Talk:Main Page/intro

Major introduction re-think

I believe the Main Page introduction is unwieldy, far too long and has far too many links. I believe most users will simply skip over it whilst in its current state. I'm proposing cutting it right down, from 46 words to 14, and 9 links to just one.

Let's go back to basics - what's the point of the introduction? Well...

• Explaining what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia.
• Introducing the wiki concept - anyone can edit it.
• Most importantly, trying to get users editing.

Secondary goals include:

• Getting a sense that Wikipedia is big, not some little tiny project.
• Currently, getting across that Wikipedia is multilingual.

Yes, the current intro does have all this information, but also has far too much cruft - it's been added to and added to, and it's lost what's actually important...

Current intro text	Comment
Welcome to Wikipedia	Welcome, newcomers is an awful page - far too long-winded and text-based, more likely to scare users away than anything. Wikipedia is a confusing link - the user has just arrived at Wikipedia, so how can there be a link to Wikipedia..?
a free-content encyclopedia	Stating it's an encyclopedia is fine, a quick definition for brand new users. However, "free-content" is not a well-known term, and Wikipedia:Copyrights just looks like a boring legal document. I think stating Wikipedia is simply free for now, and explaining free-content later is preferable.
in many languages	"Many languages" is important, in fact so important I think we should remove it from the introduction and have a much more prominent link to the language list.
that anyone can edit	The most important three words in the introduction, but poorly linked to wiki - the article explains the wiki concept, but won't get people editing, and doesn't explain how to edit Wikipedia.
In this English edition	Anyone who can understand those 4 words knows it's in English. Redundant.
started in January 2001	Is the starting date really that important?
we are working on 6,915,313 articles	The article count shows we're not a tiny project, but it's not an obvious link to statistics - my guess is users would expect it to link to some kind of article overview or browse page (and no, the tooltip isn't good enough).
Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article	The Community Portal doesn't really tell you how to edit pages. It's quite important, but slightly sprawling and full to bursting with links. Wikipedia:How to edit a page is most certainly not a good article to link to. Far too long and confusing for an introductory article.
or experiment in the sandbox.	Sandbox? What's that? Let's properly guide the user through editing and experimenting.

So what's my grand idea for replacing it? Very simply...

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,915,313 English articles.

As for the language link, I've tried to come up with a more prominent icon for it. Go and have a look at how this looks on a Main Page mockup (also see the talk page for more rationale).

I believe this says all it needs to. The "how to edit" link goes to the brand new Wikipedia:Introduction, which explains Wikipedia, gets users editing and sends them off exploring. I believe it's a vast improvement on what we currently have with Welcome, newcomers.

Looking forward to your comments! Thanks, Tom- 16:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I very much like the feel of your mock up, although the way the article count is added onto the end of the sentence doesn't sit quite right with me. I would like to see the principal (perhaps unamended) put in place, though --BesigedB 16:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about two sentences: one that says welcome to the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, and a second that says that there are many articles and languages? Fredrik | talk 22:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like it as well but agree that the article count seems a bit tacked on and really doesn't have that much context ie how does this compare to something like Britannica. Evil Monkey → ^Talk 02:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why not just "Wikipedia—Anyone can edit!" :-D And for the record, I feel most "problems" with the introduction are vastly overblown. I agree that some links could be worked out better, and I also agree we should get our act together and provide a more coherent intro. Just cutting everything down to "Welcome to Wikipedia, edit me" and tacking on the article count is going a little overboard though, IMO. It's not like the current intro is a Proust novel. (The "anyone can edit" link really should be fixed, though.) In short: agree with some of your criticisms, disagree with the execution. Make better intro material, but don't just throw everything away we don't consider "immediately essential". No time for now, but I'm sure others will come with amendments to your proposal, after the "I love it" people are done. :-) 82.92.119.11 09:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the article count does mean much more than that Wikipedia is not "a tiny project," and ties in to one of the central definitions of the Wikipedia project: in terms of article topics, Wikipedia is a far more comprehensive encyclopedia than there has ever been.

Wikipedia's article count will soon be 4 times that of Encyclopedia Britannica online, which appears to be the largest traditional english-language encyclopedia. This is important. Try looking up EB's non-existent articles on the flynn effect or neuroeconomics at www.encyclopediabritannica.com (non-subscribers can view article intros).

