HRWiki talk:Main page redesign

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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)
1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2) Not once in all that time has anyone else wanted it changed. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
1) If it ain't broke, that's no excuse not to make it better. 2) How do you know? Maybe they thought it, but didn't post about it because it was such a minor change. But now that we're adding a bunch of minor changes, it seems like the perfect time to change it. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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)
For one thing, the fact that the Chaps are allowing fans to lick their boots. For another, the out-of-character humour. For another, if the Chaps have time for this, why don't they have time for the body of work? RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Should Hremails be added to the Features section? And maybe, just maybe, Skills of an Artist? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I added them. Even if they're not official "features", they should probably still be linked to. Everything else looks fine as well. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Again, think of the people who have been okay with the current design for 12 years. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hremails and Skills of an Artist weren't around 12 years ago. And "being okay with the current design" doesn't mean "the current design should never be changed". For example, I'm okay with the current design, but I happen to like the new design much better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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. Character 87 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"New content from Homestar Runner"? "Recent updates to the website and more"? I don't know. I bet if we put our minds to it we could come up with something satisfactory. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"New content from Homestar Runner" or "Recent updates to Homestar Runner" sound fine to me. But if it doesn't say anything about the website, should it still link there? Probably. It needs to be linked to somewhere, at least. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, going back to the colon/period thing; the colon makes it seem like it's leading into the updates, while the period makes the sentence seem more like a description. Which should it be? (This goes for {{recentposts}} as well.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, a period at the end would probably look better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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. Character 87 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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)
(edit conflict'd) 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. Character 87 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)
I don't see anything really wrong with Did You Know; I'm sure we could find enough interesting facts to fill it up with (commentaries, secret pages, etc). And it seems to fit on the page with everything else. But I'll go whichever way consensus leans. Same for the featured articles. Anyway, I kinda like the images, and I still support On This Day. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
What Heimstern said. Cleaning up all the featured articles at once would be a daunting task. Also, I think Did You Know is a good way to show visitors how much interesting information we have on our wiki, while On This Day is simply a cool and interesting thing to read. I agree with Knights that an organized file folder would be better than a long list, but I'm not sure how that would be done. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the majority is voting for weekly reruns. It would be much more organized and easier to handle, and everyone will see the same article. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Au the contrary, you are the only one who has explicitly "voted" for it. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
By "vote", I mean "has expressed their liking of a specific idea". I think that counts. Voting doesn't have to be explicit. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 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)
I guess there's nothing wrong with its placement, if it's going to be on the page. I pictured it maybe being toward the top of the page, but it might look better at the bottom anyway. SRMX12 (talk/cont) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think RickTommy has a point. Homestar doesn't get very many non-English viewers. And if one of them visited our wiki, they might not scroll to the bottom of the page. But if we put it at the top of the page, it might be too obvious, since there aren't many non-English viewers.
The Subtitles project is still super cool and important, though, so it should be linked to somewhere. Maybe in "Browse the knowledge base"? Not sure if it should link to the Subtitles page, or individual language pages, though. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Or instead of language links, maybe we could even include a link to HRWiki:Subtitles somewhere. I'm fine with all three options. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit] General

I think the main category should be linked to somewhere, since it's a convenient way to get to pretty much any page on the wiki. But where? Also, are the ellipses after links ("More updates...") necessary? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess the Main category isn't that important, but a link might be nice, if possible. I don't think the ellipses are needed (except for the "more..." links in "Browse the knowledge base", since plain "more" would probably look worse.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[edit] What's New is Old

The subheader for the "What's New" section is currently Recent updates to the official Homestar Runner site:. While this was fine many-a years ago when updates were strictly to homestarrunner.net, Homestar Runner as a body of work has transcended beyond that. Instead of being strictly on the site, content is now released on a variety of platforms such as Twitter and Instagram. And since we are also putting in Tweets and other updates outside of the wedside, the subheader in this section should reflect that as well. - Catjaz63 06:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's already kind of a discussion on this in the "What's new?" section. I like "New content from Homestar Runner" or "Recent updates to Homestar Runner". Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools