Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quiddity (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 6 July 2008 (→How much of the standard sidebar do you actually use on the main page??: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... it's a proposal. Al Tally talk 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but even so - when there's a winner, it would still need consensus to replace the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Competition"

1. Until there is something resembling consensus that this is a good idea, an appropriate place to advertise this is Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Don't worry, it's been advertised on Reddit's Wikipedia channel . – SJL 22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You have a move tab, no? ; - ) Wikipedia:Main Page redesign contest or Wikipedia:Main Page redesign proposal or ... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, the purpose of Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So...Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Yes, why not. Especially something as big as this. Al Tally talk 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It would become jammed if every big idea were immediately listed there without discussion. —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

At this very early stage, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is sufficiently prominent. —David Levy 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Al Tally talk 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? That's what it's for, and it worked the last time. —David Levy 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 2006 anymore. Al Tally talk 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Exactly. —David Levy 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have "a history of edit warring on the main page"? Huh?
2. Again, that's what Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See above. —David Levy 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. - auburnpilot talk 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 via to be a realistic possibility. There has to be a filter, and that's what Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is for. Otherwise, if every big idea goes straight to the wathlist, it will become hopelessly jammed. —David Levy 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I think this would be the best time to incorporate a Today's Featured list, if there is consensus to do so. See: Wikipedia:Today's featured list proposal, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minimalist Ideas:

  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.

futurebird (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We have http://www.wikipedia.org/ for that very simple look. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Reywas92Talk 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

  • 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.

Thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's more human-friendly? Because it's like a book? futurebird (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to see this discussion on Talk:Main Page, where renaming has recently been discussed. Acalamari 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

  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.

-- Mr.Z-man 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, an less on featured articles and news. – SJL 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

We've come a long way...

Since this. Just felt like puting that out there. 5:15 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that before, Pretty cool. we've definatley improved over time. Blackngold29 06:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Changing links on main page for an explanation. Happy‑melon 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 11:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As I said above, have patience - the radical designs will come. Happy‑melon 14:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Poeticbent talk 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Happy‑melon 14:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 90% of the stuff on the front page is totally useless (and unused). = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Happy‑melon 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could/had-to axe one section...

From the following list, which would it be? Happy‑melon 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Today's Featured Article
  • In the news
  • Did you know
  • On this day
  • Today's featured picture

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)?? Happy‑melon 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That's a staggering graph! Happy‑melon 16:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Futurebird This is my version of a "small page" futurebird (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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!

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal&oldid=223952672"