Jump to content

Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Similar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the current page

[edit]

These designs are similar to the current page, but with significant differences, such as content rearranged:

Juliancolton

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Contrast in this piece is quite stunning. --Zblewski (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two search boxes if we choose this one. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highfields

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

5theye

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

88wolfmaster

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility: *Looks ugly with all that white space under POTD at 800 x 600. MER-C 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Suggest moving some content under the sister projects and moving the projects to the bottom. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexfusco5

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Aquillyne

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Artyom

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600. POTD is marginal. MER-C 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out to me. I had to remove the "Community portal" link from under the Welcome message, as it is already linked in the left navigation panel. Would've been even better if we could move the "Site news" link from there to the left nav - I have never seen/used it before, but found it pretty useful.  ARTYOM  01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POTD still looks like a fairly tight squeeze - could you try it with a wider image such as this one? MER-C 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I put that image in the POTD and set its width to 300px. I guess we could go with that width, doesn't look bad at 800x600 resolution.  ARTYOM  02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: There are now two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhole77

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • Excessively large header causes significant horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600 and takes up the whole screen. POTD looks silly at this resolution. MER-C 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyChemGuy

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Eitch

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Hereford

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: There are two search boxes. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford (2)

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Five Fifteen

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate

[edit]

NOTE: I have updated the design slightly on 18th July, all comments made on screen settings before the 18th July may no longer apply. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Fixed. My comment below still stands. MER-C 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • I find those color boxes look *really* tacky. TFA and OTD are surrounded by heaps of dead space at 1280 x 960, the dark blue blob should be centered and read less like a promotional. The bullets are indistinguishable against the blue background. MER-C 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Thunder

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

  • I don't agree with having sounds in the header. Firstly, our OggHandler doesn't make it obvious what those little grey buttons do or that Java is required for it to function properly. Firefox users would get a nasty hanging surprise when they click on them because OJI is teh suxxor (I'm not sure about the new interface). And besides, not everyone has Java (configured/enabled) for internet browsing. MER-C 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the fact that FLs are (finally) being put on the main page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyRy

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ryan

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Ryan Postlethwaite

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments: Why is it that all the main sections have an image next to it, except WP:DYK? Thanks, RyRy (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottydude

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Scottydude (2)

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

SusanLesch

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

  • Search bar overlays user links ("my talk, my preferences, ...") and parts of the tabs at 800 x 600. It also is non-functional, but I suspect it is a placeholder. MER-C 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

SusanLesch 2

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Tlogmer

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Wintran

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

Comments:

Zrs 12

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons:

  • POTD too small, caption takes up more space than the picture. Can be fixed by having the picture over the caption with increased resolution, but there may be problems with panoramas. MER-C 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Xenus

[edit]

Browser/screen resolution compatibility:

Pros:

Cons: