Wikipedia talk:Main Page (2016 redesign)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Like it, but needs some improvements

I actually really like this new style, but the fact that it's less compact than the original layout kinda makes it... Different? I don't know how to explain this, but it feels right but feels not quite right at the same time. Dakar (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Some Styling Suggestions

The borders and the shadows looks like the page is not modern, outdated and stuck a few years in the past. I have a few suggestions, in terms of the styling.

For the borders, I suggest remove the perspective-lighting and unify its colors. It is an old trend of the web and not used anymore, having it in a 2015 redesign makes the page looks old, outdated and distracts from the text, contrary to the content, which is always updated and modern. Therefore, I think that the color of the border should be unified.

For the background color of the boxes, it may look better if lightened, increasing the contrast between the background and the text, making them more readable so that people are more likely to read them.

For the headings, there are two emphasis on them - text shadow and colored background. Although the text shadow is very weak, one emphasis is enough in my opinion, hence I think removing the text shadow behind the headings would look better. Emphrase (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you like, you can change something, it is an open project. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

@Илья Драконов: Because I have to edit a protected CSS file, I am looking for a consensus here, and I'm also interested in if anyone would suggest otherwise. Emphrase 14:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, if you ask for my opinion, I don't mind. Let's see what others say about it. Best regards, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

In my opinion. I think these styles enhance the page. They are so subtle they can hardly be noticed. Yet they do provide some 'softening' to take of the edges form the design. Your proposal basically only argues that the use of common CSS3 effects is "outdated". Any new CSS property will see some overuse, but that is certainly not the case here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with some of them, but the different border colors (top & left lighter than the right & bottom) certainly isn't new in CSS3 and is a gimmick that is outdated. Think about how old-style <table> elements used to look like with the perspective lighting borders, and yet in the last couple of years or so they are no where to be seen, since it adds unnecessary visual distractions and not modern. Hence out of all the suggestions, I strongly feel that it should be changed, but it's still up for discussion and I'm open to suggestions. Emphrase 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly perspective lighting effects may sometimes be overused with the consequence of producing an antiquated appearance (but of course, without the knowledge-base of a major web graphics authority to give decisive comment on this, we are entertaining matters more of taste). That being said, I find them subtle enough that they lend themselves more towards enhancing the present design's modernity than creating an 'outdated' appearance.UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankt. Using CSS3, I could have made gradient borders (actually tried it) but I felt that was a step too far. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed –– what you have here gives it dimensionality without going over-the-top.UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there shadowing on the header text?

I can't tell, but if there is, I don't think it looks too good with the color gradient thingy. It seems rather blurry. Eman235/talk 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you can't tell if it's there or not, how can you tell if it looks bad? :) But yes, there is a very subtle shadow which is intended to soften the headers a bit. Though the gradients should not affect them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

They look a bit blurry to me. Eman235/talk 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you make s screenshot? It's hard to tell if you see the intended effect, or if there is something wrong. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Where should I upload, to Commons? Anyway, I might add that zooming in reduces the problem, maybe because the gradient is more extreme. At 100% I see a bar about 10½", while at 150% it is reduced to 9¾. Eman235/talk 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: Can you clarify what do you mean by "soften"? Emphrase 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please unbury the formatting

When you click on the link for the redesign, the formatting is gone.

But when you activate the formatting as a gadget in preferences, the Main Page itself disappears.

We should fix this so that you don't have to sacrifice the current Main Page in order to look at this one. And so that a simple link to the redesign works (showing formatting and all).

Also, the formatting (markup) should be located on the redesign draft page, so it is easily accessible to editors who would like to edit it. It can be transferred to Common.css after the draft has been approved by the community. The Transhumanist 12:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_(2015_redesign)?withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.css whenever you want to see the new design; it's not necessary to edit your preferences. Btw, this is the first I've seen of the new design. Since I work with TFA, I'm biased, and I won't weigh in, except to say that the change isn't as big a deal as some are making it, because TFA is already the only section at the top for a large majority of our viewers (who increasingly use the mobile view). I note the comment above from 21 July (at #Featured Article); if we make TFA twice as wide for non-mobile viewers, then we'll have to talk about whether we still want multiple lines for links below the TFA text (particularly if there's a Featured Topic, which we've always used a third line for). I'll go along with whatever people want, and we can talk about this before or after the change, if any. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is now a link on top of this talk page that will take you to the old page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Process questions

Sorry for coming to the party late, but I just now became aware of this design effort via this post. Can someone direct me to where I can read up on the background of this project, or is this page it? I have a few questions:

• Is this an "official" redesign that's going to replace the Main Page, or is it an editor-based proposal that will seek to gain consensus?
• Has a user-centered design process been followed here or is this just presumptive design? (persona and use case development, formative user testing, requirements gathering, etc.)
• If a user-centered design process, where can we access the documentation?

I do have comments to offer but the answers to these questions will inform my feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on this design since 2013. You can look up any old discussion on Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals and the archives of Talk:Main Page. To answer your questions: This is a s official as it gets, seeing as any other concerted effort in the past has died in silence, I decided to "take control". Other proposals were centered on visual design; I decided to incorporate a fundamental restructuring of the underlying HTML to make any desing more responsive (go play with resizing and zooming), and do away with all the tables. I intended to split the discussion up between technical layout and visual design, and while the technical stuff was met with approval, I got less the usable comments on the visual design (which I continue to tweak). So while the current incarnation has been a one-man show, I have taken care to make this page up to date with regards to accessability and responsiveness. I can't say if this fits a 'user-centered' process, but I should document the core element on top of this page (they are in the aformanetioned archives). If you have feedback, please share them! If anything, I crave feedback. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions. I definitely have some feedback, which I am compiling now. I'm glad responsiveness and accessibility have been in mind. The reason I ask about user-centered design is because there's a huge difference between presumptive design (which is defensible only through established design patterns and subjective discussion) and user-centered design (which is defensible through quantitative user data regarding satisfaction, efficiency, and effectiveness). Take the placement of TFA, for example: If I question its placement in the design, you can respond only with your gut ("I felt it should go there") or with some established pattern ("This is known to work on such-and-such site"). With UCD you could quantify it and say we had an increase in user satisfaction/efficiency/effectiveness over the current main page design. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to reading your feedback! That should make for some interesting reading. I am in no way versed in the ways of 'professional' web design; I just know some HTML and CSS. The MediaWiki developers are more knowledgable in user-centered design, and do perforn A/B tests on occasion. But this project as such (meaning Wikipedia in general), does not have such an infrastructure. We can set up RfCs to ask for comments and interpret that as best we can. So this is pretty much presumptive. If you know of any method to engage the community into providing some usefull feedback, then I am really interested in what you have to say. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

This design, for me, looks a bit text-heavy, at least on a desktop browser. I prefer the present arrangement of panels where more visual variety, and usually at least one more picture, is seen above the fold. I would also like to see the "Wikipedia is ..." text condensed slightly, if possible. Otherwise, I think this design is largely an improvement on what we have now. What presently is preventing it from going live? 86.152.161.212 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Because this is just one proposal. -- Taku (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Because need to gather consensus™! That was only partially in jest. Eman235/talk 04:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In jest or not, consensus is preferable. That is not to say that if consensus ammount to "I don't like it" without putting forth some vialble alternative suggestions, it may for instance end up as decision from the Main Page directors, as they are the ones maintaining its content. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An election/discussion was called for the last time we redesigned the Main Page, and a draft was presented to the community to vote upon (and discuss). Over 1,000 editors turned out to vote, and the new draft was elected over the old by a wide margin! The Transhumanist 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

See my reply above. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mobile

I like the idea of refreshing the Main Page, especially I'm reading the main page regularly. Unfortunately, we need to consider the mobile users, which serves more, because there are formatting errors on sections, squeezing together on limited space. Additionally, the article count is not aligned to the paragraph next to it, making the count intermingle with the paragraph. - Gacelisnothing (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The page is responsive to viewport width; you should see the sections stacking below a certain size. Some sections (notably POTD) are still using rigid tables, but that is on my to-do list. I don't see a problem with the article count. Do you have a screenshot? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Subject categories in header

Wikipedia's content system divides knowledge into 11 subjects, plus general reference, for a total of 12 classifications. These have become the standard in all of Wikipedia's navigation subsystems, and are used as their section headings, in their tables of contents, and in the navigation header for each. They are:

Reference  Culture  Geography  Health  History  Mathematics  Nature  People  Philosophy  Religion  Society  Technology

This group of subjects is also displayed, with slight variations, at the top of every portal page:

The current Main Page presents a grid of nine links for portals, limiting it to 8 subjects. But in the redesign it has gone horizontal, providing the possibility for synchronization. The Transhumanist 06:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that is usefull. I agree the Contents portal is more suited for linking from the main page then the current, specific portals. Although those are featured, so I can imagine some protal directors disagreeing, but I believe easy navigation to all content trumps featured status. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I have created an alternative proposal at Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Mrjulesd. Any comments there would be welcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: I greatly prefer that proposal due to the proper placement of DYK, but would it be possible to add some headings with color to make it more visually appealing? Possibly include the icons within a banner of color? ~ Rob^Talk 14:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Very stylish. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That is basically the current main page with some visual changes. It still uses tables, so it is not reponsive to windows size. And I find the design slightly bland. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I think my main comment is I like clean, simple, minimalistic pages, and took Help:Contents as my overall influence.

@BU Rob13: I'm not that keen on coloring headings, as I feel that detracts from the look. I was quite influenced by Help:Contents, with it's clean and simple design, which also does not color headings. Also, all articles within Wikipedia do likewise.

@Dank: thanks for that.

@Edokter: About the use of tables: I've tested it on my system with resolutions between 1920x1080 and 800x600 and it seems to render well, and at least as well as the current main page. Any lower resolutions and they would probably be better off with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . Many help and other pages also use tables, including the current Main Page, Help:Contents, Featured Content, Community Portal, etc. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the mobile version is not that simple; a lot is actually hidden, which is why some prefer the regular main page. One of the main features of my design is the responsive layout which should work on all resolutions. I know tables are used everywhere, but that is because there never was a alternative, now there is. Tables have alwasy been regarded as mobile-unfriendly, so they should not be used for presentation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mobile users will use the mobile view anyway. But I feel this has the right look, at least to my judgment. And renders as well as the current Main Page at different resolutions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This design by Jules has good ideas that should be considered for the main proposal. The Sister Projects layout is superior in design and placement. I also like the use of icons in the headers. I like the title Be an editor from the original proposal, but find the association of Help Us and Other areas of Wikipedia to be a more accurate way of presenting the plan.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: Thanks for your comments. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This design is very nice. Crisp and clean. Further comments:

• I like the short blurb ("The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), because it is more streamlined and feels less bloated than the blurb in the other draft. Quick and to the point. I also feel that the WikiMedia Foundation should not be advertised in the header. It seems crass and commercial, and like it is competing with the Wikipedia Community for attention.
• I very much prefer the way you've presented the subject links in the header in horizontal fashion. This is much better than the matrix of links in the current Main Page's header, because in the horizontal approach the set of links can be more easily expanded or reduced as needed (e.g., to match a standard used throughout WP).
• Concerning the subject selection in the header, I prefer the standard subject links used in Wikipedia's navigation systems (rather than portal links), because they help navigate the encyclopedia as a whole, rather than just one of the navigation subsystems.
• Icons are cool.
• I like the table formatting, because the code works regardless of the way you access it. If the cascading/.css approach is needed, this page's markup code could be converted while retaining the same look and feel.
• I don't see the need for the redundant search box, because the Vector skin presents a search box at the top of every page. Most if not all of the skins feature a search box.
• A tiny bit of color in the headings would be nice, using a fade-out style. I'll see if I can track down an example.
• Most of all, the presentation order of the content is far superior to the other draft. With In the news (ITN) at the top with the Featured article, followed by Did you know (DYK) and On this day (OTD). I also like the way you have the administrative stuff come after the encyclopedia content— this is very appropriate. The Main Page is first and foremost an encyclopedia page—project-oriented material shouldn't be intermixed with article content.

All-and-all very sharp. I like it. The Transhumanist 02:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Thanks for your enlightening comments..

• About the search box: although it is technically redundant, I feel that it has a focusing effect: it encourages search for those who are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia site. The Simple English Wikipedia Main Page also has one, which influenced me [1]. I feel that we are all very familiar with Wikipedia, but the top corner search box might not be apparent to newcomers. Alos if you look at the mobile view it seems to make more sense [2]. But whether to keep it or not should be open to consensus.
• Well I don't think color is necessarily needed, but I'm open to suggestions. The icons do give some color, as well as the photos. I think that we've been conditioned into thinking it necessary by the current (over)-colorful Main Page, but articles don't have it if you ignore infoboxes etc.

Anyway thanks again. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you considered maybe just making the icons different colors? That could provide that little extra variety that makes it look less bland. Yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia rather than an art gallery, but we should still conform to the norms of web design and have at least some color around. ~ Rob^Talk 04:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob:  Done There are now golden icons (changeable content) and blue icons (permanent content). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not an improvement.

Too many different typefaces/styles. The lack of borders for adjacent sections, combined with the use of bullet points and right justification in the same section makes the layout ragged and confusing. Not an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: - Borders and bullet points look ok to me. Have you enabled the gadget? I must admit, though I'm usually averse to change for changes sake, this looks a lot better. I particularly like section 5 - something I've felt should have been on the main page a long time ago. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah - I'd missed that, and assumed that I was looking at the intended result. Is there any way it can be linked so that people can see the new layout without having to change their preferences? It is difficult to make direct comparisons otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The only way to link to the styled version is via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_(2015_redesign)?withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage.css. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this page as is just looks boring. I think accentuating the shadowing and making it more...something...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please restore In the news to the top of the page!

Why? I actually think "in the news" is more important feature. You might argue that Wikipedia is not a news site and Wikinews should be a place where news coverage should go. It is clear by now however that Wikinews has failed to take off and it is Wikipedia where the readers are expecting to see news items. Hence, the design seems to be a step in a wrong direction. -- Taku (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, speaking design-wise, I think we should get rid of "Welcome to Wikipedia". "Welcome to " is an anachronism dating back to 90s. No major sites like Google or New York Times use that any more. (We can still have some heading "Wikipedia".) The design itself is an improvement and I like it better than the current one. -- Taku (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

it is Wikipedia where the readers are expecting to see news items ^{[Citation needed]} I doubt this is the case; we are (as you have noted) not primarily a news site. As I do favor a clutter-free look, I kind of agree with the "Welcome to" comment. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean as opposed to Wikinews. It is true that people often come to Wikipedia on the big events like plane crashes. Despite whatever Wikipedia was initially meant, it's now more than that; the main page needs to reflect this reality. -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, you must discuss it first and then add your changes. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Please put In the news back at the top! I always look at the news items first, as they reflect what is happening in the world right now. That's why I have Wikipedia set as my home page. If you move news down the page, you may lose a lot of home pagers, including me -- all it takes is a click on one's house icon to see if any new major events have happened. I love that convenience, and I don't want to have to scroll down the page to see the news. Let's not decrease public awareness of current events. Besides, two things are better than one. I support keeping In the News at the top, and keeping our readers instantly in the know about what is going on in the world. The Transhumanist 00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, with ITN at the top, the beginning of DYK can be seen without scrolling. Eman235/talk 00:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And you can see On this day too. The Transhumanist 09:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As I'd expect you to know, Wikipedia isn't a news website. If you're relying on its main page "to see if any new major events have happened", you're missing a great deal of coverage. —David Levy 01:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true, I do. And if In the news isn't up there where we can see it, we'll be missing even more. Besides, two things are better than one. Having the news at the top along with the featured article is a plus: better than just the featured article alone. There are those who like one or the other, and there are those who like both. We should please as many readers as possible: more items = more interesting = more reasons for more people to stay and read the page. The Transhumanist 08:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the input above, I moved In the news back to the top. Looks pretty good under that new header. The Transhumanist 09:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, based on the above, I can't see any consensus, and you basically reset the layout to the old one. Undoing for now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, consensus was established in the vote for the current Main Page. There was overwhelming approval for that design and its order of presentation. Over 1,000 editors turned out for that vote. I expect that minor changes like improving the cosmetics of the page will be happily accepted by the masses. But removing In the news from the top, where it has been for many years, will likely be seen as a radical change for a great many dedicated readers. You should probably test the waters and poll the community to ask if they'd like In the news removed from the top of the page to be sure you are creating a draft that will meet with their approval when you present it to them for an official vote. ;) The Transhumanist 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you really going to call on a vote that happend in 2006? By that rationale, we should't change anything, and this page is all for not... I don't think so. This page is here to test and discuss all aspects of the new main page, and when everyone who has something to say about it has siad their part, it will go up. Also, for news, we have WikiNews. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Change is fine, even a change this big, as long as it has community consensus. The last time consensus was reached on the Main Page's design, over 1000 people said their part. That was a pretty good turn out, and a fairly robust cross-section of the editor community. The Transhumanist 17:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That is something that can never happen again; the community has grown too big for that over the past ten years. I'm not seeking "community consensus" (least of all a !vote), but feedback with the goal to deliver a result that everyone can live with. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Only about 1,000 out of 75,000 regular editors showed up. So, if that proportion remains the same for turn out, and we have around 100,000 regular editors now, that means about 1,300 editors would show up. Yeah, we can handle a !vote turnout that big. The Transhumanist 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be opposed from removing 'In the news' from the top of the page. Redesigns that remove features and functionality are generally not "improvements". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd argue that this is a positive change, from a page design standpoint. There are prominent eye-tracking studies that indicate the proposed location is actually more visible than the current location. Additionally, the cleaner design with better use of whitespace makes ITN even more visible. My argument is based on the assumption that the goal isn't to decrease visibility of ITN (which is really a separate discussion). --Laser brain (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The new placement is not so bad when "Today's featured article" section's content is short. Then you can see (more of) In the news. But when it is long, it pushes In the news further down the page, so you see less (or even none?) of it. The Transhumanist 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm actually fine with the current look – what's important to me is that the 'In the news' section doesn't "drop below the fold of the page", even on small monitors and screens... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer this view actually. Ideally, we don't want the "featured article" section to be too long, so I don't see that being too much of an issue, and I think it is much easier and clearer to read. I also think this draws more attention to DYK, which I see as a good thing. Mdann52 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean On this day?   Did you know is much further down the page, so I don't see how this design draws more attention to it. Please elaborate. The Transhumanist 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove "welcome to" and wikipedia isnt a news site and if I got to dexide, I would take out the news section altogether. Tortle (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the above, it is not clear to me which design change one is referring to. I still maintain that going away with the column style is a bad idea; on the desktop computer screen, the text spreads too wide. Also, the column style, obviously, helps us to put more stuff on the top (two instead of one.) I really like the idea of putting "ITN" on the left and "OTD" on the right on the same row; it's conceptually elegant to have the future (news) and the past (OTD) side-by-side. It has been argued that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. While that's certainly correct, the "encyclopedia" here is used in the old sense. In the age of Internet, the term "encyclopedia" acquires new sense and I think news items should be a part of it; it is the new reality that people turn to Wikipedia in the events of earthquakes and mass shootings, since only on Wikipedia you can find a balanced and complete coverage; the traffic spikes are the evidence of the fact that the readers want news. I would thus even propose that we have "ITN" and "OTD" on the first row and then "Featured article" and "Did you know" on the second row since "featured article" is kind of like a magazine-style long piece and it makes sense to place it after news items. -- Taku (talk)

