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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I created Main Page/Classic so that it can be maintained and updated. The new Main Page system is a 30-day trial. It has not yet been approved. And we need to maintain the Classic version through this time period. Kingturtle 01:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The text-only link I can see the usefulness of. The table-free version link I can barely tolerate. But a link to a version which is clearly inferior yet uses the same layout elements (i.e. there's no technical reason to keep it alive) is simply not acceptable. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model. There have been some objections, and we have tried to work together to overcome these concerns. But the vast majority of comments have been highly positive. This is a continuing development process. If you are so unhappy with this page that you think it cannot be improved for you to accept it, then you can of course campaign for a vote. I suggest that we work together to find ways to make this page more acceptable to everyone instead. —Eloquence 01:34, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
The old page is not winning the straw poll. It was supposed to consider variations in the design of the new page as we tried to compact things down. If you combine all the votes for the different new versions, they outnumber the votes for the old version. The simple old vs. new question should be handled separately. -- Michael Snow 00:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The old page has the most votes. And people can vote for multiple pages. Ergo, the old page is winning. Anthony DiPierro 03:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask to only bold items on the main page which are depicted in images? Often it's difficult to tell what the image refers to, and all of the bold text amidst all of the short lines and links makes the text difficult to read. - Seth Ilys 05:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why dont you guys get a real forum instead of this?
cuz we don't like to talk to each other Lirath Q. Pynnor
Great job w the front page, I think your going to attract ALOT more people w this format than the last one, its awesome! Woo-hoo! Sam Spade 08:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me for not wading through all the previous discussion, but what happened to recent deaths? Does it belong under the news now? -- Jia ng 09:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That is NOT! Hermann Göring!!! It's Gerhard Schröder
That's true; Hermann Göring never has been the chancellor of Germany. You'd better changed that.
I suggest that a sysop change the tables so they are both he same size. There used to be more on the left than on the right, but this has now changed with the removal of "obituaries". Perl 21:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
It would be great make a vocabulary like www.wordreference.com or www.babylon.com, but free. Is it possible? Sounds interesting to you?
The thing about the spacewalk is wrong. The entire Russian crew of Mir would routinely go on spacewalks together. Perhaps "a craft's entire" should be changed to "the craft's entire"
Re this: "that U.S. President LBJ once battered Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson over Canada's Vietnam War policy?"
Could I suggest that Main Page is a rather dull and obvious title for our front window to the world? What about Welcome to Wikipedia or something a bit more zippy? Adam 09:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes I have to agree with that. It's a pity the title of the main page is linked to the name of the links on all the other pages, which I agree ought to say Main page. Is there no way they can be delinked? Adam 11:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The front page has a distinctly "USA Today" look and feel. "Did you know?" WTF? It reads like a placemat at a Chuck E. Cheese, or something one would expect from World Book, not Britannica. Marteau
I think the opening paragraph has a tad too many links in it, which make it too overloaded, and I think people might just skip reading it. How about just:
I'm taking the extreme position here, but seriously, how many people do you think will click and read on all those links. Dori | Talk 15:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
With the new layout, the links to other language versions (and anything below it) is impossible to see (at least for me) Is it possible to fix this? --- Fern 22:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We need to have a button on the quickbar for the Community Page. Kingturtle 23:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I believe a button for the Community Main Page would be a great improvement over the directories and backlinks User:168... created. I tried to clean those out, but 168... reverted me. If you have an opinion, see Wikipedia talk:Main Page. -- Michael Snow 00:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll add a poll to Wikipedia talk:Main Page. —Eloquence 01:13, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
I have a form of dyslexia. The Main Page/ Wikipedia:Main Page and Talk:Main Page/ Wikipedia talk:Main Page is really blowing my mind up. I am getting very confused at which is which. When my brain gets crossed up like this for long periods of time, I get headaches and I get frustrated. I should get used to the difference eventually. But I may just keep getting headaches. Is there any way we can rename "Wikipedia:Main Page" to something else that doesn't so closely resemble "Main Page"...anything, I don't care, as long as it isn't so similar? Kingturtle 00:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re this, allow me to re-float my suggestion from above that Main Page is a very boring name for our front page and should be renamed something more welcoming. That would also end the confusion KT refers to. Adam 02:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad everyone agrees, because so do I. :-) I've moved it to Wikipedia:Community Portal. — Timwi 13:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Main Page is so much cooler than the previous Main Page. Thank you, it makes Wikipedia make really professional. RickK 07:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries strikes me as still a little strange. Why not have it be something nice and general like "In history..."? ekips
Holidays also go in that section now, so "In history" and esp "This day in history" do not work. -- mav
1. The annual return of the day on which any notable event took place, or is wont to be celebrated; as, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
The spacewalk was not the first spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew -- the Russians have been doing this for years. It is the first America spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The image for the periodic table is an example of what I mentioned fearing before we instituted this version of the Main Page. The graphic, in my opinion, looks silly, and doesn't give any impression of "the periodic table". Perhaps a thumbnail that merely showed the square for Hydrogen (or some element) would be better. My point in general would be, I think no image would be classier than a thumbnail that is no longer remotely recognizable. We need to consider how to do this more tastefully (or agree that, some days, there won't be a picture for the featured article....which would be no disaster, in my opinion). Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 04:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
is a direct resize of the actual table in the article. I think it works rather well. —Eloquence
may not be conventional, but it is the more accurate form of the table. is used more often only due to the fact that the true form of the table is a bit wide, so the f-block is arbitrarily thrown down below the other blocks - that is a distortion of reality. -- mav
Sorry to whine, but I think we should revert the centering of the first paragraph. screenshot — Sverdrup (talk) 15:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
According to the IRC cabal, it's necessary to make some kind of edit to force the MSG's which are most of the main page to update. Maybe one of the Wikipedia:Maintenance tasks should be to make sure an edit is made every 1-2 hours, especially when the UST date changes? Pakaran . 15:18, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
President Aristide did not flea but was kidnaped by US troops from Haiti. I hope someone will change the rhetoric of the blurb on the front page. — ALC 1 Mar, 2004
Mar 2004 (UTC)
The current Main page has a recent movie's poster art displayed. Under what reasoning is it OK to display this image here in the Wikipedia? - Bevo 21:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess I'm just annoyed that Wikipedia's main page is using a copyrighted image, justly or not. Doesn't seem to fit the openness that is elsewhere so evident here. - Bevo 02:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is the reason for the 90% font size of the introductory paragraph? It draws the reader's attention away from the basic of explanation of what Wikipedia is in the first place. Yet that is what makes Wikipedia different from other online encyclopaedias. Without that paragrph, the user might as well just go back to Britannica! The size keeps getting reduced again (sometimes to 90%, sometimes to 80%), but I've never seen anybody explain why this is a good thing. -- Toby Bartels 21:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This hasn't happened yet, but it probably will eventually. Someone will vandalize one of the images on the main page. I recommend that the images be locked for the time they are on the main page to prevent this. I suppose we could wait for it to happen first, but why risk it?
-- Nohat 00:29, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Where should I post my opinions about the rhetoric used on the front page to describe what is happening in the news? I feel that the summary on Haiti and Aristide is very problematic and one-sided. How can this be addressed??
