Wikipedia talk:Main Page (2016 redesign)

RESTART
OK, so we have...not exactly a consensus but a number of editors who feel that something should be done about the main page. So (for those still interested) I would like to open up a discussion about what process has the best chance of accomplishing this in a way that the community will accept.

Right now, at the start of this new restarted discussion, I would politely ask everyone to refrain from suggesting what should be done, but rather the process that should be followed. Once we settle that, we can get to suggesting and opposing specific changes. I would also suggest not bothering to tell us all that this isn't worth discussing, on the theory that the best way to stop taking about something is to stop talking about it.

So, other than the "one person decides and makes the changes with or without community support" plan, which we have already rejected, does anyone have a plan or suggested process that could possibly move us forward? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * And what to do about the current RfC that's ongoing and tagged with ? Remove it? (That's a bit bold, isn't it?) The bot is still aware of it. FYI I restored 2 lines that you likely accidentally removed when cot/cobbing. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 00:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this was mentioned by someone- but it seems clear that redesigning the whole MP at once is an unattainable goal that will never achieve consensus. There are simply too many things that could be changed and too many views on how to change them(if at all).  The process needs to be gradual- changing one thing at a time; it is easier to gain consensus on one aspect of something than rolling many aspects into one proposal. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * We could put together a formal RfC—perhaps a subpage of WP:Requests for Comment—that, at least initially, would be structured similarly to Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo. In other words, the different proposals could be listed in no particular order, with people endorsing whichever one they see as the best. Eman  235 / talk  00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What [part of "Right now, at the start of this new restarted discussion, I would politely ask everyone to refrain from suggesting what should be done, but rather the process that should be followed. Once we settle that, we can get to suggesting and opposing specific changes" was unclear? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh—and I think we should give User:Edokter/Main Page2 a chance. I think it could even be implemented without most people noticing—but it has much better code than the current one. Eman  235 / talk  01:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Edokter/Main Page2 with MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main Page2.css looks like an acceptable modernization that shouldn't be too controversial I think. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 01:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry—I only meant to point out a possible candidate. Eman  235 / talk  03:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're suggesting this, but I don't think any redesign should be implemented without an RfC and consensus on the subject. If it isn't controversial then the RfC will pass it. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks too white for me. If the main thing is the coding, then make it look identical to current main page and once implemented discuss design. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , you are viewing it with styling, right? Eman  235 / talk  02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) my bad. ok I think it is fine then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to imply that it should be implemented sans-RfC, only that it could. A question: should there be an RfC on "Main Page2" first, and then an RfC of the nature that I proposed above (get the problematic code out of the way first, then discuss visual design), or should it be lumped in with the others (less likely to lead to a major visual change)? Eman  235 / talk  02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If this is about the process, I think the proposal suggested in this thread was a reasonable one. If I may quote it:

I don't have anything myself to add, but this seems most reasonable to me. (Ah! I apologize Nihiltres if I stepped on your toes by mentioning it first?) ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At first glance, that looks quite good. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds like a good plan to me. Eman  235 / talk  03:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can't help but endorse this, right? :) There is the downside that it inhibits the suggestion of dramatic changes to the Main Page, but those have always been politically unlikely. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 04:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I worry that bundling the technical upgrade with the decorative, content, and layout changes could cause users affected by the technical upgrade to be overlooked. If the technical upgrade is rolled out first, separately, relatively few users would notice it, especially users with screen readers or exotic browsers. Feedback on accessibility and technical issues from those users could be heard and addressed, before the other changes happen and many more users start weighing in. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the technical upgrade is unbundled into step 2. isaacl (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I might've misunderstood, but point number 5 above sounded to me like all the changes would be made at the same time at the end of the process. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I seem to have overinterpreted step 2. I agree with you then; I'd prefer for step 2 to be deployed first, separately from any other changes, since it does not depend on any other consensus agreements. isaacl (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By "technical" I mainly meant "layout", i.e. the HTML and (core) CSS that scales and positions each content box on the page. Improving this system will require some visual changes, because part of the point of it as an upgrade is to make the content reflow naturally for various screen/window sizes. In particular, our current Main Page flows in two columns, with two items vertically in each column (followed by a couple of full-width items); the continuous columns, at least, are incompatible with reflowing the content for narrow screens, since we probably couldn't keep the same continuous boxes without either re-arranging the content (i.e. swapping DYK and ITN) or doing something hackish (defeats the purpose). That said, step 2 specifically isolates the technical/layout side so that we don't have to argue over appearances until we've agreed the basic layout makes sense. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 23:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Several of the improvements I've seen in the suggested final designs would be invisible to most users. Replacing tables with semantic elements, marking up regions, removing inline styles, closing the list gap at the top, stuff like that. Maybe those could be step one-and-a-half. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not invested, and never have been invested in anything to do with this design issue but here's a thought, FWIW. The committee of the whole is again likely to go nowhere, so here's a suggestion: 1)A widely advertised vote for an up-to-7 member design ctte is elected (any user in good standing may self-nom and state their qualifications (10 days) vote (30 days), one of the choices is 'none of the above/status quo'; 2)They are instructed to come up with 1 to 2 complete redesigns and/or 1 to 2 partial redesigns; 3) Their proposal(s) are put to the community, and status quo is again an option; 4) no consensus means no change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A committee-based approach was unanimously opposed in the earlier discussion (collapsed, above). {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 23:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that. Well, good luck, but my idea does have, unlike that terse RfC that I now reviewed, regular community input/approval, at several stages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Step zero
(Because it comes before step one in the above list)

