Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Temp5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The creation of temp page 5

Ha, I was going to start on this, per Talk:Main Page/Temp4, but you beat me to it. Don't you have got the browse section and the rest of the dynamic content backwards? It seems like the news should all stay together. I won't meddle for a while though, since you just started it. -- Merphant 23:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please feel free to meddle. I should be asleep anyway. Angela 23:42, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you insist... :) Ok, I did what I suggested above. -- Merphant 07:07, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can't see the box which had "new?" and other languages in now. It's there in the source code though. I think the news section should be 1/3 of the page and the browse section 2/3s. Angela 07:47, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, must be a browser thing. It looks fine to me on Mozilla/Linux. Which browser/OS are you using? Is the "New?" box off the right side of the page, or is it gone entirely? The way it is [supposed to be] now is news: 1/2 and browse: 1/2, with the image and sidebar part taking up the top of the right half. Does that make any sense? If you feel like it, see if you can get it to look right on your browser; it's my turn to sleep now :) -- Merphant 08:02, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm using IE 6.0. Windows XP Pro. The "New?" box was completely invisible. How does it look to you now?

Angela 08:18, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Excellent! :) Thanks for this - it was somewhat beyond my HTML skills.

I think it would look better if the "New" and "Browse" bits had less width, and the featured articles had slightly more width. We could trim down the browse section a little, perhaps reducing the amount of white space - but more importantly, reducing the number of links while increasing their quality.

However, that probably first requires some more good list articles to link to, so I guess I'll get to work doing that. :) Martin 10:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about making the browse section look a bit like the one on Main Page/Temp3? Not with those categories - just that size etc. Angela 21:22, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've cut the browse section down to two columns and put it entirely under the "new" box. Hopefully it displays ok, since I used some div tags to simplify the code. I think it looks ok. Ironically, it's very similar to the first revision of /Temp4. -- Merphant 06:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like it, but I think there should be a row going all alonmg the bottom for other langauge Wikipedias, and for the English versions of the Sister projects. - fonzy

How's this? -- Merphant 23:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I tried something, and I've faffed the markup up, somehow, but I wonder if my intent is clear. It avoids cramping the bit on Mars, like this, by moving the picture over.
I still think New? should be in yellow, btw. Martin 01:10, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this. The picture looks funny overlapping the box, and it makes it look like the picture is related to the "New" section when it's meant to be related to "Featured Articles". It is better less cramped though. Angela 01:21, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, the image and the "new" box are separate cells in a table now, and display fine on my browser; but now there is a space above and below that table that I can't seem to get rid of. Any ideas? -- Merphant 03:36, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. How does it look? -- Merphant 04:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like it, because it feels less cramped like that, but I'm interested whether Angela thinks it fixes the image association problem? Martin

It's definitely better. I'm not sure if the 'image association' is much of a problem. Perhaps with other pictures it would be more obvious that the picture is associated with the featured article. I think this should be the Main page now. Angela 13:31, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, not yet - I think we can do better with the browse section. Also, I reckon we need to practice updating the dynamic content for a week or so, to make sure that it's a sensible amount of work, and iron out any issues with that.

I'm going to delete my version and redirect it here :) Martin 13:59, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What do you think the browse section needs? -- Merphant

Better links. Currently it's got links to specific articles, which is all well and good, but not very useful for browsing. As a comparison, list of countries would be better than Germany as a front page link.

But that can be done seperately, and what we've got is good. I'm with Angela now. Shall we ask other people what they think? Martin

I think people should have been given the chance to vote on this version before it went live on the main page. My comment above was just my vote - I was not saying it should just be put on immediately. Angela 17:30, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've started a vote at Talk:Main Page/Layout design - I think we've got a winning proposal here. Martin 20:31, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Image association

I think we definitely need a better association of the image with the featured article before making this the live version.—Eloquence 22:59, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? This revision was changed because it squished the "featured articles" text. Would adding a caption to the image be helpful? -- Merphant

I'd suggest using the old format, and making the image smaller.—Eloquence 23:41, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

All right, how does this look? -- Merphant 00:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like it. Any layout that has Mars in it gets my vote. ;-) I personally would like to wait with the switchover until we have a new logo, so we can announce the change in combination.—Eloquence

I like the new smaller image too. I don't object to waiting, but I don't think the change is that big that we actually need to wait. Angela 00:46, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Browser issues

The page does not validate. It contains "</a></a>" in a few places. Perhaps if these and other things were sorted out it might be more cross-browser compatible. I've only checked it in IE6. Angela

This is an issue with the wiki software; it looks like it turns the wikilink into an <a href>, and then wraps it with an <a name> because it's a section heading. This isn't great, but I don't think it's the cause of the current display problems. Does the page look ok to you on IE6? People were having trouble on IE5 I believe.-- Merphant 02:28, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Apparently IE doesn't render this page the way we want it to; it extends off the right side of the page:

Image:User;Cypâ„Main page.jpg

I've tried to fix this, but it would be helpful if people who are having this problem and who know HTML could look at it. -- Merphant 02:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's never been a problem for me (IE6) - something to do with IE5? Martin

</td></tr>

The above wiki-code introduces a spurious <p> - I edited the page to fix this, so the only validation errors remaining are the </a></a> ones that we're stuck with. Martin 09:04, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On the village pump, SimonP says this is now fixed... Martin

[edit] Other languages / Sister projects secion

I wrapped this section in tables. Mav was right, it was ugly. It's a bit longer now, and it clutters the source with even more HTML, but IMHO it looks better. For some reason, adding those tables also made a space appear at the bottom of the "New?" box, between the /div and the /td tag. I have absolutely no idea why, since I can't see anything in the wiki source or the generated HTML that would cause that. I think this is a bug with Mozilla, since it's not there in Konqueror. -- Merphant 22:30, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the "Wikipedia In Other Languages" being in two columns like that. It has too much space to the right of it. The way it was before, the bottom of the grey box aligned with the bottom of the purple box. Now the grey one extends too far. I don't see any difference in the space under the "new?" box using IE6. Angela 23:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bit long. Now it's in 3 columns. It still passes the purple box a little, but with the current structure it's not going to line up perfectly anyway. I like the columns because it's impossible to pick out any links with the letters so small like that. We could change the "browse" box so that it reaches to the bottom, but that would just put a bunch of empty purple space under the "other categories". -- Merphant 23:51, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Merphant, that's much better. I made the grey box 100% and the columns 33% so it would stretch out to prevent the extra space on the right on a 1024 screen, but will squish back in for smaller screens. Angela 23:53, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The most recent version is illegibly small, at least to me. I have a good 19-inch monitor, and I'm already wearing my bifocals. So my conditions aren't perfect, but they're good. Vicki Rosenzweig 01:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Appearance - village pump

Does the main page look like this on other browsers?

Ксйп Cyp 18:46, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you referring to the new layout? If you are, apparently there was a "vote" on it (which I was unaware of, myself). -- Notheruser 18:50, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misinterperated the vote on dynamic content, thinking that the majority, which was in favor of adding dynamic content, wanted to use Temp5. The IE display bug for some reason doesn't affect me.LDan 16:30, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking of the text on the right, which isn't visible without scrolling to the right. Ксйп Cyp 18:54, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Seems to have been reverted. Perhaps the problem was it was too big for 800x600? Was that your resolution? Evercat 19:05, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, slightly higher resolution, 1280x1024. (If I go higher than x1024, the refresh rate drops to 75Hz or worse, which looks horrible.) No matter how big or small I made the window, the main page scaled to be just the right amount too wide. (Extra width of page seemed to be the width of the wikipedia bar on the left.) Ксйп Cyp 20:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Having said that, Main Page/Temp5 seems OK even in smaller windows. What browser were you using? Evercat 19:07, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I had the same problem. I'm using IE with a resolution of 960x720 and the edge of the page is cut off for me on both the temp page and the main page. - SimonP 19:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Using Internet Exploiter, too. (Version 5.00.3502.1000/SP3.) Ксйп Cyp 20:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's an IE bug. It can be fixed. -- Tarquin 20:26, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the chopped-off part is about the width of the quickbar. How does it look if you turn off the quickbar in your preferences? -- Merphant 22:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It looks fine, there is just a smidgen of scrolling room without the quickbar. But I also don't think abandoning the quick bar is a viable solution. - SimonP 01:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

