Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 1

Problems
If there is a winner from this competition, you'll then need consensus that the winner should replace the current main page and that consensus needs to be from a very large majority of the community. Saying that the winner of this comeptition will replace the main page is wrong.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... it's a proposal.  Al Tally  talk  20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but even so - when there's a winner, it would still need consensus to replace the main page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have asked for comments. It would be good if this page could be advertised widely so we get some agreement.  Al Tally  talk  20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, things like the header, the section colors, and the sister projects list are all a bit dated and could use improvement.  MBisanz  talk 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea but we need to make sure it is heavily advertised; we need large numbers of wikipedians to reach a consensus that the winner will replace the main page. This might be difficult so there might need to be a "paring down" where from the large number of submissions we slowly bring it down to just a select few, and then we work on reaching a consensus. Wsanders (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wsanders. If this is heavily advertised, as it needs to be in order to get a consensus from the majority of Wikipedians, then the number of submissions will need to be pared down. And I don't think we have the power to do that. I think that it's up to the Wikimedia Foundation to do that. Someone needs to make a request to them. It's a catch-22. Genius101 Wizard (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The foundation has nothing to do with how we design our main page.  Al Tally  talk  21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it could be good to solicit ideas for new designs, just to get creative juices flowing. As one of the most-visited sites on the Internet we don't want our homepage getting stale.  But I'd say it's far too soon to suggest that we definitely will be replacing the Main Page.  I'm also not sure if a competition is the best way to go about it.  But editors should not be discouraged from kicking around ideas. --JayHenry (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did it say it would be definitely replacing? It's been a proposal from the start.  Al Tally  talk  21:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It initially said "the most popular one will replace the current design". I interpreted that as a proposal to replace the Main Page, as opposed to a proposal to consider ideas that might replace the Main Page.  It is a subtle, but important, distinction.  In the early phases of such a proposal it's important to phrase things diplomatically so people do not develop an early opposition to the approach itself. --JayHenry (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are intelligent enough to realise that just by writing it, it doesn't make it true.  Al Tally  talk  22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I realize that. I was explaining why I made edits to the proposal.  I felt that they made a subtle, but important, distinction. --JayHenry (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we need an imaprtial official to conduct the contest. And becasue the foundation operates and funds Wikipedia, I thought they should come from there. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And, JayHenry, I'm not trying to stop people from discusiing it. Err... wait. If your comment was directed at me, then that's what I meant. Either way, I think that we should be talking about a replacement because it might be getting a bit stale. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the procedure for this? Is there anything more concrete than "get a consensus" before we decide whether or not to do it and then how to do it? Should we have a formal/structured discussion (like WP:AfD)?  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Competition"
1. Until there is something resembling consensus that this is a good idea, an appropriate place to advertise this is Village pump (proposals), not the watchlist. (We can't list every proposal there, let alone brand new ones).

2. If the most recent main page redesign taught us anything, it's that a "competition" is perhaps the worst possible way to go about this. Only via cooperative editing (the very basis of a wiki) were we finally able to achieve a positive outcome. When we had competing designs, it was pandemonium. —David Levy 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is something that will affect the most visited page on the project. I think watchlist is highly suitable for such a place. Not everyone looks at the village pump, but basically every user has a watchlist.
 * Most "recent" was 2 and a half years ago. Maybe things have changed.  Al Tally  talk  21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. An actual redesign would affect the most visited page on the project, but at this point, we have an idea that's barely even been discussed, so no main page redesign is eminent. The watchlist certainly will be an appropriate place to advertise the competition if and when there is consensus to proceed with it, but to do so now is highly premature.
 * 2.What, other than the fact that we now have more editors (to generate greater pandemonium), has changed? We're still a wiki (based on collaborative editing), aren't we?  —David Levy 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to your removal, discussion of this is rather pointless, as the advertising is now very limited. We are attempting to gain consensus for a competition, and you're preventing it. I don't know why this is.
 * I still think a competition is a good idea. Your arguments against are pretty weak.  Al Tally  talk  22:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's been advertised on Reddit's Wikipedia channel. – SJL 22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't know what gave you the idea that a system that's consistently worked well for years (including when we redesigned the main page) suddenly is inadequate.
 * 2. My argument that a main page redesign competition is a bad idea is based on the fact that it was tried and failed. What's your argument based on?  —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that it's entirely subjective. Color schemes, layout, etc. certainly can be collaborated on, but the basic design should be submitted. Once there's general agreement toward a few, we can narrow down the list and tweak designs to appease as many people as possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The submission of different proposals is constructive, but a "competition" simply doesn't work for this (as we learned the last time). If the main page is to be redesigned, a single, unified design must be proposed to the community.  Nothing else will work.  —David Levy 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a move tab, no? ; - ) Main Page redesign contest or Main Page redesign proposal or ... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved. Now let's please reach some sort of consensus for how to proceed before hitting the watchlist.  :-)  —David Levy 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MZMcBride. Also, on a side note, I've put in a request for a Main Page barnstar, as there are some people who really deserve one. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have no clue about what's going on here (and that's entirely possible), but it seems to me that there's a confused discussion going on about whether or not a competition should be conducted to identify a designer (?) who will redesign the Wikipedia main page. I clicked on the notice that appeared when I logged in and arrived here to find that no real proposal has been presented. Instead contributors are here talking about whether or not something that hasn't been defined yet should happen. Worse still, the only justification I've been able to locate in the discussion thus far has to do with Wikipedia being a high-traffic website, hence the main page should not get "stale". I cannot help but recall that while some designers are fond of changing their designs to keep up with (endlessly) changing trends, there are also strong arguments in favor of designs intended to address real issues, that careful designers struggle to deal with in ways that will not require idle redesigns. Unless we are talking about a purely cosmetic redesign for a graphic on the entry page then talking design includes the user interface as well. That's not a small thing to go fooling around with. Suggesting a "main page redesign" can bring to mind a number of different things depending on how much you know about design of one kind or another, which makes this whole discussion potentially confusing.

I fear that someone has written in an ambiguous way and what is meant is that a proposal is proposed. In which case the advertisement should have said "Come discuss the suggestion that we create a proposal for a new design of the main page graphic." Of course just what is meant by design should then be specified.

But perhaps I'm wrong and there actually is a proposal. If this is so, as a matter of courtesy, a public notice suggesting discussion of a proposal ought (by my lights) to lead the people notified to that proposal. With this in mind I would like to suggest the following:

1. Justification for the suggestion of a redesign should be provided. This would, ideally, include a clear description of reasons why a redesign is necessary (or at least desirable). This means a list of issues that any design would be intended to address. Without such a list of issues that need to be addressed there is no basis for

2. A clear and detailed proposal for a design competition. This would include the aforementioned and all-important list of issues that the competing designers (or teams, or whatever) will be challenged to address.

If we have a concrete proposal it needn't be crystal clear at first, or if we are clear about the lack of a concrete proposal then steps can be taken to develop one. But in the absence of any well-consider concrete proposal or clarity in exposition I have to wonder if inviting people to this discussion in such a high-profile way is really the way to proceed. --Picatrix (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to #1 I think it can be good to stop every now and then and re-think things from scratch. I find the main page useless and never go there, most users just go right to an entry via google. So, what is the purpose of the main page? Do we even need one? If so what is it for? News? Explaining what the wikipedia is? What is the point? Do we want more people to go there? Or could the main page have some other purpose? futurebird (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Popular pages shows that the Main page was the second most visited page in May 2008 (second only to the search results page) so something needs to be there. I will reserve further comment until someone points out the perceived problems with the existing page that this proposal is intended to fix. Road Wizard (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People have done already, several times. The current page is bland, unexciting, outdated in parts, doesn't cover much in the way of things like portals, the arrangement needs looking at, links to more prominent pages... at the moment, it's not the greatest of pages. Compare it to other language Wikipedias.  Al Tally  talk  00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help if the list of problems is added to the proposal page. I am not the only one that has asked about why this is being discussed and I surely won't be the last (however if you would prefer to answer this question again "several times" then be my guest). It would also help to include links to the good main page examples on other wikis that you refer to. If an editor wants to flag up a proposal for the whole wiki to discuss then it is a good idea to prepare an effective summary first. Road Wizard (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should do as MZMcBride suggested, and have several proposals, that are then tweaked/merged into one final new main page. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details
[relocated from User talk:David Levy]

Hello David. The watchlist notice was made to advertise the actual competition proposal - we need a lot of eyes to decide if we want to do it this way. It wasn't a call for suggestions, merely discussion on the proposal talk page. Could you possibly consider reverting yourself please?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this different from any other proposal? We certainly can't list all of them there, let alone ones that have barely even been discussed or ones that duplicate past ideas that failed miserably.  (Please see my response at Wikipedia talk:Main Page design competition‎.)  —David Levy 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's affecting the front page of our project, that's why. We don't list the minor ones, but we list the major ones.  Al Tally  talk  22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An actual redesign would affect the front page of our project, but at this point, we have an idea that's barely even been discussed, so no main page redesign is eminent. The watchlist certainly will be an appropriate place to advertise the competition if and when there is consensus to proceed with it, but to do so now is highly premature. —David Levy 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion works when people know about it. Since you're actively trying to prevent that from happening, the proposal will go nowhere.  Al Tally   talk  22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the purpose of Village pump (proposals) is to announce such proposals. Your theory is refuted by the fact that we successfully redesigned the main page without the measure that you've deemed essential.  —David Levy 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In 2006. This is 2008. Things are done differently now. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we can't do it.  Al Tally  talk  22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So...Village pump (proposals) is no longer the appropriate place to list proposals? We now immediately advertise them via the watchlist after virtually no discussion?  —David Levy 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, why not. Especially something as big as this.  Al Tally  talk  22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? Because the established system exists for a reason, works well, and prevents the watchlist notice from being jammed with every "big" idea that someone comes up with.  —David Levy 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not "jammed". There's plenty of space. Click "dismiss" if you don't like it.  Al Tally  talk  22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would become jammed if every big idea were immediately listed there without discussion. —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed please revert. How do you suggest we get consensus without advertising somewhere prominent?  Al Tally  talk  21:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At this very early stage, Village pump (proposals) is sufficiently prominent. —David Levy 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No it isn't.  Al Tally  talk  22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? That's what it's for, and it worked the last time.  —David Levy 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not 2006 anymore.  Al Tally  talk  22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and we now have far more people watching the village pump than we did back then. —David Levy 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like David's idea to start with a smaller group, such as at the Village Pump, and then expand a little more broadly once it's a little bit clearer what is actually being proposed. --JayHenry (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me - users are invited to redesign the main page, the designs are voted on, and the most popular one will replace the current page. Quite simple really.  Al Tally  talk  22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to even replace the main page, let alone via a competition (which history has proven not to work). The idea has barely even been discussed.  —David Levy 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then to get consensus, let's get as many users as possible to comment on it. Oh, wait, you didn't like that idea. Oh well.  Al Tally  talk  22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to comment on the proposal and you gave me a rather snippy response. When Ryan attempted to comment on the proposal you said "it's a proposal", instead of discussing his concerns.  If you want people to comment it would help if you toned down the combativeness a little bit. --JayHenry (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (JH) Sorry, it wasn't intended. It just annoys me that people immediately look at the negatives all the time, instead of the positives. And when people like David Levy turn up (who has a history of edit warring on the main page, so isn't exactly impartial here), suggesting the whole idea is a bad one, and tries to remove it from a prominent position intended to get a better response from the community, it really gets to me. (Really, the village pump notice will get seen by a few, but it will soon get overlooked by other posts. It's unsuitable on its own).  Al Tally  talk  22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I don't know David, but I think he is simply proposing to start at the Village Pump, figure out some ideas on how to proceed, and then bring it in front of a broader segment of the community. --JayHenry (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I have "a history of edit warring on the main page"? Huh?
 * 2. Again, that's what Village pump (proposals) is for. Why do you believe that it suddenly is inadequate for fulfilling its intended purpose?  —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I await an explanation of your accusation that I have "a history of edit warring on the main page" and an answer to my second question. —David Levy 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See above. —David Levy 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is really better suited for the MediaWiki:Watchlist-details talk page, but I don't see a problem with announcing proposals with such an impact within the watchlist-notice. - auburn pilot   talk  23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But this proposal doesn't yet have a great impact.
 * Someone could propose that we change our articles' default background color to black and their text to yellow. This would be a far more significant change, but that doesn't mean that it should instantly be advertised via the watchlist before it's been discussed and determined to be a realistic possibility.  There has to be a filter, and that's what Village pump (proposals) is for.  Otherwise, if every big idea goes straight to the watchlist, it will become hopelessly jammed.  —David Levy 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the "slippery slope" argument, as it rarely rings true. The notice will bring more attention to the proposal than the pump (I, for one, never read the pumps) and the watchlist is not "jammed". It has one notice. - auburn pilot   talk  01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that you dislike "slippery slope" arguments, but you haven't addressed what would happen if we were to treat all such proposals in this manner.
 * And the above also is a "we shouldn't arbitrarily add a link to a poorly explained, virtually undiscussed idea to the watchlist page on the basis that it might eventually become important" argument.
 * Also, I'm not a big fan of your "I like the notice because I happen to care about this idea and can't be bothered to visit the correct page" argument. —David Levy 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this is starting to come together a little more now, may it didn't get off to the best start-- but, but the idea is growing. In part becuase it pulled some random people in by being on the watch list for a bit. No harm done. futurebird (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that things are in better shape now, but I still feel that the watchlist notice is premature. —David Levy 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, was glad to see it up there. futurebird (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a mess and I've already addressed why the whole thing is problematic above. I don't feel this should be advertised through the watchlist. --Picatrix (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that this shpuldn't be advertised on the pumps. I know that I've only gone once, to see what it was, and have never gone back. However, I think that we should talk about this a bit more before we advertise on the watchlist. I agree that that's the way to go, but we should have waited a bit longer to "get our act together". Thanks,Genius101 Wizard (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Here we go again!". Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't normally get involved with, or even look at, most of the internal workings of Wikipedia. These administrative shenanigans bore me. But this is something I wasnted to take a look at and have a bit of imput with. I don't ever visit the pump, and I'm glad I saw it on my watchlist.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Make front page login specific
Default page should contain three sections namely

1. In the news

2. On this day

3. Major activities going on wikipedia.

In addition to this the side bar should have Login/password box just below the wikipedia logo.

Once a user is logged-in s/he should see a customized page according to his/her preferences. Customizations may include sections like 4. News from his/her location (home country)

5. On this day (home country)

6. News/features of his/her work-group/interest like Geography or Mathematics etc.

Along with the default sections 1-3.

--Rohit Saxena (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently working on this. I'll be sure to post a link when I have at least a "beta version." - Ryan (me) (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What if
We say that the winner will get to have their new design up for one week, to get community feedback, then have a vote to keep the change or throw it out. I think more people will be motivated to participate in the contest if they know that their work will be front paged for at least some period of time. I would like to see some change and I feel that the chatter generated by such a bold contest proposal could be a good way to boost user participation. Let's take a risk and give the winner some influence. futurebird (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * People are generally resistant to change, even when the ideas are good. I like this idea, though, it would be a good idea to see if the new design (if decided upon) is very good. Make it so that the new one is up for one week, then it reverts to the old page for a week (we can't leave up the new one while deciding). It would be a great way to get feedback. Kopf1988 (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be quite disruptive to our readers (most of whom don't edit). To be clear, any major change to the main page is disruptive, and this is justifiable only when we're making a permanent improvement.  Switching back in a week would mean double the disruption with none of the benefit.  —David Levy 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Web pages change all of the time. Most internet users are used to that. I doubt that the design picked by editors here would be so radical as to cause "disruption" -- I think that change is one of the things that attracts people to the Wikipedia. It's not just that we have a lot of information it's that it's always growing. It's fresh. People I know, ho do not edit, like to play a game where they Google to see if the wikipedia has an article on a given topic. They are amazed at how fast it picks up new information as it comes to light. A new main page could cause people to perk up and notice the content there a little more instead of just clicking through. It'd be good for the FA and DYKs --I do see you point, but I think you're over-blowing the issue a bit. futurebird (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, all major changes (and even some minor changes) to the main page cause disruption. The vast majority of people affected will never post comments, so it simply doesn't make sense to do this in the hope that they will.
 * A HUGE number of people commented on the previous main page redesign proposal (long before it entered use), and there's no reason to believe that we wouldn't generate an even larger response if we were to make it that far again. —David Levy 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's sort of why I like this contest idea-- the incremental and committee hindered nature of designing the page in the way we write articles has resulted in a sort of unimaginative mediocre result. Some of the time people need the chance to work on their own, and they need to think they have a least a shot at getting their changes through. I see this as a way to break out of the rut and possibly come up with something fresh that makes the page more useful -- some of the times the best ideas are rejected quickly because most people area little bit adverse to change. People are even adverse to a proposed temporary change. Maybe there's a better way, but I do think it's time we did something. futurebird (talk)


 * 1. I (and many others) disagree with your assessment of the current main page; we prefer elegant simplicity and accessibility over fancy, flashy designs (which have been proposed and consistently rejected).
 * 2. Again, we tried having a competition last time, and it was a debacle. It simply doesn't work to create dozens of independent designs and vote on them as package deals.  Collaboration is the only viable method.
 * 3. My point is that we can easily receive a tremendous amount of input without temporarily replacing the actual main page (and that doing so would not generate a sufficient amount of additional constructive feedback to warrant the inherent disruption). —David Levy 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the Main Page is too flashy as it is. The last time this happened I nver knew about it even though I'm an active editor... so perhaps it was a good thing that this was up on the watch list after all. futurebird (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Well, the current design was deemed a good compromise between the barebones style that some prefer and the flashy style that others prefer. For those who dislike compromise and want things their way, we have alternatives.
 * 2. No offense, but we attracted plenty of respondents last time. Your opinions are worth as much as anyone else's, of course, but there always will be users left out.  —David Levy 02:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured list proposal
I think this would be the best time to incorporate a Today's Featured list, if there is consensus to do so. See: Today's featured list proposal, Today's featured list/Sample2, and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list proposal. Competitors may want to incorporate this in their design. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have Featured Topics and Featured Portals. We don't have enough to support daily features, but the Featured Topics could easily support a weekly item.  Plasticup  T / C  04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redesign justification
I rarely view the main page because I find it a little cluttered and not that useful. If I could improve things I would arrange the links at the top in a more organised manner so that they compliment rather than duplicate some of the links down the left-hand side. For example, I would collect portal links in the one place and not have 3 links to WP:About or 2 links to Help:Contents.

I rarely read the featured article topics because I don't find the subject interesting as they can be so obscure. So I would reduce the space given to this and move the featured pic into the new space, higher up the page. I like the "In the news", "On this day..." and "Did you know..." sections because they are more conducive to an enjoyable and relevant browsing experience. Overall I would reduce the number of links of the page and find some way to make the page more vibrant and engaging, along the lines of the dynamic links, random article or recent changes. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about, rather than porting in text from the FA, and DYK,-- what if there were just text links? (for the featured picture, we'd show the image of course) That could reduce clutter. And with obscure terms you'd want to click to see what it is for the FA. I find it hard to read information when it's ported-- I want to see the whole thing... or else just give me the link. I think a goal could be to make the page scroll free-- that is the content is minimal enough that there is no need to scroll down to see the rest. futurebird (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, I'm in agreement with Shiftchange. In particular, the many redundancies need to be pared down; the page appears to have grown willy-nilly. The reader doesn't need to be told twice how many articles English Wikipedia has as of today, and certainly not thrice as I noted in one of the submitted proposals.

Also, a detail, this text seems to be holy:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia,
 * the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 * 2,442,852 articles in English

The first two lines are acceptable. The third is an irritating non-sentence. Suggestion:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia,
 * the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,
 * containing at present 2,442,852 articles in English.

or:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia
 * -- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit --
 * containing at present 2,442,852 articles in English

--Hordaland (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether I imagined this or read it somewhere (I think it is the latter) but the article count could go. Or be put lower down on the page. Putting the article count on top encourages quantity over quality. We want it the other way around. If people really want an article count (I don't), then I think putting the number of FA or GA, or both as a better alternative. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a decent point. The precise count appears both at the top and at the bottom of the main page now, and that's one of the redundancies I think one should get rid of.  Any encyclopedia brags about how many articles it has, but the bragging in printed ones doesn't change daily.  At the top of the page it would be good enough to say "containing well over two million articles", with the precise count appearing only at the bottom.  --Hordaland (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "containing well over two million articles" is better. Just a little improvement; say it like "over two million articles and counting" or "over two million articles available online". See, that way, it won't look as if Wikipedia is bragging about its contents but merely to inform people and users alike that this one's better than any other online source of information available in the net. Remember we should create something that an encyclopedia as respected and as trusted as the Wikipedia deserves.Renante Beron (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea to keep count on the top of the page but instead of

Welcome to Wikipedia

-- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit -- containing at present 2,442,852 articles in English

It should be like

Welcome to Wikipedia

-- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit -- containing at present 2,442,852 pages of information in English

As primary aim of wikipedia is to provide information, so the number of pages of information put more weight on reliability scale.--Rohit Saxena (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Minimalism
I just want to say that rather than thinking of things to add perhaps we might thing of things to take away-- what would a minimal front page look like? What are the most essential links and information? futurebird (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Show-Hide code would be a useful addition if done well. Having some sections collapsed by default will add more space and allow visitors the freedom to expand sections they are interested in. You could have the appearance of minimalism but the content of a full page. Road Wizard (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced a minimalist front page benefits anyone - if they're not interested in what's on the front page, there's either the front front page, as Pro Bug Catcher says: http://www.wikipedia.org/, or simply using the search mechanism from a browser directly without going to a Wikipedia page first. The Main Page, as I see it, is for people new to Wikipedia to see what sort of thing Wikipedia contains and what it's about, or for people to see what's on the Main Page, e.g. the Featured Article, On This Day, etc. Removing this content would thus, in my opinion, make the Main Page completely pointless. --Earin (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that futurebird's suggestion might have some merit. If it is so cluttered,as I've seen a few people mention, then we should look at what to remove rather than take away. Thanks,Genius101 Wizard (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Minimalist Ideas: futurebird (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The only image should be the featured picture.
 * 2) Link to articles and quote MUCH less of the content. (Or even none at all)
 * 3) Put more space around everything so it is easy to read.
 * 4) Make it short enough that we don't need to scroll.


 * I think Google provides a pretty clear picture of what the minimal front page looks like. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be taking it too far for some people. You mean, just a search box? Even google has links these days. futurebird (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have http://www.wikipedia.org/ for that very simple look. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. That page is perfect if you know what you want (like google), the main page is there to give people ideas and information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsi X Treme (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that. I enjoy pictures and It's rediculous to have less of them. All the links at the bottom do make it long, but there's no need to be one-screen short. I find it easy enough to read already. Reywas92 Talk 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When I first heard about this proposal the first word that popped in my head was de-clutter. It needs more white space or just an overall cleaner look. I would also like to see the wikipedia globe more prominent in the page. I don't know how to describe this other than it seems like it is too cornered up in the upper left for the home page, maybe a faded one as part of the background? I personally like the images as well and I don't think to achieve something like this means restricting it to just one as I see text as being much more cluttering than images. Tmore3 (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the globe as a (faint!) background for the whole screen? NickyMcLean (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A clean look is a virtue for the kind of site Wikipedia is. However, I hope for a Web 2.0. look that is also very functional and easy to use.  Marlith  (Talk)   00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Main Page is broken enough to need fixing. The globe is fine in the corner on my screen here, and I wouldn't want it taking up more space at the expense of content. Some folks have difficulty reading text on anything but a monotone background. Patterns of any kind behind text decrease legibility.


 * I really don't want to see more white space. Again, it uses up pixels that could be conveying info instead. I don't know if anyone else remembers the ads in paper magazines that tried to cram a whole (e.g. photography) catalog onto a two-page spread of tiny B&W print. Don't particularly want that, either. Right now, the balance between white space and info seems OK to me. __Just plain Bill (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my opinion into this discussion and really must say that the main page is too large at the moment. On my screen (1280x1024) it's 2,5 pages long - too much! We should make it light and user friendly start page which loads and renders on any screen as fast as possible. I must remind you all that many people are still using small screens (800x600) and slow Internet connections. Ilari Stenroth (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, is it possible to show a few lines of text of a show/hide box when it is hidden? This could mean that we leave the same amount of content on the page, have it all on one page but still be able to attract people to these articles.--Beligaronia (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The French main page uses Show/Hide effectively. If you are logged in, the boxes you left shown or hidden stay that way the next time you go there.  Try it with just the Image du jour (I do like beautiful photos) left shown and all the rest hidden.  It's a neatly designed, simple and attractive page.  --Hordaland (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooh, I really like that. Too bad I don't know how to use the french code... JoeSmack Talk 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It definitely needs reducing, and yes Nicky that's exactly what I was thinking of, kind like the background that kind of sprouts behind this page where the globe currently sits. In that shade and could even be a little lighter.  Above all make it more professional looking and reduce the amount of stuff, keep the images and just like a newspaper, the front page should guide people in to dig deeper, instead of cramming a bunch of little blurbs anywhere and everywhere. Tmore3 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, we should seek out what is the base starting line of the minimum needed and work up from there. Mathmo Talk 03:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm attempting to work the show/hide into my design, but I am having issues with the code, also being unable to read French. I asked in #wikipedia-fr in IRC and was directed to the monobook.css. It's going to take me some time to figure it out, however. If anyone figures it out, or knows French and can help with this, please drop a note on my talk page. LaraLove|  Talk  03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lara- A few of us have been working on ironing out the using Hidden on the main page -- see my "proposal" (an illustration of Hidden, including some new templates for piecing together a main page). — eitch 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming would be a good first step
Another aspect to consider is the main page's name. I recommend changing it to "Wikipedia:Front Page". This would: Thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be more intuitive and human-friendly.
 * Cause the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article".
 * Make it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page.


 * Why do you think it's more human-friendly? Because it's like a book? futurebird (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to see this discussion on Talk:Main Page, where renaming has recently been discussed. Acalamari 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should put the Wikipedia in front, but it should still be Main Page. Its not just at the front. It's like the centre of Wikipedia. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I've invited the renaming discussion at Talk:Main Page to be moved here so that we can do both changes at once. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for leaving a note at Talk:Main Page. To me, no one page of Wikipedia is truly central - the "main page" is more of an index or starting point. This is why I like "Wikipedia:Front Page" better than "Wikipedia:Main Page". —Remember the dot (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying front page or main page doesn't take away from the fact that it still will be a starting point. You are saying the same thing just in different words.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Front Page" versus "Main Page" is little more than semantic quibbling. For changing the name of it to make a meaningful difference we would need to choose a name with substantial semantic difference. What about "Central Index", "Hub", "Start Here"? Or just "Index"? None of those really appeal to me either so I think it's a moot point and not worth debating. Arbo talk 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Main Page" works well for me, but having it in "Wikipedia:" or even "Portal:" space would make more sense. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 10:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It makes more sense to have the main page in a different namespace, because having it as an article just doesn't make sense. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that either "Wikipedia:Main Page" or "Wikipedia:Front Page" would be the best names. Regardless of what it is called, the main page should definitely be in the Wikipedia space, not the article space. J.delanoy gabs adds  19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally see no need to rename the Main Page to "Front Page", "First Page", or even to move it out of the article-space. The trouble a rename would cause would outweigh any benefit that would occur from that rename: for starters, we'd have countless Wikilinks to the Main Page to fix, which would take some time to do, and in addition, many external sites that link to Wikipedia's Main Page would have to update themselves accordingly, or else they would link to the wrong page; plus, since most people who come here are readers, then they will not be familiar about the Wiki-markup regarding the "Wikipedia" and "Portal" namespaces (which, again, would affect sites that link to the Main Page), so namespace moving would not be a help. Overall, I can't see any major benefits to move the Main Page, to be honest. Acalamari 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There would be a redirect Main Page → Front Page so that things wouldn't break. Having the tab text be correct ("project page" instead of "article") would also be quite a significant improvement. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to rename the main page to say "Front Page", as someone mentioned above, that is just semantic quibbling. Nor should we move it to Wikipedia:Main Page (which is a redirect as of now), since the only reason to move the main page from the article space would be because there was a disambiguation problem, but there isn't one yet, and predicting one goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Deamon138 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation is hardly the only reason - please read the numerous reasons for this change outlined above. The German Wikipedia actually already moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace: de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other argument for renaming I noticed above seems to be that "/Wikipedia:Front Page" is more intuitive than "/Main Page." Well it isn't more intuitive. Please show me the numerous reasons for this change outlined above. I fail to see them. Deamon138 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving the page to the Wikipedia namespace would cause the top-left tab to read "project page" instead of "article". It would also make it easier to make a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles without picking up project-specific pages like the main page. The German Wikipedia has already recognized these benefits and taken advantage of them. Why can't we? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. What is the benefit of having "project page" instead of "article"?  Sounds like more semantic quibbling to me.  And what is a mass-copy of Wikipedia's articles?  The Transhumanist  00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting at WP:VPT! If you're still curious, here is a rundown of the benefits of moving the main page to Portal:Wikipedia:
 * The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
 * People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
 * The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a declaration to hide it.
 * The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia.  would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
 * Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that get mixed in.
 * It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.
 * I hope that helps clarify things a bit - thanks again for your input! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2 cents
The above mass of discussion was too daunting to wade through as I just want to say that I think this is a great idea an am looking forward to seeing the submissions! --Fir0002 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not that big, to be honest. If your interested, consider contributing! Thanks, Me ta gr aph  comment 09:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
After the discussion on Talk:Main Page, I had considered starting this myself, but never got around to it. The way I envisioned this working was: -- Mr.Z-man 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Advertise the proposal for a couple days to make sure there is sufficient interest and further steps won't just be wasting time.
 * 2) Establish a few ground rules for design ideas.
 * 3) Solicit designs for a few weeks.
 * 4) Have people comment on and tweak designs. This would also include things like browser compatibility testing.
 * 5) If there are a lot of designs, have a prevote discussion to select a few designs for the final vote. (The pro/con discussion here is nice)
 * 6) Have a large community vote where people can choose from one of the new designs or the current one.
 * "Choose from one of the new designs or the current one" is bound to be a deathblow for any proposal to change: more than two options => no consensus => no change. We get "no consensus" results often enough where there are only two options, more than two is wasted effort. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be weeded down to one final design idea to be pitted against the current page before the big vote. Mr.Z-man 03:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, we can work it down to two choices. "new" and "old" -- I think that works. futurebird (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that the "new" design should be a combination of the best parts of other designs. Thanks,Genius101 Wizard (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Their should be a background on the main page of a faded picture of the Wikipedia globe.- ([[User talk:CynderDragon 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists
Will they finally be featured lists on the main page? Thats been proposed for a while now. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that in the winning design... and then if that design is voted in. I think that's how this process would work. futurebird (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by consensus, not first-past-the-post democracy. The final decision should not come down to voting.  Plasticup  T / C  04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for the FL to included in main page. That's how people would be driven to write more of them. Lists of anything, is very encyclopedic. -- gp pande  «talk»  09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page from Wikipedia in other languages
I don't plan to enter the competition myself, but those who do might look to Wikipedias in other languages for inspiration. I particularly like the clean look of the French Wikipedia. I also think that the Main Page should put more emphasis on features that will help people use Wikipedia better, and less on featured articles and news. – SJL 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. The main page should feel fresher by incorporating elements from other languages' Wikipedias.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do like the Dutch main page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoofdpagina everything just seems to work well together. --Joowwww (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo, you're right, SJL! The French page with it's neatly collapsible boxes is very nice. --Hordaland (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree the French page is nice. I liked Brezhoneg possibly, and aspects of Svenska, فارسی, 中文 and Tiếng Việt. I also like the English main page. —SusanLesch (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the French Main Page, fr:Accueil, I found it similar in configuration to what Google has done on the iGoogle front page:
 * http://www.google.com/ig/
 * The contents are different, of course. I concur with User:SJL on preliminary design goals for the redesign of 2008.  B. C. Schmerker (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I too like the French Wikipédia main page, not only because it's attractive, but because having the table of contents prominent and functional encourages the use of the encyclopedia as a study tool rather than a simple fact-finder. At present on the English Wikipedia, the links to the portals are too inconspicuous when the eye is drawn preferentially to the other features, and they are so minimal they really don't offer any invitation to go exploring. Awien (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As commented above, I love it too. Can anyone take a crack and amalgamating the French and English mainpages? JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Search Field
I suggest the "Search" field box should be increased in size on the main page (and perhaps even on all pages). To do that it may need to be re-positioned on the page. The current field accomodates about 24 characters and as you type your query a list of possible suggestions appear in a drop down field below the "search" field. Often the suggestions are wider than the drop down field width and therefore cannot be read completely so as to distinguish between the selections and enable selection of the appropriate suggestion. I suggest a field about 36 characters wide. Alternatively if the search field is kept to the current size but then allow the drop down field of suggestions to expand in width to accomdate the widest suggestion in the list of suggestions. --Lanyon (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the search box should occupy a prominent position in any redesign. For the vast majority of users of Wikipedia the search is the gateway into the rest of the encylopedia. As it currently stands it appears as an insignificant afterthought. Jmount (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The search field definitely needs to be enlarged, and put in a more prominent place. I know that it's the only way that I find articles on Wikipedia. The A-Z index is next to useless because of the number of articles. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I second this proposal, the search box should not be hidden in small print link lists that are irrelevant for normal readers, after all, it is the single most important navigation instrument we have. There was a recent discussion on the Village pump (proposals). Cacycle (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The location of the MediaWiki search field varies depending on the user's skin.
 * 2. When last we redesigned the main page, the idea of adding a search field was very heavily discussed (with no consensus reached). In the opinion of many (including me), this would be a disservice to users (who would be distracted from the MediaWiki search field and become confused when the redundant search field disappeared immediately upon loading the next page).  —David Levy 03:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with David that we should not have a duplicate search box. I think we are actually talking about 'the one' search box. Though technically not a part of the Main page, it is one of the most important elements on that page. And we should have one that occasional users can actually find. Cacycle (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that a search field would be that confusing for a user no matter how new or unfamiliar they are with Wikipedia. There are many differences from the main page that could be confusing for users when they do not appear on the articles. Colors and headings and the absence of a title are all features of the main page that disappear when viewing articles. Also, many of the other language Wikipedia's have search bars on their main page. In my opinion, most people would understand that the search bar is simply an emphasis of the search feature. The MediaWiki search in the sidebar does not get any smaller or any less obvious. Naturally, the search bar is not something that is 100% necessary for the main page however, I think that it would make things easier, not harder for the readers of Wikipedia. Scottydude talk 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Search facility is so important to Wikipedia. Casual browswers who are searching the web via Google, Yahoo or any of the other search engines out there, would be really likely to progress with their search on Wikipedia if the search facilty is highlighted & attractive-looking. I'm sure that all Wikipedia users would want to attract more people to sign up, help out & donate. If they find us through a great-looking "Search" facilty, & they like what they see & what it can deliver, they're more likely to add Wikpedia to their favourites & come back again... hopefully to join up! skybluesally  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybluesally (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussing in pieces
It seems to me that many others commenting here would like to see the main page redesigned and then have a vote/discussion for having that or keeping the current one. To me, it would make more sense to discuss individual changes: should we move a specific bit around, should we delete a specific part of the page, etc.: if most people like certain changes, but don't like the new page design overall, we'd end up with no change at all and a lot of people would be disappointed. I'm not going to propose or support any of the ideas above stated, as the layout really isn't that important to me. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am no designer but had these ideas upon thinking about it -anyone who can assess use of links on mainpage most welcome :)
Mine are more some ideas and observations rather than a concrete proposal. Page design would not be one of my strong points:


