Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice The old Administrators' Noticeboard header and talk page can be found at /OldHeader and Talk:/OldHeader

Contents

[edit] My comments

I like the movement of the editabuse a archive boxes to the same level, but some users don't have screens as wie as mine and it already cuts off editabuse on its own, can someone with another resolution checkthis layout and the 2 column layout? Wikitan and the Mop are good ideas, the Golden Wiki ad Puzze Mop seem to devalue that award. That and there seems to be more white space at the page top (maybe I'm just groggy). I know nothing of TOC coding, but would find it confusing if it was shrunk to being not very wide Maybe something incorporating the boilerplate text next to the TOC? MBisanz talk 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Vis the Golden Wiki and Puzzle mop, I was just looking for more images related to adminship, so I pinched the Golden Wiki image from Image:Admin logo.gif. I wondered for ages what to do with the ToC - it varies in size enormously as threads are added and archived - at the moment it's about as long as it gets because of the massive Archtransit thread. I did at one point put it in a collapsible box - is this a good idea? Happy‑melon 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First impression

First impressions are good, but the navbox should have the full page width (so the shortcut box needs to be moved). I would also have moved the archive box within the header instead of in the topics. The TOC is too narrow, and overall the page could do with less images; one good image should suffice. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The hiddentoc is a good idea. I made some tweaks, moving the shortcut box down so it doesn't squeeze the navbox, and also moved the archive box sop it stays next to the TOC. Also, was it ment to stay white or become transparent? — Edokter • Talk • 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I left it white because I couldn't think of a nice colour - transparent is just as good. I like your modifications. Vis the images, I put the two at the bottom mostly to increase the whitespace around the newsection link to give it more prominence. It looks wierd if it's forcibly expanded, and squashed without the images. If anyone can think of better images to use there, do suggest them. Happy‑melon 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, it is a lot more aesthetically pleasing to me. However, for ease of usability, I can't say I am a big fan of having the TOC hidden. SorryGuy  Talk  19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes please don't hide the TOC - it's usually the most informative thing on the whole page. I would also prefer the images at the top to be smaller. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much fuss, dislike it, and want to see the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unhidden the TOC. — Edokter • Talk • 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Good start, but those images at the top are a lot of fuss that just create more scrolling to get to the meat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images?

The images don't do anything for me at all. They seem out of place and amateurish (both the images themselves and their placement here), IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hide header sections in TOC?

Is there any way to prevent the sections in the header ("Are you in the right place?", "Using this page", and "Current issues") from appearing in the TOC? The TOC is labeled "Current issues" so the header sections are out of place in that listing. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked at WP:VPT but I haven't had anything useful from them. Happy‑melon 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Short of replacing the headers with HTML... no. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
And the problem with using HTML is...? --ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Each skin has different HTML. — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I figured there was some reason not use such a simple hack. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Done already?

Wanna do Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader next? — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

First, is there any way to put "Click here to start a new discussion thread" at the top, or at least under the nav box? Also, I think "Are you in the right place" and "using this page" should have a border and maybe a different color background to help make those areas stick out better. That said, I like the new design, just thought I would give some suggestions. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Header, Comments welcome

I created a new header based on the new changes in my sandbox, the only thing I cant figure out is how to make the two tables that are next to each other justify to the same length. I wanted to see what others thought, I think it is a little more pleasing to eye and looks better. Any suggestions or comments? « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD, hope you all like the new design. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. SorryGuy  Talk  04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is now a big header saying "Click here to start a new discussion thread" above all the discussion about making sure you're in the right place. In other words, if you don't know how to start a new discussion thread, you probably don't know you're in the wrong place, so ... it seems like the disclaimer should go up top, along with a TOC link (similar to the one in the instructions at WP:FAC) so experienced users can skip all that stuff at the top. What was wrong with the old page design, btw? Wiki pages are getting more complex lately; do we need this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? and I agree the page was fine as it was, but since we have this new design I figured it would be best to make it look good. For reference this is based off of the header for WP:RFPP. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Since AN and talk:AN are protected, I've created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts as a place IPs can post concerns. On an as-needed basis, can this be built into the header? MBisanz talk 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Feel free to reword the sentence to your liking. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, its good, I know I would've destroyed the formatting had I tried. MBisanz talk 06:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, your welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IE issues

