"56 table-of-contents sections, 13 archives of old talk and 6 pages of talk about layout and colours? Give me a break! Why don't people devote their time to producing content?  19:38, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

 Actually 10 pages of talk about layout. Perhaps we devote our time to layout so that it looks good enough to attract more people producing content and not lost them baffled with arcane Main Page. ;)
 08:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Critiques of the new front page
IMO, the new page looks a lot better than the old one.  However, it's getting a little cluttered.  I think we should avoid the ""web-portalish"" look (i.e. a painfully overwhelming layout; visit http://www.lycos.com/ for an example).  I would reduce the amount of text in the ""Featured article""/""In the news"" to 75% of what it is now.   06:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like the new front page!
Congrats on the new-look main page - much more professional looking!  20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 Good.  I was afraid to be de-sysadmined when I brought it live!   20:13, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
In which case, I would have strongly defended your actions as ""being bold""  20:26, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Bravo all. Query: Any reason ""A day in history"" is not ""Today in history""?  20:28, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mav thinks we might be unable to keep this reasonably up to date.
 We can't do any worse than other encyclopedias.   20:34, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
 I think mav has a point. I hate to say I told you so, but 2 days ago on the village pump I said this was gonig to be high maintence.  20:35, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

 You are wrong. You will see.
 We have a lot of sysops, right? Some of all those can easily fix & update the mainpage at times they just feel like it. (talk) 21:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 Why not just say ""In history"" instead of ""A day in history""?
The new colors totally suck!!! I like the old ones better.
The new colors are much betta, imho.  20:37, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
New colors are much better!  21:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. The division into a normal and a community main page is also a good step towards a more ""professional"" look. Thanks.  20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I dunno, I don't like it. Maybe I'm just too used to the old one, but somehow I can't say I'm too fond of the new one.  21:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's a lot clearer. Much less busy. And with pictures. Ooooh. And spaces between lines. Aaaah. It might be good to have an in-depth front page, too. Good work overall, IMO.  21:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congrats on the new main page, it's looking fab!   21:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree - it looks fantastic. Keeping it up to date might be a challenge, but I think it can be done. 

At first I thought ""ugh!"" then ""wow, that's gonna be a lot of work, summarizing everything every day, glad I'm not an admin,"" and finally ""y'know, I think I like it!""  )  It's growing on me.  Good work!   02:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very nice, but looks difficult to maintain.  03:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent.  Thank you!  11:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks fantastic.  Very professional.  16:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Amazing redesign. - 16:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Too much scrolling
I prefer the old frontpage, there you could see all the 'in the news', 'recent additions', 'featured pages', etc. categories at once. And it was just half a page of scrolling to the bottom. Now the frontpage is too large - once can't see all the 'changing' categories at once.  11:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Second this comment. I do not want the chief Wikipedia presentation (seen by everyone) to look just like some commercial web page. It should fit on a single (nominal) screen. The main page should be, essentially, a collection of pointers to more, not images and bitty comments/teasers. Change the new style. It's not good for Wikipedia!  17:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. I think it sh