![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
56 table-of-contents sections, 13 archives of old talk and 6 pages of talk about layout and colours? Give me a break! Why don't people devote their time to producing content? Miguel 19:38, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Forseti 08:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
IMO, the new page looks a lot better than the old one. However, it's getting a little cluttered. I think we should avoid the "web-portalish" look (i.e. a painfully overwhelming layout; visit http://www.lycos.com/ for an example). I would reduce the amount of text in the "Featured article"/"In the news" to 75% of what it is now. Connelly 06:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congrats on the new-look main page - much more professional looking! dramatic 20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new colors totally suck!!! I like the old ones better.
Looks good. The division into a normal and a community main page is also a good step towards a more "professional" look. Thanks. DrZ 20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's a lot clearer. Much less busy. And with pictures. Ooooh. And spaces between lines. Aaaah. It might be good to have an in-depth front page, too. Good work overall, IMO. Mr. Jones 21:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congrats on the new main page, it's looking fab! -- Graham :) 21:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree - it looks fantastic. Keeping it up to date might be a challenge, but I think it can be done. Ambivalenthysteria
At first I thought "ugh!" then "wow, that's gonna be a lot of work, summarizing everything every day, glad I'm not an admin," and finally "y'know, I think I like it!" :) It's growing on me. Good work! -- zandperl 02:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Very nice, but looks difficult to maintain. Metasquares 03:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you! MH 11:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It looks fantastic. Very professional. Jpo 16:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Amazing redesign. - Itai 16:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I prefer the old frontpage, there you could see all the 'in the news', 'recent additions', 'featured pages', etc. categories at once. And it was just half a page of scrolling to the bottom. Now the frontpage is too large - once can't see all the 'changing' categories at once. Abigail 11:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Second this comment. I do not want the chief Wikipedia presentation (seen by everyone) to look just like some commercial web page. It should fit on a single (nominal) screen. The main page should be, essentially, a collection of pointers to more, not images and bitty comments/teasers. Change the new style. It's not good for Wikipedia! ww 17:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. I think it should fit on a single view, but I love the new layout.
—Noldoaran
(Talk) 02:50, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
[[23 February]] or February 23--obits has the former, the rest has the latter. What do we do? jengod 20:37, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I protected the 6 embedded {{msg:xxx}} tags of the new page design, assuming that not protecting them was an oversight. Maximus Rex 20:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I really like having full sentences for "In the news" - as it was before, it was like solving a mystery to figure out *why* something was in the news. →Raul654 20:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Since this page will be seen by large numbers of complete newcomers, it might be better to say
rather than the discussion page. Otherwise people might think the link goes to a general discussion page, and we'll get things posted here that should be on the Pump, at the Desk, or somewhere completely different. - IMSoP 21:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new mainpage lacks these things:
We could however skip the obituaries. I can't see why they are not news like the rest.
I confess that the I liked the old layout, but we'll see what I say in a 3 days when I've accustomated mystelf to the new MP. It looks fresh, at the least. —Sverdrup (talk) 21:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's nice that the new layout has more details, but it seems a little too slick - makes it look kind of corporate, if you know what I mean. The old way looked more "folksy" somehow.
Is "We've started in January 2001" correct grammar? Doesn't sound right.
Tualha 21:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia being written collaboratively by thousands of Internet users since January 2001. We're currently working on xxxxxx articles in the English version, and you can help, too. Visit the Community Main Page to find out how.
Comments? I think something more like that would be much more welcoming, a deficiency of the current text, IMHO. -- Seth Ilys 21:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just want to say the new layout looks more modern and much nicer than the previous cluttering one. Particularly pictures are eye-catching. It's very good. -- Taku 22:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
It works like the glossy paper wrapper on a book. It's much more accessible to a first-time user. Wetman 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I really like the new layout. Nice work! Tannin
I wanted to change the gutenberg bible image to the one I uploaded and put into the article yesterday (it's a lot better than the current one), but the messages used on the main page don't show up on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages. Where do I go to change them? →Raul654 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nevermind - they aren't linked from the custom messages page, but I guessed the URL(s). →Raul654 22:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed the large table cells containting "Featured Articles" and "In The News" look different in Mozilla Firefox (0.8 Windows) and IE6. They have black borders in Firefox and light gray borders in IE. You can make them look the same by adding "border:lightgray" to the style attributes of these two TD elements. New look is great, by the way. User:Farmerchris 22:41, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
This applies to the two large cells at the bottom of the page too ("Browse Wikipedia by topic" and "Wikipedia in other languages"). Farmerchris 22:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new design looks great! In following its development as a test page, I didn't think it was ready yet, but I've definitely reconsidered. I like the commitment to Today in history. We also need to do more to keep our news section up-to-date, with heavier turnover than we had under the old design. All this means we need quite a few sysops working on it regularly. The design change has generated some enthusiasm, now we need sustained interest. -- Michael Snow 23:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would like a link to the Wikipedia:Announcements page. Modster 23:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, there's no link to edit the Obituaries section! -- Michael Snow 00:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the new main page a lot. It looks better, it's more categorized, and easier to access for first time users. The pictures of the featured articles, news, etc makes it much more professional. It does not have some of the categories the old one does eg: Welcome, newcomers however I don't mind. The only thing I think would be nice is have an old version main page at least temporarily until people get used to the new one. ZackDude 23:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Saint-Paddy 23:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That it wasn't Eqbal Ahmad's brother Daniel at all, it was Philip Berrigan's brother. Please read the article more carefully before putting that on the main page! I'm a sysop and I'd change it but I don't know how, it uses a message for that now and I have no idea how to change those. Sarge Baldy 23:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm very happy overall with the new front page. Although total information content has dropped (with the movement of many things to the Community Main Page), it really grabs your attention with the photographs and immediately relevent facts.
If I had to note a disadvantage, it would be that this page encourages reading above writing of articles; this may not even be a disadvantage.
Derrick Coetzee 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Simply put: nice job guys.
I really enjoy the look, though I'd shave a bit off the top (ie, move the Welcome to Wiki to a sidebar) and reduce the size of the topic boxes just a bit if I could get four boxes showing instead of just two (on my 17" monitor). Keep working on it! Denni 00:41, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
The main page is lovely. The pictures are especially nice although maybe a little bit much. However, I have a question about the Did you know... section - what exactly is it's purpose, and what kinds of articles go there? How is it different from the Featured article? - Alex S 01:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to throw out a few ideas:
→Raul654 02:07, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Creates a much better first impression. Looks more professional and modern. Well done guys. Splitting the community from encyclopedia elements is retrospectively a rather sensible move. ChrisG 01:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Cluttered with excessive information, the layout stretches far too low. No one wants to scroll that much. In short, it's a complete disaster. I would reccomend immediate reversion to the former format until a better idea surfaces. And by 'better idea' I mean just about any idea in the entire world. 172.171.61.76 01:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
While I would not call it a disaster, it is inferior because information about What Wikipedia is all about is submerged, and nearly invisible. For that reason alone, I think we should seriously go back for now, and get to the drawing board. At the very least, one of the columns (right hand side?) should be dedicated to Wikipedia information, languages, Village Pump, Announcements, etc. This is a revolutionary project and right now it looks like YANAIS (Yet another news and information site). Also, there is way too much white space in the layout, and not an effective use of real estate. Fuzheado 02:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In order to allow more information density on the new page, I suggest putting the "More ..." links on the same line as the section captions. Right now there is plenty of vacant space to the right of the caption. Let the fonts stay as they are, just move the links like "More featured articles..." upwards. Bevo 02:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Guys - before posting pictures to the main page, PLEASE make sure the image page contains full, complete license information. If we're going to feature pictures, I want to make we've got them well documented. →Raul654 02:19, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I know this is inherent in the Wiki system, but when I click on the images on the main page, my brain expects to go to the article, not the bigger version of the image. This is counter-intuitive. Is there any way to change this? RadicalBender 02:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Very professional looking. Should attract users of the encyclopedia (not just editors) and all to