For many readers, Wikipedia's unmatched article breadth will be as valuable as that it's free. Even the university librarians I've talked with admire Wikipedia's article breadth. IMO, "6,915,313 articles" should link to largest encyclopedia, which explains what this enormous article count means in relation to other encyclopedias, as well as the limitations of what it means, which is also very important. (and thanks for the thorough suggestions for the intro, Tom!)--Nectarflowed 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I support the idea of changing the introduction to:

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,915,313 English articles.

--Randy 00:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Intro

Trying out a new look to the top inch of the page, from tom's work on Main Page/test and the new Wikipedia:Introduction. See what you think. +sj + 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too much white space up the top. Makes the page look wonky. At the risk of sounding like too much of an old-timer: what was wrong with the front page of before? It was functional and worked well. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was a image-free / text-only link for wireless users, just above the link to FAQ. Ancheta Wis 14:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I like it. Cleaner, simpler, nice to be rid of that link-tastic intro. I love the new Wikipedia:introduction it (solely) links to. Dan100 15:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it too, but does it have to be in a different font to the rest of the site? Looks like Verdana to me, but everything else is Arial/Helvetica. Win2K/IE6, if it matters. Thanks, Muntfish 15:14, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. I think it would be best back in Arial. Dan100 15:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, shouldn't the font be defined in css? I'm using the old, "classic" Wikipedia skin, where the font is defined as Times Roman & I'm seeing the new font despite this. (Some of us aren't fans of sans serif). And I didn't think the old paragraph was that obnoxious. -- llywrch 17:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As said above there is too much whitespace. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with that there is too much whitespace. It looks empty. Jeltz talk 19:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Too much whitespace? I don't see any at all, really. Hmm. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mean the space to the left and right of the text. I prefer the old stlye (even though the text that was there wasn't really useful). - Jeltz talk 19:22, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Ah. Well the space there isn't that big, and doesn't bother me, for one. I like this simplified version. I think it will be a lot easier for n00bs to understand. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: I've just now removed the CSS font specs for the intro; hopefully now it should render in whatever font a user has set for the rest of the site. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I like the "other languages" logo I think that it unbalances that page. My suggestion would be to increase the font size of the introduction and remove the other languages/FAQ part. Perhaps the logo could be retained but placed to the right of the other languages section. violet/riga (t) 19:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Seems the intro is in a state of 'flux'. Who put "since we started in January 2001" in? Not terribly interesting and now that line doesn't scan very well. Having the second line smaller is awful too. That breaks every style rule in the book (and they're there for a reason), and hell I have to squint to read it! Just leave it as:

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,915,313 English articles.

-simple, clean, best.

And the current first line is still in the wrong font (ie different from the usual body text style). Dan100 21:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I further note that 'Wikipedia' has now been 'wikified'. It wasn't linked for very good reasons - it's confusing to a first timer to see the page they're apparently viewing to be linked to on itself, plus the page it actually leads to is horrid and very newbie-unfriendly. Dan100 22:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I find nothing "horrid" or "very newbie-unfriendly" about Wikipedia. It explains the ideals & facts of our project in a very commendable fashion. If anything, we ought to have a link at the word "free" that explains how material on Wikipedia is free (yes, it's exactly like the cliche goes, "free as in speech, not in beer"). This emphasis on a "simple, clean, best" description is reducing this introductory paragraph to a cryptic & uninformative statement -- but stated in no more than 25 words & sure to warm any MFA's heart. And no, I am not the person who added the link Dan100 whinges over. -- llywrch 02:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Where did the links for a Main Page without tables or CSS go? Casual readers shouldn't have to look all over the place to find those. Mgm|^(talk) 22:22, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• like the new catchphrase intro. like the whitespace. can't forget the need to properly hook the newbies. like the trimming down of the intro phrase, too. still opportunity to do more in that dirction, but fuckin a!

Indeed. So why on earth do we now have the old intro back? Please, if any admin who believes in consensus is reading this, restore:

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with 6,915,313 English articles.

because it's plain that here on this discussion page, that's what people want. Dan100 09:17, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Let me be clear why I prefer this new version:

• Less-is-more - a clean, single line.
• The friendly 'welcome' grabs the attention.
• We don't need to know when the project started. Surplus and irrelevant.
• The same font and style as the rest of the site - mixing and matching a range of text faces and sizes is the No. 1 faux pas in design, for good reason!