No, of course not; I was trying to determine the problem, since it looks fine on Mozilla. I was thinking that the width of the table is "100%", and that IE might not include the width of the quickbar in that figure. The layout has changed a little, btw. Does it still go off the page? -- Merphant 01:48, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no change. - SimonP 02:01, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

How about now? Followup to Talk:Main Page/Temp5. -- Merphant 02:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Great job, it looks perfect now. - SimonP 12:05, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Colored box

I put the dynamic content in a colored box. I'm not too crazy about the color, but I think it adds some more structure to the page. Now it's even closer to the the first revision of /Temp4. Funny that it took so long to get here...

Anyway, I think this might resolve some issues people have with the page being too cluttered; IMHO it's way less cluttered than the current main page. And there's still about 1 em of white space below the "new" box on Mozilla. What is that??

Oh, and I also removed temp4's talk form this page; the first sentence on this talk page links to it if anyone wants to read it. This talk page is getting big enough anyway. -- Merphant 09:07, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mav/LDan - why have you added additional small tags to this? It looks way too small now, and the grey and purple boxes no longer line up. Using IE on a 1024 screen. Angela 01:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) and 21:24, 8 Aug 2003.

Oh - I get it now. Only took me 7 weeks to understand. It is very ugly in Firebird. Angela 12:18, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] New?

I find the table heading "New?" confusing, because it first and foremost meant "New stuff here [in Wikipedia]?". We could plainly say "Are you new here?". If that's too long, just "You new?" :-} --Menchi 23:10, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Or "New Users" Angela 23:25, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"New to Wikipedia?". I don't find it very confusing Matthewmayer 23:43, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Changed it to "New to Wikipedia?" -- Merphant 23:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I quite like the new layout, except on my browser (screen resolution 960x720) I cannot see the right hand side of it, without scrolling. It cuts out at about the end of the word 'political' in politcal science. - SimonP 17:30, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Funny, that doesn't happen to me. I can narrow it down to 500 px on IE. LDan 01:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It has happened to others as well see Talk:Main Page/Temp5 (originally on village pump) for a longer discussion of the issue. - SimonP 01:50, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC) (edited for links - Martin)

now fixed... Martin

Great new look! It really gives a good impression of a wide variety of content. I presume that that image of Mars was specially sized for this layout? If that is the case, instead of making a new mini image each week, why not just have "Main page thumbnail" and overwrite that which a new image each time we change the featured article? -- Tarquin 20:27, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yep, that's a neat idea - save filling up image uploads with lots of 100 width images... Martin 20:33, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, in both cases, any logged in user can overwrite the image with goatse.cx ..—Eloquence

We can't protect images yet, can we? Martin

[edit] Balance of the sides

I think it looks alright, but for me (Netscape 7), the "Browse Wikipedia" section extends further down than the "Wikipedia in Other Languages" section. I don't know exactly how far - it's about two lengths of the mouse arrow, if that helps. It works in IE, but I rarely ever use IE, so I'll have to withhold my vote for now:) Adam Bishop 22:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The right hand side overlaps the left slightly, the very right of the Mars picture is a bit covered by about a half-mouse-arrow-width. Otherwise looks correct, I think. (IE 5.00.3502.1000/SP3) Ксип Cyp 23:00, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with objections

Here are the objections from the vote page. Please leave ideas for dealing with these below.

Too stuffed and confusing.
Too much detail.
Should have a search box visible in the page not above it.
Uses tables for layout.

[edit] Stuffed and confusing

IMO it is less stuffed and confuing than the current main page. That doesn't mean it can't get better, though. Perhaps we could revive Main Page/Temp4?? -- Merphant 23:45, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Stuffed... perhaps we just need more padding between the "table" cells? Martin

[edit] Too much detail

Does this mean the 'featured articles' part? I think that's the best part if it; it puts the links in context. -- Merphant 23:45, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Search box in the page

Is this possible with the current software? This would require Javascript and forms. The wiki parser won't pass those html tags. -- Merphant 23:45, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

I have replaced the unnecessary tables with divs. I left the tables that clean up the 'other languages' and 'browse' sections, since I think tables are best suited for that...