 * To promote the sister projects, list as a small bar across top (now empty whitespace) - commons, wiktionary etc. rather than way down the page


 * Cycle through featured portals in top right -- + maybe religion and one other


 * change to Featured Picture to Featured Media


 * Other areas of Wikipedia section could be moved to under Welcome to Wikipedia (alongside Overview · Editing · Questions · Help) and reduplication removed - lose local embassy and keep one only of community portal or site news maybe. In this way, help and help desk are similar and one could go. Same with Questions and reference desk


 * A-Z index must be redundant surely due to the huge number of articles. Doesn't everyone use search?

Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current position of the sister project links is quite reasonable. While moving them higher would certainly promote them, I don't think readers would find this useful. Why would an encyclopedia reader find it useful to be sent to Commons? Putting these links at the very top would be clutter in my opinion. As for portals, I would prefer to de-emphasize them at the top of the page rather than add more; I don't think the experiment with a portal namespace has been a great success. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I incline toward moving sister projects up, too. Also, I like the DYK/DIH being higher, & the searchbox being a bit bigger. And I like Soxred93's "bordered" style to sep the sections. Agree "A-Z" is redundant & change to "Feat Media". Suggest "Featured Portal" link to a Portals page, rather than list them all (or is this new-user unfriendly?). My $0.02.   TREKphiler  07:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Current sister project position doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I agree strongly that the A-Z index does not need a link - it is surely seldom used, but easily reached from the "Contents" link. Perhaps "Contents" should have a fuller name e.g. "Browse Contents" or "Guide to Contents" to make it clearer what its purpose is? It's not like the "contents page" in a book, and I'm not sure I can think of an equivalent on other websites. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 12:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We've come a long way...
Since this. Just felt like puting that out there. 5:15 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that before, Pretty cool. we've definatley improved over time.  Black  ngold29   06:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. "Over 19000 articles". Woo. What'd we do, add 20000 more this week? Tiemps ca change.   TREKphiler  07:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (Pardonez moi la Francais.)

RSS
Glad to see this issue is getting some attention. I think even more important than the design of the main page, would be to get some RSS feeds going. This could really open up promotion of Wikipedia on other web sites. I guess I'm of the opinion that promoting multiple entry points for Wikipedia will be more effective than trying to perfect a single entry point.

(For an example, we have included the RSS feed for "recent changes to Oregon-related articles" in the upper-right corner on the WikiProject Oregon blog.)

A variety of feeds could be put to some pretty creative uses on blog sidebars, community web sites, corporate or government or non-profit or education web sites, etc. and reach a whole new kind of audience.

Feeds for topics like:
 * This day in history
 * today's featured article
 * in the news
 * new FA's
 * new GA's
 * new DYK's
 * some way of doing feeds for portals and topics

Any RSS experts out there able to work on this? -Pete (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is backend work because the page would need to actually grab data from different sources, whereas this redesign proposal is just HTML, CSS, and wikicode. Gary King ( talk ) 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The RSS idea, while unrelated to the discussion here really (as Gary pointed out), is a really good idea. Someone should bring this up at the appropriate place, wherever that is. Deamon138 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think its necessary, Wikipedia already provides an RSS feed for all its articles; its not as conspicuous as a specific button, but it is picked up in the background by most modern browsers (FF3, IE7). ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Link stats
To provide useful data which might be of relevance for this proposal, I've whacked myself with a trout by screwing up the main page for a few seconds, then managed to successfully implement a data-collecting feature: see Talk:Main Page for an explanation. Happy‑melon 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion thread referred to above has been archived. This is now the correct link. — eitch 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving on
It's time to move on from the rather petty discussions about whether or not this should have been advertised on the watchlist notice (for the record, I think it shouldn't, but it has now, ironically, grown to the extent that it might be retrospectively justified). It seems that there is a lot of enthusiasm for doing something with the main page; but there seems to be a distinct lack of organisation here. So what do we think is the best way to proceed? Competition? Discussion? Mixture of both? I'll let some other people comment before giving my own ideas for how to move forward, but if we can't get this discussion organised then it certainly doesn't belong on the watchlist. Happy‑melon 10:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, as I originally proposed, a competition would be good. As well as this, once we have our favourite(s) we can discuss to improve them further, until we have our final design.  Al Tally  talk  16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've yet to explain why you think that a competition (something that was an absolute debacle last time) would be good.
 * And on an unrelated note, I'm still waiting for an explanation of your accusation that I have "a history of edit warring on the main page." —David Levy 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * People have already started making designs. I think it will work well. I don't have to give reasons, and don't intend to.
 * David, take a look at the history of the main page.  Al Tally  talk  16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Making designs ≠ competing against one another!
 * Last time around, we only managed to get our act together when we instead worked collaboratively by discussing our goals, determining which elements had consensus and which didn't, and combining the most popular elements of the different designs in a manner reflective of that consensus. Prior attempts to have people vote on "competing" designs failed miserably (for the simple reason that taking or leaving an arbitrary design in its entirety—even with some tweaking—is impractical).
 * 2. Indeed, you don't have to give reasons, but the bare assertion that "it will work well" hardly stands up to the evidence to the contrary. I'm going by experience gained over a period of several months in which I (and many others) successfully worked toward redesigning the main page, while you're going by a seemingly baseless hunch.  If you want to convince people that you're right, you'll have to do better than the mere statement that you "think" so.
 * 3. I'm familiar with the main page's history, and I don't know what you're referring to. Please cite evidence or retract your accusation.  —David Levy 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can entitled to your opinion, but to me it seems to be like a competition. Whether it'll work I don't know. I've suggested elsewhere we take the best bits of the designs submitted and work on one. I'm not the slightest bit interested in what happened in 2006, so stop bringing it up.
 * I won't retract my "accusation". You have edit warred on the main page several times - take a look. I think the most recent case was with Nat.  Al Tally  talk  22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I see people posting their rough ideas (just as we did last time). Where do you see "competition"?
 * 2. No, I will not "stop bringing it up." You might not be interested in what happened in 2006, but ignoring our past experiences in this area is a very bad idea.  Feel free to disagree, but I won't shut up.
 * 3. That's what you call "edit warring"? When I followed consensus by reverting Nat's completely undiscussed (and unpopular) changes (which included on-the-fly experimentation with untested code)?  Sheesh!  —David Levy 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see you are here for an argument, not interested in this proposal. I am no longer going to continue dialogue with you since you clearly aren't going to be a constructive voice in this discussion. Have a nice day.  Al Tally  talk  22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely interested in this proposal. You, evidently, are interested in attacking people who disagree with your ideas about how it should be implemented.  —David Levy 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you replying? As I said, you're clearly here for a fight. You've not said or done one positive thing on this - all you've done is moaned and complained about how it's not been done to your own taste. How about just accepting people want change (as is clear from this page), and stop being so negative about everything?  Al Tally  talk  23:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why am I replying?! To express my opinion regarding how this should be carried out.  I don't oppose change, but I see people trying to go about it in a manner with which I disagree (in part because it failed last time).  You're basically saying that I'm not allowed to express my opinions unless I agree with you.  Meanwhile, you're hurling unfounded accusations about me (while accusing me of being "here for a fight").  —David Levy 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Add in category navigation
There has been some technical progress since 2006 that could be incorporated into a redesigned main page. For example, look at the commons main page, in particular the "Content" section on the right hand side. It includes a nested category tree for ease of navigation. Some of the better Portals here also have that feature. I think it would help improve the "navigability" of Wikipedia, which really ought to be a priority for the Main Page. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the existing mainpage design to any of the proposals
I clearly prefer this existing page. Each of the proposals has problems. Some are so close to the existing design, that changing to them would be pointless. The others are just really ugly. If it ain't broke - don't... Megapixie (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the majority of the proposals are hopelessly close to the existing design, with really quite trivial modifications to colours and backgrounds. However, more radical proposals take more time to develop; my own idea is a completely radical overhaul which I hope people will have at least a marmite reaction to. I'd say, be patient; the more radical designs are probably still on the drawing board.... Happy‑melon</b> 11:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the new designs don't seem to change much. I'd like to see some radical redesigns. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Radical redesign proposals take more time so it's no surprise they haven't arrived yet. On the flip side, there's no need to prejudge what consensus will be and it is possible that most of the community will be conservative about the main page, and that's a viewpoint that needs to be respected whether we disagree with it or not. Nonetheless, there have been a series of positive suggestions made on this redesign page, some of which are relatively small and could be incorporated into the current design without radical overhaul. Just because a suggested change is small, doesn't mean "that changing to them would be pointless" - what matters is not whether the change is radical or limited, but whether it is an improvement. At any rate, this isn't just going to be a shoot-out between a bunch of user designs (most of which aren't in yet), but a community process in which elements of the design can be discussed. Megapixie (or other contributors preferring the current layout), are there any elements of the design you are particularly attached to and certainly wouldn't want changed? Of the specific suggestions above such as widening the search field, incorporating a "featured list", decluttering by removing the "A-Z index" (I know you say you like the current design, but do you really use that A-Z index from its main page link?), or adding category tree navigation, are there any that might be useful to you, or which you particularly disagree with? That sort of feedback would be more constructive to those working on a (potential) redesign. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that all of the designs are too similar to the current design and are only small trivial edits - to be honest some of the designs are horrible, we need a complete revamp opposed to smaller changes. --Stuartjmanton (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, have patience - the radical designs will come. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance at some of the submitted proposals. They are all a step in the wrong direction. Color combinations and heavy bordering of multiple table frames resemble early days of online personal webpage builders. I think we need to talk about where to look for inspiration first. Share what’s out there instead of beating around the bushes, and wasting each other’s time by enticing directionless effort with promises of glory. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the new ideas are pretty simple: 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Futurebird and 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Nat futurebird
 * (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Users design their own page
I do not know if this is possible with wiki language, and whether it would be too complicated to allow those that can currently edit the main page to continue to do so, but I have a suggestion.

What is currently in vogue, on many website home pages like bbc.co.uk, is to break the home page into modules (like we have here - a series of protected templates for DYK and FA etc), but to allow each user to choose either to go with the default scheme, or to choose their own layout and colour scheme.

I think that it is possible to set parameters in each template so that a user-defined colour scheme is displayed for each module, but I am not so sure about the possibility of saving a user's layout preferences.

Just out of interest really, is this possible? If so, is it practical enough to implement?

RossEnglish 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A suggestion further up was to incorporate use of show/hide on individual components of the Main Page. Could a logged-in user's settings of show/hide on each section then be saved in their preferences? I suspect that the location of different components of the page would be harder to customise, particularly because of width. But would it be possible with some clever javascript, perhaps? I would certainly be in favour of greater customisability being incorporated into a redesign. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly all the formatting on the main page should be done with CSS classes, so that it can be fully skinned according to user preference. This is why the majority of the current proposals, which merely alter the formatting whilst leaving the overall structure intact, are useless. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that TwoMightyGods is right, because I would love to have certain things on the Main Page that I'm sure others would hate. If it is possible to do that, then that is he way to go. Even Google, who are known for their minimalist webpage, now have a customizable version (iGoogle). Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that too many users would feel a need to be able to move things around to their taste, but collapsible boxes (Hide/Show) -- which stay that way for logged-in users -- are great; see the French main page for a good example. --Hordaland (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Though remember that the majority of people who view the front page don't have accounts and so wouldn't benefit from that. (Took the liberty of fixing a typo in your link, Hordaland). Olaf Davis | Talk 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions
I think that we should put a list of the conclusions that we've come up with here. Both about what the Main Page needs to look like, and about the running of the competition. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Design:

Competition Details:

De-clutter
I don't have a clue how to do a design, but I would like to see it look like Google with a search box and a help link and nothing else. There's too much opinionated content, included at the behest of relatively few vociferous users - user pages are the place for that specificity of content. -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 90% of the stuff on the front page is totally useless (and unused). = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think having "featured content" motivates users to contribute. So, if we go the more radical "google-like" route we'll lose that incentive. That said I agree the page is too cluttered. I think it has too many images, too much text, and it's too long. futurebird (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trim it big time. Right now google has a limit of 28 words on their main page.  When the word "privacy" was receently added, they removed "copyright" was removed to stay at 28.  We don't need that small of a number, but we should think about making it as small as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the content, you can use http://wikipedia.org/ But I think part of the purpose of the Main Page is to introduce people to content that they would not search for.  That's not to say don't trim things.  But cutting out content until it's just a search box sort of obliterates our purpose as a project--we're an encyclopedia, not a search engine. --JayHenry (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no point in as small as possible > Google has their reasons > We dont share them.
 * We should make the featured article part more impacting (=smaller in size).
 * Show off the vastness of Wikipedia, by using icons just as in this suggestion (not mine) --Wmasterj (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a neat (old usage of the word) suggestion. Just make those boxes collapsible and we've a good starting point.  --Hordaland (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with declutter. And I agree that featured content on the front page is no longer appropriate. There was a time when the project needed a focus on developing some well constructed articles, and the featured article incentive was excellent in driving forward some articles. Our needs are rather bigger and more complex now, and while incentives are still to be encouraged, a random "article of the day" on the landing page, which has been selected as a backslap to a handful of editors doesn't make sense to the visitor landing here, and makes Wikipedia feel like it's the reserve of a clique of Sixth formers. "Today's featured article" tells the visitor little about Wikiedia or how to find what they want, and may divert their attention from the purpose of their visit. I would strongly favour something simple. A limited selection of destinations (one of which could be to featured content), selected with the visitor in mind, rather than with Wikipedians in mind, would seem appropriate.

I like the image that appears in the top left of every page. The jigsaw globe with the words "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" underneath. Just that. The entire front page just the Wikipedia globe. The jigsaw pieces could be clickable portals to the selected destinations. In place of the symbols, the name of the destination: Search / News / Featured / Directory / Wikipedia / Help /  - in a sense a variation on this.

Anyway - I think a possible starting point for a discussion is to list what people think should appear on the front page, and then to collect opinions from visitors as well as fellow Wikipedians.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Google isn't a standard for an encyclopedia. It is a trendy search engine that provides nothing really unique or that great. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this - the clutter on the front page is amazing and let's be honest, it's not for the benefit of the readers it's for the benefit of those who are political in things like featured article. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some market research
I'm taking the slow-and-steady approach to my design, so I'd like to take the opportunity to ask for opinions on a couple of points. Any knee-jerk reactions to the following questions would be greatly appreciated. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could/had-to axe one section...
From the following list, which would it be? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Today's Featured Article
 * In the news
 * Did you know
 * On this day
 * Today's featured picture


 * "On this day" and "in the news" futurebird (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I take it you mean remove by "axe"). I think "In the news" should stay, it one of the thing I use most on the Main page. I think "On this day" could be cut down to just the top part, and removing the bulleted points (they're available if day is clicked). "Today's Featured Article" could be made a little smaller, I only read the few first sentences, if I want more I click on the link. I never read the whole text when on the main page. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that to say you wouldn't voluntarily remove any whole section? What if you were forced to? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then "On this day". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion? Ok, but it won't be popular – I've never looked at DYK in the 18 months I've been reading Wikipedia. Should I voluntarily quit, or do you all want to kick me out? Maybe I'm missing something... ;) <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Alex Muller  16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would get rid of DYK. I don't think I have ever click through on a DYK link.  Cacophony (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK. Given the passage of time, the articles are now so minor and/or technical that the entries are rarely interesting to the casual reader. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would take out the DYK.  Black  ngold29   17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Either On this day or in the news, DYKs are the ones I read the most often with the featured article. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On This Day if one had to go to make a cleaner page. Today's Featured Picture could take it's slot, if one had to go. rootology  ( T ) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't use the main page much, so my opinion may not be worth much, but I would say "On this day" could be removed without losing anything, alternatively, you could try to merge it with ITN, which would be my second choice for removal. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, tough one. Either "On this day" (I never, ever ever have been surprised at anything there) or possibly "Did you know". But I think it's a good idea to "axe" one section. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Axe "On This Day". Keep DYK, for two reasons:  Selfishly, I do read it - it's often how I find out there are articles on topics that interest me.  And secondly, I know the gentle competition to earn a DYK slot makes me a better and more prolific editor, and spurs me on to expand stubs and collect good references.  I suspect that is true for other editors as well. - PKM (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to the question. This isn't garnering useful market research that gives us any idea about the strengths and weaknesses of the Main Page.  It gives us a vague sense of what a handful of editors read (when we could just gather statistics to determine what people read), and pays no heed to the purposes of the sections.  DYK, FPC, FAC, and even ITN (I don't know about OTD) do not exist for the sole purpose of providing main page content.  This question does not take into account any of these very significant considerations, and thus is abortive more or less from the start. --JayHenry (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you do the commenters above a disservice by implying that their comments are based purely on selfish personal preferences. If I'd wanted to know which sections are the most 'popular', that could be easily gathered from pageview stats - that's not the point of this question. I want to know which sections experienced wikipedia editors feel the least comfortable about showcasing on the 8th most visited page on the web. Which section do you feel does the poorest job of highlighting our best work, drawing in readers, enlightening readers, however you want to put it. In short long, which section is the least effective at doing whatever job people think that the main page should be doing (that latter definition, of course, being a whole other can of worms). Now, I thought that, sane and intelligent people as we are, people could work that out for themselves. Maybe I was wrong. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where I suggested anyone's opinions are based off "selfish personal preference" so I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to you. --JayHenry (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, I admit, a slight hyperbole. But you clearly do state that the comments are, to quote, "what a handful of editors read" and "pay no heed to the purposes of the sections"; and imply that they are entirely ignorant of the "considerations" underlying each section. Perhaps "selfish" is an overstatement for those suggestions... but I think "disservice" is not. Everyone else seems quite happy to run with what I freely admit is a biased and leading question, and I would be quite happy to provide my input to any research, howsoever phrased, they might want to conduct for their own benefit. The concerns you have, which are both real and important, will demand full consideration long before a redesign with a missing section makes it to the main page. This is, as I've said several times, nothing more than a simple question. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that, were anything to be removed, we could try shrinking On This Day. Each day has a page already, so we could keep some minimal information and then a link to that page.  This could maintain the content while shrinking its footprint.  If we had to totally axe a section and all of its content, I suppose that DYK is the least necessary among them.  I personally find it entertaining on some days, but it's really not essential content. BecauseWhy? (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK.  Soxred  93  00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I find "In the News" frustrating. I expect there to be a link to a news story about each topic, not links to background material. Rationally, I know that's not what Wikipedia is, but intuitively I find myself making this mistake repeatedly. Sounds like a design/usability issue to me.  I could happily do without it. BWatkins (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a really good point. I've had the same issue, and the news section tends to not be as "up to date" as I would like-- but then that' not the point here is it. For news people have wikinews. I just don't think that section works so well. futurebird (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been talk of overhauling or replacing ITN for quite some time, and I strongly agree that this is long overdue. —David Levy 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "On this day" and "Featured Picture". The others get a cursory glance, OTD not even that, and I never scroll the main page down to even see the featured picture.  I need to be bored in order to actually read the entire text of any section of the main page. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "On this day". DYK, FA, and FP are important incentive for content creation and improvement, and both DYK and ITN get very high traffic levels (sometimes higher than the featured article for a single news story).--ragesoss (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Did you know" - now Wiki is so huge new articles are generally too obscure to warrant linking from the main page. Wonder if it would be better to have one or two B class and above articles to encourage improvement? Cavie78 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are being radical enough. This is the same as the tinkering that has gone on in the designs proposed so far. I would ask what purpose any of the items truly serve to the front door of an encyclopedia. The items listed seem more to motivate Wikipedians than to assist a visitor in accessing the encyclopedia. I would say scrap all of them, and reverse the question: What is the main thing that should appear on the front page?  SilkTork  *YES! 17:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the news". I could see giving the Wikinews link a more prominent placement in its stead.  There is no reason all the sister projects should be treated equally on the main page or even be on the main page.  With the exception of the link to Wiktionary none is essential.  Commons and Meta-Wiki are self-referential projects that will used mainly by editors rather than casual browsers. Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, and Wikiversity are all niche projects, that while useful, don't need Main Page links. Caerwine <small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines  23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As with Caerwine really. OTD could benefit from being heavily pared down to major anniversaries and major religious festivals/national holidays. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't think it's necessary: there are plenty of possible ways of incorporating all onto the page. I think DYK, FP, and FA are all important. OTD and ITN are, I believe, both read more widely by non-wikipedians than by us, so it would be harmful to remove them. · AndonicO  Engage. 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK. It takes its content from new articles, which can't be trusted.  It's edited by people who don't have general knowledge of the topic, so they fail to detect howlers.  As a result, it puts before the public stuff that is inaccurate and therefore embarrassing to our encyclopedia.  I complained about this once, and learned that a number of DYK participants simply don't care if the section is accurate or not.  We should put a stop to this.  Opus33 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK, the last thing we need in the Main Page is unverified stuff. Featured Picture, it's buried too far down in the page to be worth anything. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured Articles. I have seen too many incompetent reviews, ignoring (or ignorant) of substance, while howling after punctuation. We are asking, indeed begging, for a major public embarassment. Let the pointless award of barnstars continue - we get some useful articles out of it; but take it off the main page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On this day. I don't think I have ever looked at it.  Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ITK and DYK could both go. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and probably shouldn't try to be one; the choice of what gets included is arbitrary in the extreme, and there certainly isn't space for broader coverage. Other people have already pointed out the problems with DYK: triviality and unreliability. Awien (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK. Hard to maintain.  Subjective.  It serves a useful purpose for people to make articles but not improve articles.  IMO, we have enough new articles being created without an incentive to create more for gold stickies.  ORRRRR, expand DYK to include recently nominated GA's. Protonk (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK per everything everyone has said above. ITN should stay because a lot of people read it (some actually use it as a news source). OTD would be my second choice, but it's not as useless as DYK. — Fatal Error 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK for all reasons listed above. It should be replaced with DYK from B-class articles or some kind of ACID/spotlight (or something similar) articles that we want to draw attention to. I would also support removing or shrinking OTD and ITN as the main page is too long and crowded. Jieagles (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How much of the standard sidebar do you actually use on the main page??
Well? Have you ever clicked Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page?? Do you think it would be a great loss to hide some of the sidebar boxes on the Main Page (and only on the Main Page)?? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) To explain the background behind this question: there is a real problem that, if you remove too much stuff from the main window, the interwiki language list becomes the longest section on the page on widescreen browsers. This produces a lot of whitespace in the main content window, which looks very unprofessional. Something has to go from the sidebar, so it's between removing some of the interface buttons that don't make much sense on the frontpage, and dramatically shortening or even removing the interwiki table. Am I to take it from these comments that this latter would be preferable? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Upload file and special pages are the only two I've gone near... <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Alex Muller  16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing the site's core interface on a single page is bad usability. This is the same reason we don't add a second search box to just the main page. Confusing even small numbers of users is a bad idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maintiaining consistancy is important. If I was a new user, and I noticed that one of the most highly viewed pages was different from all the others, I'd be confused and flustered. Plus, it looks more professional to be consistant.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need to have the "Help" link in two places. Rather than removing things from the left side bar-- why not remove things from the mian page? futurebird (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the interwikis have the same restrictions on what can be included as the "Wikipedia languages" section, I see no reason to keep both. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is necessary to maintain consistency in the sidebar. If all other pages have the same sidebar, changing it for the main page just doesn't match with the site's design.  In terms of interwikis, removing them all is a bad idea, both for the previous reason and because I feel interwiki connections between languages are useful.  If the list for the main page becomes too longer, pruning it down to the larger languages would be a better solution than getting rid of it. BecauseWhy? (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Random article" is the only one I ever click in the sidebar, and that only when bored. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping it consistent with other pages to minimise confusion. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't use any of it except Search. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I use most of it. I pay less attention to whats in the centre (and the right) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 09:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None. :) I use the Firefox plugin for search. — Fatal Error 03:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just the "Search" box --Lanyon (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could axe one section...
Would you? No prizes for noticing that my first question above is, indeed, deliberately and very heavily, biased. So here's a more neutral one: from the same list as above, if given free reign, would you lose whichever one you chose? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd ax two, to be honest, the page is too cluttered. futurebird (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It would not be good if the section removal caused a loss of usability or necessary content.  I'd rather support modification of the current sections to reduce their size.  I wouldn't support simply removing an entire section unless either there was wide consensus that the section was not necessary, or an outstanding page design was provided that lacked the section. BecauseWhy? (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture of the Day. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 01:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "On this Day" is probably the least used section, and could easily be done by just providing a link to today's date somewhere, which could call up a more complete entry on July 7, etc. matt91486 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "On this day", probably filling the space with the common links and a prominent search box (but not POTD due to space constraints). MER-C 12:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd either want to remove OTD and ITN or slash them in size. How about a merger or ITN and OTD? With content covering the range "Today is the 27th of Foo, it's Independence Day in Jagovia, and the Ulmecs are celebrating Return of the Holy Prophet Day. Recently the United Nations renewed the peacekeeping operation in Ethonia and Foo Forg was elected President of Yuppiland." Obviously to formatted differently from that. Not sure what it'd be called but I think there might just be scope for a merge there. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Seem my comment in the "if you had to..." section. · AndonicO  Engage. 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's too cluttered with stuff hardly anyone ever reads. If not then at least slim everything down. — Fatal Error 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could add one section...
to the main content window, what would it be? No requirements for this one: if you don't think anything new should be added, do say so :D <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I think this is a bad idea, but if we made all other sections much smaller we might (might) be able to add a section that features portals not linked in the main list, in rotation. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really would not support adding anything else. Were I forced, I suppose I would go along with the suggestion of featured portals.  Personally, I almost never use portals, but this seems to be the most wide-spread proposal for a new section.  If it were just me, I'd like something that drew some attention to the non-English Wikipedias, but I don't see a real need to add something like that. BecauseWhy? (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you might have seen higher up I'd add Featured list of the day. With part of the lead, and maybe a small picture. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if I could do anything, I'd dump "Featured Article" and replace it with something like the User:SuggestBot output - articles tailored to you are bound to generate more interest than articles at random, no matter how well-written. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a way to opt out of a tailored page I might be interested. The groups who work together now do a tremendous job though. They give us a constant and ever-changing reminder of what other people think is important. Thanks for pointing this out. —SusanLesch (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this - the featured articles are one of the main reasons I ever go to the main page, and sometimes it's nice to see something completely random and interesting that you might otherwise never visit. Otherwise, I can't think of anything that I could really see being useful on the main page. --Earin (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - so long as the section is collapsible and the setting for that can be remembered. What about a Wiki Tutorial of the Day (even if not necessarily a content-editing one, which might be better e.g. for the Community Portal, but there are things relevant for readers as well - e.g. how/when to cite Wikipedia, reuse of images...)? Featured list/portal? I would strongly suggest adding a category navigator like there is on the Commons main page and in several of the Portals. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this excellent idea. Mr. IP (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say maybe featured sound (though not everyone can play .ogg), or a second FA. I really wouldn't like to have an FL on it. · AndonicO  Engage. 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sort of introduction to Wikipedia. Not necessarily WP:INTRO, but maybe a quick one-sentence explanation of what it is and login/sign up links or something. A search bar would also be great. But I wouldn't add anything that has actual content in it, it's stuff enough as-is. — Fatal Error 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you add a search box?
To the body of the page, a la commons, whatever language "bpy" is, Dutch, Italian, Turkish, etc. If so, how prominent would you make it? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and of the ones you mention, I like the Netherlands one best, as you can't miss it. And it should be wider.  Some will say that one shouldn't have two search boxes with identical function on the same page, but I don't see that as a problem.  Experienced users may head for the little one down on the left (I usually have to scroll a little to even get to it), but for new users a prominent search box up top would be a major improvement!  --Hordaland (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, changed my mind. If the existing one can be moved top left, as the Norwegians have done here and here on all pages, that's ideal. But it would be nice to make the drop-down predictive list expandable in width to accommodate its content.  --Hordaland (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No' I don't think the search box should be in to places on the same page. What I would support is moving the search box from the side bar to the top of the page on every single page. But this is a bigger change. futurebird (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No; while I would support moving the search box above "interaction", renaming the "Search" button "Advanced" or "Details", and/or merging some of the links and boxes on the left side, I do not think a second search box should be added on the page. Side menus with searches like the one we have are standard for webpages.  I don't support adding a second search box solely on the main page because if a user can find and use the search box on the main page, they're able to do so on every page.  It's a standardization issue, really&mdash;I worry that people might be looking for a search box within an article or would return to the main page whenever they would like to search.  As for moving the search box to the top of every page, I think it would detract from the look of the articles.  After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the articles should be the focus.  The search box is obviously important to get the user started with their experience, but ideally, they should begin using inter-wiki links after they reach the article they originally searched for.  &mdash;Pie4all88 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I did on my first proposal.  E  E 


 * A wider searchbox would be a great improvement because of the predictive search feature that unfortunately tends to get "cut off" on the right. But I would prefer it to be done as per Futurebird, with it added to the top of all pages (admittedly a bigger change to the interface). If that is not possible then I would like it to appear on the Main Page. It is not a mere reduplication if it offers a substantial improvement (which it would, with the ability to type in longer searches and select from the appropriate predictions, very handy on articles with long names especially "list of..." or in different namespaces). TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. First of all, I don't any new users (in real life) who haven't found the search box in less than 30 seconds, so I don't think it's needed; second, it would be "cluttersome" and distracting. · AndonicO  Engage. 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and make it big, and make it not have that stupid predictive typing thing.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the size and prominence of the Google search box (comment on previous poster: I love the predictive typing, it saves me searching for something that isn't there). Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, however, whether or not it is moved I would love for the cursor to automatically go to the search box as it does at wikipedia.org so one can just start typing a search. It would be significantly more convenient and I know I would come by the main page more often. Jieagles (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone make a super small page to see what it looks like
Maybe 100 or 200 words. Might make the page much more useful. I think the reason the page gets so many views is because people start their searches there, not because they're reading the whole thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't have to go with our personal hunches. We have statistics on what people are reading.  Example: a couple weeks ago Judy Garland of Wizard of Oz fame was on the main page.  Typically about 5,000 people look at her page.  When it was on the main page over 100,000 people read the article.  DYKs even for fairly obscure subjects get thousands of views in the few hours they are up.  It's not that people read the entire page (or that they're supposed to read the entire page), it's that they use the page to look for something interesting that they wouldn't know to search for.  Btw, this page is already extremely cluttered, and this is the exact same topic as two threads above. --JayHenry (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a staggering graph! <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 16:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It worth noting that it was a FA on her birthday. So we can't assume all of the boost is due to it being on the main page. futurebird (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would we need to assume that all the boost was from her being on the Main Page? Sure there may be other factors.  But check any FA.  They drive tens of thousands of readers.  Control for any variable that you like.  The result is statistically significant and absolutely indisputable. --JayHenry (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it would be better to pick a different example to show how big the boot is. I'm not saying it's not important, it's just worth thinking about the impact of other factors when looking at any data set. futurebird (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You could pick any example you want. I'm only trying to show that there's a big and significant boost.  It doesn't matter precisely how big.  Seriously, you can check the stats on any article with that tool.  Also check the stats on DYKs, or other items.  It is absolutely indisputable that tens to hundreds of thousands of people, every single day are reading parts of the main page, and clicking through to the article, and not just using it for search. --JayHenry (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Futurebird This is my version of a "small page" futurebird (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with peregrine fisher in that many people don't read the page. I generally glance at the featured article to see if its interesting but I don't usually scroll down. If you must include all of these things it should be reduced in size so that it can be seen if not on one glance then at least with a minimum of scrolling. I'm not sure if this is possible but you could make the different sections into templates with a hide and show link. This would drastically reduce scrolling required. Also each template could (if possible) show one bullet point or two lines. (i.e. one did you know, one current event, 3 lines of the article and a thumbnail opf the featured picture.Beligaronia (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