Dan100 09:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I also suppport the newer, smaller version that was here yesterday. The old one thats reappeared today is too damn big and too busy. Kiand 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The number of articles and the date it was started both should be in the introduction. The original aim of Wikipedia was to reach 100,000 articles. I don't think anyone back then imagined the phenomenal growth the site has undergone. - Mark 14:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I doubt that a new visitor would know that, or that it would be of interest to them. Dan100 15:24, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• I would again like to express my support for the new version, although I think on balance that Raul was probably right to step in and stop the nibble-editing of text that wasn't discussed here. The number of edits on page two of Wikipedia:Introduction is testament to the fact that people were 'reading the new tutorial. If I was new here, I wouldn't know where to start with the current text. SJ's original edit seemed pretty acceptable. --BesigedB 18:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too much whitespace!

Please, can we think of those who have smaller computer monitors? Can we do something about the fact that the main content is now too far down the page (or seems that way, due to the amount of whitespace that is now there)? I mean, now I can barely see the "selected anniversaries" in one go, and so the design of the front page is broken. To be honest with you, that meta stuff up the top, while good, is making us "miss" content. If I was a new user, then why would I care? I'd care about the content of the site, not about how many articles we have. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Design school, rule number on: Whitespace it's good for layout. It makes the eyes rest, makes a book, a website and wikipedia more confortable to read. White is good.

It is not good in your computer? Well that's why wikipedia is prepared to be a general purpose encyclo. Change the skin, customize it, and every detail in the layout will fit ou necessities. No matter if you have a 21" monitor, or a 120x120 px handheld or no sreen at all (voice access)

--Alexandre Van de Sande 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While whitespace is good I don't think the design rule is quite so clear cut. When the top section is full of whitespace, even when you shrink the window, and the rest of the page is bulky it makes it very unbalanced. The image to the right (as was) also made the balance look very poor. violet/riga (t) 13:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not enough whitespace?

• Might there be use for adding a line of whitespace between the intro tag line and the 'browse | ' etc. seems to be done and sticking.
• and maybe another line below the two Browse lines?

Something like:

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,915,313 articles.

 

Browse: Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology

Browse Wikipedia - Article overviews - Alphabetical index - Other category schemes

- Ozzyslovechild 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone reading this discussion at all?

It seems the main page is now a free-for-all among the admins, changing fonts, wording and links as and when they feel like it. How about actually reading this page and joining in with the discussion rather than foisting YOUR own ideas on how it should be upon us? Dan100 21:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Quite. I had the decency to propose, detail and discuss changes, just changing the intro back and forth (especially when edits are being made with exactly no explanation!) isn't doing anyone any good. There's very little point in talk pages if people don't actually use them. Tom- 22:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well it's hardly like it's an edit war! It's been changed and people are contemplating other ways of sorting it. Just be patient and I'm sure more discussion will be forthcoming... violet/riga (t) 22:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Violetriga. This is a wiki, after all. Neutrality/^talk 22:35, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• How about proposing your changes on this page (as was originally done) and waiting for feedback before making the changes? And this is not a wiki, after all - only admins can change the Main Page. Dan100 22:39, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

It looks OK at the moment. Not great, but OK. If you have suggestions then mention them here (as you have done) and they'll be looked at. Writing this just 3 minutes after that suggestion isn't going to speed things up, I'm afraid. violet/riga (t) 22:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought linking to the Wikipedia article in the intro was discussed and rendered confusing. I don't understand why an admin would act against the members of Wikipedia. This angers me that either they are acting against the members or are careless to view the talk page. --Randy 23:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend you don't get angered by such things as an admin not looking through the immense archive of this page. The person that wiki'd it was trying to make a positive edit. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Riga, there's not a huge amount of discussion to read through here. Took me about five minutes (see 'Major intro re-think', above). By the nature of the job, admins have to read such discussions before making changes. That's what they signed up for. If they did it properly, they'd see that Randy is absolutely right - it was agreed that linking to the Wikipedia article was confusing. Dan100 09:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia, like government, is a large and complicated system, and as such, some processes aren't as fast and efficient as might otherwise be desireable.

Most of the discussion on this page is not related to these kinds of proposed changes to the main page, and discussions get pushed into archive pretty fast. Since the main page has been changing since the beginning of Wikipedia, how about we dedicate a page, such as the talk page of Main_Page/test, to discussion of proposed changes to the main page?--Nectarflowed 01:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please bring back the new version of the Main Page.