explore. Disagree with others that think it is a disaster. It looks great! - Marshman 02:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations Eloquence (and others). Your hard work over the last week and a half have paid-off.The new main page moves us foward by a decade. mydogategodshat 02:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Folks, this is not to impugn the good name of the folks who worked on the page. Kudos for being bold and moving us forward. However, the prominence (and selection) of the feature article sets us back. What used to be clear in the old design -- neutral, international, multilingual and participatory -- is severely damaged in this new version. We have an article about the "Irish Houses of Parliament." I have nothing against the Irish :), but this is so far afield from what a stranger would have seen before [1], where no particular emphasis or viewpoint was provided. I'm no Luddite, and I do support a graphical and rich new front page, but I really do worry about Wikipedia's inclusiveness if singular items get to overwhelm all the great things done within the community. I'd like to get others' opinions about this, because it took me a while to figure out why I did not have an affinity for this new design, and I think this is it. Fuzheado 02:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
IIRC, the page cache, especially for anons, are dependent on when the page was last saved. Therefore changes to the MediaWiki msg pages on the Main Page will not be reflected on the Main Page for most readers until those readers either force a reload or the Main Page is edited and saved. This is less than ideal, IMO. -- mav 03:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about this? silsor 03:24, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
No matter earlier discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page, I would like to thank all people who volunteered their time and effort to make the new main page possible. Indeed, it's more beautiful. But we may still need to have something simpler for users with old computers, PDAs, etc. So, an additional plain vanilla main page wouldn't hurt, if we can maintain it. Optim 03:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please see Main_Page/Test8 for my ideas on how to tighten the page up. Basically remove the "archive" sections from the vital main page space and integrated the "more" links tighter with the text. jengod 04:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Jengod - I like the way your version looks over the look of the current Main Page. I would, however, use the holiday section in place of the 'Did you know...' section. But since some people really like the sections you removed, I think a better option would be to try to streamline the 6 sections, instead of reducing them to 4. -- mav 07:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think a merger of the recent deaths and the In The News is in order. In fact, it's already part way there. →Raul654 07:08, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
This test8 is like my thinking. Some tweaking, but overall it's much better than the current rev. —Sverdrup (talk) 14:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I change these to start the headers at the appropriate level? I did a quick preview and it didn't seem to muck everything up... Dysprosia 04:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with jengod in theory -- the Main Page is different from the encyclopaedia articles. (As mav pointed out once, it doesn't have to follow our downcase naming conventions either.) However in practice??? Well, I don't really care about the size of the headers -- so jengod's change is fine by me -- but I must disagree about the size of the introductory text.
I think that Wikipedia is different from the other encyclopaedias on the Internet -- very different. It's a wiki, and we need to make that prominent. The introductory text does a reasonable job at that (I might write it differently, but it's no big deal). However, with the size reduction, we invite readers to skip over it and look at the pretty pictures. Now, I like the pretty pictures, don't get me wrong! But we also need them to notice why we are special -- we're a wiki. It doesn't do much good to strongly emphasise how "you" can edit any article if we put it at 85% size! This paragraph really should be at normal size, like the other material on the page -- it's at least as important!
-- Toby Bartels 06:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm a fan oof wikipedia anyway - but now have good reason to have it as my start page, great work and the new look is informative and attractive. Thanks to all those who put it together, as well as to all who participate in wikipedia and this resource! corqspy
It seems like the content is being changed every hour. I realize that this is due to the "newness" of the page, but hopefully it will slow down a tad (not too much though :) Dori | Talk 06:09, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but was it Raul654's suggestion that actually worked? America may have been discovered by the Vikings, the Basques, the Egyptians, the Polynesians, the Chinese, and millions of Siberians' descendants -- but Columbus discovered it too, and his discovery changed the world! -- Toby Bartels 06:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No life →Raul654 06:57, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Looks pretty good! A few points though:-)- the welcome box in yellow is too wordy, and important points are not highlighted. And if the latest announcements/comments (such as the now existing sentence asking for comments about the main page) are going to form a permanent feature, its all the more important. Basically the main body of the page is fine, but the yellow box looks more like a statutory warning than a pleasant welcome!:-) Also, can the side bars and the standard top menu be slightly changed? Maybe if the matter below the side bar extends to the full width of the screen with a horizontal break emphasised (through light line/ colour) it would be better. (The browse wikipedia by topic can extend fully thereby avoiding too much of white space) KRS 06:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Which version do you like best?
The usefulness of this poll is disputed.
I think that the new desing is change to the worse. First: it doesn't looks well in 800*600 resolution. Second: former design was more compact without unnecessary distractions (like Featured article). I especially enjoyed Selected Articles - you can glance & click to what interests you and it was short and orderly. Even on 800*600 one could view Selected Articles and headers of Encyclopedia and Community. Third: on former everything seemed in place - now the real content is left at the bottom behind Featured Article and In the news sections.