It's unfortunate that it had to be reverted. I looked great (in Firefox). I hope the issues with its use in IE can be fixed, so the tables can be re-implemented. нмŵוτнτ 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yrah, sorry about that... I test my designs in both IE and FF to avoid these reverts, usually in my sandbox. — Edokter • Talk • 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it would be great if you would maybe contact me or make a thread here before blindly reverting what took me a couple hours to make. Thanks. And yes I test my ideas in both Firefox and IE, I have actually seen the changes in two separate computers on three separate browsers and the only thing I saw in IE was the far right border on the right table wasn't showing, which I didn't think would be so devastating that all the changes would be reverted because one person had a problem with it. How bout in the future you do two thing: contact the person before you revert lots of work, and for everyone's benefit, download FireFox. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and for your reference: My sandbox, where I worked on this first. Also see the thread above where I asked for comment on the new header. And the colors are the same, so I dont know what that was about. « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be snide about it... Your boldness is appriciated, but if something doesn't work, it is reverted. In IE6, the text had a white background in a blue cell in a table using six different colors. The far right border being off was particularly bad. In writing layout for Wikipedia, just remember to keep it simple and consistent. Do you know how long it took to design the current article message boxes? It took months of small changes to get where it is now, before it was being implemented. So please don't take this personal. Be bold, but don't be reckless. — Edokter • Talk • 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if something doesn't work for many people, it is reverted. But if the problem is only on your screen, should it really be reverted? It was up for like 9 hours and no one had any complaints. Maybe instead it would be better to post on the talk page and see if the problem is more than just your browser. And I don't take things personal, but I hate to see hard work get blindly reverted because someone didnt like it. Imagine if you rewrote an article and I came and reverted it because it didnt look good to me? You probably would have wanted some discussion before the edit was made. That's all I ask for and to say what I did was reckless is...reckless (excuse the repetition). And again, I see nothing wrong in IE, so this problem may be that you havent updated it (ignoring the fact that you are using IE) or just your screen. But whatever, I guess my snideness isnt welcome here ;-) « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The most important thing is that no one's work is ever lost - your nine hours work is still just three lines down the revision table. Personally I prefer what's currently up (simpler and less intrusive) but if others prefer your version, and we can work out why it went so horribly wrong for Edokter and possibly others, there's no reason why it can't be restored. There's no time pressure, here or anywhere else. Happy‑melon 10:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, nine hours??? I dont think I would have ever spent that much time on the header for AN. And yes everyone I know that there is no rush, and all that mumbo-jumbo, my point was not so much my work, I really dont care, it was the fact that one user decided he didnt like the changes and just reverted. I personally would have preferred maybe a simple message here saying "Hey Im having issues on IE, is anyone else?" Believe me, I dont really care what the header to AN looks like, I really dont look at that part of AN much. I just wouldve rather had Edokter come here or to me and discuss it before just reverting, especially since so far he is the only one having problems with the header so (I have checked IE and dont see anything wrong except for very minor things). That leads me to believe that there just may be a problem with his browser or his screen, something we could have discussed first before he took it upon himself to revert the table. But again, like I said, I dont care! and like Happy-melon said, the version I made is in the history, so if you all ever feel like bringing it back, it will be there. (For what it is worth, I feel the current version, although better than the original, is bad, it doesnt have the affect that a header should have, this is something we want everyone to read before they post a thread, and it just looks like regular text. I mean look at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, etc, they all have bright colorful headers that draw your attention so that you read it first, so although simplicity usually is better, I think in this case we need something to draw the attention of people who post here, but whatever, thats just my opinion) « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe - I think "it was up for like 9 hours" got a bit mangled inside my head :D Happy‑melon 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha yeah believe me, there are very few pages I would work on for nine hours here, and this header isnt one of them, lol :-). « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, my browser is just fine. But I do tend to pick up on formatting errors fairly quickly, however minor they are, and try to fix them immediately, or barring complexity, revert. And with regard to reverting "single-handedly", I tend to follow the philosophy of Bold, Revert, Discuss. I think we're at the third stage now... Now, would you like me to try and fix the issues in your sandbox, or do you just want to keep moaping? — Edokter • Talk • 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont know, thats a tough decision, because on one hand I am here volunteering my time for this 'pedia and want to make it better, but on the other hand, moaping around is just so much fun... *contemplating tough decision* ...okay, I guess my desire for Wikipedia to be better trumps the extreme fun I was having "moaping" around. Feel free to try and fix it in my sandbox Edokter. And man you assume a lot about me, it actually made me crack a smile. On a side note, I would love to see what you are seeing on your browser, if you felt like taking a screen shot of it... « Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a screenshot when I get home. Meanwhile, I did some tweaking. No table-in-table (so no seperate border per section), as that made the right borders disappear, but now everything looks OK. — Edokter • Talk • 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the screenshot: http://www.darcoury.nl/images/ANHeaderScreenshot.gif
Notice the background isn't consistent (it wasn't transparent) and that the right sides of each cell, including some words, is being cut off. — Edokter • Talk • 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New header

See User:Carnildo/sandbox6. I've simplified the "Are you in the right place?" section in the hopes that people will actually read it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but that looks really...weird. There is a bunch of text on the right side, and almost nothing on the left. I think compared to our original header, this one is just fine. No matter what we do, people still wont read it if they dont want to. I think the header looks great as it is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I played around with the header in your sandbox and then reverted my changes. If we were to change the wording then I think we would have to do something like how I changed it. The reversion should be in your history, check it out (I hope you dont mind me editing your sandbox) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The big problem with the current header is that it uses four typefaces, and averages one typeface change every 2.4 words. This makes it hard to read even if people want to. I don't see "looking weird" as a major problem. The keys are to make it easy to read (therefore, everything is a link) and easy to spot (so the large amount of whitespace is an advantage). --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Check your sandbox, I made some changes to typeface, would this be better? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Much worse. You're back up to four typefaces, and the bold blue links are yanking your attention away from the rest of the text. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then idk what then. I endorse our current header for what it is worth and would oppose the original idea in your sandbox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the latest version? It's got the verbose wording you seem to like, but only uses two typefaces (normal and link), and only has the essential links. --Carnildo (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support that change, it is easier to read, the only drawback would be that the important lniks kinda get lost, but I wouldnt oppose the change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the improvement over what's currently live. I don't know about you, but in the same way I automatically read WP:NPOV as simply NPOV, I don't really note much or any difference between linked and unlinked text, so I find the 'concern' over "four different typefaces" to be something of an exaggeration. How is the current text "hard to read"? Incidentally, I'm not denying that it's a little verbose, but I don't think it can be drastically condensed. Happy‑melon 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seealso

While there's no question that the see-also template is useful, is it not possible to make it the same width as the archivebox above? It currently looks awful. Happy‑melon 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They're both auto-sizing; fixing their widths could cause problems across different skins and font sizes, so I'd rather not. Anyway, they're nicely tucked away next to the TOC, so I don't thing anyone minds too much. — Edokter • Talk • 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)