enticing for the new reader. I agree with the point above about Fact of the Day though - maybe this could be expanded? Nice work anyway. Cricketgirl (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
RichardF
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Works fine on 1024x768.-Wafulz (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
- Makes use of all featured content. Good width.-Wafulz (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Cons:
- Content doesn't start til halfway down the screen. Featured topic probably should be nested boxes.-Wafulz (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think that its fine. Featured content should be pimped, after all. FTs especially are difficult to achieve.--haha169 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant that featured topics shouldn't be a nested box.
- I actually think that its fine. Featured content should be pimped, after all. FTs especially are difficult to achieve.--haha169 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- When you templated the New York State Route FT, you brought over its category as well. Is this main page proposal supposed to be part of Category: Featured topics? --haha169 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- All the featured sections are a bit messy, and very long. Also many colours. Pretzelschatters 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
- This design simply is a Frankensteinish proof-of-concept for The two-part Main Page proposal. "The encyclopedia" page uses the tabbed intro structure from Portal:Science, the features structure from Portal:Featured content and the remaining structures from the current Main Page. "The project" page basically is a placeholder that shows the types of pages that could be summarized there, similar to Portal:Contents. RichardF (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- My favourite one so far.-Wafulz (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This is the best by far. --haha169 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- FT could do with a bit of context, in the form of two or so sentences from the lead article. How often are you going to update the other featured content? Portals (123 and approaching saturation), topics (47) and sounds (18) cannot sustain daily updates. MER-C 07:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- First, shouldn't the comma at the end of "Welcome to Wikipedia" be removed? It seems a bit strange. I don't like that "In the news" is buried way down on the page - I'd rather have that farther up, like where it is now. I would also like it if the portal links could be collapsed, which would give more room for other content. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
RichardF2
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
- Similar to the one above, but very thorough "The Community" section. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Cons:
Comments:
- This design is a variation of the above RichardF proposal. This one is The encyclopedia - community two-part Main Page proposal. "The encyclopedia" page for the two proposals is the same. Here, "The community" page is based on the Wikipedia:Community Portal. It has some enhancements summarized at the above link and its talk page. RichardF (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Same comments as for RichardF above -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Scolaire
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- Breaks at 800 x 600 with portal bullets over search button and horizontal scrolling. MER-C 05:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would be grateful if anybody can fix this - I have no technical savvy. Scolaire (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The most obvious way to do it would be to shorten the search box - a width of 50 means one can fit 50 instances of the letter n in there and search queries that long are rare. MER-C 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, done that. And changed portals from three columns to two. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- One last thing: the inner border cuts across the search button, which can be fixed by making the relevant div bigger. MER-C 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still don't speak the lingo. How do you make the relevant div bigger? Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like this. You're good to go. MER-C 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks :-) Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like this. You're good to go. MER-C 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still don't speak the lingo. How do you make the relevant div bigger? Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- One last thing: the inner border cuts across the search button, which can be fixed by making the relevant div bigger. MER-C 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, done that. And changed portals from three columns to two. Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- The most obvious way to do it would be to shorten the search box - a width of 50 means one can fit 50 instances of the letter n in there and search queries that long are rare. MER-C 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would be grateful if anybody can fix this - I have no technical savvy. Scolaire (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
- Simple and user-centered. futurebird (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Cons:
Comments:
- A search box is unneccessary; there's already one on the left side in the MonoBook skin. ♫Deathgleaner 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Tabbed
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
- 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- While I do like the idea of tabs, I'm not certain that it would be feasible to have four different "main pages." —Animum (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like the tabs too but takes too long to load and makes viewers get annoyed or irritated. —voxdafox (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
TakuyaMurata
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/TakuyaMurata
- It still requires more refinement and filling details, but I hope you get the general idea. I'm not good at the web design, and so if you think you can improve it, that would be nice.
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Kollision
Browser/screen resolution compatibility: In the default layout, the minimum horizontal resolution is ~680px. In the No sidebar layout, the minimum horizontal resolution is ~580px. There is also a dual column layout feature which users with higher resolutions can select.
Pros: See talk page for detailed walkthrough of proposal. - kollision (talk)
- Hide or close individual elements
- Several choices of layouts
- Friendlier to newcomers
- Portals
- Bigger search bar
- Encyclopedia and Project side by side - kollision (talk)
Cons:
- Requires Javascript and Cookies turned on for advanced features. Default layout will always work perfectly fine though. - kollision (talk)
- You need JavaScript and cookies to log in anyway, so this isn't really a problem. What is a problem, however, is that
in POTD the caption is much larger than the picture.MER-C 11:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)- ... the search box goes all weird at 800 x 600. MER-C 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You need JavaScript and cookies to log in anyway, so this isn't really a problem. What is a problem, however, is that
Comments:
Kpalion
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Kpalion
- The page consists of three tabs labeled with the parts of Wikipedia's welcome slogan: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The first, "Welcome to Wikipedia" looks most familiar – it retains the main features of the current Main Page: Today's FA, ITN, DYK, OTD and POTD plus links to other featured content. The second, perhaps most important, tab, "The free encyclopedia", explains that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and offers various ways of finding information in WP. It's the most static sub-page save for the random featured portal. This is deliberate: the goal is to make searching and browsing as easy as possible. Finally, the third tab, "That anyone can edit", is about WP as a community of contributors. It's purpose it not only to attract newcomers, but to be useful for long-time editors as well.
- I didn't pay as much attention to aesthetics as to functionalty, but I used the one of already proposed schemes which I liked most. I thinks it's elegantly simple, readable, doesn't use a whole palette of bland pastel colors like the current design does, and the only flashy element is the Wikipedia Ad on the third tab. I used templates created by two other users: Kevin baas and RichardF. See User:Kpalion/2008 main page redesign proposal for a complete structure of the proposed design. — Kpalion(talk) 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
Ric36
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Ric36
- I introduced new content like the Motto of the Day and the Tip of the Day.
Browser/screen resolution compatibility:
Pros:
Cons:
Comments:
- No real content in the first screen at 800 x 600 (you have to scroll down), general borkage around POTD, JPEG artifacts visible in the banner. And the people who responded to the survey disagree with you relating to (Motto|Tip) of the Day. MER-C 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions
These are not actual designs, but design plans, suggestions, or unfinished designs:
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Casliber
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Chexmix53
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Deathgleaner
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/IMatthew
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/LesleyAnnWarren
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Morrismaciver
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Rueben lys
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Yaki-gaijin
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/jc37
- Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/MySurvivorPartay