On Safari right now, the DYK text is slammed all the way to the left border of the left column. Any ideas on why? jengod 05:24, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that we reached 200,000 on Feb 2, and 218,000 on Mar 3, which works out to 600 articles per day. Its nice to see en: growing fast again. If the growth curve is linear we will reach 400,000 in 10 more months, if it is exponential we will get there in seven months. -- Arvindn 06:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what the average size of an article is (say, number of words per article, or characters per article), and what the trend has been over the past year of that average. - Bevo 11:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I miss the new articles section. Can we have it back? Exploding Boy 14:48, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Wow. All your base are belong to us is our feature article. -- user:zanimum
FWIW, which is little, I think the current Main page is horrible. It looks like a cross between a magazine portal and a current news site. It does not look like an encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia stuff is scrolled way down the page. Bring back the old version. -- SGBailey 14:51, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
London congestion charge is the featured article in today's Main page. An article on a municipality fee is the best showcase article that Wikipedia has today? Are we becoming competition for the Drudge Report? - Bevo 15:33, 5 Mar 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I created Main Page/Classic so that it can be maintained and updated. The new Main Page system is a 30-day trial. It has not yet been approved. And we need to maintain the Classic version through this time period. Kingturtle 01:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The text-only link I can see the usefulness of. The table-free version link I can barely tolerate. But a link to a version which is clearly inferior yet uses the same layout elements (i.e. there's no technical reason to keep it alive) is simply not acceptable. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model. There have been some objections, and we have tried to work together to overcome these concerns. But the vast majority of comments have been highly positive. This is a continuing development process. If you are so unhappy with this page that you think it cannot be improved for you to accept it, then you can of course campaign for a vote. I suggest that we work together to find ways to make this page more acceptable to everyone instead. —Eloquence 01:34, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
The old page is not winning the straw poll. It was supposed to consider variations in the design of the new page as we tried to compact things down. If you combine all the votes for the different new versions, they outnumber the votes for the old version. The simple old vs. new question should be handled separately. -- Michael Snow 00:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The old page has the most votes. And people can vote for multiple pages. Ergo, the old page is winning. Anthony DiPierro 03:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask to only bold items on the main page which are depicted in images? Often it's difficult to tell what the image refers to, and all of the bold text amidst all of the short lines and links makes the text difficult to read. - Seth Ilys 05:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why dont you guys get a real forum instead of this?
cuz we don't like to talk to each other Lirath Q. Pynnor
Great job w the front page, I think your going to attract ALOT more people w this format than the last one, its awesome! Woo-hoo! Sam Spade 08:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me for not wading through all the previous discussion, but what happened to recent deaths? Does it belong under the news now? -- Jia ng 09:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That is NOT! Hermann Göring!!! It's Gerhard Schröder
That's true; Hermann Göring never has been the chancellor of Germany. You'd better changed that.
I suggest that a sysop change the tables so they are both he same size. There used to be more on the left than on the right, but this has now changed with the removal of "obituaries". Perl 21:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
It would be great make a vocabulary like www.wordreference.com or www.babylon.com, but free. Is it possible? Sounds interesting to you?
The thing about the spacewalk is wrong. The entire Russian crew of Mir would routinely go on spacewalks together. Perhaps "a craft's entire" should be changed to "the craft's entire"
Re this: "that U.S. President LBJ once battered Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson over Canada's Vietnam War policy?"
Could I suggest that Main Page is a rather dull and obvious title for our front window to the world? What about Welcome to Wikipedia or something a bit more zippy? Adam 09:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes I have to agree with that. It's a pity the title of the main page is linked to the name of the links on all the other pages, which I agree ought to say Main page. Is there no way they can be delinked? Adam 11:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The front page has a distinctly "USA Today" look and feel. "Did you know?" WTF? It reads like a placemat at a Chuck E. Cheese, or something one would expect from World Book, not Britannica. Marteau
I think the opening paragraph has a tad too many links in it, which make it too overloaded, and I think people might just skip reading it. How about just:
I'm taking the extreme position here, but seriously, how many people do you think will click and read on all those links. Dori | Talk 15:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
With the new layout, the links to other language versions (and anything below it) is impossible to see (at least for me) Is it possible to fix this? --- Fern 22:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We need to have a button on the quickbar for the Community Page. Kingturtle 23:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I believe a button for the Community Main Page would be a great improvement over the directories and backlinks User:168... created. I tried to clean those out, but 168... reverted me. If you have an opinion, see Wikipedia talk:Main Page. -- Michael Snow 00:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll add a poll to Wikipedia talk:Main Page. —Eloquence 01:13, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
