This page 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. |
I believe the Main Page introduction is unwieldy, far too long and has far too many links. I believe most users will simply skip over it whilst in its current state. I'm proposing cutting it right down, from 46 words to 14, and 9 links to just one.
Let's go back to basics - what's the point of the introduction? Well...
Secondary goals include:
Yes, the current intro does have all this information, but also has far too much cruft - it's been added to and added to, and it's lost what's actually important...
Current intro text | Comment |
---|---|
Welcome to Wikipedia |
Welcome, newcomers is an awful page - far too long-winded and text-based, more likely to scare users away than anything.
Wikipedia is a confusing link - the user has just arrived at Wikipedia, so how can there be a link to Wikipedia..? |
a free-content encyclopedia | Stating it's an encyclopedia is fine, a quick definition for brand new users. However, "free-content" is not a well-known term, and Wikipedia:Copyrights just looks like a boring legal document. I think stating Wikipedia is simply free for now, and explaining free-content later is preferable. |
in many languages broken anchor | "Many languages" is important, in fact so important I think we should remove it from the introduction and have a much more prominent link to the language list. |
that anyone can edit | The most important three words in the introduction, but poorly linked to wiki - the article explains the wiki concept, but won't get people editing, and doesn't explain how to edit Wikipedia. |
In this English edition | Anyone who can understand those 4 words knows it's in English. Redundant. |
started in January 2001 | Is the starting date really that important? |
we are working on 6,818,656 articles | The article count shows we're not a tiny project, but it's not an obvious link to statistics - my guess is users would expect it to link to some kind of article overview or browse page (and no, the tooltip isn't good enough). |
Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article | The Community Portal doesn't really tell you how to edit pages. It's quite important, but slightly sprawling and full to bursting with links. Wikipedia:How to edit a page is most certainly not a good article to link to. Far too long and confusing for an introductory article. |
or experiment in the sandbox. | Sandbox? What's that? Let's properly guide the user through editing and experimenting. |
So what's my grand idea for replacing it? Very simply...
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
As for the language link, I've tried to come up with a more prominent icon for it. Go and have a look at how this looks on a Main Page mockup (also see the talk page for more rationale).
I believe this says all it needs to. The "how to edit" link goes to the brand new Wikipedia:Introduction, which explains Wikipedia, gets users editing and sends them off exploring. I believe it's a vast improvement on what we currently have with Welcome, newcomers.
Looking forward to your comments! Thanks, Tom- 16:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
-- Randy 00:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trying out a new look to the top inch of the page, from tom's work on Main Page/test and the new Wikipedia:Introduction. See what you think. +sj + 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note: I've just now removed the CSS font specs for the intro; hopefully now it should render in whatever font a user has set for the rest of the site. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
-simple, clean, best.
And the current first line is still in the wrong font (ie different from the usual body text style). Dan100 21:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. So why on earth do we now have the old intro back? Please, if any admin who believes in consensus is reading this, restore:
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
because it's plain that here on this discussion page, that's what people want. Dan100 09:17, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Let me be clear why I prefer this new version:
Dan100 09:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I also suppport the newer, smaller version that was here yesterday. The old one thats reappeared today is too damn big and too busy. Kiand 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The number of articles and the date it was started both should be in the introduction. The original aim of Wikipedia was to reach 100,000 articles. I don't think anyone back then imagined the phenomenal growth the site has undergone. - Mark 14:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please, can we think of those who have smaller computer monitors? Can we do something about the fact that the main content is now too far down the page (or seems that way, due to the amount of whitespace that is now there)? I mean, now I can barely see the "selected anniversaries" in one go, and so the design of the front page is broken. To be honest with you, that meta stuff up the top, while good, is making us "miss" content. If I was a new user, then why would I care? I'd care about the content of the site, not about how many articles we have. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,818,656 articles.
