Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Different

Significantly different

These designs are somewhat similar to the current page, but with major differences, such as additional content:

AndonicO

Withdrawn, see [1].
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/AndonicO Previous discussion Browser/screen resolution compatibility: I'm not sure that the three column format will display correctly in all browsers - is anyone here using browsers / screen resoltuions / etc that have problems with this and other three column proposals?. CCG (T-C) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I love the three-column layout, but it does break fairly badly in 800x600. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) This site puts the portion of users running 800 x 600 or less at about 8%. "It is recommended that you view this site with a resolution of 1024 x 768 or higher" = bad. MER-C 07:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Yikes, it's that high? Then we really do need to consider it. The picture of the day in the middle column is the main cause of this; to combine with MER-C's "Con" below, perhaps the PotD could go across two columns? CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know if it's enough: (at least) one of the designs below had POTD borked at 800 x 600 with width 65%. MER-C 06:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Pros: Cons: POTD too small. MER-C 07:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Comments: I absolutely love the three column information sections, I am guessing he made a few more changes or it's just a little more different, but it seems like a lot less space in the second and third columns. I guess this could change due to various reasons (longer or shorter descriptions of FA, DYK, In the News, etc.). It is my favorite so far out of everything I have seen. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

CRGreathouse

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/CRGreathouse
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• The borders between the top four elements should be horizontally aligned, which would eliminate dead space beneath TFA at 1280 x 960. Swap GA and POTD - POTD needs the space more than GA. Icon for featured list needs changing. I'd also swap sounds and lists. MER-C 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/ChyranandChloe
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Dudemanfellabra

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Dudemanfellabra
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• In 800 x 600, the caption for POTD is larger than the picture. MER-C 08:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Five Fifteen 2

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Five Fifteen 2
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• "Portals" should be vertically aligned to the top and DYK shouldn't be centered. MER-C 10:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gnangarra

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Gnangarra
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros: Multiple TFA's

Cons: concern over 3 column section, at 800x600 resolution or less

This one isn't too bad at 800 x 600, although the line wrapping on the first TFA is ugly. MER-C 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Hazelorb

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Hazelorb
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

• POTD far too small, the caption is bigger than the (featured) picture. MER-C 11:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Ikzing

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Ikzing
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• Dead space under "On this day" at 1280 x 960 but can be fixed by shunting sounds and lists up and expanding POTD to width=100%. I'd advise against sounds because there's only 18 featured sounds and that number isn't going to change particularly quickly. MER-C 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

JoeSmack

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/JoeSmack

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600, POTD marginal, followed vertically by a large blank. MER-C 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

LaraLove

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/LaraLove

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• I don't think you're going to get the geolocation thing - it disrupts caching = massive server load, plus all the requests to an external geolocation database (I wonder if they can handle it). I suspect a WONTFIX from the devs. MER-C 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment on that. I figured it wouldn't be doable, but I figured I'd put the idea out there just in case, as it would be handy. A lot of people commented that the main page is too amateur. I figured this would help jazz it up. :) LaraLove|Talk 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• A tweaked version of this is now used on Simple English Wikipedia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangler13

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Mangler13

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• POTD is teh borked at 800 x 600, and it isn't a panorama. MER-C 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Miserlou

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Miserlou
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• For the typical reader, "highlighted" is synonymous with "featured", which can lead to problems. There's a lot of dead space under "on this day" at 1280 x 960, but this can be nuked by shrinking the over-sized portal icons. I don't particularly like POTD being right at the bottom, but then again I'm extremely partial in this area. MER-C 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nat/Alpha

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Nat/Alpha
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• Bad line wrapping on TFA, POTD is of marginal width and dead space problems at 800 x 600. MER-C 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Nat/Beta

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Nat/Beta
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• While the three column layout doesn't break outright, it does get quite ugly at 800 x 600 - the columns go out of whack because POTD is too small. I suspect a panorama might just push it over the edge into a horizontally scrolling abyss. There's also significant dead space. MER-C 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nat/Gamma

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Nat/Gamma

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

• Lots of wasted space in the "Portals"/"Sister Projects" sections. At 1440×900, about 1/6 of total space (or 1/5 of usable space) is blank. According to User:MER-C (below), there is also dead space at 800×600. We shouldn't crowd all available space, but there seems to be a lot of importance given to the stuff on the right. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• There's some weirdness at the bottom of the right hand column. At 800 x 600 there's also some dead space in that column. Can you provide another POTD so we can assess how this design fares with wide images? MER-C 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Polishname