I loved the new version and I am disappointed that the older, less user friendly version is back. The introduction page is much more user friendly than the other welcome page and the images for the other languages section made it easier to get Wikipedia in the language of your choice. I absolutley disagree with the edit summary for reversion[1] and I want the new version back. I wish more people followed my motto of "ReVise not ReVert". Making it easier for new users will attract more contributors, this old introduction is horrible and the other languages links very small. Think of the users. Norman Rogers\^talk 10:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Norm, I agree with you entirely, but instead of spreading this discussion over several sections could I ask you to append your comments to the 'New intro' section above? Cheers Dan100 10:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the admins? Don't they know to read the talk page before making a major change to a page, especially the most important page on Wikipedia? I thought they were supposed to be the role models for Wikipedians. I would like them to put the new main page layout seen on Main_Page/test back. --Randy 17:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to put it back, but it'll just turn into an edit war. Someone will edit the intro to add something back which they believe is absolutely essential, which will make it look crap, which will result in it all being reverted. 19:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hardly. It's now back and looks fine. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted myself and restored the new one. →Raul654 19:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

And yes, I agree with Randy that a new UI should be tested thoroughly before going live, and that SJ messed up by not doing that. →Raul654 19:55, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean someone else? The new UI that I migrated to the main page had been on Main Page/test for a long time, and had gone through extensive discussion on this page (see above). In any case, that isn't what Randy was referring to... +sj +

Why not vote on this change?

Since this is something that practically all Wikipedians will notice & have an opinion on, shouldn't we put this change to a general vote? Abruptly making changes like this without any prior notice will only create resistance to any improvements, & create ill-will.

Although a glance at this page shows that I am in the minority in disliking this new look, I'm perfectly willing to abide by the decision of a vote on this issue. -- llywrch 20:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Language icon

The point of the language icon is to try to be an obvious, multilingual signpost to other languages. I believe simply having a small "other languages" link isn't good enough. I suspect the majority of non-English speakers that come to the Main Page would know or could guess the meaning, but I'm not sure if they'd see the link in the first place.

Because "Wikipedia in other languages" requires you to scroll down to see it, having something right at the top of the page is preferable. Otherwise we're in danger of losing users who think Wikipedia is only in English. Tom- 20:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To achieve these points, I've moved the icon back to the top: I believe it needs to be right at the top and very, very obvious and to be seen without scrolling. The fact Wikipedia is fully multilingual is a huge, huge part of the project, and whilst wikipedia.org redirects to the English Main Page it needs to be pointed out straight away. It also reduces the amount of whitespace, and imo balances the design more. Tom- 17:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This reason for using that icon is good but is not usefull. First the icon is not clear. It does not give (to me) te message "click here for other languages". The use of flags, that is known by users. Yes, it is wrong to use flags for this. But users understand it.

If it is the intension to put the non-english wikipedias in the spotlight make a portal of www.wikipedia.org I am asking about this since the end of 2002 (or 2001?). That icon will not do it. --Walter 00:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe a portal is needed: we just have to look at what language the browser asks for, and send the user to the correct site. Tom- 11:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This has been discused many times befor. Many non-english users use a browser that is set to EN by default. A visitor that goes to www.wikipedia.org and find there a list of languages to choise from and do not understand what to do is to stupid to use Wikipedia anyway. --Walter 12:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing Layout Musings

Move-lang-etc-up-1.gif

dangling participle

• Started in 2001, we are currently working on 431931 articles.

this is not English (*sob*). it should at least be 'having started', but even that would be questionable. I also miss the link to the statistics. gripe, bitch, gripe. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is the statistics page that important? How can we make it an obvious link? Tom- 20:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it is one of the few links on the Main Page that I have actually used. But I am more upset about the syntax than about the link ;o) dab (ᛏ) 09:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can it be rewritten in a way that makes sense, but is similarly terse? Although I don't really have a problem with the original... Tom- 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Tom's version

This is Tom's version:

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,915,313 articles.

==

A few points, feel free to add more (for and against): ==

• 'Wikipedia' is bold, which draws the eye to the welcome text.
• The text is significantly larger than body text, which again draws the eye.
• 'Wikipedia' is not a link - the user has just arrived at Wikipedia, so how can there be a link to Wikipedia..? (Would someone who's just surfed in read that article?)
• Does not mention January - is the month Wikipedia started in that important?
• The second line is the same size as the body text - three text sizes in three lines looks bad, plus the small text is hard to see.