@TakuyaMurata: Here is what that might look like. The Transhumanist 12:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is well known for its coverage of current events. Removing the "In the news" section would decrease the impact of our work. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Banner blurb

The current blurb reads:

Wikipedia is a free, multilingual Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Our goal is to build and maintain an encyclopedia covering all branches of human knowledge.

Any comment and suggestions here please. When directly editing several small edits to the page, it is very hard to track changes and understand the rationale behind them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How about:

Wikipedia is a free, multilingual Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, our goal is to build and maintain an encyclopedia covering all branches of human knowledge.

-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear who "our" refers to. Whose goal? And since the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is the only obvious organization mentioned in the blurb, readers may think the blurb is from the WMF. We know that the WMF doesn't build or maintain the encyclopedia. But does everyone? "Our" pertains to them (everyone).

How about this:

Wikipedia, supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, is a free multilingual Internet encyclopedia that everyone can edit.  Our goal is to build and maintain an encyclopedia covering all branches of knowledge.

Notice that "Our" is linked. I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

When it syas "Supported by the Wikimedia foundation", the message is clear enough to avoid any confusion. "Our" means "Wikipedia's", and by extension, its community. Your version also lacks coherence, as it splits the WMF and the community, while they actually work in concerto, so they should be mentioned in the same sentense. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest going easy on the wikilinks. Too much blue and people just tune it out. We want people to be clicking on "anyone can edit", so I'd be tempted to delink everything else – but at the very least, "free", "multilingual" and "encyclopedia" dont need to be linked. There's also an unnecessary link to English language elsewhere in the banner.

I agree with Edokter that the meaning of "our" is clear when the sentence begins "Supported by...". DoctorKubla (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree about the overlinking. Also too many adjectives. Changed to:

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, our goal is to build and maintain an encyclopedia covering all branches of human knowledge.

-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "Wikipedia" doesn't need to be in the header twice. How about linking the big word, and removing the first two words of the blurb, resulting in this:

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, our goal is to build and maintain an encyclopedia covering all branches of human knowledge.

That shrinks down the blurb a little. The Transhumanist 01:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, that hides the link, which is an accessbility issue. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo

Can someone remove it as there is already the Wikipedia logo on the side bar of every page A8v (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not on every skin though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Alignmen t

The "Wikipedia languages" section is shorter than the "Wikipedia sister projects" section. Eman235/talk 18:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends on window width and how the project icons are stacked (which is dynamic). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So static designs do have pluses... Eman235/talk 21:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Static is never a plus... it causes content not to fit on a small screen. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Static can be a plus for some people, some of the time. But that makes it a "minus", no? Eman235/talk 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We have to make it look right for most as possible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Placing DYK beyond the first page