Browse: Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology
Browse Wikipedia - Article overviews - Alphabetical index - Other category schemes
- Ozzyslovechild 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems the main page is now a free-for-all among the admins, changing fonts, wording and links as and when they feel like it. How about actually reading this page and joining in with the discussion rather than foisting YOUR own ideas on how it should be upon us? Dan100 21:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
I loved the new version and I am disappointed that the older, less user friendly version is back. The introduction page is much more user friendly than the other welcome page and the images for the other languages section made it easier to get Wikipedia in the language of your choice. I absolutley disagree with the edit summary for reversion [1] and I want the new version back. I wish more people followed my motto of "ReVise not ReVert". Making it easier for new users will attract more contributors, this old introduction is horrible and the other languages links very small. Think of the users. Norman Rogers\ talk 10:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with the admins? Don't they know to read the talk page before making a major change to a page, especially the most important page on Wikipedia? I thought they were supposed to be the role models for Wikipedians. I would like them to put the new main page layout seen on Main_Page/test back. -- Randy 17:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since this is something that practically all Wikipedians will notice & have an opinion on, shouldn't we put this change to a general vote? Abruptly making changes like this without any prior notice will only create resistance to any improvements, & create ill-will.
Although a glance at this page shows that I am in the minority in disliking this new look, I'm perfectly willing to abide by the decision of a vote on this issue. -- llywrch 20:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The point of the language icon is to try to be an obvious, multilingual signpost to other languages. I believe simply having a small "other languages" link isn't good enough. I suspect the majority of non-English speakers that come to the Main Page would know or could guess the meaning, but I'm not sure if they'd see the link in the first place.
Because "Wikipedia in other languages" requires you to scroll down to see it, having something right at the top of the page is preferable. Otherwise we're in danger of losing users who think Wikipedia is only in English. Tom- 20:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
this is not English (*sob*). it should at least be 'having started', but even that would be questionable. I also miss the link to the statistics. gripe, bitch, gripe. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is Tom's version:
==
(NB this is a comment on the usability of the new intro. I make some comments on the design in the vote, above.)
I can understand that people who have used Wikipedia for some time believe that where-ever possible words should be wikified and that as much information as possible is available as soon as possible - that's how Wikipedia works.
However a new user (ie someone arriving at www.wikipedia.org for the first time) may well have a different perspective. For starters, someone who has just 'surfed in' could surf out again just as easily unless their attention is caught and held. They also most likely have a short attention span - if they get bored, they leave. Wikipedia isn't the most interesting article ever and is very long; I defy anyone to say that it would be interesting to a new-comer. Nor is free content - being "copyleft" or whatever is not important to someone viewing Wikipedia for the first time.
However the Wikipedia:introduction pages are brief, attractive, and explain Wikipedia's 'killer app' feature - collaborative editing - in a quick, effective manner. Explaining how any page can be edited by anyone provides the hook which keeps people interested. The final page then serves as a jumping-off point to explore the rest of wikipedia now they are interested. It does also include a link to Wikipedia! By that stage, they might have enough interest to read it, but if they at least they know what Wikipedia is about by then and probably won't just leave the site.
Dan100 12:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
(this section transplanted from Talk:Main_Page/test) IMHO, in the intro line and the linked intro pages, just as important as conveying that 'anyone can edit,' is that Wikipedia is valuable, not just a strange knowledge project in which 'anyone can mess with pages.' We have to remember that many visitors may be initially skeptical of the idea.
I think the easiest way to work toward this is to (1) link 6,818,656 to largest encyclopedia, or to (2) merge some of the points discussed on largest encyclopedia into Special:Statistics. The general public only minimally cares how Wikipedia collects its statistics, which is what the Special:Statistics link covers at the time of this writing. What is relevant about the statistics, is how they compare with other encyclopedias.
An early criticism of Wikipedia thought Wikipedia's ambitions of reaching 50,000 articles were laughably ambitious. However, most readers will not realize what 6,818,656 articles means unless we tell them. -- Nectarflowed 00:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could I get away with changing "free-content" back to just "free"? The intro overflows on to two lines at 800x600 currently, so it needs cutting down a bit somehow.
The link to Wikipedia fully explains about the licensing, even better so than the free content article imo.
But I doubt it'll be popular... Cheers, Tom- 18:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Competing use of the terms "open source" and "free software" is a longstanding political issue for some people. This is just an extension of that battle. To avoid it in proper NPOV fashion, I think it would be best to stick to just "free" (as suggested by Tom- below). Attempting to fully and precisely define all of our terms in the intro is an unnecessary endeavor that is foolhardy to attempt. "Free" is fully informative enough for introductory purposes; no need to immediately drag people into long discourses on the meaning of freedom. -- Michael Snow 17:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main porpoise of the intro is to explain *what* Wikipedia is, and "free" gives some the impression that it's simply an encyclopedia that costs nothing as opposed to a "free content" encyclopedia, explaining that is just as, if not more important than explaining that anyone can edit it not to mention more important than solving an undesired linebreak for some users. I'll be putting it back. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Someone should change "Free-content" to "Content-Free" as an April Fools Day joke.
How about linking "Free-content" to Open content? Stallman doesn't have any right to control what we do here. And I think it's worthwhile to explain to new users what "free-content"/"open content" means. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
The text "In this English version" reads very awkwardly and any purpose it may have is highly unclear to me. It gives the impression that not only are there multiple other Wikipedias (i.e. the other languages, already prominently mentioned on the side) but multiple other versions, or forks, of the English Wikipedia. Yes, there is Simple, but its real value is subject to debate, plus it already gets grouped in with the other languages and properly so, I think. Anyway, rather than let the text continue to creep along, I propose to remove this. -- Michael Snow 17:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see all the intro text back to a single size, and run together in one paragraph. It was cute to try making it two separate lines, but they break into three lines for many sets of {screen width, font prefs}. +sj + 18:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hello everybody i dont really know about forks they are things that you eat with that have 3 prongs if they hadnt been invented we would still be struggling with just a knife so there you go. There are lots of different types of forks, stainless steal, plastic, sporks there are absolutely loads but i cant really think of them right now. Oh well i hope that this helps.
We have "Started in 2001, we are currently working on 447306 English articles.", why not try "We have created 447306 English articles since our founding in 2001." Even the sentence we have, just "Founded" instead of "Started". -- user:zanimum
Might it be possible/desirable to make the links in the tagline appear to be more subtle?
It seems distracting to have them bolded, in different colors, and underlined.
I do think they should somehow call to the viewer that they are in fact links and I can understand the inclination to want to make the "anyone can edit" bit really stand out, but taken as a whole I think it winds up being more distracting than useful to anyone who is actually reading it for the first time.
I think at the very least the color should remain the same as the other text in the sentence.
Can't recall if you can specify a slighter underline in CSS; don't think you can so maybe keep it and see how it works with same color? I'd also say loose the bolding on 'Wikipedia' and maybe on 'anyone can edit,' but that's secondary to loosing the color.
Thoughts? - Ozzyslovechild 02:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How in the world would newbies know what "free-content" means? It should be linked. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this does? - MarSch 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is Wiktionary missing so many accepted words?
Seems like that's a kind of barn-raising that would be easy to accomplish with a little love from her neighbors o'er yonder at Wikipedia.
And then just get 'er done. Or at least get her Great-Leaped-FWDed.
Anyhoo, just a thought.
-:)Ozzyslovechild 03:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I put this on the main page talk section before realizing that this place existed:
What would you think about changing the links at the top of the page (Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology) to link to portals, not categories? Personally, I think portals are much more helpful than the messy category pages in getting to the information I want. Take a look at the Life, Science, Math, and History wikiportals, and compare them to Category:Personal life, Category:Science, Category:Mathematics and Category:History. There's no comparison in professionalism and ease of use, in my opinion. Of course, right now there are only four wikiportals that correspond with eight category links on the main page. But if someone would make the other four to the same quality as these, would the links be changed to direct to the portals? Thoughts on this? -- Spangineer ∞ 13:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, the portals link to categories anyway. The only problem is that some of these pages are very poor, for instance Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Literature. Look how rarely it's updated. Robinoke 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
A good idea. To actually get it implemented, try attracting an admins' attention on WP:AN. Dan100 23:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have created my own fork of Main. It is much the same, but it features less and cleaner HTML and gets rid of annoying extra margins and paddings. This is what I consider the most important change. Of course I have changed a few other things to my own prefs, like portals instead of categories, and the intro text. Please take a look. Also if anyone knows what exactly class="MainBG" does/means I would like to know. -- MarSch 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that the current date and time should be displayed on the Main Page. It might give visitors a more "welcome" feeling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I believe the Main Page introduction is unwieldy, far too long and has far too many links. I believe most users will simply skip over it whilst in its current state. I'm proposing cutting it right down, from 46 words to 14, and 9 links to just one.