As far as possible, make Main Page (2016 redesign) exactly the same as Main Page, ready for us to make technical upgrades from step two. It should use exact copies of the main page CSS, etc. rather than pointing to the ones used on the main page so that we can change those if we want to. Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. But first, archive this particular version somewhere, for posteriority. Eman  235 / talk  06:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the next step would be to restore the current version, which as far as I can tell, already mimics the current main page, then I'm not sure it's necessary. isaacl (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the goal. Just that it shouldn't pull anything at all from the main page CSS, since we want it to be fully customizable without affecting the main page. For what its worth, go ahead, I support this. We need a wider involvement here if we are going to have any chance of changing the main page. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with ensuring independence from the current main page CSS file, but I don't see a need for a step zero that makes this page have the same wikitext markup as the current main page. The current main page can serve as a reference without having to change this page. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Another plan
Since the above subsection seems to have stalled? I could do this all myself, but I can't move things in the MediaWiki namespace. Eman 235 / talk  20:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Move User:Edokter/Main Page2 to Recoded Main Page (or similar neutral title) and MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main Page2.css to MediaWiki:Wikipedia:Recoded Main Page.css
 * 2) Start an RfC at WP:VPP stating clearly how this is an improvement to the current main page, how this is only the first step so we can separate the issues of code and visual styling, etc., etc. The objective would be to get the recoded main page accepted as the actual main page.
 * 3)  If the RfC is widely supported (which it would probably be), continue with step 3 on the above list.


 * I don't think we need to move anything in particular; the page here at Main Page (2016 redesign) can be our editable version and since the CSS should remain separate either way, we can just copy pages with attribution. For example, I've just set up MediaWiki:User:Nihiltres/NewMainPage.css ( preview ) and MediaWiki:User:Nihiltres/NewRetroMainPage.css ( preview ) as perhaps-helpful tests, which as copies each credit the authors of MediaWiki:User:Main Page/NewMainPage.css in their initial edit summary. If you'd like me to move anything else into or out of the MediaWiki namespace for you (e.g. if you want to create a test CSS), just let me know.
 * In the meantime, we have some intermediary steps:
 * Tweaking the draft content to remove the "Be an editor" section (at least temporarily, to keep issues separate)
 * Drafting an RfC plan flowing through each step so that we can easily point to so that people who haven't been involved can clearly see and comment on the plan
 * I think that the two (or few?) of us should just go ahead with drafting a plan to make sure we get the ball rolling, since it's so easy for it to stall out before getting properly started. Importantly, I think that we should have the Plan™ clearly visible throughout so that any objections to its main thrust happen early.
 * That said, I think we've got the basic idea down, and here's a new draft of the Plan™ (feel free to copy this to its own section for editing):
 * Edit and agree on the basic Plan™ in our tiny Main Page Cabal ;) with the option of tweaking it later
 * Tweak the draft to get the content closer to the current Main Page
 * An RfC pointing to a) the Plan™ and b) a viable Main Page draft, asking "Is this layout (and only the basic layout) an improvement?" If this fails, we end there.
 * A preflight request to the WMF for a ranked-voting poll to identify the most preferred CSS
 * A call for CSS to populate the poll, with interested users posting CSS to style the basic layout. (and maybe an open discussion on preferred style elements?)
 * Running the poll
 * An RfC on content additions/removals from the Main Page. We'll probably want to establish both a quorum and support-percentage thresholds for implementation.
 * Protect the draft and finalize any details
 * A simple vote on implementing the final version
 * Implementation and cheers all around
 * Probably each of those steps will have long waiting periods for participation, so we'll want to keep this rolling; how's it looking so far? {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 22:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it's looking dead in the water :|—Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no.....No, 'e's stunned! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major. ( http://www.montypython.net/scripts/petshop.php ) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this got the historical tag, which kinda makes sense since it's named 2016 redesign. But on the other hand this is still ongoing, right? If not, what happend/what needs to happen for this to move forward? Most seemed fine with the process suggested above, but maybe (probably) I overlooked something. Max Nordlund (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading back the talk page, the project certainly does look dead. I didn't even know it stalled since I was using this version of main page itself very well. Too bad this would never go official. Junghyeon Park (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit Wikipedia looking for techies for their home page
Hello there. I have an unusual request for you, and apologies if you've already seen it elsewhere. Looks like the Sanskrit Wikipedia would like to have their home page compatible with mobile devices, because they are widely used to access that site. Unfortunately, past attempts to fix the issue didn't work. Is anyone willing to help them? User:NehalDaveND speaks English and could assist you! Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