This redesign completely undermines the purpose of the "Did you know" section. DYK is meant to highlight new content. By placing DYK as low on this page as one possibly can (below featured lists? really?), you're going to half the page views it generates, at least. My recommendation is to restore "In the News" to the top of the page and move DYK back to its proper place on the first screen readers see. Failing that, "On this day" and "Did you know" should be swapped. ~ Rob^Talk 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether you value quality over quantity, at least featured lists have some kind of consensus-based quality control applied. I think people coming to find a quality encyclopedia wouldn't necessarily expect the joke section to be what they see first to honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It places the DYK section significantly lower. I think there's a case to be made for keeping the "featured list" section below the DYK section. The featured list section highlights only one article whereas DYK highlights eight or more new articles. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Joke section"? Seriously? Insulting the work of others - nice. People would certainly expect interesting factual content featured prominently on the main page of an encyclopedia. They may not expect news headlines (In the News), on the other hand. They likely wouldn't expect a feature on an article that exists merely to link to other articles (Featured lists). Looking at "On this day", the case for displaying new content over dated content to emphasize content creation and encourage potential new editors to contribute is obvious. ~ Rob^Talk 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, it's the only section of the main page where jokes are allowed, daily. Perhaps the last time you looked at featured list was a while ago. Many DYKs I've seen are barely beyond stub quality, and many are barely written in English. It does not encourage potential new editors, that much is evidenced by those who contribute at DYK. But this isn't helping anything. DYKs are a novelty and seldom really include anything of real interest, we have one DYK every other 12 hours which talks about a creek in Pennsylvania, we have one DYK every other 12 hours about a beauty pageant entrant. It's barely encyclopedic in itself, let alone going to encourage anyone to write anything substantial for the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It encouraged me to write for the encyclopedia, so that's just not true. DYK does not allow anything that is not factually true, period. It does not allow jokes on any day other than April Fool's Day. Today's featured article is about a coin from the nineteenth century. Not all encyclopedic content is going to be extremely interesting, but at least DYK tries to be. The claim that DYK is barely encyclopedic is laughable and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the section. ~ Rob^Talk 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I edit every single DYK that goes to the main page, and have done for quite some time, so I think I'm well placed to tell you absolutely that the majority of the content is not interesting, not hooky, and barely encyclopedic. You clearly haven't been watching it lately, often the final hook in each set has been a jokey hook. Think twice before continuing to claim otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, long time, no see! BTW, there are other placement issues. Check out the thread on the placement of In the news, above. The Transhumanist 19:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We do not share a definition of "joke", then. The final hooks are often odd or quirky. I would never call them jokes though. They do not mislead or stray from facts for comedy. The rest of your assertion is not worth comment. Based on your point of view, I do wonder why you edit "every single DYK that goes to the main page", as you appear to believe it shouldn't be on the front page at all. ~ Rob^Talk 19:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because despite attempts to improve quality at DYK, it hasn't happened. I hate seeing poor quality on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest: every section want to be on top! Only TFA has it, and ITN happens to be "allowed" to sit next to it. Whatever the layout, some will always feel undercut. Determining what goes where is the hardest task. Simply shouting "this section should be on top!" is not going to help, because that measn something else must go down. We need some objective information and user feedback to make that call. For now, I made a 'best guess' based on the old layout. But I also paired DYK with Be An Editor, as they both aim for editor engagement. For the rest, I just tried to be as objective as possible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand that, and I'm trying to start a dialogue to get consensus on what should go where. Unilaterally moving a section down the page is not the solution to the problem of something have to move down. The issue here is that, objectively, having a place somewhere on the first screen of the main page is essential to the mission of DYK. If we take away the ability to encourage editor engagement and generate attention for new content, then DYK becomes a bauble factory. ~ Rob^Talk 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Happens? No. There was more to ITN's placement than happenstance. It's a very popular feature. But I agree that user feedback is the path to consensus. The Transhumanist 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is a bauble factory (or WikiCup factory). Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, like show me where all the new editors are that are nominating DYKs, or all the new editors that were inspired by DYK (excepting yourself, of course). It's an urban myth that DYK is there to attract new editors. There's no evidence to support that viewpoint whatsoever. If there is, I'd love to see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be a worthwhile research project. Maybe I'll do that for a "snapshot" of a month for the purposes of evaluating the project. That's a project that I can't do this weekend, though. ~ Rob^Talk 21:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK and OTD are ways to present a variety of topics on the Main Page. Variety is a good thing, and generates reader interest. We need variety on the Main Page. So until better digest projects come along, these should continue to fill their valuable role of providing alternative inroads into the content of the encyclopedia. The Transhumanist 06:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 that would indeed be helpful. Whenever I check contributors in queues and prep areas, in the main they have 10,000+ edits and have been around for years. Several are engaged in competitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 please let me know if you'd like some help compiling your data, I think it's really important that we validate the claim that DYK somehow encourages new editors to participate. As I noted above, a good place to start is with those who actively participate in the DYK process. We can look at edits made, account creation date, mainspace vs DYK space edits. Do you have any more ideas on how we can quantify the stats? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The data you describe would paint an incomplete picture, in my opinion. The frequent contributors to DYK become old accounts even if they were once new, as you can't compile 50+ DYK credits without being an old account. Rather than looking at specific accounts (frequent contributors), I think we should look at a specific time period (all contributors within a one month window). I'll probably pick a month and find the account age of the contributors credited as well as how many credits they had at the time. Additional data could include age of account at first DYK credit, number of articles created before first DYK credit, and number of articles created after first DYK credit. Would anything else be useful in a set of cross-sectional data? ~ Rob^Talk 21:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good start. It's essential that your study takes into account that DYK may have encouraged folks to contribute in the past, yet my point is that currently, most DYKs are not from new editors, nor does DYK encourage new editors to take part. You may well find that current contributors started with a DYK back in, say, 2007, but what I'm saying is that there's no evidence that our current frequent editors started from DYK. Evidence points towards DYK now being a way of gaining credits and points in various competitions, average edits per contributor being way over 10,000 and their time on the site being in excess of a couple of years. I would be delighted if you could show me evidence of DYK nominations coming from editors who have registered accounts within the past three months and/or have fewer than 1,000 edits. That would fulfil the urban myth that DYK is here to encourage new editors to create or enhance material for the betterment of mankind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 How's it going? Can I help with your stats gathering? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't started yet. My activity on Wikipedia has been somewhat limited over the past week or two due to a combination of the start of the semester and pneumonia. Always a fun mix. This is something that I think will be easiest if done in one go, so I plan to do it all this weekend, when I have a large block of time. ~ Rob^Talk 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Selected Good Articles

On WT:GAN, a user has proposed that a section dedicated to good articles be added in tandem with this redesign, prompted by this discussion. I, out of boredom, decided to mess with the code of the redesigned main page to see how it would fit with the other sections. Like TFL, the section could appear two or three days out of the week, replacing DYK on those days. I made it so three appear at a time, which gives a decent amount of room for each blurb. This is also to adjust the section in size relative to the number of featured articles and lists. To better accomplish this, the selection could even rotate thrice a day (like DYK).