20 times!
Including the "Wikipedia" in the logo, I count 20 occurrences of the word "Wikipedia" on the Main Page. People know this is Wikipedia, we should be less redundant. For example, we could simplify things:


 * Donate to Wikipedia -> Donate


 * Wikipedia languages -> Languages (or Different languages)


 * Wikipedia's sister projects -> Sister projects


 * Other areas of Wikipedia -> Other areas (or something better)


 * Wikipedia volunteers -> volunteers

etc. Randomblue (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, we should pair down the repetitive words. futurebird (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally support this. People will get the idea. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, sounds like a good idea, surprised it hasn't been done already! Tphi (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree --Wmasterj (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would definitely support this. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Randomblue.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only needs fewer occurrences of "Wikipedia" but fewer Redirects too .. the technology has got to be able to reduce that number which is also over 20. A first users experience from the main page should not start with (Redirected from Wikipedia:Main Page/Help:Contents)  Slysplace    talk   ♫  19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I only added those redirects this morning, as part of this process, so gimme a break! :D Have a read of Talk:Main Page for an explanation of how they'll help this redesign process (and how they're not permanent). <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea. If none of these designs end up being chosen, then at the very least this should be done to the current main page. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding the redirects :( your break is given... Honestly today was the first time I noticed it. IMHO however a redirect is the barely 1 step above 404 not found. Best of luck gathering your statistics, But dont leave the redirects long! Slysplace    talk   ♫  22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have been very impressed if you'd noticed before yesterday!! Don't worry, a week should be more than adequate, given the prominence of the page. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, come on. The logo and title is already on the Top-left corner!--ZooFari (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas
I've made a stripped down version of the main page. The idea behind this is that we don't need anything on the main page that is already on the left side bar. For this reason I removed: Languages, help links, and a few other things. I do think the main page should have some content, but it should be minimal. This helps people to "see" the content more, so this new main page has "Featured pictures" and "featured articles" but I have shortened both of these sections. I took out the news, and the DYK sections, they could be added back, I don't feel strongly about that, but I think when we have too much content on the main page it all sort of cancels itself out. Let's give the featured article and picture the lion's share of the attention-- these are two features that showcase our best work and that motivate people to contribute high quality content. Lastly, I felt that the main page should look more like a regular article. So I removed the boxes and frames from around the content. The result is simple and it will work well on even the smallest computer screens.

I could use some help with the header, I didn't think it needed changing so I have not modified it. But, suggestions are welcome, also if you want to make a copy of my design and tweak it. please do!


 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Futurebird

futurebird (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, a bit too bare-bones is my first impression. But very valuable to the discussion!  I'd like to see the featured pic above the FA, as it's often very appealing.  Also, now that I've seen your suggestion, I find that I don't agree that the main page should look more like a regular article; the two columns of side-by-side boxes appeals more to me.  See (as I keep saying) the French main page with its collapsible boxes.  And the header on the Netherlands page, with its very visible search box.  But, thanks much for the example for comparison's sake!  --Hordaland (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

'Overview' on the Main Page
I think that this should be included above the Featured content sections. Or, at least, the 'Overview' link should be made more prominent so that new users can get a better idea what the blue links are all about! The top bar is very cluttered with links everywhere. This needs sorting to make it simpler and more user friendly. So far, the only proposal that has impressed me is that by RyRy, although, the way graphics have been incorporated into the headings on Ryan's proposal do look very good! If these proposals could be merged in some way and be simplified, I think that that proposal could be superior to what we have now. - Erebus555 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "Wikipedia" links there so I don't know why we need two links to the same place so close to each other. futurebird (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, one links to Wikipedia, the other links to About. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Usability and purpose
Here are some thoughts, based on work I do with web site design. Designers might want to consider these points in their proposals.
 * For usability, navigation should be consistent from page to page. This would suggest that no changes should be made to the left column that are not made for all pages.
 * Research suggests that readers are drawn to images and that readers pay attention on pages left-to-right and top-to-bottom, so that the most important content to should appear on the left (next to any left-column navigation) and or near the top on the right.
 * We should consider what the "purpose" of the Main Page is, and see if there is consensus on ranking these purposes.
 * To allow readers to quickly and easily find content they are actively looking for?
 * To encourage readers to explore and discover content they might not have thought to look for?
 * To entertain readers?
 * To inform readers, especially in times of breaking news events?
 * To encourage readers to become editors?
 * To recognize the work of diligent editors?
 * To showcase the breadth, depth, and accuracy of Wikipedia's content, thus improving our "reputation" as an authoritative source?
 * Others?
 * Designs should establish a hierarchy of information and clearly use color, icons, and placement to guide readers to the most important content.

I would personally like to see larger images for the featured article and DYK, a rotating "featured portal" item or list, and a bigger search box. - PKM (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a bigger search box just on the main page or on every page? I don't like the idea of having the search box in two places on the same page. futurebird (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's true that there in theory shouldn't be 2 search boxes with identical function on same page, I believe that in this case usability is much more important than that general rule. There should be a large, very visible box at the top of the main page.  (Not huge; similar to the Netherlands' box, but a bit wider.)
 * Otherwise, many thanks to PKM for the attempt to get us organized here. --Hordaland (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My Point Of View
First, we must very carefully consider any proposal to add more content to the main page. This page is already quite full, so anything else added is just going to make it that much bigger. Do we really want that? I don't see why we need to add anything large, because it would probably just cause clutter.

Second, there are a few proposals for changing the color scheme. Frankly, I find these garish. Would you feel more compelled to read Encyclopedia Britannica if it were pastel red and lime green? I certainly wouldn't. This is an encyclopedia, not an arts gallery. We need to remember that common sense and usability are the primary concern. Atop that, all color schemes should remain consistent throughout Wikipedia.

Third, there are a some proposals that want to put borders around everything. Some of these are more successful than others. Compare Soxred93's proposal with RyRy's. In Soxred93's proposal, everything is quite self-contained. In RyRy's proposal, the color scheme is more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, but there is a pretty big problem. Look at the bottom left or right corners of the page. There are 6 stacked borders. That must be fixed. Design changes like these can easily give the main page more problems than it already has.

Finally, I do not know of any major problems with the main page as it is. So, unless a proposal definitely improves on the main page, there's not much reason to change it.

Some of the ideas are interesting. For small things, I like Casliber's idea of putting a bar with the sister projects in whitespace at the top, or in the sidebar. This could also free up space on the page. Deprecated links, such as Local Embassy, were mentioned on this project page. I'm fully in favor of getting rid of any links that aren't current or helpful. For larger changes, some more subtle things like Ryan's icons and rounded-corner title bars are interesting.

General principles I support for this redesign: That's all I can think of for the moment. BecauseWhy? (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the color scheme the same.
 * Don't make the page too busy.
 * Don't add clutter.
 * Consider what is necessary and useful, and what is not.


 * I agree with most of what you're saying here. I think we need fewer borders and low-key colors. Let the content shine out and do the work. I think we need to consider removing some section, the page is too cluttered and needs more white space. futurebird (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Today's Featured Picture is definitely taking up a lot of space – it spans 100% of the width! Something can certainly be done about that, and the other boxes below that. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We can use Soxred93's proposal, since it seems that it contains everything we need and is well-organized. However, we can add a main banner similar to the Latin Wikipedia's main page, including that statue (but not too large or else it would be too overwhelming), which would entice new users.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know Soxred's current version is actually longer than the current main page? I think it's a little early to be pinning your colours to the mast. This discussion will run for several weeks at least. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Soxred93's proposal is too cluttered, it's worse than what we have now. futurebird (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we can reduce its clutter by a little by limiting the DYK to only one article, removing the image from the FA, and removing the other languages section, since it is also on the left sidebar. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of those changes. futurebird (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like many of the above criticisms/suggestions, this stems from unfamiliarity with our efforts to accommodate readers with low display resolutions. (In the case of Today's Featured Picture, the large image otherwise would cause the accompanying text to wrap excessively for many people.)  The previous setup (with the section in one of the columns and the image above the text) lacked this issue, but it looked bad at higher resolutions (because of the excessive white space).  After much experimentation, the current layout was the best that we were able to devise.  (For full disclosure, I'll note that it was my idea.)  —David Levy 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have modified my version to be much more condensed, and it also will be shorter, if the title at the top is removed like it is on the Main Page.  Soxred  93  23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it looks better, but it's worth thinking about why we need so many borders. futurebird (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also working on it. My to do list is as follows: Make colors more like current main page, remove some borders.  Soxred  93  23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point of a redesign is to make it different... you should make the colours different.  Al Tally  talk  23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, you advocate change for the sake of change. —David Levy 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop being so negative. You're making this discussion have an unpleasant atmosphere with your negative attitude. There are better ways to express your opinion.  Al Tally  talk  23:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm merely disagreeing with you. What do you want me to do differently (short of pretending to agree with you)?  —David Levy 23:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like you to leave the discussion, but as that isn't possible, try to come up with something better when someone proposes something. Instead of "No, that won't work", how about say "No, that won't work, I suggest this..." I hate to break it to you, but there is definitely consensus here that the main page needs changing. So instead of commenting for no particular purpose on everything saying "No, we didn't do that in 2006", focus on the discussion and try to come up with the best solution. You keep on saying we're trying to get consensus - it's quite difficult to do that when you offer no opinion but "I don't like that, we didn't do that in 2006".  Al Tally  talk  23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't what I'm saying at all. In fact, we did change the color scheme in 2006.  But it required a HUGE amount of discussion and debate (complete with color charts, proposals and counter-proposals) before we managed to settle on the current color scheme.  It isn't set in stone, but I strongly disagree with the the idea that we should change it purely for the sake of change.
 * I have offered my idea for how to go about the redesign; we should do exactly what we did the last time (solicit proposals, discuss the various ideas, combine the most popular elements, and put forth a single new design for the community to evaluate and compare to the current main page). —David Levy 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what we are doing right now. People are submitting designs, and we are discussing them. There is no actual issue here, but you're looking for a fight it seems.  Al Tally  talk  00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. I agree that this is exactly what we're doing right now, but there is some disagreement on how to proceed from here.  You advocate a "competition" (the method that failed last time), and I advocate a collaboration (the method that succeeded last time).  You believe that "the whole point of a redesign is to make it different," and I believe that the whole point of a redesign is to make it better.  I respect your opinions, but I disagree with them.  I don't see why this necessitates hostility.  —David Levy 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Al Tally. Reading all the sections where you are participating, David, you come off very hostile. --XRK 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree too. I feel as though you're talking down to some of us. futurebird (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. That certainly isn't my intention.  I'm merely expressing my opinions, and unlike Al, I'm not telling people who disagree with me that they should stop posting.  —David Levy 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with David here. His points don't sound hostile to me. It is Al Tally that appears hostile to me. People are confusing his criticisms for hostility. He is entitled to make a point against an idea if he wants to, what gives any of you the right to ask him to leave, or require that he agree with you? Besides Al's point that a redesign automatically means change and therefore we should change the colour scheme is exactly what David was saying when he said advocating "change for the sake of change." You should give reasons for change, not say what is effectively change because something MIGHT change. We're not here to redesign the page, unless consensus can find a new design that is better than the new one. We might end up keeping the current one. Deamon138 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Featured Picture box at 100% allows it to show the landscape oriented images at a reasonable size. See for example, June 21 and June 9 of last month. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