If you want to keep new design anyway, I think that remedies should include:
I like the new look of the main page. Congratulations and thank you, it is a huge improvement. -- Baldhur 11:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How did you create the {{msg:itn-test}} tags that were used for the test page Main Page/Test8? Bevo 09:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This new frontpage is much more attractive! And it's a great idea to add a sample article... It's nice to read about other topics of ours without looking for it! Definitely, I love it!
pycoucou
Can we have something about carnival day? (brazil) Perl 13:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's my opinion. -- The Anome 01:26, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
56 table-of-contents sections, 13 archives of old talk and 6 pages of talk about layout and colours? Give me a break! Why don't people devote their time to producing content? Miguel 19:38, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Forseti 08:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
IMO, the new page looks a lot better than the old one. However, it's getting a little cluttered. I think we should avoid the "web-portalish" look (i.e. a painfully overwhelming layout; visit http://www.lycos.com/ for an example). I would reduce the amount of text in the "Featured article"/"In the news" to 75% of what it is now. Connelly 06:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congrats on the new-look main page - much more professional looking! dramatic 20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new colors totally suck!!! I like the old ones better.
Looks good. The division into a normal and a community main page is also a good step towards a more "professional" look. Thanks. DrZ 20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's a lot clearer. Much less busy. And with pictures. Ooooh. And spaces between lines. Aaaah. It might be good to have an in-depth front page, too. Good work overall, IMO. Mr. Jones 21:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congrats on the new main page, it's looking fab! -- Graham :) 21:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree - it looks fantastic. Keeping it up to date might be a challenge, but I think it can be done. Ambivalenthysteria
At first I thought "ugh!" then "wow, that's gonna be a lot of work, summarizing everything every day, glad I'm not an admin," and finally "y'know, I think I like it!" :) It's growing on me. Good work! -- zandperl 02:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Very nice, but looks difficult to maintain. Metasquares 03:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you! MH 11:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It looks fantastic. Very professional. Jpo 16:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Amazing redesign. - Itai 16:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I prefer the old frontpage, there you could see all the 'in the news', 'recent additions', 'featured pages', etc. categories at once. And it was just half a page of scrolling to the bottom. Now the frontpage is too large - once can't see all the 'changing' categories at once. Abigail 11:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Second this comment. I do not want the chief Wikipedia presentation (seen by everyone) to look just like some commercial web page. It should fit on a single (nominal) screen. The main page should be, essentially, a collection of pointers to more, not images and bitty comments/teasers. Change the new style. It's not good for Wikipedia! ww 17:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. I think it should fit on a single view, but I love the new layout.
—Noldoaran
(Talk) 02:50, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
[[23 February]] or February 23--obits has the former, the rest has the latter. What do we do? jengod 20:37, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I protected the 6 embedded {{msg:xxx}} tags of the new page design, assuming that not protecting them was an oversight. Maximus Rex 20:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I really like having full sentences for "In the news" - as it was before, it was like solving a mystery to figure out *why* something was in the news. →Raul654 20:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Since this page will be seen by large numbers of complete newcomers, it might be better to say
rather than the discussion page. Otherwise people might think the link goes to a general discussion page, and we'll get things posted here that should be on the Pump, at the Desk, or somewhere completely different. - IMSoP 21:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new mainpage lacks these things:
We could however skip the obituaries. I can't see why they are not news like the rest.
I confess that the I liked the old layout, but we'll see what I say in a 3 days when I've accustomated mystelf to the new MP. It looks fresh, at the least. —Sverdrup (talk) 21:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's nice that the new layout has more details, but it seems a little too slick - makes it look kind of corporate, if you know what I mean. The old way looked more "folksy" somehow.
Is "We've started in January 2001" correct grammar? Doesn't sound right.
Tualha 21:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, a multilingual, free-content encyclopedia being written collaboratively by thousands of Internet users since January 2001. We're currently working on xxxxxx articles in the English version, and you can help, too. Visit the Community Main Page to find out how.