Problems with this:

The dynamic content is in the middle of the source now. This is hard to edit.
The purple and gray boxes don't line up.

I am happy to report, however, that my annoying white space in Mozilla is gone :) Maybe someone with more CSS skills can fix the other problems. -- Merphant 23:37, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is bad. Please can someone who doesn't need to wake up in 3 hours revert it to tables. It doesn't work. I tried positioning the div so it would be at the top, not hovering down below the right-hand column, and it now overlaps the footer stuff. I'm not sure CSS is going to work when we are only manipulating part of the page, not the headers, footers and sidebar. Are tables really that bad? Angela 01:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Tables are fine, but there's a small crowd of people who support whatever the W3C says is the latest "standard" and insists that it be used for everything. I personally use tables for all my websites because they are still much more reliable than CSS-positioning. Oh, and three hours? Sheesh, that's harsh. Even I need more sleep than that.—Eloquence 02:01, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, it uses tables again now. And the dynamic content is back on the top where it should be. -- Merphant 04:37, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Merphant. Angela 06:41, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Link to WikiMedia

Where would a link to WikiMedia go (when there is content at the WikiMedia website, anyway...) Matthewmayer 23:49, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Sister Projects" probably. But WikiMedia is more like a mother project, hierarchically. But how can a mother exist after the daughter? :o) --Menchi 23:52, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Bugs

The 2 halves have split off in IE 5. It didn't a few minutes ago. --Menchi 23:54, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Probably a result of replacing the tables with divs. The tables were there for a reason: compatibility. Hopefully someone will come along who can fix the problem using CSS. I'll work on it, but I don't have IE... -- Merphant 23:58, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Add a secondary cover page

If 'featured articles' is to stay, then I suggest moving 'Wikimedia' and 'Browse Wikipedia' section to a secondary main page. Like the index page of a magazine.

I prefer a clean, simple cover page. Not a page with tonnes of stuffs in it. - wshun 00:38, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This page used to be a lot cleaner; look at some earlier revisions of Main Page/Temp4, which eventually morphed into temp5. But people seem to want a lot of info on the main page. The question is, how do we do that while keeping it simple? -- Merphant

I think the amount of info on the page is just about right. If anything, I'd slaughter the category section and add some more whitespace instead.—Eloquence 00:55, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Agree. But add a link (at the size bar or at the top, maybe) to a page of category section. wshun 01:40, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, with slaughter I did not mean "get rid of entirely". I'd say keep about 10 meta-categories which point to lower levels. This should work fine with Magnus' category system, which will go live soon (already in the development version). I will help with the organization once that's up and running, but for design purposes I'd just suggest to remove most of the categories and to keep about 10 example links there until we move to the new system.—Eloquence 01:45, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, keep it simple, keep it simple, keep it simple,..... wshun 02:54, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A simplified category scheme is shown in Main Page/Temp3. Should this be used here instead? Angela 06:41, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's wait for the software change, so we know more what we're dealing with. Martin

[edit] Small vs large

Isn't there some browser bug that causes <small> to sometimes get ignored? Is this the problem here? (I know that's vague...)Martin

But if their browsers were ignoring the small tags, why did they want extra small tags in? There was already a set of small tags around the whole table, and LDan and Mav both tried to put extra ones inside. On IE6, it made everything double-small. Angela 00:51, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe only sometimes, though. Eg, if <small> is on the outside of a table. Worth a try, anyway - see if they're happy with it now. Martin

[edit] Did you know...?

I take it the idea is to change this on a weekly basis or so? Sort of like the tips you get when you start some applications? Martin

I hope so. Or it becomes something of a nag on what we've known for 2 years. "Dija? Dija???" --~~

On a second thought, that section is probably just inappropriately named. "Login->better!" should probably stay there for at least several weeks, for we always have newcomers. --Menchi 01:10, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

I dunno - sites are always trying to beg people to register an account - I think it's rather refreshing that, by and large, we don't. You only really need an account if you're something of a power user. Martin

True. Being so beggy doesn't look attractive. --Menchi 01:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Currently the majority seems to be against this layout (never start a vote before you have tried to accommodate people's concerns!), so the discussion may be moot, but I intended the section to be replaced regularly, in tip of the day fashion. Past tips could be archived on a special page.—Eloquence 01:30, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea. Martin

