Main Page/intro

= Major introduction re-think =

I believe the Main Page introduction is shit, far too long and has far too many links. I believe most users will simply skip over it and look at the porn. 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...

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

Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that , with 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 for more rationale).

I believe this says all it needs to. The how to edit link goes to the brand new .

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

:I very much like the feel of your 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 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. 02:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) ::Why not just Wikipedia— 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 [http://www.encyclopediabritannica.com 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, articles should link to 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:I support the idea of changing the introduction to: Welcome to Wikipedia: a free encyclopedia that English articles. -- 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 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. - 13:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) :There was a image-free / text-only link for wireless users, just above the link to FAQ. 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. 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, 15:14, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed that too. I think it would be best back in Arial. 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. -- 17:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:As said above there is too much whitespace. 18:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I have to agree with that there is too much whitespace. It looks empty. 19:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

:Too much whitespace I don t see any at all, really. Hmm. 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). - 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. 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. 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. 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 , with English articles.

-simple, clean, best.

And the current first line is still in the wrong font (ie different from the usual body text style). 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. 22:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

:::I find nothing horrid or very newbie-unfriendly about 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. 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 , with English articles.

because it s plain that here on this discussion page, that s what people want. 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! 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. 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. - 14:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) *I doubt that a new visitor would know that, or that it would be of interest to them. 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Introduction_2&action=history number of edits] on page two of 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. - 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) :-- 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. 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 . In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on articles.   : | - 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 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. 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... 22:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I agree with Violetriga. This is a wiki, after all. 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. 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. 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. -- 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. 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. 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 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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Main_Page&diff=0&oldid=8772852] 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. 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 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 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. 19:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::I have reverted myself and restored the new one. 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. 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...

= 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. -- 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. 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. 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. -- 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. 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. -- 12:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

= Ongoing Layout Musings =

=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. 20:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: Why is the statistics page that important How can we make it an obvious link 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) 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... 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

= Vote on Tom s version =

This is Tom s version:

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia that . Started in 2001, we are currently working on 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 wikipedia)

*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==

# 21:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) # 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) # 22:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) # 00:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) Simple. Attractive (Clean). Attention. # 02:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) # , whatever. # 17:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC), with caveats #:#The old [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers&oldid=8778707 welcome, newcomers] page shouldn t be made redundant. #:# should feature somewhere on the front page #:*Actually, I like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Main_Page&direction=next&oldid=8874050 current version] best and would be happy to see it stay that way. -- 18:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==I am unhappy with this version and want something different==

#Wikipedia should link to 21:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) #I appreciate the cleanup effort, but I don t see how linking to 23:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) #I like the simplicity, but people need to understand what Wikipedia is. 21:50, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) #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 22:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) #I like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Main_Page&diff=8796513&oldid=8794319 this] version, except I think there should be an 07:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) #I liked the old intro paragraph, & believed it did a satisfactory job of introducing Wikipedia to one & all. -- 19:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) #Too much whitespace, it unbalances the page! Put it back to the way it was before. - 13:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) #:Tabu, I think this white space discussion has nothing to do with the intro message discussion.-- 14:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) #The text shouldn t be enlarged, or at least, only slightly so. ) 17:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) #The date should be included, and the amount of whitespace should be reduced. It feels so much like a message notification... -- 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! 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 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. 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 ! 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.

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 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.. - 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=Intro: Is Wikipedia valuable =

(this section transplanted from ) 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 . 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 articles means unless we tell them. -- 00:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: Absolutely. For some reason, 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. 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 articles 13:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::: I agree - but probably looks best as over 400,000 -- 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, 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 - 18:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:: By removing content . Or finding another way of cutting the intro down a bit. 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. 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. 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. -- 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. 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 ). 19:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*[http://www.trafficgeneration.com/article_118.shtml One-quarter of users view the web at 800x600]. 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. -- 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 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: ::#[...] primarily an encyclopedia. ::#[...] edited by anyone [...]. ::#[...] is free content [...]. ::Tom s version of the intro would succed in relaying two of those things, adding and wikifying freecontent would relay all three. -- 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 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 17:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I agree with Michael on this; perhaps over 440,000 English articles instead 14:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Sounds reasonable, edited accordingly. -- 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}. 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. -- 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. 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. -- 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. 02:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Perfectly stated. 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 . --

I don t have particularly strong feelings about it. But getting rid of 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 - 02:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= Link free-content =

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

:Yeap, it should be linked to 13:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

= class= MainPageBG =

Does anyone know what this does - 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. 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 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 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. -- 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. -- 12:16, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

= fork of Main =

I have created 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. -- 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)