David, one of the issues that we're trying to address is that the main page seems stale.futurebird (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that the only valid reason for change is to make an improvement. Said improvement can be subjective, of course, but change for the sake of change is more disruptive than anything else.  —David Levy 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * David Levy is generally the voice of reason, and all the connotations that go along with that. He will point out the flaws in your logic without sugar coating it. I thoroughly agree with most of his comments on this page: I am not adding "what he said" comments everywhere, purely in order to not confuse the issue. He has experienced our history, and is trying to help us/you not repeat mistakes (I was there too, the last redesign was an argument filled cluster-snafu).
 * There are a few interesting ideas here for updates/changes to the main page (such as the "introductory paragraph" a few of the proposal use), but there doesn't seem to be any need for a "redesign" as such (such as restyling entirely to the Italian version). However, most of the linked proposals are (currently) just a few tweaks away from the current Main page design, and barely deserve to be added to Main Page alternatives. Until/unless we are able to redesign using ajax/"web2.0"/"igoogle" architecture (which would allow user-configuration for the ~0.1% of users that might care about "reconfiguring the main page"), then we simply don't need a restyle at this moment.
 * Lastly, no proposal that includes a second/redundant/confusing search box is likely to be approved (says history (all the previous designs and talkpage proposals have failed)).
 * There's more, but I must cook supper. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with BecauseWhy and David Levy- the page shouldn't get any more cluttered or increase in size. Many of the proposals don't display well at lower resolutions, either running off the screen or forming into illegibly thin columns of text in an 800x600 window. It's important to keep good web design practice in mind and keep the main page appealing to the large amount of Wikipedia users who don't have huge 1600x1200 flat panels. LK (t|c) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I feel that a number of people participating here are in fact designing new proposals without thinking about web usability and web accessibility issues. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Login
I removed the bullet point "A prominent log-in for editors should be considered" from the proposal page. In my experience, the Main Page has always been considered "for the reader" and not for the editor. The last thing that would improve the main page is a prominent login/password box. --XRK 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. futurebird (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As do I. = ∫tc 5th Eye 22:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My proposal has a login box for those who wish to see the idea. Scottydude talk 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the example article stuff is too far down in your idea. It's a nice clear graphical design though which is good! Deamon138 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. If anything, it might scare off anons. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The login box has been removed from my proposal. I guess I wasn't trying to make a point of adding a login box as much as just filling in the space. A search box is there now. Scottydude talk 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * AFIAK, there is no feature or extension on the MediaWiki software that does allow adding a login box to the main page or to any other page. The inputbox extension is currently only limited to provide a either a search box, "create a new page" box, or "post a comment" box. You may have to request this feature or write your own extension. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
When is the deadline?  E  E  22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is none yet, perhaps we should set one? How about 1 week? Or is that too long? We need a point to see if we can choose a "best design" then we could take this whole issue to the wider community to see about making the change happen. futurebird (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One week? Too long?  You're kidding, right?  —David Levy 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think one week would be fine.  E  E  23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're very, very wrong. It took months last time.  Accessibility testing alone takes far longer than a week.  —David Levy 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just the time to get submissions in, then we'd need to work on picking one and refining it. A week is enough time for the first stage. futurebird (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it really, really isn't. Not even close.
 * And of course, there is no consensus for the idea that we should pick one submission and refine it (something that failed miserably last time). —David Levy 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you just here to fight? How about saying how much time you think we need to keep it open for submissions? futurebird (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As much time as it takes to reach consensus. —David Levy 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a given for making changes to the main page, I'm talking about for getting submissions. I think we should have a one week cut-off for that. futurebird (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think David Levy is right. We shouldn't put a deadline (at all). We should wait and see how things move along. Even if things go really fast, there shouldn't be a deadline in my opinion, it wouldn't help. It's been almost two years, it can wait a little more, and that'll just help the process. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose at least a month. A week is literally nothing in terms of designing anything reasonably complex from scratch. -Halo (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that at least a month should be expected. We should be looking to consolidate the designs from early- to mid-August. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A month would be fine, though we should definitely leave ourselves open to extending that deadline if need be. As for the suggestion of a week, it takes time to create a sample page and even more time to reach consensus (which is hard to do with this many volunteers).  Plus, it's the warm months for those of us in the northern hemisphere, so a good deal of people may be on vacation for this week.  &mdash;Pie4all88 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a month but only from the point at which discussion here seems reasonably complete in terms of what we expect in a Main Page design. Not necessarily the point at which consensus is reached here, but the point at which things are hashed out and all the main suggestions that are likely to be made have been put forward. Then that gives people a month to incorporate what they like about the results of this discussion into their proposals. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange setting a deadline for anything right now. Basically, the only things that have happened so far are preliminary design production, and debate over those designs. What exactly are we doing? How are we to do it? We can't set a deadline for this until we actually determine what sort of process we will use. Personally, I think the idea of rushing off submissions and then voting really will not effective. It's important to remember that these aren't changes to just any page. These are changes to the main page, which most any Wikipedia reader is going to see. This page is, for many, the representative face of Wikipedia. We must very thoroughly consider any change to this. BecauseWhy? (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That phrases my point better than I did - thank you :-) TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should put something at the top of the main proposal page saying this, that there is no nearby deadline? Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity
I don't know if this has been said before here, but if it has I apologize, I cba to read all the above at the moment! My comment is this: whatever new design is chosen (if a new one is chosen) I think it would make sense if it's formatting and graphical style is replicated elsewhere in Wikipedia (especially on the important pages of thinks, obviously not the articles themselves) for greater continuity. If for example the sections on the main page are coloured turquoise with pink spots (God I hope not!) then other important areas should also be considered that could then have their sections coloured turquoise with pink spots. What do people think? Deamon138 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should make the main page look more like a normal article for just this reason. futurebird (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You dont see the cover of a magazine's format repeated through the entire magazine.  E  E  23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but this isn't paper, blogs work that way, the main page tends to pretty much look like every other page. It's normal for web content. futurebird (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that WP is not paper, but I would err more on the side of WP being an encyclopedia (and thus having a different-looking start page). It looks nice and professional, not like a blog or something.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean in too many places, just the front pages of important pages. For instance this part of Portals could be graphically altered to be the same as the main page. I mean right now, it stands out more than the main page does anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A heads up
On the Present Main Page In the top banner under Wikipedia, the Should be Capitalized it is currently "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." where it should be "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."  E  E  22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. It's a full sentence if you notice: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It's been like that for ages. -- RyRy  ( talk ) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think it looks improper.  E  E  22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it looked odd too, though I can see the logic when I think about it. futurebird (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is not a sentence. It's the same as this: "Bill who goes to church." It doesn't have a conclusion to it (maybe it's a clause, I'm no expert). Hence no capital T at the beginning as it's not a sentence. But "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a sentence, so the W has to be capitalized. Deamon138 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reliably informed that it could well be a "sentence fragment", which was the term I was looking for but couldn't remember, not a clause, and definitely not a sentence as I said. Deamon138 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a subject the noun is The and predicate is edit.  E  E  23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about the statement "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" I don't see a problem. It's no different than stating, "Welcome to Birmingham, the magic city". It's a description (forget the correct word) of Wikipedia, in the same way that "the magic city" is a descriptor of Birmingham; neither would be capitalized. --XRK 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry EE I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here but "The" is not a noun. "The" is an article, or more exact: "The" is the definite article! Deamon138 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if The is an article, a article is a thing ie a noun.  E  E  23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Articles aren't nouns, articles precede nouns. "Encylopedia" is the noun in that sentence fragment. Besides, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." may well contain a noun (encylopedia) and a verb (edit) but it takes more than the presence of a noun and a verb to make a sentence. They need to arranged in the right way, or have extra words (such as "welcome to Wikipedia") to constitue a sentence. Deamon138 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. But on my proposal i change the comma to a period after Wikipedia.  E  E  23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In your proposal you have "Welcome to Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Right? Well as I've been saying the statement, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is not a sentence. It is a sentence fragment, which means that it is an incorrect use of English. The comma is needed to make it make sense. Deamon138 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No real opinion, but is "Welcome to Birmingham, the magic city" a sentence? Isn't "Birmingham, the magic city" all one thing (noun or whatever)?  Maybe "Welcome to Birmingham" is a sentence in itself, and the reader is the implied subject?  Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a sentence. "That" is a complementiser, and can largely be taken out of the sentence - "the free encyclopedia [] anyone can edit". "Anyone" is the subject, "can edit" is the verb, "the free encyclopedia" is the object - a noun phrase. These three parts of the sentence can be moved around or interchanged, and still it all makes sense. The subject need not be "anyone", it could be "Peregrine Fisher" - thus: "The free encyclopedia Peregrine Fisher can edit". The verb can be changed for another verb - say "can eat". So "The free encyclopedia Peregrine Fisher can eat." And the object can be changed from "the free encyclopedia" to "The expensive spaghetti" - so "The expensive spaghetti [that] Peregrine Fisher can eat". We can move the components around: "Peregrine Fisher can eat the expensive spaghetti". We can change the components and move them around as much as we like - "The free bike that Deamon can ride." Etc.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The free bike that Deamon can ride." and all those other examples that you gave aren't sentences sorry. They are Sentence Fragments. There is a subliminal comma/pause there that you don't need to write (just like you said you don't need to write the word "that"). Thus "the Nintendo Wii, that you play" isn't a sentence, but "the Nintendo Wii, that you play, is coloured white" is a sentence. I don't know what the official name for the "is coloured white" part of that sentence, but as I said originally, the fragment we were discussing doesn't have a "conclusion" (best word I know to describe it) to it to make it a sentence, and by conclusion I meant something like "is coloured white" or whatever. If you're still not sure, try it with brackets: "the Nintendo Wii (that you play) is coloured white." That I hope should emphasise why "the Nintendo Wii that you play" isn't a sentence, and hence why "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" isn't one either, but having "Welcome to Wikipedia" before it, turns it into a sentence like "is coloured white" turns my example into a sentence. Deamon138 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The full sentence "Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can write" is a compound sentence. It's two sentences - sentence A = "Welcome to Wikipedia", sentence B= "The free encyclopedia that anyone can write." What you are suggesting is that it is a complex sentence, with "The free encyclopedia that anyone can write." as a subordinating clause. However, it does not contain a subordinating conjunction. The nearest possible subordinating conjunction is "that", however - as I demonstrated above, "that" is a complementiser. If the sentence were broken further along - "Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" break "that anyone could write", then "that" would be acting as a subordinating conjunction and you would be correct, however, the sentence "the free encyclopedia that anyone can write" is perfectly fine - "The door that the cat can open," "The message that Deamon can write", etc. If you took these sentences you could make complex sentences out of them, but they would be the dominant clause - "The door that the cat can open" break "is over there" (subordinate clause); "The message that Deamon can write" break "is waiting to be written" (subordinate clause). I understand how you feel it is a subordinate clause because it has been presented as part of a longer sentence, and it does contain a word that is sometimes used as a subordinating conjunction, and if the sentence were broken at a different point you would be correct, but as it stands it is fine. Therefore the lower statement could start with a capital letter:
 * "Welcome to Wikipedia."
 * "The free encyclopedia that anyone can write."
 * Though I feel it flows better with the current lesser grammatical pause.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe a valid English utterance, but not a sentence. The written encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


 * Perhaps construed as a sentence with an implied, unstated, "This is" or some such. As in "(This is) the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."


 * All of the above is an indirect way of saying, that in carefully written modern English, a sentence needs a predicate, which contains a verb. Or so I understand it. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not a sentence. I forget what to call a phrase like that; it's not even a clause in its own right, although "that anyone can edit" is a clause within it. The cluster of words in question is perhaps a "noun phrase" (if that's what it's called) analogous to "the black stuff" in "I want some coffee, the black stuff." __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * & a bit more: "These three parts of the sentence can be moved around or interchanged, and still it all makes sense." That may be so, but in the English I know, it might make a slightly different sense. Word order matters in this language, more so than some others. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill here is right, SilkTork. I said above that I think it is a sentence fragment (maybe that's the right word?) but it's certainly not a sentence. As for, "That may be so, but in the English I know, it might make a slightly different sense. Word order matters in this language, more so than some others," you're right. Yoda may order his sentences backwards and still have them mean the same thing, but that is because they are sentences. With a sentence fragment, changing the order may change the meaning, yet seemingly paradoxically it may also create a sentence. But this sentence will have an ever-so-slightly different meaning to the original fragment. The new meaning is subtle I know, but it is there. Deamon138 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this thread. I hope this doesn't resurrect it - just thought it'd be good to have an expert opinion. So I asked a linguistics PhD and professor of 40 years.

"'In ordinary terminology, it's not a sentence, unless you're understanding 'the free encyclopedia' as a preposed object (this is often called 'object topicalization'), as in 'Beans I like; but rice I hate.' 'Wikipedia you can edit; but Britannica you cannot edit.'"

"In normal usage (as in 'Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit'), 'anyone can edit' is a relative clause modifying 'free encyclopedia'. Many relative clauses are introduced by the relativizer 'which' or 'that' ('the encyclopedia which/that anyone can edit'). This one has no relativizer (a 'zero relativizer'). Within the relative clause '(that) anyone can edit', the verb 'edit' has a missing object that somehow linked to the head noun 'encyclopedia' (there are various theoretical-semantics accounts of this). That is, it is understood as 'the free encyclopedia such that anyone can edit it' (where 'it' is the encyclopedia).''"

Hope that clears everything up ;) — eitch 03:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that completely confuzzled me! Are you saying that, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not generally a sentence, or that "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is generally not a sentence, or both? (By "generally", I meant that there are exceptions when it/they is/are sentence(s) but only if you use some crazy meaning of the words, but that meaning isn't the one being used here). So basically, could you explain what your PhD friend meant in your own plain English (unless that was your own plain English!)? Deamon138 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are his words. Can't help you with the meaning- I threw in those links so that anyone who really wants to get it can figure it out, but I haven't followed them myself. Seems like a relatively interesting question (like anything where the answer can include 'there are various explanations'), but… — eitch 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah well, never mind. Thanks anyway for the research lol. Deamon138 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove: Wikipedia languages
In general we don't need this section on the main page, because it's on the left sidebar. I think we could remove it. What do the rest of you think? futurebird (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The languages section doesn't just tell you what languages there are though. It also tells you how many articles there are in each language. Deamon138 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That info is at wikipedia.com too though. I think people can find other languages from the left side bar with enough ease. I don't see why we need a whole section for this on the main page. futurebird (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But they might come to Wikipedia via the English main page, and not through www.wikipedia.org (or .com as you put). They therefore might not see that page. Besides, the language is on the www.wikipedia.org page several times (i.e. it's repeated there too) so why worry about having it here twice? Deamon138 (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As well, a lot of people come through a google search, and then click on the logo, never going to www.wikipedia.org.  Soxred  93  00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but they see all of the languages on the left bar. I think that's great since it helps people to know that they are out there-- I just don't see the point of repeating the same set of links again on the main page. futurebird (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The languages are on the very bottom anyway. It doesn't bother anything. --haha169 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's talking about removing the languages from the bottom, not the sidebar. - BanyanTree 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Sure. I've never understood why the interwikis weren't a replacement for languages template, given that, if I'm fluent in Malagasy or Serbo-Croatian or whatever I'm going to that Wikipedia no matter how large it is. The current languages template is clearly aimed at impressing English readers with our multilingual-ness, and appeasing members of the other large Wikipedias who want to be more special than the smaller wikis in a trophy case template. Neither is a particularly functional in an encyclopedic sense. - BanyanTree 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've summed it up quite well. futurebird (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This summary also well explains all the ridiculous and petty rows about what counts as a "real" Wikipedia, and which ones are "fake" ("Our Wikipedia was all built by humans, yours was mostly built by robots"/"Our language is real, yours is just a dialect/extinct/artificial/a joke" --> "Our Wikipedia should be in the language list and yours shouldn't")... TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ticker
Something for those designing to think about on Wikinews there is a template called Ticker they use it to run recent news stories across a single line. It may be possible to consider replacing some or all of these sections DYK, On this day and In the news. Gnangarra 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything that moves or changes is strongly against accessibility. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That template looks very nice, but it's far less accessible than static text is.  —David Levy 02:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving text is hard to read, and it's not in keeping with the style of the site. futurebird (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not gonna happen, as it uses DPL, which the devs don't want to enable on en.wiki. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
I like the ease of reading the news on the front page, and think it would be a good idea to keep it there.---G.T.N. (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it too because it's a constantly updating area of the page, which helps to increase returning visitors. At least, I like seeing it update and reading news stories from there since I get to edit the articles if I find problems :) Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I visit WP just about every day (ok, several times a day!), and the News on the front page is VERY helpful in keeping up with current events. I can't express that enough.  Please don't get rid of it, in fact, I'd like to see it expanded. --Trippz (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Viewing
I would encourage everyone looking a the submissions to scroll past the title at the top of the page. This will allow you to see what will be visible in a browser with out scrolling. After all, the Main Page has the title removed. Scottydude talk 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been doing this. But, is there any code we could add to the pages to suppress the title?futurebird (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The code below is used in MediaWiki:Monobook.css to hide "some stuff" on the main page:


 * It can be modified to do the job for your design by changing "page-Main_Page" to "page-Wikipedia_2008_main_page_redesign_proposal_YOURUSERNAME", at least if your username is exclusively latin characters. If it's not, you'll need to copy the class from the source code of the page (look for the tag ). <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quantity of text
We've had some talk about removing sections from the main page, and although I support removing sections, this may be difficult because the people who work on those sections will block any such action, and in any case, every section is useful to some people -- None of them are really bad, I just think those of us who want to see sections removed, think that having less clutter will help the remaining content to stand out more. But, that all said, if we do not remove sections, perhaps we could at least think about making them smaller. For example:


 * What if DYK only had three bulleted items instead of 7? What if there were fewer items in DYK, but they changed more often?
 * What if we remove images from DKY and from the featured article: this will help the picture of the day stand out more, and put the focus on the text for the featured article.
 * What if we only include two sentences from the featured article? I think a huge paragraph is too much to read. What we want people to do is click-thourgh and look at the whole article. Not just skim it on the main page.
 * What about cutting down on the news stories and making them in to just headlines? Descriptive headlines. Instead of "An explosion near the Lal Masjid in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad kills at least 10 people on the first anniversary of the deadly siege and storming of the mosque." just "Explosion near the Lal Masjid." -- short and sweet.
 * For "on this day" reduce the number of items.