Since we have a limited amount of did-you-know tips we can offer to newbies/Anons, maybe we can use a circulating automated thing, where if you press refresh/reload on your broswer, you get a different tip. --Menchi 01:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Limited amount? Ha! Each new page in the Wikipedia: namespace that is created is a new tip of the day. Each completed mailing list discussion can be turned into a tip of the day. Each new feature can become a tip of the day. Every time you see something on Wikipedia and scratch your head and think "Huh! I didn't know it works like this", you have a tip of the day waiting to be written. We could probably have a tip every hour and still not run out of helpful advice anytime soon.—Eloquence 02:29, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

We could have a page like Wikipedia:Tip of the day with a long list of tips and have it connected with software to a tag like <tips /> that, when put on a page, displays a random tip from the Wikipedia:Tip of the day page. Even if there were 1000 tips, they would still all be displayed randomly, and we wouldn't have to change it every hour. This might be difficult to impliment, though. LDan 00:07, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Heh, we did try to accommodate people's concerns... but in addressing some concerns, it seems we created others... ahh well. Martin

[edit] Main page as disambigulation

Part of the problem with the front page is that we are trying to do too many things on it. Why not use it as a more graphically intensive disambigulation page? In other words, it doesn't try to cram in everything but should contain links which a new user can follow explaining what wiki is and how it works. For example;

What is wikipedia? - a page telling the history of wiki, when it was founded, how many users it has had, how many articles it has, how the community works, the wiki-list, etc

Using wikipedia - how to find things, how to edit, use of usernics, links to naming conventions, an explanation of NPOV, what is OK and not OK on wiki.

So you want to start? - a graphic-orientated practical example of how a text is edited, with a sandbox which could be used by a first time user.

Category index - containing much of the stuff crammed onto the front page now.

The front page should contain

a strong corporate identity through use of font, layout, colour scheme and logo;

links to a small number of sample articles and categories;

the current top list of current events, deaths, anniversaries with more explanation;

links to the above pages or whatever number is suggested, answering the questions What is?, Where is? How do I? All too many users come onto wiki not knowing much about it or how to use it. That is their right, but if you do want to find out factual basics, where do you go right now to find them out? I'm still finding out about procedural pages (eg, on voting) that I never knew about, and I have been here 10 months! Most of the information I know I stumbled on or learned through mistakes or finding a link to something I never knew anything about. A more streamlined set of sources linked to one page (the main one), rather than found through a link to a link to a link etc., would make it easier for everyone. FearÉIREANN 03:29, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have proposed a similar but not-so-detail idea on #Add a secondary cover page. So Wikipedia becomes a blend of encyclopedia and magazine. Interesting. But it is then a completely new design (killer of Temp5?). ^_^ wshun 03:40, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I made most of the sections into a bunch of lists; this is an experiment. What works for me here is that:

The dynamic content section is wider.
Each news snippet is smaller and to the point like a little headline.
The categories have been cut way back.
Lots of redundant info is gone; pages link to it.

I tried to incorporate some suggestions from Talk:Main Page/Layout design and this page. If you don't like it, you know what to do... -- Merphant 11:45, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like it. It looks good in IE6 and Mozilla 1.4. Angela

Much better, not so overcrowded as before. How about adding a link to other language versions at the very top of the main page? wshun 23:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The first sentence links to Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination, which has a list of languages. I guess it's not very clear that that's where the link goes. I added an explicit link under the "Other Category Schemes" at the bottom. -- Merphant

[edit] Main Page

Just a note: It is nice to see the large number of small improvements made to the Concorde article since it showed up on the Wikipedia front page. Goes to show the importance of rotating a lot of article links to the front page.

Hence my argument for more dynamic content at Talk:Main Page/Layout design and support for Main Page/Temp5. Ho hum. Martin 23:17, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's been two months - perhaps time to revisit it? But only in terms of new ideas for the page -not another vote so soon after the logo vote. Angela

Seems to depend on the article. Articles on less sexy topics can spend a week on the main page with nary a change. -- Viajero 17:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Wikipedia_talk%7EMain_Page_Temp5_5bec.html"