Comments? I think something more like that would be much more welcoming, a deficiency of the current text, IMHO. -- Seth Ilys 21:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just want to say the new layout looks more modern and much nicer than the previous cluttering one. Particularly pictures are eye-catching. It's very good. -- Taku 22:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
It works like the glossy paper wrapper on a book. It's much more accessible to a first-time user. Wetman 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I really like the new layout. Nice work! Tannin
I wanted to change the gutenberg bible image to the one I uploaded and put into the article yesterday (it's a lot better than the current one), but the messages used on the main page don't show up on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages. Where do I go to change them? →Raul654 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nevermind - they aren't linked from the custom messages page, but I guessed the URL(s). →Raul654 22:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed the large table cells containting "Featured Articles" and "In The News" look different in Mozilla Firefox (0.8 Windows) and IE6. They have black borders in Firefox and light gray borders in IE. You can make them look the same by adding "border:lightgray" to the style attributes of these two TD elements. New look is great, by the way. User:Farmerchris 22:41, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
This applies to the two large cells at the bottom of the page too ("Browse Wikipedia by topic" and "Wikipedia in other languages"). Farmerchris 22:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The new design looks great! In following its development as a test page, I didn't think it was ready yet, but I've definitely reconsidered. I like the commitment to Today in history. We also need to do more to keep our news section up-to-date, with heavier turnover than we had under the old design. All this means we need quite a few sysops working on it regularly. The design change has generated some enthusiasm, now we need sustained interest. -- Michael Snow 23:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would like a link to the Wikipedia:Announcements page. Modster 23:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, there's no link to edit the Obituaries section! -- Michael Snow 00:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the new main page a lot. It looks better, it's more categorized, and easier to access for first time users. The pictures of the featured articles, news, etc makes it much more professional. It does not have some of the categories the old one does eg: Welcome, newcomers however I don't mind. The only thing I think would be nice is have an old version main page at least temporarily until people get used to the new one. ZackDude 23:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Saint-Paddy 23:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That it wasn't Eqbal Ahmad's brother Daniel at all, it was Philip Berrigan's brother. Please read the article more carefully before putting that on the main page! I'm a sysop and I'd change it but I don't know how, it uses a message for that now and I have no idea how to change those. Sarge Baldy 23:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm very happy overall with the new front page. Although total information content has dropped (with the movement of many things to the Community Main Page), it really grabs your attention with the photographs and immediately relevent facts.
If I had to note a disadvantage, it would be that this page encourages reading above writing of articles; this may not even be a disadvantage.
Derrick Coetzee 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Simply put: nice job guys.
I really enjoy the look, though I'd shave a bit off the top (ie, move the Welcome to Wiki to a sidebar) and reduce the size of the topic boxes just a bit if I could get four boxes showing instead of just two (on my 17" monitor). Keep working on it! Denni 00:41, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
The main page is lovely. The pictures are especially nice although maybe a little bit much. However, I have a question about the Did you know... section - what exactly is it's purpose, and what kinds of articles go there? How is it different from the Featured article? - Alex S 01:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to throw out a few ideas:
→Raul654 02:07, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Creates a much better first impression. Looks more professional and modern. Well done guys. Splitting the community from encyclopedia elements is retrospectively a rather sensible move. ChrisG 01:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Cluttered with excessive information, the layout stretches far too low. No one wants to scroll that much. In short, it's a complete disaster. I would reccomend immediate reversion to the former format until a better idea surfaces. And by 'better idea' I mean just about any idea in the entire world. 172.171.61.76 01:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
While I would not call it a disaster, it is inferior because information about What Wikipedia is all about is submerged, and nearly invisible. For that reason alone, I think we should seriously go back for now, and get to the drawing board. At the very least, one of the columns (right hand side?) should be dedicated to Wikipedia information, languages, Village Pump, Announcements, etc. This is a revolutionary project and right now it looks like YANAIS (Yet another news and information site). Also, there is way too much white space in the layout, and not an effective use of real estate. Fuzheado 02:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In order to allow more information density on the new page, I suggest putting the "More ..." links on the same line as the section captions. Right now there is plenty of vacant space to the right of the caption. Let the fonts stay as they are, just move the links like "More featured articles..." upwards. Bevo 02:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Guys - before posting pictures to the main page, PLEASE make sure the image page contains full, complete license information. If we're going to feature pictures, I want to make we've got them well documented. →Raul654 02:19, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I know this is inherent in the Wiki system, but when I click on the images on the main page, my brain expects to go to the article, not the bigger version of the image. This is counter-intuitive. Is there any way to change this? RadicalBender 02:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Very professional looking. Should attract users of the encyclopedia (not just editors) and all to explore. Disagree with others that think it is a disaster. It looks great! - Marshman 02:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations Eloquence (and others). Your hard work over the last week and a half have paid-off.The new main page moves us foward by a decade. mydogategodshat 02:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Folks, this is not to impugn the good name of the folks who worked on the page. Kudos for being bold and moving us forward. However, the prominence (and selection) of the feature article sets us back. What used to be clear in the old design -- neutral, international, multilingual and participatory -- is severely damaged in this new version. We have an article about the "Irish Houses of Parliament." I have nothing against the Irish :), but this is so far afield from what a stranger would have seen before [1], where no particular emphasis or viewpoint was provided. I'm no Luddite, and I do support a graphical and rich new front page, but I really do worry about Wikipedia's inclusiveness if singular items get to overwhelm all the great things done within the community. I'd like to get others' opinions about this, because it took me a while to figure out why I did not have an affinity for this new design, and I think this is it. Fuzheado 02:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