When I look at the main page I see a wall of tightly packed text-- it's overwhelming --and the two column format is different from the rest of the site. We need more space and less content. The main page isn't something that people should read for a long time, it's a jumping off point to click on things and go and see what they are. If we pack in too much information, then the mystery is gone and there's no reason to click. futurebird (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole 'keep everything but reduce clutter by cutting' idea was the concept I based my proposal on. 5:15 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is your proposal? And who are you? (your sig didn't show) futurebird (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Five Fifteen My name is Five Fifteen|Five Fifteen.  Its based on a Song by the Who called 5:15.  Thats why my sig looks like it.  5:15 04:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather like that one, but I think the search box is reundnt and the colors are too bring, but I think I left those comments on the talk page. Even as it is though I think you did a pretty good job slimming the text down. futurebird (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins are tardy enough with DYK as it is, so don't make it harder for them. MER-C 12:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture
On the Main Page, in my opinion, there is a lot of boring, useless information -- mostly text. One of the most appealing aspects of the Main Page is Today's Featured Picture. It offers an inviting visual. And the photos are usually very interesting, intriguing, beautiful, etc. However ... I have always been surprised to see that this stunning visual is always "buried" down the page. That is, the user has to purposefully scroll down in order to see the featured picture. Shouldn't this visual be placed closer to the top -- or more prominently displayed -- so that the reader does not have to actually scroll down to get to it? I have often wondered about this ... even before the idea of redesigning the Main Page came up. Does anyone else have thoughts on this, one way or the other? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC))


 * The large image's lower placement benefits users with slow Internet connections (for whom text loads much more rapidly). —David Levy 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we reduced the number of images on the page we can have a larger image without slowing down page loading too much. (see what I posted above) --I agree that the image should be higher up and perhaps a little larger. futurebird (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That won't help users with images disabled (who suddenly would have a worthless section right at the top of the page).
 * Also, people like the thumbnails (and complain when TFA lacks one), and unless consensus has changed since 2006, there is general opposition to the idea of moving up the featured picture (which some perceive as contrary to our encyclopedia's "images to supplement text" priority). —David Levy 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't know that there is "general opposition" to anything until you ask. Internet connections have advanced tremendously in the last few years: there are far more high-speed broadband users, and far fewer still using dialup. Concerns such as these, which were highly relevant in 2005/6, may not be so important now (although they should still be considered). Although there is a tremendous amount of useful information we can glean from the previous redesign process (it actually makes fascinating reading, even if it was almost as disorganised as this one!) we should not make the mistake of assuming that things are 'by default' still the same, because technology, and wikipedia, has moved forward significantly. So certainly, let's discuss the possibility (and the pros and cons) of doing whatever, and re-evaluate the pertinent points from the 2006 discussion (which I am very grateful to you for providing) as we go along. How much does the position of the picture affect pageload performance, especially given the increased amount of client-side javascript that is now operational? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we should re-evaluate the situation; that's why I said "unless consensus has changed since 2006." :-)
 * Note that the statement in question referred strictly to the belief that text is our top priority (and therefore should be featured above the large image), not to any technical/performance issue. —David Levy 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was bringing in the technical issues from other threads, probably confusing things. In fact the above is more of a general point, as it applies equally to everything we're discussing here. We don't want to be reinventing the wheel, but at the same time we do all need to keep an open mind to every idea, whether or not it was popular three years ago. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments above ... they all do make sense ... and some contain points that I had not considered. For what it's worth, I do think having a feature such as "Today's Featured Picture" is a great idea ... especially when the Wikipedia community comes up with such beautiful, interesting, intriguing photos! It's counter-productive to "bury" these visuals far down along the page. I hope that can be fixed / changed in this next Main Page revision. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I think if the featured picture is made bigger is should only be a little bigger, not because of slow internet connections, but because it might dominate the page otherwise (I mean pictures in articles themselves aren't much bigger normally). But anyway, I wouldn't be adverse to the picture being a bit bigger, and I certainly agree that this feature should be moved higher up the page. Deamon138 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CSS
I'm strongly of the opinion that the new ver of the main page should be all inline CSS to improve accessibility -Halo (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Are there any major browsers still in use which don't support CSS in some form? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does inline CSS improve accessibility? CSS is typically static content which is good to store apart from dynamic content for client side caching purposes. Ilari Stenroth (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a separate forum for non-UI questions. Obviously, it's a major part of a redesign, but at this point in the game almost all of the discussion is about what should actually be seen. — eitch 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA of the day
I think we should copy zh.wikipedia and implement a GA of the day. --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the fact that this idea would give people a reason to work to improve articles are area long way from "feature" quality-- but to get them up to at least "good" quality. Getting an article recognized as "good' takes a fair bit of work-- and there are not that many rewards for it-- and just about every article needs to be "good" before it can be feature quality. Still, some will say the front page should only be for the best material... limiting us to the %2 (or less?) that's FA quality. futurebird (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen several other wikipedias that put GAs on the front page. I don't like the idea, especially since so many FAs have yet to make the main page.  I'd rather see two FAs than an FA and GA.  5:15 05:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]
 * Wow, I was just typing the same thing:
 * What bothers me about this idea is the fact that we have too many featured articles (the quantity of which grows at a rate exceeding one per day) for all of them to appear on the main page. Therefore, it would seem a bit unfair for good articles to appear while many featured articles never do.
 * I'd rather see a second featured article. Or maybe we could add both.  —David Levy 05:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that the 'Featured/Good' terminology may not be intuitively clear to all our readers, most of whom are nothing like as familiar with Wikipedia as us. Before I read any of the 'behind the scenes' stuff outside the article namespace I assumed it meant 'Featured' as in 'featured here on the Main Page'. If we have FA and GA of the day I'd expect a decent proportion of readers to assume that the GA was actually supposed to be the better of the two.


 * That said I'm personally of the opinion that one FA (and no GA) is enough, and we don't want to clutter things - but I'd prefer two FAs to one of each for the above reason, as well as those given by 5:15 and David. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

http://da.wikipedia.org (look at it) shows the newest 3 feature articles and good articles. There are no long excerpts just simple links an it's separate from "Featured Article of the Day." Perhaps we could do something like that? futurebird (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Danes have a Featured Article of the week, not the day (just now on Berlin). Below that is Today's Scandinavian Article, a cooperative effort among the Scandinavian Wikipedias - a very good idea reminding people that reading the neighbors' languages isn't all that difficult.  Today it's an article in Norwegian (bokmål) about the Faroese language.  And below that: the box you're talking about with links (just links) to the 4 newest Excellent Articles, the 4 newest Good Articles and the 4 newest Promising Articles.  I agree that it's a good feature, worth considering.


 * Am otherwise in agreement with Olaf that the word "Featured" is not intuitive at all, but that's probably a discussion for another day. Except for English, the languages that I can read use words meaning "Excellent". --Hordaland (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, simple links to more FAs/GAs like on the Danish MP could be nice, and won't add much clutter. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I actually quite like the idea of having two FAs per day. There are simply too many FAs that haven't made the main page yet. But we might over-work Raul... --haha169 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like GA of the day. Definitely not an example of Wikipedia's "best work" to show the world. As for two FAs a day, it's already hard enough to pick one for each day :) Plus, one a day sounds perfect to me already. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 05:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at da.wiki they have 90,000 article with 153 featured that means on a dialy rotation the FA appear on their main page twice a year, we have 2100 thats once every 7 years for our FA given we promoted more than 7 every week, the da suggestion just doesnt scale to suit our needs. Given the number of available articles our focus should be on them rather than GA, if we can add a section for a GA then it should be used for another FA. Gnangarra 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing main page sections
Reading through this talk page, I see various post regarding the removal or shortening of various sections of the main page like TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, and TFP. Shouldn't this be a separate issue altogether (especially for those who actually work on those sections)? I thought we are discussing changing the format and layout of the main page, not the removal of some of its actual content. Or am I missing something? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the fact that a lot of people work on something automatically makes it important-- these questions need to be looked at both from the inside and out. I think that it's easy for a group of people who work on something to lose sight of the more general goal, while those without hands-on experience might not know about all of the technical difficulties. I do think that it's important to raise these questions in the context of the overall design of the page. People who work on these projects are not likely to say "hmmmm maybe we should just not do this anymore." or even "let's make our section smaller." --but, now and then we need to be brave and step back and look at how it all fits together. I think that's what's going on here, and that's very positive. futurebird (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the maintenance pages of TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, and TFP act as five separate de facto WikiProjects (in the case of TFA, it is just basically User:Raul654). Any new main page that removes or shortens one or more of those five sections will have to go through those users. If the issue discussed Wikipedia talk:FA was a problem, I do not know what other things will pop up that will need to be changed to those templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this as a plus, rather than a negative--these five communities of users come up with something new every day. (In the case of TFA there's a group as well.) Also I agree that sometimes it's worth looking at what one is doing (maybe people are sometimes caught up in doing for doing's sake). —SusanLesch (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Center "Welcome to Wikipedia"
I am not a designer, so I could not make an example, but I think we should center "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..." To me it just seems out of place on the left side. I think it would look more appealing if the welcome were centered and portal bullets could be placed under the centered Welcome. What do you think? This is something that has been bugging me for a while. Thanks, Brinkley32 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though the portals could go somewhere else entirely. And, above, I've suggested the text be changed to:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia
 * -- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit --
 * containing well over two million articles in English

(The bragging about the exact count also appears at the bottom of the page, and that's enough IMO.) --Hordaland (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Centering can work or not work depending on the design. I see nothing wrong with having the title over to the left. futurebird (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with it on the left. We'll see what the proposals so and how they are liked. Scottydude talk 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels made such a banner and I "borrowed" it. :-) RichardF (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretzels
 * RichardF
 * RichardF2

Colour scheme
There have been suggestions of changing the colour scheme. I agree with David Levy and others that we should be careful about changing things just for the sake of changing them, but of course if there's a genuine reason a change may be called for. Now, I happen to like the current scheme and am perfectly happy with it, but apparently others disagree. So, if you're in favour of changing it, shall we start by discussing what's wrong with the current scheme? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

long response
The colors used now divide the page in to three areas:
 * FA & DYK
 * "In the news" and "On this Day"
 * POTD

Although I do see some relationship between "In the news" and "On this Day" this grouping seems to be random. It helps the vertical column to stand out, but I think this could be done better with whitespace, or by moving to a single column format. The colors are mild and they mirror colors commonly found in links and dead links, though this will vary depending on browser preference. For this reason, I think we have the worst of both words, the colors are not striking, but they are also not particularly coordinated. There are two directions we can go: adding more bold color, or moving to a more black, grey and white main page. I favor the latter since I think it has the right feel for our encyclopedia.

Look at the colors of some of the ideas submitted so far:

Less Color:
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/SusanLesch - Design with tabs and few colors.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Alexfusco5 - Icons, using blue and beige
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Artyom - Two colors rather than 3.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Futurebird - No added color.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/MZMcBride - Pretty much the same as the current main page with color removed. (I think it looks much better!)
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Red Thunder - less color, more ... audio buttons.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Scottydude - No color simplicity puts the text and content center stage-- friendly design that mirrors our articles. One of the best.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Soxred93 - less color, thicker borders.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Tlogmer - uses some lightly colored text in lieu of borders and back grounds.
 * Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pro bug catcher - colors are more faint than in the current main page, but additional icons cause them to be more distracting.

Mix:
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Lights Uses. thin, higher saturation borders to highlight sections.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/RyRy - pretty much the same, in terms of color, as what we have now.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Ryan - Similar to Pro bug catcher.
 * User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Main page 2 - ever so slightly brighter than what we have now in terms of color. Mostly due to the addition of icons.

More Color:
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Electrical Experiment - Keeps the same colors but introduces a more saturated blue.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Five Fifteen - Uses bold full saturation colors.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Futurebird Introduces a few new colors at moderate levels of saturation.
 * 2008 main page redesign proposal/Nat

As you can see, there are quiet a few designers who though that some color needed to be removed. So, I'll go out on a limb and say that the issue is "too much" color. futurebird (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't phrase it as "too much" or "too little" color, but proper use of color. The current color scheme, which many new proposals replicate, is a set of big panels with (to my eyes) clashing pale pastels.  I understand that the colors have to be pale to serve as backgrounds for text, and that the idea is to differentiate the sections by background color, but I find it to be just ugly and bad design.   Think of it like painting a room in your house: would you paint each one a different hue of off white?  I also don't believe it works functionally: do you really find yourself thinking "hm, what I'm reading has a violet background; it must be about today's featured picture"? (Also note that since "todays FA" and "Did You Know" -- the explanation for these being related is tortured at best -- share a color block, even the differentiation excuse falls apart).
 * In reviewing the proposals, I am consistently drawn to those that don't try to use background color to differentiate sections, but use overhead color, graphical cues, and/or typography, keeping a consistent look for text itself. Jgm (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The grouping isn't random. You alluded to the thematic connection between ITN and OTD (current and hitorical news), and the thematic connection between TFA and DYK is that the former features one of our most mature articles while the latter features new (or newly expanded) articles that we hope will one day reach the same level.  TFP is the only image-based section, so it logically stands alone.
 * Personally, I wouldn't mind increasing the color contrast by making the first column orange (à la the Commons). —David Levy 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What David Levy has just said makes me reconsider my colour scheme. I'll change it accordingly a little later. I'd like to put pale orange on the left column, with FA, FL, DYK, then pale green or blue for ITN and OTD in the left column. Purplish for TFP. Grayish for banner, other areas and portals. Sister projects in pale green. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think the POTD and FA would go together since they are both featured content... in any case, I don't know if the color grouping really helps the reader in any way. futurebird (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a logical pairing, but we found that the featured picture section's horizontal format was the only one that accommodated most users (irrespective of screen resolution) and the only one that enabled the display of extremely wide images (such as panoramas) at a decent size.
 * And yes, I agree that the coloring is a purely aesthetic matter. My point is that the arrangement isn't random (and we actually swapped a couple of the sections' positions to improve it).  —David Levy 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For Template:POTD the image size is set in pixels, or is there a trick to it? I'd have thought a non-default-sized image would fit in a column as they do in portals. If they don't fit (and if POTD is used) and the picture section must be 100% wide, this is a very helpful constraint to know. I am behind on reading the 2006 discussion--sorry if this is a FAQ. —SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, a ruler and a narrow browser window were all it took (on some of the portal images). Below the boxes does seem like the right place. (I'd rather not have Wikipedia looking at my access device to find out what size image I can display, but I know some people think differently and it might be possible, I don't know.) Found a few good comments by the way, in archive 2 and nearby archives. Thank you. —SusanLesch (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Suggestion
I noticed one user's proposal included a quote of the day. I like the idea, but it might be good to keep it low on the page. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what wikiquote is for? In the same way that people object to ITN being duplication of wikisource. Take a look at Main Page. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews, you mean. I find it useful, myself, since I often want to skim through an article on the news subject for more information, but I can see why some would object.  &mdash;Pie4all88 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. But it would make the page a little more interesting. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question (2)
can I make two proposals because I have two ideas?  E  E  17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/EE and 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/EE2.  miranda   17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists should be added.
I think with this new layout, featured lists should also be added. Any comments?  miranda   17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've written a few Featured Lists, but I still think that they are more of a repository of information more than an actual source of information. I don't think they would be as useful to a general audience as much as Featured Articles. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured lists are great if you want that information but I worry that a reader who clicks on a random list from the front page is not likely to get much out of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Random Thought...
Okay, I'm new around here. But I do have one thought. First off, I do like the idea of opening up this contest. However, I think it may have been a better idea to get ideas for what the new main page should or shouldn't look like. This could have been achieved by making a survey, like the one for RFA. After the survey was complete, several designs could be made, and then voted upon. That process seems more efficient to me. 5:15 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think a little research could really go a long way. JoeSmack Talk 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. I mean when a company wants to design a new product, one of the first things they do is conduct a survey to see what the new product's users want. I'm not saying it should automatically be a vote (WP:DEMOCRACY), but the results of it could be discussed. A contest is a bad idea imo. We need to build consensus. I think a survey may bring about some focused discussion afterwards that would make it easy to reach consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to gather some such data in the section above. Unfortunately it's got a bit buried... <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What should definitely be on the Main Page?

 * Search feature.
 * Wikipedia logo.
 * Wikipedia name.
 * Portal to the Directory / Contents
 * Portal to Assistance / Help
 * Portal to a description/explanation of Wikipedia

The main page should be the way into the encyclopedia for the visitor, and it should be a clear and easy navigation.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An additional (second) search box on the main page has been suggested and rejected numerous times. Most strongly in the last redesign at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll. See more info just past the middle of this thread. It is CONFUSING to some users, and that objection is not going to change. I'd strongly recommend removing the redundant search box from the various drafts, and wishlists. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree  E  E  20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think the issue over, with no duplicate search box as the consensus. I also think it very confusing, with users having to learn two locations for searching instead of one. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the ee discussion about the search box. Cacycle (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Every design I have ever seen including a second searchbox has put it in a position where it could reasonably be duplicated on all pages; hence there would be legitimate confusion over why it's not on all pages. A design which had the searchbox integrated into the page layout such that it was obviously a part of the main page, not of the interface, would circumvent these issues entirely. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it wouldn't.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
 * We want users to notice and utilize the MediaWiki search box, not to rely on a redundant one that they see instead (and believe that they must continually return to the main page to use). —David Levy 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There you're making the assumption that some users are too stupid to notice the search bar in the interface; I'm sure there are people who would fail to spot that, but I would hope they would be few enough in number that they needn't affect our design process. The big question, of course, is: if we want people to notice the search box, why are we subconsciously trying to make it as inconspicuous as possible? Repositionining the searchbar is, of course, a whole other ballgame, but it does beg the question... <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm not suggesting that anyone is "stupid." I'm saying that the proposed setup is confusing.
 * 2. If you believe that the number of people who would fail to spot the existing search field is too low to warrant concern, what's the point of adding a second one (which could only increase this number by distracting users from the first)?
 * 3. I've strongly supported the idea of making the MonoBook search field more prominent (and I continue to do so). Adding a redundant search field to the main page would be the wrong "solution" to a real problem.  —David Levy 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The assumption in the discussion above appears to be that the redesign copies the existing design to the extent that the left hand side remains. I hadn't thought that at all. The question was about starting from scratch and asking what are the important points that should appear on the main page. I am thinking of a main page somewhat like this: . A clean, simple page with the logo, the name, and a search facility. My suggestion above is that the main page should just be a huge Wikipedia globe logo, and that some of the jigsaw pieces should be click through portals to destinations that a reader might be looking for.