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Polishname

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• In 800 x 600, the second column is only a couple of inches wide and the first is marginal, probably because POTD is too small. Fine in 1280 x 960. MER-C 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Pro bug catcher

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pro bug catcher
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• 800 x 600, 1280 x 960 OK. MER-C 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• "A multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia..." is a sentence fragment. That said, I have no other gripes. Definitely a contender, well done. MER-C 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Soxred93

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Soxred93
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• There's the potential here for some suckage on lower resolutions when POTD throws up a wide image. How does this design handle such images? MER-C 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Trevor MacInnis

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Trevor MacInnis
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• POTD (July 15) crappiness at 1280 x 960, and it isn't even a panorama. POTD template needs a redesign to always have caption under text, but even then it's too small. MER-C 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

WBOSITG

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/WBOSITG

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• Featured portals are that important? POTD is way too small, the caption currently takes up more space than the picture. Dead space in the lower right corner at 1280 x 960 can be eliminated by moving FPo down, splitting the right column under OTD and filling the gap with POTD. (And no, I wouldn't use a point and shoot camera as the icon for POTD.) MER-C 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To answer in order: Yes, they are - they are one of the most overlooked areas of Wikipedia and displaying them prominently should spark interest in this area. I simply used the POTD template currently used on the Main Page - a new layout would be needed to make the caption less prominent. I will promptly fix the remaining two issues. Thank you for your input into my design. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - 20% of all portals being featured != overlooked. Going back on topic, the dead space problem is fixed. One more issue - I had a look at it in 800 x 600 and there was horizontal scrolling, which was introduced in this diff. MER-C 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we only have 500 portals - we could use many more. They are a great way to display information on one subject graphically. I'll try to get rid of the horizontal scrolling. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wintran 2

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 2
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• I guess this could be said for both Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 2 and Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 3 (And 4), I think that there should be more of a description for featured articles. Just the short summary of them seems to make them boring to me. Soley for Wintran 2, I don't like that there isn't a WP:DYK on the main page, as that is one of the main 3 things I look at every time I come to wikipedia, the Featured Article, DYK, and News/Recent Deaths. I also feel there is tons of blank space everywhere. No offense, but I am not liking this one too much. Good work though. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Very insufficient space for POTD implies this is a non-starter. The small size is self-defeating - they're *featured* pictures hence we want to see the details without squinting. And besides, panoramas won't fit. MER-C 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  It's also unsustainable because the FP promotion rate is between 1 and 2 per day. Please don't burn me out. MER-C 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment. The point was to include featured pictures from a few days before as thumbnails below the current featured picture, so the update rate would remain the same. However, I believe the POTD section to be the weakest part in my design, and the one I gave the least time, so please don't pay too much attention to it, or tell me how you'd like me to improve it. I'll give it some work when I get more time. - Wintran ^(talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it's a severe problem, there was horizontal scrolling (not good) at 800 x 600 and if that was fixed then POTD width would be very marginal. I think the current way of displaying POTD works best - the ones that don't allocate 100% width to POTD tend to break. I recommend you set your display to 800 x 600 and have a poke around with your designs. MER-C 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wintran 3

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 3
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• Same as Wintran 2. MER-C 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wintran 4

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 4
  • Previous discussion

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: 1280 x 800 (checked by JoeSmack ^Talk)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• Same as Wintran 2. MER-C 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alvaro_qc

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Alvaro_qc

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• The style here is generally inconsistent, especially between the two columns. Rounded rectangles in right column are unclosed, which looks bad. POTD is marginal. There exists significant dead space under "other languages" at 800 x 600. MER-C 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done the dead space and the POTD, About the "rounded rectangles", I like how they look. Alvaro qc (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've only changed the problem - now the picture is smaller than the caption. MER-C 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because it has the exact size so it will fit perfectly in 800x600 resolution, and I don't think so it is too small, it has the same size as the POTD of french, italian, portuguese and spanish wikipedias. Alvaro qc (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MindstormsKid

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/MindstormsKid

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

• 1280 x 1024 with Firefox is good. (checked by Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! at 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC))
• 1280 x 960, 800 x 600 OK, though there might be a few problems hidden under other featured content. Columns seem a shade too small. MER-C 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

• The bright colors (red, teal, and lime especially) kind of hurt my eyes. Maybe just because I'm in a dark room. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  No it isn't. Ow, my virgin eyes. MER-C 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)