Let's go back to basics - what's the point of the introduction? Well...
Secondary goals include:
Yes, the current intro does have all this information, but also has far too much cruft - it's been added to and added to, and it's lost what's actually important...
Current intro text | Comment |
---|---|
Welcome to Wikipedia |
Welcome, newcomers is an awful page - far too long-winded and text-based, more likely to scare users away than anything.
Wikipedia is a confusing link - the user has just arrived at Wikipedia, so how can there be a link to Wikipedia..? |
a free-content encyclopedia | Stating it's an encyclopedia is fine, a quick definition for brand new users. However, "free-content" is not a well-known term, and Wikipedia:Copyrights just looks like a boring legal document. I think stating Wikipedia is simply free for now, and explaining free-content later is preferable. |
in many languages broken anchor | "Many languages" is important, in fact so important I think we should remove it from the introduction and have a much more prominent link to the language list. |
that anyone can edit | The most important three words in the introduction, but poorly linked to wiki - the article explains the wiki concept, but won't get people editing, and doesn't explain how to edit Wikipedia. |
In this English edition | Anyone who can understand those 4 words knows it's in English. Redundant. |
started in January 2001 | Is the starting date really that important? |
we are working on 6,818,656 articles | The article count shows we're not a tiny project, but it's not an obvious link to statistics - my guess is users would expect it to link to some kind of article overview or browse page (and no, the tooltip isn't good enough). |
Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article | The Community Portal doesn't really tell you how to edit pages. It's quite important, but slightly sprawling and full to bursting with links. Wikipedia:How to edit a page is most certainly not a good article to link to. Far too long and confusing for an introductory article. |
or experiment in the sandbox. | Sandbox? What's that? Let's properly guide the user through editing and experimenting. |
So what's my grand idea for replacing it? Very simply...
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
As for the language link, I've tried to come up with a more prominent icon for it. Go and have a look at how this looks on a Main Page mockup (also see the talk page for more rationale).
I believe this says all it needs to. The "how to edit" link goes to the brand new Wikipedia:Introduction, which explains Wikipedia, gets users editing and sends them off exploring. I believe it's a vast improvement on what we currently have with Welcome, newcomers.
Looking forward to your comments! Thanks, Tom- 16:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
-- Randy 00:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trying out a new look to the top inch of the page, from tom's work on Main Page/test and the new Wikipedia:Introduction. See what you think. +sj + 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note: I've just now removed the CSS font specs for the intro; hopefully now it should render in whatever font a user has set for the rest of the site. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
-simple, clean, best.
And the current first line is still in the wrong font (ie different from the usual body text style). Dan100 21:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. So why on earth do we now have the old intro back? Please, if any admin who believes in consensus is reading this, restore:
Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,818,656 English articles.
because it's plain that here on this discussion page, that's what people want. Dan100 09:17, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Let me be clear why I prefer this new version:
Dan100 09:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
I also suppport the newer, smaller version that was here yesterday. The old one thats reappeared today is too damn big and too busy. Kiand 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The number of articles and the date it was started both should be in the introduction. The original aim of Wikipedia was to reach 100,000 articles. I don't think anyone back then imagined the phenomenal growth the site has undergone. - Mark 14:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please, can we think of those who have smaller computer monitors? Can we do something about the fact that the main content is now too far down the page (or seems that way, due to the amount of whitespace that is now there)? I mean, now I can barely see the "selected anniversaries" in one go, and so the design of the front page is broken. To be honest with you, that meta stuff up the top, while good, is making us "miss" content. If I was a new user, then why would I care? I'd care about the content of the site, not about how many articles we have. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Something like:
Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,818,656 articles.