I'm happy with this version

1. Dan100 21:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Norman Rogers\^talk 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Jliberty 22:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
4. Squash 00:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) Simple. Attractive (Clean). Attention.
5. Randy Johnston 02:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Alexandre Van de Sande 14:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) I prefer this one than the previous. Maybe a small detail would link the FREE to something (you know the old "free as in freedom"?).wikipedia:Copyrights (dont like it? edit it!), copyleft, GFDL, whatever.
7. BesigedB 17:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC), with caveats

   1. The old welcome, newcomers page shouldn't be made redundant.
   2. Wikipedia:Sandbox should feature somewhere on the front page

   • Actually, I like the current version best and would be happy to see it stay that way. --BesigedB 18:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am unhappy with this version and want something different

1. Wikipedia should link to Wikipedia, it should read "January 2001", and the NUMBEROFARTICLES variable should link to the statistics page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. I appreciate the cleanup effort, but I don't see how linking to Wikipedia and the statistics page adds clutter. If you want to remove clutter, start with the below-1000-articles interwiki links. also, see my dangling participle complaint above. dab (ᛏ) 21:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) — hmm, it's changing as we vote. I actually like the present version dab (ᛏ) 23:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. I like the simplicity, but people need to understand what Wikipedia is. Neutrality^talk 21:50, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
4. The Sandbox is now completely off the map. This used to be your one-stop shop to learning how to edit immediately. Now we have to watch Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Introduction 2 and Wikipedia:Introduction 3 for vandalism overly creative editing, and these are not nearly as inviting as the "anything goes" Sandbox. The introduction is now a sort of mongrel crossbreed between a condensed tutorial, a Sandbox, and the old intro paragraph.
   Second, the layout still blows: on my screen, the centered text isn't, and the whitespace to the right just looks wrong, as if an image was supposed to be there but disappeared (especially with the image from "today's featured article" right beneath it). Finally, what I do like (about the "current" version): do not remove the link to Wikipedia. Being friendly to newbies is one thing. Having no immediate link for people like me, who want to go straight to the meat without being mollycoddled with a tutorial first is just ignoring an important part of your user base. Don't do it. Newcomers are our welcomed guests, not our gods.
   PS: I also hate, hate, hate the new layout on purely subjective grounds that are impossible to articulate, but since that is in no way constructive, you should probably ignore it. 82.92.119.11 22:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. I like this version, except I think there should be an RFC before replacing (as the link from "anyone can edit") Welcome, newcomers with Wikipedia:Introduction. I don't necessarily dislike Wikipedia:Introduction; but redirecting Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers there, and changing where the Main page intro links, definitely should have consensus first -- this is a major change. Charm ©† 07:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
6. I liked the old intro paragraph, & believed it did a satisfactory job of introducing Wikipedia to one & all. -- llywrch 19:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Too much whitespace, it unbalances the page! Put it back to the way it was before. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Tabu, I think this white space discussion has nothing to do with the intro message discussion.--Alexandre Van de Sande 14:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

8. The text shouldn't be enlarged, or at least, only slightly so. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 17:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
9. The date should be included, and the amount of whitespace should be reduced. It feels so much like a message notification... -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Well, that was six for and nine against. I suspect Tom has had an eye on this vote too as there is now a compromise version up that fixes the design issues while retaining the links people feel are needed. Good work Tom! Dan100 00:45, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I am quite happy with the compromise, yay Tom. Suggestion: English WP has some 143M words right now. Maybe we could include the number next to the article count? (see also Template_talk:Wikipedialang#effects.3F) dab (ᛏ) 12:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really find the word count all the meaningful, and I think having loads of different numbers will just get confusing. I think it's best to come up with one single, specific and very impressive statistic. Tom- 16:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia users vs New users

(NB this is a comment on the usability of the new intro. I make some comments on the design in the vote, above.)

I can understand that people who have used Wikipedia for some time believe that where-ever possible words should be wikified and that as much information as possible is available as soon as possible - that's how Wikipedia works.

However a new user (ie someone arriving at www.wikipedia.org for the first time) may well have a different perspective. For starters, someone who has just 'surfed in' could surf out again just as easily unless their attention is caught and held. They also most likely have a short attention span - if they get bored, they leave. Wikipedia isn't the most interesting article ever and is very long; I defy anyone to say that it would be interesting to a new-comer. Nor is free content - being "copyleft" or whatever is not important to someone viewing Wikipedia for the first time.