IIRC, the page cache, especially for anons, are dependent on when the page was last saved. Therefore changes to the MediaWiki msg pages on the Main Page will not be reflected on the Main Page for most readers until those readers either force a reload or the Main Page is edited and saved. This is less than ideal, IMO. -- mav 03:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do about this? silsor 03:24, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
No matter earlier discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page, I would like to thank all people who volunteered their time and effort to make the new main page possible. Indeed, it's more beautiful. But we may still need to have something simpler for users with old computers, PDAs, etc. So, an additional plain vanilla main page wouldn't hurt, if we can maintain it. Optim 03:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please see Main_Page/Test8 for my ideas on how to tighten the page up. Basically remove the "archive" sections from the vital main page space and integrated the "more" links tighter with the text. jengod 04:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Jengod - I like the way your version looks over the look of the current Main Page. I would, however, use the holiday section in place of the 'Did you know...' section. But since some people really like the sections you removed, I think a better option would be to try to streamline the 6 sections, instead of reducing them to 4. -- mav 07:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think a merger of the recent deaths and the In The News is in order. In fact, it's already part way there. →Raul654 07:08, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
This test8 is like my thinking. Some tweaking, but overall it's much better than the current rev. —Sverdrup (talk) 14:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I change these to start the headers at the appropriate level? I did a quick preview and it didn't seem to muck everything up... Dysprosia 04:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with jengod in theory -- the Main Page is different from the encyclopaedia articles. (As mav pointed out once, it doesn't have to follow our downcase naming conventions either.) However in practice??? Well, I don't really care about the size of the headers -- so jengod's change is fine by me -- but I must disagree about the size of the introductory text.
I think that Wikipedia is different from the other encyclopaedias on the Internet -- very different. It's a wiki, and we need to make that prominent. The introductory text does a reasonable job at that (I might write it differently, but it's no big deal). However, with the size reduction, we invite readers to skip over it and look at the pretty pictures. Now, I like the pretty pictures, don't get me wrong! But we also need them to notice why we are special -- we're a wiki. It doesn't do much good to strongly emphasise how "you" can edit any article if we put it at 85% size! This paragraph really should be at normal size, like the other material on the page -- it's at least as important!
-- Toby Bartels 06:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm a fan oof wikipedia anyway - but now have good reason to have it as my start page, great work and the new look is informative and attractive. Thanks to all those who put it together, as well as to all who participate in wikipedia and this resource! corqspy
It seems like the content is being changed every hour. I realize that this is due to the "newness" of the page, but hopefully it will slow down a tad (not too much though :) Dori | Talk 06:09, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but was it Raul654's suggestion that actually worked? America may have been discovered by the Vikings, the Basques, the Egyptians, the Polynesians, the Chinese, and millions of Siberians' descendants -- but Columbus discovered it too, and his discovery changed the world! -- Toby Bartels 06:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No life →Raul654 06:57, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Looks pretty good! A few points though:-)- the welcome box in yellow is too wordy, and important points are not highlighted. And if the latest announcements/comments (such as the now existing sentence asking for comments about the main page) are going to form a permanent feature, its all the more important. Basically the main body of the page is fine, but the yellow box looks more like a statutory warning than a pleasant welcome!:-) Also, can the side bars and the standard top menu be slightly changed? Maybe if the matter below the side bar extends to the full width of the screen with a horizontal break emphasised (through light line/ colour) it would be better. (The browse wikipedia by topic can extend fully thereby avoiding too much of white space) KRS 06:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Which version do you like best?
The usefulness of this poll is disputed.
I think that the new desing is change to the worse. First: it doesn't looks well in 800*600 resolution. Second: former design was more compact without unnecessary distractions (like Featured article). I especially enjoyed Selected Articles - you can glance & click to what interests you and it was short and orderly. Even on 800*600 one could view Selected Articles and headers of Encyclopedia and Community. Third: on former everything seemed in place - now the real content is left at the bottom behind Featured Article and In the news sections.
If you want to keep new design anyway, I think that remedies should include:
I like the new look of the main page. Congratulations and thank you, it is a huge improvement. -- Baldhur 11:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How did you create the {{msg:itn-test}} tags that were used for the test page Main Page/Test8? Bevo 09:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This new frontpage is much more attractive! And it's a great idea to add a sample article... It's nice to read about other topics of ours without looking for it! Definitely, I love it!
pycoucou
Can we have something about carnival day? (brazil) Perl 13:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's my opinion. -- The Anome 01:26, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)