Obviously there's more that can be done to better differentiate a section like this and DYK, but feedback from others would be appreciated. 23W 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank's idea of a "Selected Good Articles" is is nothing less than a brilliant idea. 23W's layout plan looks great. I, for one, would support such an improvement. I have worked at the GA Help Desk, so I would volunteer to help administer such a feature. The DYK feature, in my opinion, is terribly lacking. This is a tremendously positive step in the right direction. Prhartcom (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Good articles can be featured in DYK. It makes little sense in my opinion to replace a section that could feature eight good articles with a section that only features one, if I'm understanding correctly that this would mirror TFA. The solution is to encourage the editors of good articles to nominate for DYK. As a side note, I've placed a notice about this discussion on the DYK talk page, as both editors interested in GA and DYK should be informed of and involved in this discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Rob, good articles are already featured on DYK, so this proposal looks pointless to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed many potentially interesting recently-promoted GAs are unnominated at DYK. The main page is too busy as is and makes sense to try consolidating in the one section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rob and Gatoclass. New GAs are eligible for DYK and many have already been featured on the main page. No need for a separate section. -Zanhe (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be a better idea to replace DYK completely with this, but showing 8 good articles a day? Every day, the TGA (today's good articles) can feature up to 8 GAs, with a nomination process similar to TFA, but simplified. The current number of GAs is almost 20x the number of FANMPs. This will encourage editors to write more GAs. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given how few GAs are currently nominated to DYK, the likelihood of running out of noms to fill the section is very high. If people nominated more GAs to DYK, you could functionally have such a section. The problem is that GA editors don't care to do so, generally speaking. Keep in mind also that you're welcome to nominate the works of others to DYK if you see GAs that are eligible and should be on the front page. ~ Rob^Talk 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that "GA editors don't care to do so". We likely won't run out of noms to fill the section; we currently have thousands of existing GAs to draw from to fill most of the daily appearances (see WP:GA/ALL) and each day we could include one of the new ones. That would be a very similar process to the existing TFA, a system that works. Prhartcom (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're suggesting to draw from existing content, not new content. Personally, I'm against removing DYK, as I think it serves a useful purpose. ~ Rob^Talk 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, this "purported" purpose of DYK ("to encourage new editors to contribute") is under serious question, and has been for some time now, so new GAs would be better placed on the main page to exemplify an encylcopedic work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it is "under serious question", but regardless, that is only one of DYK's functions. There are another six or so listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Aims_and_objectives. Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest, The Rambling Man has been on an anti-DYK crusade for some time. Uninvolved editors would be well advised not to take his utterances at face value. Prioryman (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Uncapitalization/uncapitalisation of "The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit"

Why is "The Free Encyclopedia" capitalized? It should be "The free encyclopedia", right? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just copied the style from the logo above the navbar. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

On the sidebar, it is part of a logo. When it is in a descriptive sentence, grammatical rules should be followed, as it is done on the current Main Page. Otherwise, it is just a typographical error, like "Master's Degree", which is not a proper noun and therefore should not be capitalized. Let's not have any typos in the header of our main page for everybody in the world to see. The Transhumanist 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also a slogan, in which case I think little leeway is permitted. But I'll change it back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a sentence, as is stated above — there's no verb. It's a marketing line, as used on other sites, so case rules need not apply: International Edition, the gift guide, various combinations. Putting Free Encyclopedia instead of free encyclopedia makes it stand out, which I assume is the purpose of this line. It should remain with its caps. Bazza 11:24, 7 September 2015

It also competes visually with the link "anyone can edit". The Transhumanist 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Minimizing the height of the header

One issue of key importance in the discussions for the current Main Page's design was the height of the header. The taller the header, the more it pushed content down and off the bottom of the screen. The more content on the screen, the better. And so the header height was minimized in order to maximize content exposure. The Transhumanist 12:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree—we should endeavor not to grow the header, whatever happens on the rest of the page. And every time someone adds one of those silly banners to the top of the main page, which is often, they double or even triple the space people have to get past before encountering actual content. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I tightened the headers a bit. Any further may cut of ascenders/descenders. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the banner. "Headers" are those thingies above each section. I also think we need to let go if the idea that everything needs to be cramped at the top of the page as much as possible (and beyond). A little whitespace doesn't hurt, and actually makes the page more inviting to read, while a wall of text will put readers off. All things considered, I think I made efficient use of the space.-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A footer is at the bottom of a page. A header is at the top of a page. Headings are the titles of the sections. The Transhumanist 22:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the current header is more appropriate than the proposed one. No website in the world takes 2 lines to describe itself. Imagine using facebook and having it take 1/4 of a page to describe itself. I think even the current header can be decreased a bit. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A good way to solve this banner (or header) problem would be to place the subjects list ("Culture • Geography • ...") to the right rather than centered in the bottom.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the clearing so it flows around the wordmark. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! It looks much better than I had in mind. The title "Wikipedia" is now more prominent, and the banner is only slightly taller than the old version.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is still taller than the current Main Page's header. The top and bottom margins can be reduced. The Transhumanist 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No they can't. I opted for a 1em margin between, 1em padding inside the panels, and an 0.5em margin between all text and image elements on the page, and I'd like to keep that consistent. I know the value of the real estate, but we can't keep reducing margins or we end up with a cluttered heap of conjoined elements. I'm not trying to make it look exactly like the current main page. There is nothing wrong with a little whitespace. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Heading font

So let's get back to some design issues.

Currently, the headings follow the skin's fonts. That means serif in Vector, but sans-serif on Monobook and others. Should it stay this way, or should we settle on either serif or sans-serif? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please linkify the Wikipedia logo

From the article Linux Libertine:

In 2010, Linux Libertine was adopted as an open-source substitute for the Hoefler Text typeface in the redesign of the Wikipedia logo, making it possible to localize the Wikipedia identity into more than 250 languages and character sets. The "W" character, which had previously been used in various other places in Wikipedia (such as the favicon) and was a "distinctive part of the Wikipedia brand", had "crossed" V glyphs in the original logo, while Linux Libertine has a joined W letter shape. As a solution, the "crossed" W was added to Linux Libertine as an OpenType variant.

Currently, this redesign uses a graphic for the title "Wikipedia". If it used the font instead, it could be linkified. And then it would be blue. I'd like to see what that would look like, as blue links are a defining feature of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

That would be a huge blue link! I have never seen a site's logo on their main page being linked. As for using the font, we'd have to download it as a webfont, which would result in a larger download then the image. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's cool, and it showcases one of Wikipedia's primary features.

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Mrjulesd does it. Looks great. The font is a Wikipedia standard, but the crossed W is another matter. The Transhumanist 12:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to make two Vs overlap? Maybe like something described here? And then, Template:Wikipedia W could be created, which would render as a crossed W. Eman235/talk 21:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

See {{Wikipedia wordmark}}. Mind you, it doesn't read "W" for screen readers. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So it reads it as "V'vikipedia"? Is there a way to fix that? Eman235/talk 23:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I tried. Spans don't support the alt attribute, and using CSS to define what is show or spoken is too complicated for this purpose, and not even officially supported by current CSS standards. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Grrr. How about...a picture of a crossed W...that's not clickable...alt text is "W"...is blue and gets underlined when hovered...?

