Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Test

message: We can maintain the current list of links. Instead of providing a description which could become a difficult to maintain thing, we could add graphics for the sections and keep the descriptions brief if they are kept. --Hemanshu 15:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think a description would be difficult to maintain? Martin 00:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: A useful technique is to steal the first para from the page in queston, which is normally as neutral as anything in Wikipedia, and most sysops are intelligent enough to avoid edit wars. Perhaps we should avoid putting controversial articles on the front page? Martin 14:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link format advantageous to descriptive format 

message: I'd like to reliably reduce the left margin for the list (UL) elements, without changing the global stylesheets. Any ideas how to do that? Could margin-left:-1em in a surrounding DIV break something? —Eloquence 09:53, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
:In case no one suggests a decent way of doing it, you could simply fudge it by making a list without bullet points...
On February 16, 1959, Fidel Castro became Prime Minister of Cuba.
On February 16, 1918, Lithuania declared its independence.
On February 16, 1912, Nikolai of Japan (a saint of the Eastern Orthodox church) died.
(It doesn't look quite as bad as the markup suggests, and all that "white" space really has to go!) fabiform | talk 10:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS question 

message: I moved the languages to their own box because they're not "topics". I mirrored the color at the top deliberately.   We still need a link or pseudo button ("Choose your language now") at the top that pops the screen directly down to the language list.  I'll stick a kludgy one into the top box somewhere but I hope someone comes up with something better because I don't want to distract from "you can edit right now".  Elf 16:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And, oh yeah, I used nested DIVs which is probably going to even more grotesquely annoy browsers that implement them badly. Elf 16:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: It does look a bit squished up to me.  I'm not sure that "choose your language" is going to be very intuitive to non-English speakers And therefore is it at all useful?).  I know that images of flags are naff, perhaps we could create a long thin banner for that box which had something representing a whole load of different languages (sort of like the wikipedia logo does) which people could click for the language options.  I've already thought of a bunch of problems with this idea, but perhaps it will inspire someone else to come up with another suggestion! fabiform | talk 18:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about non-English speakers. Elf 18:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A speech bubble with random foreign characters in it perhaps?  fabiform | talk 20:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Choose your language

message: I replaced the link to Cooking with Cuisine as the recipes and cooking techniques are in the process of moving over to wikibooks, but the various cuisine pages will remain here (or perhaps be both here and there).  Cooking can is linked to from Cuisine, so it's only one step removed from the new main page. Gentgeen 17:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooking --> Cuisine

message: How about "Obituaries" instead of "Recent deaths".  I find "Recent deaths" kind of jarring.  "Obituaries" or something like it would seem more tasteful. In the current main page, this phrase is somewhat buried (no pun intended), but the new layout puts it right there up front. Bevo 17:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Obituaries, and I changed it to recent deaths.  Having checked the meaning of the word in the disctionary I think perhaps I was wrong though, so feel free to change it back.  :)  fabiform | talk 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I made the substitution. Bevo 18:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Maveric149 reverted my change with this comment "They are NOT obituaries - they are articles; Wikipedia is not a newspaper".  By this reasoning, we should not include the list of "Recent deaths" at all, or certainly not "In the news", "more News...".   I'm changing it back! (I usually don't get this animated over simple wording, but I think I need a better rationale for "Recent deaths" over "Obituaries" than I see so far.)   There may well be a better set of words to use than either of these, and I want to keep trying to keep this discussionn alive before the new page is put into use. Bevo 14:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: After reverting, I find that I agree with User:Maveric149 about the "More recent deaths..." label.  That in fact is a link to a list of articles, not obituaries.   But I do like the caption "Obituaries" for that frame on the Main page as that is what is is, a list of very terse obituaries, in the only place in the Wikipedia that is in fact a newspaper-like presentation (and clearly marked as such). Bevo 14:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obituaries" instead of "Recent deaths" ? 

message: I was just playing with the different skins available in my preferences for the first time.  Some of the boxes on this main page overlap slightly when I'm using the blue skin (in IE). fabiform | talk 18:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The different skins

message: *See Wikipedia talk:Main Page. Optim 02:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *The message can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal/Archive 1. Graham87 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: All main pages seem ugly to me

message: See Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page. Optim 02:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain vanilla main page 

message: I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Main Page fireteams. Perl 16:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an assumption stated at that new page about the new Main page requiring more attention and time to keep it current.  If true, then maybe we should consider the KISS principle before we commit to this level of complexity.  It may also turn out that the new page is not overly complex, and in that case we don't need that bureaucracy.  To tell the truth, I'm not aware of how the current Main page is attended to.  Do we already have that sort of team structure?  Bevo 17:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fireteam proposition

message: If we want to take this page live, we should do it today, to see how strong the inevitable counter reaction will be. I suggest the following procedure:
# Refresh page
# Exchange Main Page, add notice on top saying that this is the suggested new page and feedback should be given on Talk:Main Page instead of reverting
# If strong objections, vote with 24 hours deadline (should get votes pretty quickly)
If majority votes against, old Main Page will be the standard again on Wednesday, when the press release goes live.
Mav, Jamesday, do you agree?—Eloquence 17:28, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
That is a very sensible suggestion. Either take it live today or wait until long after interest due to the press release dies downtheresa knott 17:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking it live 

message: Somewhere on some prototype, I saw a section of the Main Page titled "Tip of the Day..." Daily tips might be too much, but i like the idea of including a Tip of the Week. Can we add that to the new Main Page? Kingturtle 22:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tip of the day is on Wikipedia:Main Page by the way (the community main page).  fabiform | talk 22:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tip of the Week...