User talk:Nixinova/Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposal and request for comment discussions for changing the bottom of the main page from default headings to styled headings which match the rest of the page.

The archive of the proposal discussion can be found here and the request for comment archive is be located here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turn the default headings at the bottom into styled headings, to match the rest of the page[edit]

Main page: Talk:Main Page/Archive 192 § Turn the default headings at the bottom into styled headings, to match the rest of the page

I made a mockup of an alternate Main Page in my userspace: User:Nixinova/Main Page. This is what the bottom of the page looks like:

Extended content
Other areas of Wikipedia
  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.
Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

(I replaced the <h2/>s with <h3/>s so the contents won't get messed up)

I just used orange as an example (edit: please note I said *example*) but that could be any colour. I think that this looks much better than default ==headings== which have been on the main page for over almost two decades now. Wikipedia is now one of the biggest websites on the internet and it should look professional. Feel free to suggest any changes to this but I do think that this would be very beneficial.  Nixinova  T  C  05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it looks worse, personally. The extra frame isn't needed and just causes color clashing. We're not making ourselves look more professional by doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I agree with the concept since the lower sections look like they were added as an afterthought rather than flowing with the design. That being said, I feel that it has been implemented in a way designed to bring out all its cons. I would prefer a simple #f6f6f6 background for the headings with out any border(not even the defaults)
Extended content
Other areas of Wikipedia
  • Community portal – The central hub for editors, with resources, links, tasks, and announcements.
  • Village pump – Forum for discussions about Wikipedia itself, including policies and technical issues.
  • Site news – Sources of news about Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • Teahouse – Ask basic questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Help desk – Ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia.
  • Reference desk – Ask research questions about encyclopedic topics.
  • Content portals – A unique way to navigate the encyclopedia.
Sister projects

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Wikipedia languages

This Wikipedia is written in English. Many other Wikipedias are available; some of the largest are listed below.

103.215.54.53 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks nice too. I just want anything to replace what is currently on the Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second one fits much better with the first half of the current page too, there shouldn't be that style divide between them. --Jessietail (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually sceptical of attempts to redesign parts of the MP, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that this second example looks rather good and would fit with the existing design of other sections. Is the code behind it the same as the other section headings? That would ease compatibility/testing concerns. Modest Genius talk 17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modest Genius-Yes122.163.32.8 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the frame being there on the bottom, just like the other sections - don't really care for the orange-y color. — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an implementation of the idea here.Nixinova, if you really want to change the main page you need to create (what you people all call a "Rfc") to generate consensus. Only then will the admins of the site change the main page.--103.215.54.53 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing between boxes and the text style of the "headers" should match that of the other sections but otherwise yeah that looks like a good improvement so far. --Jessietail (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the spacing needs to be fixed, and the header fonts need to match the rest of the page, but I really like this proposal. I think that the current header style needs to be updated, and this idea is a really good one. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I implemented the feedback here103.215.54.53 (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work! That looks a lot better. I hope someone with a better understanding of Wikipedia's processes and any historical discussions on this topic can bring this up for comment to help build consensus for a Main Page redesign.--haha169 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a slight alteration to your second implementation by adding a border around the headers to match the one found around the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. Sample here. --haha169 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that adding the frame at the bottom would make it look better. The use of headers right now just stands out from the rest of the page. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; the new design looks better; in the previous the bottom part just looks out of place Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.155.2 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at #Request for Comment.  Nixinova  T  C  22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Main page: Talk:Main Page/Archive 192 § Request for Comment