However the Wikipedia:introduction pages are brief, attractive, and explain Wikipedia's 'killer app' feature - collaborative editing - in a quick, effective manner. Explaining how any page can be edited by anyone provides the hook which keeps people interested. The final page then serves as a jumping-off point to explore the rest of wikipedia now they are interested. It does also include a link to Wikipedia! By that stage, they might have enough interest to read it, but if they at least they know what Wikipedia is about by then and probably won't just leave the site.

Dan100 12:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'll refrain from making facile remarks about people with short attention spans and how much we need them on Wikipedia. :-) Your point is, of course, that first-time visitors to any websites will deliberately have short attention spans, because they don't like wasting time. I put it to you, however, that the Main Page will hold people's attention even if the intro said "Hello, welcome to this page" or something equally inane. Don't overstate the importance of the intro, either. The category bar and "Today's featured article" are big eye-catchers as well, for example; let's not pretend everyone will docilely follow the links to the intro.
I'm not arguing that the old intro wasn't in for improvement. But I have absolutely no trouble claiming that Wikipedia will be interesting to some newcomers. No, really. My first instinct when I visited Wikipedia was not: "Oh, great! I'll just start editing rightaway and hope I don't break anything". My first instinct was: "What? Anyone can edit this? And it's free? This is mind-boggling. Who's behind this and how can they possibly think it'll work?" Mindlessly playing around with it was not my first instinct.
Keep the current fast-track to editing, sure. But give people like me an immediate link to the beef. I would not waste my time on the introduction to finally get to page 3 with follow-up links. (Maybe Wikipedia is not the right one; perhaps there is no right one—Wikipedia:FAQ is just an overview page with lots and lots of links.) Make it the second sentence of the intro, for all I care, or put it after a huge whitespace gap. Hell, make the link to the intro blink for all I care. The beef-eaters will now how to dodge that.
Finally, it's very true that people will not be interested in what "free content" is, initially. But then you need a damn good and obvious way to inform them of that fact after their first edits, otherwise you'll get newcomers with all sorts of misconceptions about how Wikipedia content can be used and who "owns" the edits. To this end, I think the boilerplate below the editing box could use some tweaking as well. It's not particularly clear, because it mixes up several goals: inform people to please not make bogus edits, inform them that their writing will be mercilessly edited, and by the way, don't submit copyrighted work. Eh. But that's not the subject of this discussion, of course... One thing at a time. 82.92.119.11 15:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Don't overstate the importance of the intro"?? on a page that was created specifically because the import of that one little bit was so great that it was deemed to merit separate discussion from the Main Page's discussion? Now that's rich.. -Ozzyslovechild 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro: 'Is Wikipedia valuable?'

(this section transplanted from Talk:Main_Page/test) IMHO, in the intro line and the linked intro pages, just as important as conveying that 'anyone can edit,' is that Wikipedia is valuable, not just a strange knowledge project in which 'anyone can mess with pages.' We have to remember that many visitors may be initially skeptical of the idea.

I think the easiest way to work toward this is to (1) link 6,915,313 to largest encyclopedia, or to (2) merge some of the points discussed on largest encyclopedia into Special:Statistics. The general public only minimally cares how Wikipedia collects its statistics, which is what the Special:Statistics link covers at the time of this writing. What is relevant about the statistics, is how they compare with other encyclopedias.

An early criticism of Wikipedia thought Wikipedia's ambitions of reaching 50,000 articles were laughably ambitious. However, most readers will not realize what 6,915,313 articles means unless we tell them. --Nectarflowed 00:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. For some reason, "6,915,313 articles" doesn't actually look all that impressive... but I'm not sure why. Nor am I sure how you get across Wikipedia's importance and size well in a very small space. Fairly meaningless statistics don't really do that. Tom- 11:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One way that may work is to say it in words, eg, wikipedia now has over 4 hundred thousand articals, somhow sounds more impressive than "6,915,313 articles" tooto 13:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree - but probably looks best as "over 400,000" --Cjnm 14:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Free content"

Could I get away with changing "free-content" back to just "free"? The intro overflows on to two lines at 800x600 currently, so it needs cutting down a bit somehow.

The link to Wikipedia fully explains about the licensing, even better so than the free content article imo.