Browse: Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology
Browse Wikipedia - Article overviews - Alphabetical index - Other category schemes
- Ozzyslovechild 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems the main page is now a free-for-all among the admins, changing fonts, wording and links as and when they feel like it. How about actually reading this page and joining in with the discussion rather than foisting YOUR own ideas on how it should be upon us? Dan100 21:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
I loved the new version and I am disappointed that the older, less user friendly version is back. The introduction page is much more user friendly than the other welcome page and the images for the other languages section made it easier to get Wikipedia in the language of your choice. I absolutley disagree with the edit summary for reversion [1] and I want the new version back. I wish more people followed my motto of "ReVise not ReVert". Making it easier for new users will attract more contributors, this old introduction is horrible and the other languages links very small. Think of the users. Norman Rogers\ talk 10:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with the admins? Don't they know to read the talk page before making a major change to a page, especially the most important page on Wikipedia? I thought they were supposed to be the role models for Wikipedians. I would like them to put the new main page layout seen on Main_Page/test back. -- Randy 17:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since this is something that practically all Wikipedians will notice & have an opinion on, shouldn't we put this change to a general vote? Abruptly making changes like this without any prior notice will only create resistance to any improvements, & create ill-will.
Although a glance at this page shows that I am in the minority in disliking this new look, I'm perfectly willing to abide by the decision of a vote on this issue. -- llywrch 20:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The point of the language icon is to try to be an obvious, multilingual signpost to other languages. I believe simply having a small "other languages" link isn't good enough. I suspect the majority of non-English speakers that come to the Main Page would know or could guess the meaning, but I'm not sure if they'd see the link in the first place.
Because "Wikipedia in other languages" requires you to scroll down to see it, having something right at the top of the page is preferable. Otherwise we're in danger of losing users who think Wikipedia is only in English. Tom- 20:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
this is not English (*sob*). it should at least be 'having started', but even that would be questionable. I also miss the link to the statistics. gripe, bitch, gripe. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is Tom's version:
==
(NB this is a comment on the usability of the new intro. I make some comments on the design in the vote, above.)
I can understand that people who have used Wikipedia for some time believe that where-ever possible words should be wikified and that as much information as possible is available as soon as possible - that's how Wikipedia works.
However a new user (ie someone arriving at www.wikipedia.org for the first time) may well have a different perspective. For starters, someone who has just 'surfed in' could surf out again just as easily unless their attention is caught and held. They also most likely have a short attention span - if they get bored, they leave. Wikipedia isn't the most interesting article ever and is very long; I defy anyone to say that it would be interesting to a new-comer. Nor is free content - being "copyleft" or whatever is not important to someone viewing Wikipedia for the first time.
However the Wikipedia:introduction pages are brief, attractive, and explain Wikipedia's 'killer app' feature - collaborative editing - in a quick, effective manner. Explaining how any page can be edited by anyone provides the hook which keeps people interested. The final page then serves as a jumping-off point to explore the rest of wikipedia now they are interested. It does also include a link to Wikipedia! By that stage, they might have enough interest to read it, but if they at least they know what Wikipedia is about by then and probably won't just leave the site.
Dan100 12:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
(this section transplanted from Talk:Main_Page/test) IMHO, in the intro line and the linked intro pages, just as important as conveying that 'anyone can edit,' is that Wikipedia is valuable, not just a strange knowledge project in which 'anyone can mess with pages.' We have to remember that many visitors may be initially skeptical of the idea.
I think the easiest way to work toward this is to (1) link 6,818,656 to largest encyclopedia, or to (2) merge some of the points discussed on largest encyclopedia into Special:Statistics. The general public only minimally cares how Wikipedia collects its statistics, which is what the Special:Statistics link covers at the time of this writing. What is relevant about the statistics, is how they compare with other encyclopedias.
An early criticism of Wikipedia thought Wikipedia's ambitions of reaching 50,000 articles were laughably ambitious. However, most readers will not realize what 6,818,656 articles means unless we tell them. -- Nectarflowed 00:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could I get away with changing "free-content" back to just "free"? The intro overflows on to two lines at 800x600 currently, so it needs cutting down a bit somehow.
The link to Wikipedia fully explains about the licensing, even better so than the free content article imo.