Clear consensus in checkY favor of the redesign proposal.No foreseeable grounds of opposition and it's snowing.....Thankfully,~ Winged BladesGodric 05:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The above Main Page redesign proposal (previous discussion here, this is my first RfC so I don't know if the previous discussion will be transcluded) made by @Nixinova: with some adjustments by @103.215.54.53: and myself have generated a bit of traction. I'd like to post a formal RfC in order to gain some sort of consensus about whether or not this redesign proposal should be implemented, or at least generate some discussion on any possible alternatives. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proposed main page redesign: Permalink/843614703--haha169 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above but moved to its own page: User:Nixinova/Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The redesign with just the changed sections: User:Nixinova/Main Page/Transclusion.  Nixinova  T  C  22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is just changing the bottom of the main page from default headings to styled headings which match the rest of the page. And I used orange as an example; I think the grey would work better.  Nixinova  T  C  22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support as it blends better in with rest of the page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as one of the proposers of the design122.163.11.63 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Looks almost identical. Aiken D 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's almost identical, why are you opposing? Legoktm (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it’s almost identical. Which other top 10 website (except perhaps Google) looks almost the same as it did in 2006? It needs a complete revamp not minor tweaks of colour and borders. Aiken D 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. I really don't see what problem this is supposed to solve, if any.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aiken drum and WaltCip: Compare the bottom of the new Main Page alternative with the bottom of the Current Main Page. epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the proposal as written doesn’t state this at all so the change was not apparent. Aiken D 19:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per L293D. Chris857 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current design doesn't flow very well. --Joshualouie711talk 16:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The bottom part looks better with the redesign than with the current headers. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a simple and straightforward change that matches the headings in the lower part of the MP with those in the upper part. I'm told the code is re-used from the upper headings so won't cause any compatibility issues. It's only a tweak to the MP design, but one which I was immediately impressed by and which makes total sense. I'm surprised no-one thought of this before; kudos for doing so. Modest Genius talk 18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do think that the new design looks better, although I probably would not have noticed the difference without being told. However, another reason why I support this is just to demonstrate that consensus can get the main page changed. So often I read here old lags having to disillusion enthusiastic proposers of a redesign, saying that it will never happen because of the impossibility of achieving consensus. Well here is a proposal that has a real chance of success, which perhaps will give impetus to other proposals. Personally I don't feel a need for change, but we ought not to get stuck in a situation where change is impossible. Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it makes the bottom of the page fit in much better. The strong opposes haven't pointed out any problems with changing it or issues with the design. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The proposed color scheme is too close to WP:COFFEEROLL, which is the standard for talk pages (Wikipedia:Talk page templates/vote). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments before, makes it look less like an after thought, which I had thought the bottom felt like well before this proposal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The boxes at the bottom of the new Main Page proposal look like the rest of the Main Page. It actually looks like it belongs now. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree that it definitely looks more coherent. I would say the opposes are a tad odd under since they are a net positive - if it would ultimately be beneficial, even if only a little, why not go for it? Could we move the discussion (see discussion) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very distinct visual improvement (increased consistency) for a small code change. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - positive change, and puts us in a frame were we're not afraid to change the MP sometimes. --PresN 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Looks nice, like a fully planned design. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the sneaky attempt to change the heading "Wikipedia's sister projects" to "Sister projects". wumbolo ^^^ 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nixinova and Haha169: was there any specifi reason this was changed? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch but it may not be intentional. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why wouldn't the simpler "Sister projects" be preferred? It's a section of a Wikipedia page, that these are Wikipedia's sister pages is implied in that. --Khajidha (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The proposed change makes the affected sections appear as part of a cohesive whole—better consistency, per above. ebbillings (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThe new headers look more consistent and professional. I fell that the RFC should be explicit in highlighting the changes to the headers. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I prefer the new design for purely subjective aesthetic reasons. Deli nk (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. seems better to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I like how the currently page uses a different header style to differentiate the static content from the dynamic content. The new design uses color to try to do the same thing, but that only works for non-color-blind readers. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 22:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ahecht:, I personally don't see the utility, from a design perspective, of differentiating static content from dynamic content. However, I'd be curious to hear what kind of color schemes we potentially could use to satisfy your concerns? --haha169 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ahecht looked at the wrong link(the orange and purple one). The correct link is here or here(for only the redesigned sections). As far as I know grey does not affect the color-blind users or else most of the Wikimedia interface would have been unusable110.227.70.112 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons of consistency and aesthetics TeraTIX 23:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'd never really noticed the inconsistency between these sections, but now that you mention it the redesigned version really does look much better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The change is somewhat subtle, but the more consistent styling is an improvement. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks cleaner, the styling is more visually appealing, appears more professional and it is more consistent with the rest of the page. And as for the 4 opposes, 2 of them seem to just say that the change is not big enough or that the main page is okay how it is now and another was just pointing out a mistake that Nixinova made - in my opinion, Ahecht's was the only one that had a good argument. And I definitely do like the gray better than the orange, the orange just stands out too much and seems to call attention to solely the headings.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) (Madminecrafter12 on MCW)[reply]
  • Support, more consistent. AdA&D ★ 00:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG NEUTRAL per WP:BIKESHED. --Jayron32 02:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Um, I thought that the transcluded parts were already given their own box. I guess I was mistaken. (Could barely see the difference, honestly, if the box wasn't there.) Anyway, yes, the difference is mighty subtle, but the styling consistency it creates is wondrous. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A subtle, but welcome improvement that brings a consistent design to the Main Page. MER-C 10:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consistency comments above. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per what everyone else has said, but particularly Jmchutchison. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per L293D. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per not being able to tell a difference, so it doesn’t appear to be controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I already said in the discussion above, just putting my response here for the RfC. I think it blends in more and looks better. SemiHypercube (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is an extremely simple nit-picky change, but it makes sense and the bottom sections look consistent with the rest of the main page. I went back and looked at the orange border version and I agree the gray looks much nicer. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obvious improvement that makes the whole page consistent in design. Though, I still wish we could revisit the 2016 proposal... :/ — MusikAnimal talk 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's minor but definitely an improvement. Can't see any good reasons why not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as said above, it's only a small improvement, but it is an improvement, and it's good to actually use this process to update the Main Page. -- The Anome (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bottom of the page now fits in well with the rest. talk to !dave 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks much better indeed. Thought I'd taken part already... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the same time, can someone do something with those boxy 1990s-style pastel headings? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to do that. 86.191.146.125 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, does anyone remember the horrified opposition to suggestions that images should have captions? All kinds of silly objections raised and persisted in? And now it's been done, and the improvement realised, what was all the fuss about? If only someone could learn the lesson and apply it to wider design issues. 86.191.146.125 (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between content (e.g. the picture captions, which are great) and style, which is entirely subjective. One person's unliked pastel headings are another's clear-and-legible design. The supposition that because something has been around for a while it needs changing is a false one. Bazza (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a lot of rubbish. People who cannot see that boxy pastel headings are shitty style in 2018 should have no sway here. 86.191.155.52 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • The current design of the main page looks as if the lower sections were added as an after-thought rather than flowing with the design. This change seeks to remedy exactly that. The default headers in the lower section have been replaced by grey headers and a border has been added around the lower sections. All this has been done keeping in mind the aesthetics of the design as a whole. The rest of the main page remains unaltered, untouched. Most of the code has been replicated from other parts of the main page and thus is proven to be compatible with a large number of devices. I believe this a small step towards making the Main Page of the world's fifth most busiest website better in terms of looks.122.163.11.63 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC would probably go more smoothly if the introductory paragraph gave a brief indication of what changed in the updated design and why, rather than hoping editors will go off and read the discussion from almost two weeks ago and which will archived imminently. Modest Genius talk 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably a wise idea - would ease the process, and stop people thinking it's becoming orange. Perhaps also worth putting a current main page link right next door just for ease of comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have done that and spammed "THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE WE'RE NOT MAKING IT ORANGE" around every mention of it.  Nixinova  T  C  22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good idea - I had provided a link to the previous discussion but I should have spent a minute describing the changes in more detail. This is a learning experience for me as well :) --haha169 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a rundown somewhere of the changes, looks the same to me. Thanks, cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost feel this kind of subtle change is something that could have been handled and implemented through edit fully-protected request, but I suppose it is better to be on the safe side. No opinion on this either way. Alex Shih (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Winged Blades of Godric: I concur with the outcome, however, BADNAC #4 applies; you can't implement the change because you can't edit a fully protected page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:-Nah.....I hardly implement the outcomes of RFC closed by myself.Anyways, make an edit-request an point to the RFC.As simple as that:)

Can an interested admin please implement the consensus of the Rfc and update related documentation — FR + 09:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I assume that Permalink/843614703 is the markup that was wanted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nixinova/Main_Page&oldid=875138483"