But I doubt it'll be popular... Cheers, Tom- 18:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the main page on an Australian State Library of NSW computer yesterday. They run at 800x600. It looks crap! Everything is everywhere. How do we accomodate these people? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By removing "content". Or finding another way of cutting the intro down a bit. Tom- 18:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done this as at least a temporary solution: the Main Page not looking awful at 800x600 is more important than having "free-content" in the intro, imo. Tom- 16:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It used to say "open content" but I believe Richard Stallman asked that it be changed to "free content." I'm really not sure why. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 16:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Competing use of the terms "open source" and "free software" is a longstanding political issue for some people. This is just an extension of that battle. To avoid it in proper NPOV fashion, I think it would be best to stick to just "free" (as suggested by Tom- below). Attempting to fully and precisely define all of our terms in the intro is an unnecessary endeavor that is foolhardy to attempt. "Free" is fully informative enough for introductory purposes; no need to immediately drag people into long discourses on the meaning of freedom. --Michael Snow 17:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so avoiding a line-break for the (what, 4%?) people surfing at 800x600 is more important than accuracy? I daresay anyone with a 800x600 display is used to seeing linebreaks in strange places for many websites. It's not like that this renders WP unusable. dab (ᛏ) 16:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

800x600 is an extremely popular resolution, I don't have any hard facts but I'd guess it's the 2nd most popular resolution for Wikipedia users (much more than 4%). People with larger screens often browse with a browser at around 800 pixels wide too. "Free" is not inaccurate in any single way (and indeed, I prefer it myself to "free-content"). Tom- 19:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• One-quarter of users view the web at 800x600. Dan100 22:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The main porpoise of the intro is to explain *what* Wikipedia is, and "free" gives some the impression that it's simply an encyclopedia that costs nothing as opposed to a "free content" encyclopedia, explaining that is just as, if not more important than explaining that anyone can edit it not to mention more important than solving an undesired linebreak for some users. I'll be putting it back. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

For an average user, "Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia" does mean free to use, ie unlike Brittannica. Being 'copyleft' or whatever means nothing to many users, and nor does it matter that it's meaningless to them. I further note that the Free content article is horrid and seems to have more to do with computer software than encyclopedias. That article shouldn't be linked to at all, on any grounds (I have since revised the article Dan100 19:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)). If Tom wants to remove it so Wikipedia once more looks professional to one-quarter of our visitors, he has my support. Dan100 09:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble deciphering what you mean, first you state that "copyleft" means nothing to many users and then that that doesn't doesn't matter. Second, you claim that the article shouldn't be linked to on any grounds, well how about that Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia"? If you study its history you'll find that it started as an offshot of Nupedia (which too was a free encyclopedia) and that Wikipedia only "won" because it turned out to be an easier means to the end which is to construct a free encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you read Wikipedia#Overview you'll find that Wikipedia is:

1. [...] primarily an encyclopedia.
2. [...] edited by anyone [...].
3. [...] is free content [...].

Tom's version of the intro would succed in relaying two of those things, adding and wikifying "free–content" would relay all three. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:19, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Someone should change "Free-content" to "Content-Free" as an April Fools Day joke.

How about linking "Free-content" to Open content? Stallman doesn't have any right to control what we do here. And I think it's worthwhile to explain to new users what "free-content"/"open content" means. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Where's the fork?

The text "In this English version" reads very awkwardly and any purpose it may have is highly unclear to me. It gives the impression that not only are there multiple other Wikipedias (i.e. the other languages, already prominently mentioned on the side) but multiple other versions, or forks, of the English Wikipedia. Yes, there is Simple, but its real value is subject to debate, plus it already gets grouped in with the other languages and properly so, I think. Anyway, rather than let the text continue to creep along, I propose to remove this. --Michael Snow 17:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Michael on this; perhaps "over 440,000 English articles" instead? +sj + 14:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, edited accordingly. --Michael Snow 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's with the big font?

I'd like to see all the intro text back to a single size, and run together in one paragraph. It was cute to try making it two separate lines, but they break into three lines for many sets of {screen width, font prefs}. +sj + 18:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the different sizes; I think the first sentence is substantially more important than the second, and I like the visual effect of the contrast. I agree that we should aim for not breaking into three lines if possible, even at 800x600, but can we try a little more editing first? Cutting "free-content" back to just "free" would help in this respect, and I also think it would be more NPOV because it avoids favoring either side of the open-source/free-software semantic debate. --Michael Snow 00:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be afraid from choosing whatever wording that applies best to us; I wonder what "open" really is to an encyclopedia, and many will do the same. Therefore, we can choose without thowing ourselves into any debate. ✏ Sverdrup 02:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting that we start calling Wikipedia "The Open Encyclopedia", certainly. I just mean that I think attaching "-content" is not terribly necessary. The terms are part of that debate, whether we think we're participating in it or not. --Michael Snow 03:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey I love the new intro, is what I'd like to say to all of its creators. The font size is good because it puts one sentence out from all the others on the first page, and delivers special punch to the final link in the sentence (to me), the introduction link. ✏ Sverdrup 02:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly stated. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody i dont really know about forks they are things that you eat with that have 3 prongs if they hadnt been invented we would still be struggling with just a knife so there you go. There are lots of different types of forks, stainless steal, plastic, sporks there are absolutely loads but i cant really think of them right now. Oh well i hope that this helps.