But I doubt it'll be popular... Cheers, Tom- 18:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Competing use of the terms "open source" and "free software" is a longstanding political issue for some people. This is just an extension of that battle. To avoid it in proper NPOV fashion, I think it would be best to stick to just "free" (as suggested by Tom- below). Attempting to fully and precisely define all of our terms in the intro is an unnecessary endeavor that is foolhardy to attempt. "Free" is fully informative enough for introductory purposes; no need to immediately drag people into long discourses on the meaning of freedom. -- Michael Snow 17:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main porpoise of the intro is to explain *what* Wikipedia is, and "free" gives some the impression that it's simply an encyclopedia that costs nothing as opposed to a "free content" encyclopedia, explaining that is just as, if not more important than explaining that anyone can edit it not to mention more important than solving an undesired linebreak for some users. I'll be putting it back. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Someone should change "Free-content" to "Content-Free" as an April Fools Day joke.
How about linking "Free-content" to Open content? Stallman doesn't have any right to control what we do here. And I think it's worthwhile to explain to new users what "free-content"/"open content" means. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
The text "In this English version" reads very awkwardly and any purpose it may have is highly unclear to me. It gives the impression that not only are there multiple other Wikipedias (i.e. the other languages, already prominently mentioned on the side) but multiple other versions, or forks, of the English Wikipedia. Yes, there is Simple, but its real value is subject to debate, plus it already gets grouped in with the other languages and properly so, I think. Anyway, rather than let the text continue to creep along, I propose to remove this. -- Michael Snow 17:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see all the intro text back to a single size, and run together in one paragraph. It was cute to try making it two separate lines, but they break into three lines for many sets of {screen width, font prefs}. +sj + 18:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hello everybody i dont really know about forks they are things that you eat with that have 3 prongs if they hadnt been invented we would still be struggling with just a knife so there you go. There are lots of different types of forks, stainless steal, plastic, sporks there are absolutely loads but i cant really think of them right now. Oh well i hope that this helps.
We have "Started in 2001, we are currently working on 447306 English articles.", why not try "We have created 447306 English articles since our founding in 2001." Even the sentence we have, just "Founded" instead of "Started". -- user:zanimum
Might it be possible/desirable to make the links in the tagline appear to be more subtle?
It seems distracting to have them bolded, in different colors, and underlined.
I do think they should somehow call to the viewer that they are in fact links and I can understand the inclination to want to make the "anyone can edit" bit really stand out, but taken as a whole I think it winds up being more distracting than useful to anyone who is actually reading it for the first time.
I think at the very least the color should remain the same as the other text in the sentence.
Can't recall if you can specify a slighter underline in CSS; don't think you can so maybe keep it and see how it works with same color? I'd also say loose the bolding on 'Wikipedia' and maybe on 'anyone can edit,' but that's secondary to loosing the color.
Thoughts? - Ozzyslovechild 02:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How in the world would newbies know what "free-content" means? It should be linked. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this does? - MarSch 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is Wiktionary missing so many accepted words?
Seems like that's a kind of barn-raising that would be easy to accomplish with a little love from her neighbors o'er yonder at Wikipedia.
And then just get 'er done. Or at least get her Great-Leaped-FWDed.
Anyhoo, just a thought.
-:)Ozzyslovechild 03:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I put this on the main page talk section before realizing that this place existed:
What would you think about changing the links at the top of the page (Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology) to link to portals, not categories? Personally, I think portals are much more helpful than the messy category pages in getting to the information I want. Take a look at the Life, Science, Math, and History wikiportals, and compare them to Category:Personal life, Category:Science, Category:Mathematics and Category:History. There's no comparison in professionalism and ease of use, in my opinion. Of course, right now there are only four wikiportals that correspond with eight category links on the main page. But if someone would make the other four to the same quality as these, would the links be changed to direct to the portals? Thoughts on this? -- Spangineer ∞ 13:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, the portals link to categories anyway. The only problem is that some of these pages are very poor, for instance Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Literature. Look how rarely it's updated. Robinoke 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
A good idea. To actually get it implemented, try attracting an admins' attention on WP:AN. Dan100 23:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have created my own fork of Main. It is much the same, but it features less and cleaner HTML and gets rid of annoying extra margins and paddings. This is what I consider the most important change. Of course I have changed a few other things to my own prefs, like portals instead of categories, and the intro text. Please take a look. Also if anyone knows what exactly class="MainBG" does/means I would like to know. -- MarSch 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that the current date and time should be displayed on the Main Page. It might give visitors a more "welcome" feeling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)