Something like ikipediA Eman235/talk 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

An image cannot change color (ie. visited link), or change with font size. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, that might work. We could make an image of a blue crossed W (that matches the color of blue links), and have the rest of the word linkified. The Transhumanist 00:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You will never get it to match; images are static size while fontsize can vary. Same with color; no active or visited colors. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Back to square one, could the character in question be downloaded? Eman235/talk 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, just the entire font, or create a font with just that character. Still undue work. What is wrong with the current image? And do we even need to link Wikipedia? I feel like it's touting our own horn. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks

Top heading

Move "Welcome to Wikipedia" to the far left. Remove the puzzle globe or relocate it to the right-hand side (so it won't be directly adjacent to the logo image that appears on every page). Perhaps the box itself could be eliminated entirely; it might be nice for the main page to have at least one segment without a box. —David Levy 03:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I can move the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' and give it a fixed width (it's now 60% / 40%). But the logo and wordmark are somewhat tied together. Moving the globe to the right makes the wordmark feel empty. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. How about trying a different image (to eliminate the redundancy)? Some Wikipedias (and other WMF projects, I believe) use an "open book" image, the earliest version of which was created for this purpose during our 2006 main page redesign process (but ultimately removed). Perhaps something similar would work. —David Levy 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there an SVG source for that file? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The original version was derived from a JPEG. I just checked Commons and found Big Book.svg, which is fairly similar. —David Levy 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Article count

Should we have an article count under "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Section heading colors

The section headings' colors should have semantic significance. As on the current main page, blue signifies material focused on historical events. From today's featured article and Today's featured picture share a color, which should be extended to From today's featured list (thereby harmonizing all featured content). Did you know and Be an editor have no strong connection, so they should receive different (but somewhat similar) colors. I suggest the following assignments:

• Green: From today's featured article, From today's featured list (on Mondays and Fridays) and Today's featured picture
• Blue: In the news and On this day (unchanged)
• Purple: Did you know
• Pink (#f2e0cf): Be an editor
• Grey: Wikipedia's sister projects and Wikipedia languages
  —David Levy 03:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Levy 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not enough - the rectangles of text are the same base colour as the background - we need to change them one way or the other. Someone should really get creative with borders and shading. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Always open to ideas regarding panel and header design. But so far, no one has come formward with actual suggestions. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Image placements

I'd like to see how From today's featured article and From today's featured list look with the image on the left. —David Levy 03:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

#mp-tfa-img,
#mp-tfl-img {
    float: left !important;
    margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0 !important;
}

-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Where (on a personal CSS page?) should I insert the code? —David Levy 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In your skin CSS. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the first thing I tried (and I cleared my cache afterward). Did I do this incorrectly? —David Levy 19:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot !important. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think that this improves the page's balance (and it creates a consistent image placement for all three featured content / single-topic sections). —David Levy 11:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article

The 'Recently featured' component seems like it is using up more space than it deserves. It is right adjusted, leaving two lines of blank space across the page. I also don't see why it needs all three of 'Archive', 'By email', and 'More featured articles...'. Why not simply:

Recently featured: Telopea oreades, The Coral Island, Red Skelton, more...

then add additional information to WP:FA? Praemonitus (talk)

I have no control here. This is handled at WT:TFA. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Be an editor

I'm starting to like this new layout more with each visit. The new Be an editor section, though, needs some careful copy-editing.

• As you will… seems a bit presumptuous. If you… might be better.
• The instruction to just click [edit] is misleading — I did and nothing happened (I know why, but some people might just think it's broken). Click the "Edit" tab is similar wording to the copyright warning for saving when using Edit Source.
• Perhaps wrong information or missing information might be better than bad links.

Bazza (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit presumptious on purpose. I wrote the text to make editing seem as low-threshold as possible. So instead of "if" and "become", I want the reader to think he/she already is an editor. At the same time, I want to list the initial tasks as simple as possible. But you do have a point about the edit links. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this section needs a lot more prominence. Maybe put it up in the second row, make it bigger, and put it on the left? I think the nature of this section should be the most prominent thing on the main page next to the banner/header as it best represents what Wikipedia is all about. Jacedc (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To address the initial point under this heading, I'm afraid that I must disagree with bullets one & two, and the succeeding response (being completely candid, I'm of the mindset that while we should certainly encourage growth in the vast communal support that makes Wiki what it is, the revised features/presentation shouldn't so-to-speak "baby" newer contributors –– the phrasing that is referenced above doesn't strike me as overly complex/sophisticated). However, I am in agreement on the third point; which I see more as a matter of improved clarity even for seasoned editors, as well as a general good stylistic choice for the new interface. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on placement (organization) — The current place of "Be an editor" makes it seem unimportant (when looking at it from left-to-right), and it is in a location that I would not expect it ("Did you know these facts? By the way, you can also edit Wikipedia!); as a comparison, the News and OTD combination makes good sense ("This is what's going on, and this is what happened today in the past").
  • Suggestion: "Be an editor" has to be placed in the bottom either [A] below the Featured Picture section, [B] below the entire page (as the last section), or [C] to the right of "Wikipedia's Sister Projects" (along with this last option, I suggest that the "Wikipedia languages" to be placed as the last, bottom section). In all case, the DYK section can either be expanded to full length, or another section can accompany it (Featured List, Good or A-Class Article, etc). Let me know your thoughts.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Puzzling the pieces together is not as easy as it looks. I took a few base priciples and worked from there. One of those is that each featured content sections takes full width, with the others sharing rows. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on text — The second line in the text ["You don't have to be a walking encyclopedia to start editing."] was a bit off-putting to a number of the people to who I showed this new design. I like the humor behind it (especially since I think far too many Wikipedians take things a bit too seriously), but it really seems unnecessary. Removing it might be the best option (moreover, it reduces the amount of text in the mainpage).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. Removed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister projects

