HRWiki talk:Main page redesign

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 05:39, 14 September 2017

Changes

This section is for discussing some of the changes made, and if they're necessary or should be edited. If you think something should be changed, discuss it here.

The introduction

I put a little gray box around it because I thought that looked nice, and because everything else on the page is in a box. It also seemed appropriate to link Homestar Runner Wiki to a page about the Homestar Runner Wiki. I'm neutral about these changes— I think it would be fine either way. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The more links the better, I say. The box does look kind of nice, but I could definitely go either way there. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It's been this way since the early days of the Wiki's MediaWiki incarnation. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does that matter? Older doesn't always mean better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Browse the knowledge base

I moved the "Main Menu" links to this section (in the "Website" part, along with Index Page and Secret Pages), because it seemed like they would fit with the rest of the links. If they're too important for this section, I'd be fine with moving them back to the introduction. A "Universes" section and a "Social" section were both added, because alternate universes and social media are both important to the H*R body of work. I changed "Popups" to "Weeklies", and "Miscellany" to "Lists", because those names seemed more accurate. Also, "more..." links have been added, linking to pages about the sections. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. Those links aren't so important that they deserve to be right under the header; they make more sense in the place where the rest of the links are. The rest of the changes are also minor improvements as far as I'm concerned. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Same as above. But I do think that FeedBurner Page should be replaced with Youtube and/or {with gritted teeth} @StrongBadActual. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Also same as above. These all seem like perfectly fine improvements. (Also, what's so bad about @StrongBadActual? Yes, creating social media accounts for series and stuff is a bit overdone, and it's especially strange for a series like Homestar Runner. But it's still Homestar Runner, after all, and it gives us new content practically every day, so what's there to complain about?) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What's new?

Nothing is changed here, except the links at the bottom are aligned to the right for consistency, and the text at the beginning has a colon at the end instead of a period. Also, the text at the bottom says "More updates..." instead of "More h*r.com updates..." which makes it more concise, professional, and accurate, in my opinion. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The links do look the slightest bit better on the right, and "More updates" is definitely more accurate. In fact, we might want to change the text at the beginning to have the same level of accuracy. Speaking of which, the colon doesn't look particularly better than the period in my mind, but it's not a big deal. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kind of indecisive about the colon/period thing, but I like the idea of changing the beginning text. But what should it say? "Recent updates to Homestar Runner"? "Recent updates to the Homestar Runner body of work"? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't say "official Homestar Runner site" when a substantial percentage of the influx is not on the official Homestar Runner site. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured content of the day (or whenever)

This has been removed, because it has no point and hardly ever gets updated. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally agreed. "Or whenever" is right— it's still on Trogdor, for Chorch's sake. The other main page additions will make up for the lack of this. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if we had an automatic system to either scroll through featured content day by day or make it random? Otherwise, remove. Guybrush20X6 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of what the featured article section is. So, remove. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This has pretty much been neglected since its inception (It was used as a replacement for FA and updated once since then if I remember right), and it has proven far less useful to the main page — at least for me anyway. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

New sections

There is a social media section. I feel that this is the most necessary change, since social media makes up a lot of H*R content now. A featured article section has also been added. I somewhat support featured articles returning. RickTommy seems to like the idea of randomized featured articles, while I think it would be best to rerun articles (so that there's a new article every week instead of a randomized one). It would also be great if we could write brand new FAs, like the olden days, but this is unlikely. There are also "Did you know?" and "On this day..." sections, because I thought those would be cool. I'm still trying to decide whether all of these sections are necessary, and which side of the page they should be on (the red half or the blue half, I mean). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I support the social media section. (As I've said, it'll be difficult to keep it updated all the time, but it'll be worth it.) Featured articles look sort of nice, and they do a good job of showcasing the quality of content we have on our wiki. Reruns would probably be a more organized way of doing it. I also like the idea of the two new sections, as long as more will be added to them. Basically— I support all of these sections, as long as they'll fit nicely on the main page. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

All right. Also, the red half is currently much longer than the blue. They need to be evened out somehow. I'd suggest moving social media posts to the blue side and "On this day" to the red side, so each side will have a specific theme— articles and information from the wiki (red) and current events (blue). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Also, I added images for the two new sections, 'cause why not. Is that a good idea? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think FAs should be randomised. That way, not only will no two users have the same experience, but it will also inspire people to check out multiple articles and not just one, and it will open the door for new FAs (and by extension, the reopening of FAS).

As for the other sections, I reluctantly agree with the social media one (though I still don't think the Wiki should stoop to the level of the vast majority of the Internet). OTD and DYK, oppose. However, if DYK becomes a thing, I think the facts should be written in a way that isn't obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact. I've had similar issues with another Wiki's DYK section. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with RickTommy about randomizing the FAs for the time being rather than showing one for a period of time. I still think we should have gone to monthly FAs starting in 2013, but that's neither here nor there. As for the other two things on that side, I don't really like the Did You Know section. I like the looks of On This Day though, but I think it would be cleaner to have it pull from an organized file folder of some kind rather than a massive list of everything. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the keenest on randomizing FAs. If we're going to use the old writeups, we run into the problem of them being out of date. I'm skeptical that our current user base is ready to handle the cleanup required on these old articles, particularly if they're going to be randomized (meaning the whole cleanup project must be complete on day 1). As for bringing back FAS, just no. We closed that down for good reason: the process was being monopolized and disrupted, and we just don't have an active enough user (and sysop) base to absorb that problem (nor to have good discussions). I used to spend a considerable length of time on it weekly; I will no longer be able to do this thanks to certain changes in my personal life. And as I don't see any other sysops stepping up to do it instead, bringing back FAS is unworkable. Heimstern Läufer 05:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Weekly FAs will bring the wiki back to the good ol' days, when we could wake up one morning and look forward to a brand new article adorning the front page. If it's a different random article every time, it would kind of... lose the magic, so to speak. Seeing new featured articles would be taken for granted, and it just wouldn't be special anymore. As for your reasoning (no two users would have the same experience), I'd say that's why I wouldn't want randomized articles. If it was weekly, users could discuss and view the current article together, instead of everyone always looking at something different. Users can say their opinion on the current article and point out mistakes should be fixed or updated, etc. Or, for that matter, even say "current article" instead of "one of the articles that I saw just now". As for "checking out multiple articles instead of just one", weekly FAs will do the same thing, but slower. And I think there's a chance that weekly articles will open FAS again, just as much as randomized would, if not more. In general, I think random FAs would be less organized and convenient. Maybe we could compromise with a rerun every day...? Maybe? (Also, what's wrong with OTD and DYK? And could you give an example of what you mean by not obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact?) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Page footer

I added a languages section for people who don't speak English fluently, because they might not see those pages otherwise. I'm neutral about this. Also, the color of the donations box has been changed from a weird peach-ish color to beige, which looks nicer. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We may need to work on placement, but it's a good idea to include a portal for non-English speakers. The color doesn't matter to me— whichever everyone else thinks looks nicer. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How should the placement of the language box be improved? It looks sort of okay, but not great. I tried to make it like {{welcomebox}}, but smaller. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Most everyone who uses the Wiki in this day and age speaks English natively. Not to mention that H*R has the lowest percentage (if not number) of non-English-speaking fans of any franchise I know. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(See my response below.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Subtitles

However, I do think that there should be a way to attract non-English-speakers to the subtitles project. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what the languages box is for. Alternatively, though, we could put a Subtitles section in "Browse the knowledge base", with links to the different language pages instead of a box at the bottom of the page. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)