My feedback, in case anyone is still paying attention to this
I like the looks of this design without the styling applied. The box to enable styling pushes things down a little farther than I'd like, I assume that would be removed when implemented (perhaps with a with/without choice in your login or something). --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally dislike the new redesign, as I view it to be less clean and more confusing. I feel that, if a revision is to be made to the main page, it should be more drastic than this, rather than a rehash (and in my view not a particularly clean one). Has anyone considered a style similar to the YouTube main page, with Wikimedia Commons images giving a clear indication of popular and suggested articles. Then, where the bar to the left of the main YouTube page is, we could input news and on this day. A direct link to the Top 25 Report on the main page would also be nice in my view. --User:Stormy clouds (talk) 10:07 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I still have this on my watchlist, sigh. The difficulty in Main Page updates isn't creative but rather political, i.e. getting everyone on board with any given design. No offense, but suggesting more designs is unhelpful because it inhibits consensus on any existing design. If I were to revive this discussion (as a new 2017 one), my opening strategy for making the discussion productive would be to preempt suggestion proliferation through structuring the discussion around specific, relatively atomic structural changes. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 21:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed! As many people have said over the last few attempts, we should first get the current design ported into pure CSS with as few changes as possible (we're still using tables for layouts ;_; in 2016!), and only then attempt a series of small improvement discussions in order to get relatively close to this 2016 design. Quiddity (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty good overall, with one serious issue: the forced whitespace between the sidebar and the content: blech! Content width should not be capped at a specific pixel size! —  xaosflux  Talk 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC) 2016MP-WhitespaceStill-201704Capture.PNG
 * I completely agree about not forcing a fixed-width here, even a very wide one like the 122em currently in MediaWiki:User:Main Page/NewMainPage.css.
 * Minor note, that it has a narrower breakpoint with monobook vs vector, due to the decreased font-size, hence this problem wasn't initially visible for me even with a 1920x1080 resolution. Compare vector with monobook. (Or for anyone who has a narrower monitor: zoom out (decrease browser font size) until the fixed-width becomes visible)
 * (Sidenote 1: I made this wireframe idea a while ago, to help start discussion about what should be in a hypothetical and minimal "accessibility and aesthetics" options-system-for-everyone (i.e. including logged-out readers/editors) which includes this feature).
 * (Sidenote 2: Anyone who does like intelligently designed/nuanced fixed-width layouts, should try out the gadget "Improved appearance for mobile, narrow and wide screens." - see User:TheDJ/responsiveContent to see a walkthrough and give feedback.) Quiddity (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Amazing
I like this redesign very much because it isn't too busy and looks fresh and sleek, Also is this still a proposal? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not, but Uncyclopedia is using a version of it. SelfSealingStemBolts (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They have since reverted to their previous main page. With tables. Ugh. SelfSealingStemBolts (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please someone talk to me in elementary terms
Need people whom understand me please. Ondisplay22 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean talking about all of Wikipedia as a beginner? Click Teahouse. Art LaPella (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 10 August 2022
MediaWiki:User:Main Page/NewMainPage.css was tagged but not listed in Miscellany for deletion/Old/sandbox MediaWiki CSS pages. Please either remove (if you consider the lack of a mention there to invalidate the discussion as applied to this page) or delete the page (if you consider the discussion to still be valid as applied to this page despite not being listed). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ — xaosflux  Talk 10:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)