In this section, it would be better to have a 4x3 layout than the current 6x2 layout, for the 12 items listed. 117.216.151.65 (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The layout is dynamic and changes according to screen size. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Goal: community consensus

We really should get wide community consensus before changing the placement of the sections, because doing so may favor some of them over others, and may have a direct impact on the traffic to the links they provide, as well as traffic to the departments themselves (which may be their life blood). The Transhumanist 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh Dear... Let's not. Making every change subject to "wide community consensus" ensures only one thing: that nothing will change. This initiative is about getting things done with, for and by the community, not about process and red tape. Look at the past several years of discussion about the redesign, and you will find 75% is about process, and the remaining 25% about procedures. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about changing of the placement of the sections on the Main Page, along with all the other design changes, via an election between a final draft from this project versus the current Main Page. That election will attract many editors. It's not like you can swap the Main Page out without anyone noticing. Consensus for the new design will be expected and demanded. And for a new design to acquire community approval, the key design points (such as section placement) will need to be worked out with some way to forecast or test for what the community values. Straw polls between 2 candidate drafts (at a time) may help. Keep it simple: "Do you like this one, or this one?" Having more than two drafts per poll diffuses votes between similar versions and confuses the results. The Transhumanist 20:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That will slow down things considerably, and never reach consensus. The current main page should not even play a role in any poll; it needs to go. Trying to mold this into any process and the initiative will die. At least we have learned that from th past five years of trying to change the main page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, the current Main Page is implied in any poll you conduct, because that's what you will be replacing. Many people like the current Main Page, including me, especially with respect to content placement. "It need"s to go" is not the community consensus. You appear to want to force your plan to move features down the page upon everybody else, regardless of what they want. That's not the wiki way. The Transhumanist 06:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The current page needs replacing, that has been the consensus in all previous discussions. It is a dinosaur. We just could not agree on how. I already said everyone is welcome to participate, and I am not trying to force anything, but I will ignore any attempts to block this process from going any further, simply because they like the old page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to block the development of a redesign draft. Though I am curious how you are going to seek the community's approval for replacing the current Main Page with it. The Transhumanist 02:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It will probably some form of centralized poll, as much as I hate the idea. But the premise of that poll is not if to update the page, but rather stating it will be updated, and to find any faults or issues before the update happens. That is what it means setting a goal. There is never going to be a "perfect" main page. But we can at least strive for maximum collaboration. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Edokter that polling would be a bad idea and this process of collaborative editing works better. I would however suggest that we advertise this page further to collect more inputs and to avoid the accusation that this (main page redesign) is a covert operation. -- Taku (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like nothing more then to advertise this page, preferably with a link form the MP talk page, and perhaps a WP:CENT cent notice. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The redesign can be as covert as it wants. You can make a draft in complete privacy if you desire. It's the proposal to replace the Main Page with it that is the public part. Last time, over 1,000 editors turned out to participate in the decision. The Transhumanist 02:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been my experience in the UX world that hammering every aspect of a design in a committee is the surest way of getting nothing done. It's much better to put a cohesive design as a whole up for comment and feedback, because then people will focus on what's really important to them instead of nitpicking every pixel. --Laser brain (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

One downside of that approach is that there may always be someone that does not approve of some single element, and the entire design will be scrapped because "none of the elements had full support". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

For better or worse, consensus is our process. You're not going to find any agreement to allow a single person or group of people to decide what's best for something as important as the main page and override consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 14:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then this is forever doomed. No, the only way forward is to gives (or take) control to the few that brave enough to do something. My motto here is be bold. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to try, but it will be quite difficult to boldly edit a fully protected page. It's certainly fine to come up with your preferred version and advance it before the community for a simple vote (discussion, technically, but not one where each individual point is debated), but you'll need consensus at some point along the process. I'm not trying to be a downer, just realistic. I don't disagree that the main page needs an update, although I've made my opinion on this particular layout clear. ~ Rob^Talk 15:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The democratic process can be slow and can be less innovative; I highly doubt Wikipedia editors can come up with something like iPhone. But that's ok; we just need something functional and not looking too old and unpolished (I think the current main page design fails on the second account; whence, the need for the redesign). I have said this before but we need to introduce small changes incrementally, as opposed to presenting a whole package to the commuity and asking it to vote on it. For instance, we could just remove "welcome to" from the "current" design; I think there is enough support. We could also try to introduce superficial visual change just so the page looks less old. -- Taku (talk)

• Consensus is clearly required. If proposals are forced upon the community then they will generate the sort of ill-will and strife that we have seen with the Visual Editor and Media Viewer. The history of such proposals is that they are perennial failures — see Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals, which records the history of previous years. Proposing a large bundle of changes together is therefore foolish. Changes have to be kept small and incremental, as Taku says. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is an illusion in this case. Lots of small changes doesn't do it for me and is way to work-intesive. I know what flack VE and MV caused; that doesn't make them failures (on the contrary, it sparked accellarated development!) And sometimes, change does require a little 'force'. And is it really that big? The Main Page is just a page like any ohter and doesn't have any special policies. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Our policies make it quite clear that the main page is special. For example, WP:BOLD states "Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution ... This is particularly true of highly visible pages ... You should not make unapproved design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page ..." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I have started the proposal Talk:Main Page#Getting rid of "welcome to". -- Taku (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug in Features Article section

At certain window widths and with a "tall" image, the list of recent featured articles splits incorrectly around the bottom of the right-hand image. Today's blurb on Madonna in the Church exhibits this anomaly, with Tom from the last item appearing correctly to the left of the image, but Simpson right-aligned under the image. (Chrome browser in Windows 10, <body> width 1058px.) Bazza (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Flowing (horizontal) lists around floating content is always a bit tricky. The image is unusually large (high) these days. There's not much I can do; attempts to manage warp behaviour in horizontal lists have proven difficult. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Would setting the list items to non-breaking help? Bazza (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that causes a bug in Internet Explorer making the entire list unwrappable. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Is there a reason that the list is right-aligned? And would (temporarily, at least) left-aligning it (a) stop the problem and (b) look better? Bazza (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally, the image is on the left. It is only right-aligned on this page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It was the list itself I was querying. Bazza (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I know. I was just pointing out that it is only an issue here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)