 * My question was really about assuming a clean plate. Totally clean. Starting totally from scratch. What items/features should appear on the main page?  SilkTork  *YES! 06:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a totally clean sheet, then set http://www.wikipedia.org as your homepage and never come to the main page again. I would strongly oppose a main page which did not retain the entirety (I have been persuaded to upgrade from 'majority') of the core interface. As noted above, we should be aiming to increase familiarity with the MediaWiki interface from the word go, not hide it by making the Main Page different to all other pages on the site. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What I am suggesting is that for the purpose of a redesign consideration there are two ways of starting it. 1) Looking at what is currently there and talking about each item and its importance. 2) Disregarding what is already there and thinking about what is important to have. Both methods have a value, though method 1 takes a long time and is perhaps not asking the right questions, and is not taking into account what is not already there. Method 1 is best suited for tidying up something that is not going to change much. Method 2 is looking at a whole range of other options which may end up in the same place as we are now, but also has greater potential to find something quite different (Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns").  SilkTork  *YES! 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Belive me I am fully in support of method 2 - the designs which merely tweak formatting and style while leaving the structure and layout intact are, in my opinion, worse than useless (as making such trivial changes will require just as much rigmarole as a major change, but will have almost no effect). However, I don't think that hiding the core interface on the Main Page is a tenable proposition. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal list
There was a previous suggestion to update the portal list, at Talk:Main Page/Archive 114.

See this diff for the suggested links: they would lead to the page subsections of Portal:Contents/Portals, instead of 8 individual portals. It would also match up with how Browsebar currently operates.

Something like that could still be considered as an option. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to this with a counter-proposal at Topical links on the main page. RichardF (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (2)
I think on 2008 main page redesign proposal I think we should use links instead of the transcluded preflileindex  so we dont get Subpages.  E  E  20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Im going to go ahead and switch it over.  E  E  20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. There's like one or two. I don't think it's going to be a competition anymore, so all the designs are fine to see.  Al Tally  talk  20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Theres four and most likly more too come and we should switch too before it gets too big.  E  E  20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or simply move the subpages that are not proposals to the user's userspace. Then add a statement that subpages (such as variations on POTD, TFA, and other letters) should be placed within userspace, not Wikipedia space. --XRK 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Using tabs to simplify presentation
In the past couple years, several high profile sites have radically cleaned up their home pages by using tabs to organize content in a smaller space. Take a look at http://www.yahoo.com/ (an example of clickable tabs), or http://www.cmt.com/ (an example of roll-over tabs). We should try to follow these examples and clean-up the clutter. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is enough stuff on the page/proposed to be on the page to require tabs (if these are even possible in wikicode?). Tabs would also hide info, and the idea should be to put everything we agree on, on one page so it is all displayed. Besides, tabs would make the main page radically different to the rest of Wikipedia, which isn't desirable to be honest. Deamon138 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the existing Main Page alternatives incorporates a tab design, so it is possible to code if a consensus forms to make such a design. See Main Page alternative (tabs). Road Wizard (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Im going to add Main Page alternative (tabs) to the proposed.Electrical Experiment (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although that doesn't actually use tabs. In reality, it's several different pages formatted to look as if you are still on the initial page. Faking tabs is a bad idea, especially for those unfortunate people still using dial-up. --XRK 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Im sorry to say but the web cant wait for everyone to ketch up. Electrical Experiment (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that we shouldn't worry about accommodating dial-up users? —David Levy 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we could have a Dial-up Version of the Main Page its just we cant wait for all users to ketch up to broadband.Electrical Experiment (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Our main page is supposed to be as accessible as is reasonably possible to as many users as is reasonably possible. Relegating an estimated 10% of American adults (an overall figure, not merely 10% of those with Internet access) and whatever percentages use dial-up in other countries to a separate page is unreasonable.
 * And frankly, there's nothing to "wait" for; the proposed setup is simply impractical. —David Levy 00:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you suppose we have a dial up version of the main page then? Is Wikipedia supposed to telepathically know if a user is running on dial up or something, and redirect them to their own special main page? Besides, everyone should have access to the same content, regardless of internet connection (and should I add, wealth, race etc etc, it is after all a type of unintentional discrimination). Plus, I agree with XRK, faking tabs is worse than real tabs: you've effectively got four main pages and not one. Deamon138 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like most websites have a link like:
 * If you can not see this page click here.
 * Electrical Experiment (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, we could simply not break the main page for no apparent reason. —David Levy 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Deamon138 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fake tabs are daft, as pointed out above. (Load 4 pages instead of 1 - Most of the content will be vastly less visible - Casual scrolling is more likely than casual clicking).


 * As for excluding dial-up users, that is just plain insulting to a large portion of the earth's populace that don't even have the option. For the U.S. situation specifically, see Broadband Internet? No thanks (CNN, 3rd July 2008): 10% of Americans still have dial-up; do you want to exclude 30 million Americans alone? -- Quiddity (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And it goes without saying that the US is one of the better providers of broadband (I think Iceland is the best, I seem to remember), never mind all the billions out there who live in poorer countries and only have access to dial-up. Deamon138 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bandwidth shouldn't be a barrier (I ran some of the larger proposals on a 28k connection); unless, of course your, page has a HD video intro with high-res bitmaps, sounds, and so on. I think tabs are a great idea, though we need more examples to figure out where and how they should be used. Don't forget that Wikipedia already utilizes tabs for history, discussion, and so forth (you can turn on some of the other features in your preferences); and because of this, adding a second level of tabs can sometimes be confusing. Additionally if we can get access to JS, it's possible to utilize it without having to reload the page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The tabs that you see at the top of the page for history etc aren't tabs, they are just glorified hyperlinks (or fake tabs as was mentioned above). And those "tabs" for history etc are to keep each part to do with an article separate from the article. There is no reason to split the main page onto several pages (it isn't called the "main page" for nothing), while there is reason to split "history", "talk", "edit this page" etc from the each other and the main article. Are you telling me that you want to be able to read, edit, discuss, move, watch and timetravel an article all on ONE page??! Deamon138 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of you actually looked at the two examples I posted. I'm talking about DHTML tabs, not hyperlink tabs. This does not affect dial-up users in the slightest. It would still be one page and it would still load the same amount of content, it would just be better organized and you wouldn't have to scroll as much. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical considerations
What can we assume about the main page when considering a design? Well, I suggest:
 * CSS. All major new browsers use CSS, there's no reason why this shouldn't be used now. I'm of the opinion that by the time the main page will be updated, we can use inline-block too since FF3 will be the standard and all browsers support it. CSS could also provide more complex designs.
 * 800px wide. Can we assume this? Several high-profile sites (Amazon is the first that springs to mind, but plenty of other too) assume 800px wide minimum, since 640x480 is pretty much dead. This may provide the option of allowing a more complex designs.
 * JavaScript. Is there any way to include JavaScript for the main page only to include extended features as a special case using progressive enhancement? If nothing else, could we use the "hide" option already used through Wikipedia? As previously stated, having tabs, for example, could much improve the amount of information avaliable on the main page while making it still seem lightweight. A large proportion of the significant sites on the internet use JavaScript these days. With JavaScript something like a more tasteful version of the front page of BBC.com could be done allowing customisation while still providing a decent experience for non-JS users.
 * Template. Is it worth refreshing the Wikipedia's template at the time time to give the site a new look?
 * PNG Transparency - Is it yet safe to assume this? IE6 is still sadly floating around. Are we happy to tolerate people using 6 year old browsers get slightly dodgier looking pages?
 * Size limits - Is there any requirement for a size limit to accomodate specific users such as dialup? I'm of the opinion as long as it isn't ridiculously large, no inherent limit should be included.

Any other ideas? Do consider that any design should try and help Wikipedia get into the 21st Century - that should be the aim of this. Not just change for change's sake. -Halo (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with 800 pixels wide being assumed. Many people using SDTVs use 720 pixels wide Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this table, more than 75% of people have a resolution of greater than or equal to 1024x768. Considering that it shows up as 0% on the table, I think we can safely discount 640x480.
 * Also, would it be possible to use some of these to change what the Main Page looks like based on what the user's display size is? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible to have a JS object that detects the screen width, browser type, operating system, and so forth; and determine which variation of the front page to load. However, for that, we'd need access to JS, and I'm unsure how to do this in Wikipedia; we might need an administrator to look at this. Also, don't forget that not all browsers have JS enabled. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sceptical how reliable W3Schools is. It says itself "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. This fact indicates that the figures below might not be 100% realistic.". I highly doubt the W3Schools audience is that similar to our audience. That said, I'm not sure whether we should try to cater for 640x480 but I do think a 800 pixel minimum assumption is a bad idea for the reasons I've already given (I expect most people with PVRs for example are not using Opera for the Wii). Also I forgot to add let's not forget that presuming 800 pixels wide is going to make problems for people usin 800x600 without a full screen Browser Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth mentioning that modern portable webbrowsers, such as Opera for the Wii, render a website at a higher resolution and than scale it down, so the site would still likely work with them. -Halo (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I don't know whether it's fair to call IE6 6 years old. IE7 was only released in late 2006 (see the wiki article) and IE6 was Microsoft's main and only supported browser for Windows until then. At no time did Microsoft abandon IE6 or ask people to upgrade to a different browser. Note that I'm not offering a comment on how we should handle IE6 simply saying that we need to consider what IE6 is not what we want it to be Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Below button "Create your main page redesign proposal"

 * Note:Do not create Sub pages from your proposals. You Can make sub pages from your user-pages to your userpage.

What does this mean? --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that you should not create 2008 main page redesign proposal/Anna Lincoln/Subpage, instead create User:Anna Lincoln/Subpage, and link that to your proposal :) ← κεηηε∂γ  ( talk ) 09:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome :) ← κεηηε∂γ  ( talk ) 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it to read "Note:Do not create sub pages from your proposals. Instead, create them in your userspace (e.g. User:Example/POTD)". Hopefully that's a little clearer. --XRK 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Preferred ideas
I am strongly in favour of WP:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/ChyranandChloe. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and has all of the features I was thinking of writing here, especially a strong emphasis on important links that are currently absent from the main page. It's clean, new, and solid. Reinderien 08:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Specific layout comments go on the respective layout's talk page. Cheers. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Search box further up!
At present I have to scroll down a bit to get to the search box (English, all pages). Several people have suggested placing a separate (additional) search box prominently on the main page. Others say there shouldn't be 2 boxes with identical functions.

There is another solution! On some other main pages (for example the Vietnamese) I can see the search box because it's just under the navigation box; on others it is visible because there are fewer links in the navigation and interaction boxes.

Why not move the search box to the top of the left column, just under the globe logo. That would give it the prominence which I think it needs. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be moved up – after all, most people really don't care about anything else besides what they are looking for (think of Google and its single text box). There was a discussion on this a few weeks ago; I can't remember the result, but I imagine it ended up with "no consensus". Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is going to get fixed soon, barring unforeseen problems. (Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good news (and what I came here to find out, thank you for the link). —SusanLesch (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good news indeed. I see that the Norwegian main pages already have implemented the improvement:  here and here  --Hordaland (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting news
As i originally suggested a week ago, should sports be split from In the News?

(copied from Template talk:In the news).

I am just thinking that maybe sports news should be split from this and put in their own area. Simply south (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting idea and it would be nice to put up more sports (IMO), but I doubt it would ever gain the support. -14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CWY2190 (talk • contribs)
 * During the Olympics, okay. (We had a dedicated subsection on ITN during the past two Olympics. I suppose that can become it's own section on the Main Page for a few weeks this August.) Otherwise, no. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with 199.71.174.100, who make a good point. You might also want to look at our proposed (and used) framework for this at WP:ITNSPORTS. Spencer  T♦C 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would this sports section go? Perhaps someone could do a mock up of the page with a different sports section.  5:15 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a dedicated sports section to accomodate the amount of internationally significant sporting news so long as it was done with respect to visual appeal of the main page. I agree with the above comment that a mock page would be useful to determine whether it should be added.  Lympathy    Talk  10:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we needed space, I suppose we could check up with the DYK crew to add an extra one... Spencer  T♦C 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Add new discussion below. Simply south (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, we're going to have a sports section on the main page now? No, I think that's a bad idea-- too newspaper-like. Important sports events will show up in the news, I see nothing wrong with this. We don't want to force there to be sports news every single day. futurebird (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with futurebird! --Hordaland (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to splitting the news section up more than it is now. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last few comments; some people, me first, don't care so much for sports. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. That's not to say they should go, just that they shouldn't have a more prominent place. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a sports section is a bad idea in my opinion. I think that the content on the Main Page should enrich the use of the encyclopedia. Although one could argue a sports column could do this, I think it is too trivial compared to the other content already on it. Some of which could even be considered excessive as is. Scottydude talk 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - the whole ITN column is hardly a showcase for our best work (surely that's what wikisource does best?), sport articles least of all. Definitely don't add a separate section of trivia. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NTWW Episode 25
Tomorrow, Wednesday 8th July @ 22:00 UTC, Not the Wikipedia Weekly will be holding its 25 skypecast episode and one of the topics discussed will be this collaboration. There will be a discussion about the main page redesign proposal. If anyone wishes to take part, please contact me in the wikipedia-en IRC channel, by email through wiki, or on my talk page. Information is available on the NTWW page on how to take part. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refer to this as a "collaboration," not a "competition." Thanks!  —David Levy 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Note Taken. Any thing else you would like mentioned, say here :) Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

People use the main page?
I wonder how many regular users (not editors) look at the main page. I'm mostly a regular user (have edited maybe 10 pages in all of two years; don't even know why I got an invitation to contribute to this project but here I am) and I NEVER use the main page. Usually I get to whatever I'm looking for from Google, or by typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/my_search_term into the address bar.

Seriously, I could care less what the front looks like. Rkaufman13 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the Main Page still gets over 25,000,000 visits a month gets over 250,000,000 visits a month, so I think it's an important page. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And even if it only got a handful of visits, a page should look good (yeah I know it looks good already!). Are you saying if there is a poorly written article and it only gets a couple of visits, that therefore it doesn't deserve to be improved? Plus, the number of posters here clearly indicates that people are interested in what the main page looks like. Deamon138 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and Gary I think you're missing a zero: you're an order of ten out. I clicked the link you provided and got 287,109,620 visits for May 2008. Deamon138 (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yeah. That makes a big difference :) Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone remember what that is as a percentage of pages viewed? I read it somewhere, but forget now. Spencer  T♦C 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 main page redesign proposal/Ryan Postlethwaite
Hi there, I wondered if someone could help me with my proposal? The ITN and FA sections are aligned a little too much to the right, so they look wonky when compared with the featured picture section.

Also, Would someone be able to put a light blue border around my top two boxes? I really don't have a clue. :-S Many thanks,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's over-designed. futurebird (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, the fix is simple; it's not that the ITN and FA sections are aligned a little too much to the right relative the "Featured picture", it's there is a forced margin between them and the two sides of the page — this results when by the method you arranged them into two columns. My solution would be to add a 5px margin on either side of the "Featured picture".


 * To do this, first go to the "Feature picture" section of your code. Find the parameter  style=  directly below the comments and insert  margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px;  between the quotation marks.


 * I'm not sure which two boxes you are talking about, but you can add these two lines of code before the section you want encapsulated:  {| style="border:1px solid #0000FF;"   and   ! class="MainPageBG"  . And add this line of code to end it   |}  . Don't forget to reoptimize it when you're done — #0000FF is probably too rough of a blue, I'd prefer #C7D0F8.


 * Your "Did you know..." section appears to be disaligned as well (notice how it is not coliner with the "Featured article"); to fix this removed line of code on the third line below the comments  {|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:none;" .


 * Hope this is helpful. If you are still having trouble, I can insert the code for you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No massive changes, please...
Please keep at least the layout of the main page intact, and don't do anything like Wikia did and completely disembowel and rebuild the whole thing, making it really dang confusing for people like me who are used to the design. Jedibob5 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I personally don't have a problem with keeping it just as it is.  --Andrew from NC (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a revamp is what is needed, then "I'm used to it" is irrelevant.  Al Tally  talk  00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see any real reason why "a revamp is what is needed". Personally, I find the Main Page to work perfectly the way it is. Flashy colors, formatting, little graphics, and shadow borders do nothing more than distract from the Main Page's real purpose: showcasing our content. We shouldn't change the Main Page just for the hell of it; change for the sake of change accomplishes nothing. - auburn pilot   talk  01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't "for the hell of it". There are several good reasons the page needs an update. Not necessarily a redesign, but certainly updated in places. I suggest you read this entire page for an idea of the general feeling among people.  Al Tally  talk  01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments below, in the section titled "confused". A general feeling doesn't cut it. - auburn pilot   talk  01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A general consensus does though. There is consensus here.  Al Tally  talk  01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)