I have a form of dyslexia. The Main Page/ Wikipedia:Main Page and Talk:Main Page/ Wikipedia talk:Main Page is really blowing my mind up. I am getting very confused at which is which. When my brain gets crossed up like this for long periods of time, I get headaches and I get frustrated. I should get used to the difference eventually. But I may just keep getting headaches. Is there any way we can rename "Wikipedia:Main Page" to something else that doesn't so closely resemble "Main Page"...anything, I don't care, as long as it isn't so similar? Kingturtle 00:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Re this, allow me to re-float my suggestion from above that Main Page is a very boring name for our front page and should be renamed something more welcoming. That would also end the confusion KT refers to. Adam 02:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad everyone agrees, because so do I. :-) I've moved it to Wikipedia:Community Portal. — Timwi 13:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Main Page is so much cooler than the previous Main Page. Thank you, it makes Wikipedia make really professional. RickK 07:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries strikes me as still a little strange. Why not have it be something nice and general like "In history..."? ekips
Holidays also go in that section now, so "In history" and esp "This day in history" do not work. -- mav
1. The annual return of the day on which any notable event took place, or is wont to be celebrated; as, the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
The spacewalk was not the first spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew -- the Russians have been doing this for years. It is the first America spacewalk ever involving the crafts entire crew. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The image for the periodic table is an example of what I mentioned fearing before we instituted this version of the Main Page. The graphic, in my opinion, looks silly, and doesn't give any impression of "the periodic table". Perhaps a thumbnail that merely showed the square for Hydrogen (or some element) would be better. My point in general would be, I think no image would be classier than a thumbnail that is no longer remotely recognizable. We need to consider how to do this more tastefully (or agree that, some days, there won't be a picture for the featured article....which would be no disaster, in my opinion). Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 04:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
is a direct resize of the actual table in the article. I think it works rather well. —Eloquence
may not be conventional, but it is the more accurate form of the table. is used more often only due to the fact that the true form of the table is a bit wide, so the f-block is arbitrarily thrown down below the other blocks - that is a distortion of reality. -- mav
Sorry to whine, but I think we should revert the centering of the first paragraph. screenshot — Sverdrup (talk) 15:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
According to the IRC cabal, it's necessary to make some kind of edit to force the MSG's which are most of the main page to update. Maybe one of the Wikipedia:Maintenance tasks should be to make sure an edit is made every 1-2 hours, especially when the UST date changes? Pakaran . 15:18, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
President Aristide did not flea but was kidnaped by US troops from Haiti. I hope someone will change the rhetoric of the blurb on the front page. — ALC 1 Mar, 2004
Mar 2004 (UTC)
The current Main page has a recent movie's poster art displayed. Under what reasoning is it OK to display this image here in the Wikipedia? - Bevo 21:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I guess I'm just annoyed that Wikipedia's main page is using a copyrighted image, justly or not. Doesn't seem to fit the openness that is elsewhere so evident here. - Bevo 02:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is the reason for the 90% font size of the introductory paragraph? It draws the reader's attention away from the basic of explanation of what Wikipedia is in the first place. Yet that is what makes Wikipedia different from other online encyclopaedias. Without that paragrph, the user might as well just go back to Britannica! The size keeps getting reduced again (sometimes to 90%, sometimes to 80%), but I've never seen anybody explain why this is a good thing. -- Toby Bartels 21:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This hasn't happened yet, but it probably will eventually. Someone will vandalize one of the images on the main page. I recommend that the images be locked for the time they are on the main page to prevent this. I suppose we could wait for it to happen first, but why risk it?
-- Nohat 00:29, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
Where should I post my opinions about the rhetoric used on the front page to describe what is happening in the news? I feel that the summary on Haiti and Aristide is very problematic and one-sided. How can this be addressed??
On Safari right now, the DYK text is slammed all the way to the left border of the left column. Any ideas on why? jengod 05:24, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that we reached 200,000 on Feb 2, and 218,000 on Mar 3, which works out to 600 articles per day. Its nice to see en: growing fast again. If the growth curve is linear we will reach 400,000 in 10 more months, if it is exponential we will get there in seven months. -- Arvindn 06:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what the average size of an article is (say, number of words per article, or characters per article), and what the trend has been over the past year of that average. - Bevo 11:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I miss the new articles section. Can we have it back? Exploding Boy 14:48, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Wow. All your base are belong to us is our feature article. -- user:zanimum
FWIW, which is little, I think the current Main page is horrible. It looks like a cross between a magazine portal and a current news site. It does not look like an encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia stuff is scrolled way down the page. Bring back the old version. -- SGBailey 14:51, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
London congestion charge is the featured article in today's Main page. An article on a municipality fee is the best showcase article that Wikipedia has today? Are we becoming competition for the Drudge Report? - Bevo 15:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)