Flip the second sentence?

We have "Started in 2001, we are currently working on 447306 English articles.", why not try "We have created 447306 English articles since our founding in 2001." Even the sentence we have, just "Founded" instead of "Started". -- user:zanimum

• I don't have particularly strong feelings about it. But getting rid of inversion seems a good idea. Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

New CSS style for links in the tagline?

Might it be possible/desirable to make the links in the tagline appear to be more subtle?

It seems distracting to have them bolded, in different colors, and underlined.

I do think they should somehow call to the viewer that they are in fact links and I can understand the inclination to want to make the "anyone can edit" bit really stand out, but taken as a whole I think it winds up being more distracting than useful to anyone who is actually reading it for the first time.

I think at the very least the color should remain the same as the other text in the sentence.

Can't recall if you can specify a slighter underline in CSS; don't think you can so maybe keep it and see how it works with same color? I'd also say loose the bolding on 'Wikipedia' and maybe on 'anyone can edit,' but that's secondary to loosing the color.

Thoughts? -Ozzyslovechild 02:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link free-content

How in the world would newbies know what "free-content" means? It should be linked. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeap, it should be linked to open content. Stallman be damned.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

class="MainPageBG"

Does anyone know what this does? -MarSch 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. I removed all references to it from the front page of Wikinews, and it made no difference. Forgotten cruft from an old user skin, I guess. Dan100 23:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fund/Time-raiser to populate Wiktionary?

Why is Wiktionary missing so many accepted words?

Seems like that's a kind of barn-raising that would be easy to accomplish with a little love from her neighbors o'er yonder at Wikipedia.

• A Prominent announcement for a brief bit somewhere on Wikipedia that some month/week will be "Fill in the Holes Week" on Wiktionary, or some such.
• And some wee bit of facilitation on the "Here's how to be a Wiktionarian" front.
• And maybe some facilitation vis-a-vis "Missing Word List" type stuff. A simple 'Open Words' 'Words that need Some Help' list should do.

And then just get 'er done. Or at least get her Great-Leaped-FWDed.

Anyhoo, just a thought.

-:)Ozzyslovechild 03:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Portals, not Categories

I put this on the main page talk section before realizing that this place existed:

What would you think about changing the links at the top of the page (Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology) to link to portals, not categories? Personally, I think portals are much more helpful than the messy category pages in getting to the information I want. Take a look at the Life, Science, Math, and History wikiportals, and compare them to Category:Personal life, Category:Science, Category:Mathematics and Category:History. There's no comparison in professionalism and ease of use, in my opinion. Of course, right now there are only four wikiportals that correspond with eight category links on the main page. But if someone would make the other four to the same quality as these, would the links be changed to direct to the portals? Thoughts on this? --Spangineer ∞ 13:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, the portals link to categories anyway. The only problem is that some of these pages are very poor, for instance Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Literature. Look how rarely it's updated. Robinoke 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The portals themselves contain lots of layout. To separate that from content several templates are used. Thus the portal itself needs few edits. The templates might not have gotten updated regularly either, but that will change as more people get involved. --MarSch 12:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Once all eight of them are created and they're on the front page, they'll receive more attention and more frequent editing. --Spangineer ∞ 12:16, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. To actually get it implemented, try attracting an admins' attention on WP:AN. Dan100 23:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

fork of Main

I have created my own fork of Main. It is much the same, but it features less and cleaner HTML and gets rid of annoying extra margins and paddings. This is what I consider the most important change. Of course I have changed a few other things to my own prefs, like portals instead of categories, and the intro text. Please take a look. Also if anyone knows what exactly class="MainBG" does/means I would like to know. --MarSch 18:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Date and Time

I think that the current date and time should be displayed on the Main Page. It might give visitors a more "welcome" feeling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)