Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

Add topic
Active discussions

Archives of the Main Page discussions

January 12, 2005Edit

General discussion moved to the Water coolerEdit

Abstract ideas about WikinewsEdit

Moved to Wikinews:Water cooler#Abstract ideas about Wikinews

Wikinews in the MediaEdit

moved to Wikinews:In the Media

Article reviewEdit

[[There is lots of good discussion about this. moved to Wikinews:Article review]]

Wikinews toolsEdit

moved to Wikinews:Water_cooler#Wikinews tools

Wikinews contentEdit

Moved to Wikinews:Water cooler#Wikinews content


Hi, I've added a section name, called Columns, because every newspaper carries some... (more at the Water cooler; see link above)

Ukraine & etcEdit

I added Ukraine to the main page. Sorry for taking down Latest News, I did it only after I realized that the stories there are 5 days old. ... more at the water cooler

Logos, graphics, IMAGES, and photosEdit

What navigation cues should we add? How much attention should be paid to logos and graphics? Is it okay to use stock images to illustrate specific stories? Are Graphics Bad? Are people who desire graphics compensating for the size of their 'daily paper'?

Read more about it at Talk:Images!


Another crucial element to establishing a visual hook for the site is its logo. I've submitted some logos on the logo idea page right off the bat (there are lots of good ideas on that page), because the logo is important to establish the brand of this site.

Style and format guidelinesEdit

Moved to Wikinews:Water cooler#Style and format

Caps in titlesEdit

Is Wikinews supposed to use Headlines With Capitalized Words? (seeing that Wikipedia doesn't)

I've created an initial poll about this at Wikinews:Capitalization poll.--Eloquence

Section linksEdit

Instead of a section header being "Crime and Law" and then having a repeat of that just below with the wikilink, what do editors think about having the section link also be the wikilink? Lyellin 04:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...more at the water cooler; see link above

Categories and organizationEdit

I think the categories we have now should be one word whenever possible, as "Politics" and "Business" are comprehensive enough alone....

...more at the water cooler; see link above

Main page section headersEdit

Sport and Weather?Edit

Do these two really go together? I mean, they're like cheese and chalk. I say that they should be seperated out into two seperate categories, or "Weather" should be shown the door. What could go under that category, anyway?

Lankiveil 10:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I tried to achieve some sort of symmetry with the headline, but you're right - they don't really go together well. Is there anything we could couple with Sports?--Eloquence
How about "Sports and Recreation"?
Don't get me wrong, I like the double-title thing a lot, I just didn't think that particular one made all that much sense ;-) Lankiveil 05:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why? Don't try to link unrelated things together. Use double-titles only if there is no single word for the concept (rare). Simeon 12:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weather MapEdit

The weather map is too wide. Because of this, any browser displaying the image will therefore make the entire page as wide as the map, due to tables being used I presume, in the layout. Unfortunately if the map is reduced in size, the temperatures would become unreadable. The main page is too busy already, the map should be on a seperate page, with thumbnail to link there. Simeon 12:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The main page is "protected" (why?) - please some priviledged person remove the weather map as described above. Simeon 12:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some days later and this is still a problem. If it is necessary to have a weather map appear there, a good compromise, although maybe a lot of work, would be to use a much smaller one showing isotherms, like this (but without the clouds if possible)
Wikinews doesn't inline the .bmp image - you'll have to click on the link. Below the legend is inlined.
And I may as well mention that on the current wikinews weather map, the sea colour is too similar to the dark green land colour. People with poor vision or poor displays will not be able to distinguish the boundary between land and sea. On my own shoddy monitor, both look black. 05:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the ideas.
A number of contributors have been discussing ways to improve the main page layouts in various sandbox pages, but we haven't reached a consensus on a new design yet, so we're stuck with what we have for now.
I am working on a smaller map that uses larger city names and temp dots, that will allow the page it sits on to fit on a 800x600 monitor.
As for the ocean color contrast with the land masses, the satellite topography we are using came that way from NASA. I agree that the contrast is low - I'll see if I can improve it in a future version.
The isotherm image is good for a scientist, but all consumer weather maps that I am aware of call out major cities with numeric temps for each.
Oops yes, meant to say, this might be a good idea for image on the main page, but then use a large map with city temps on the actual Weather page.
By the way, one of the page designs I am testing removes the weather map from the main page, and instead substitutes a world map icon with links underneath it to the weather map page.
I agree with this idea, as I said before "The main page is too busy already, the map should be on a seperate page, with thumbnail to link there." :) Simeon 11:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you are interested in checking out some of the ideas we are looking at for the main page layout, please checkout these links:
Thanks for stopping by.
DV 05:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I had a go at this myself now.
Not sure where the main main page discussion is so for now, here is the only place I have mentioned this. I think I have cleaned up the design quite a bit, and using DIVs instead of tables, so the left/right sections don't interdepend now for their sizes. The WelcomeSandbox heading is awry - centered is bad for such a narrow box .. but I don't know where to go to edit that. Other templates also could be improved, but likewise, I don't know where to find them to edit them.
Simeon 16:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Main Page topic needed - Environment and conservation.Edit

News of the natural and built environment does not fit into any of the current topic headings. A topic labelled "Environment and Conservation" will solve this. I feel we could do with sub poic headings for some of the main topic headings. In this case we could have a sub topic of "Natural Environment" with sub topics of "Pollution", "Species Conservation", "GE", "Climate Change" etc. Other topics could have a similar scheme. Alan Liefting 04:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the sub topic idea is one that has been discussed a couple times. Each topic page has divisions done by region, but that could be changed to sub-topic, or both could be used. The question would be, which one is better? Lyellin 04:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I concur that there needs to be a designated space for environmental issues. It could either exist as "Environment and conservation", as mentioned above, or it could be combined with the health heading to create a "Environment and Health" section. The latter would closely mirror the recent shift in public discourse which is increasingly looking at human and environmental health as intrinsically linked. For an example of this see Items of a strictly natural nature could be included with science and technology, like handles it (though hopefully with more prominence than they give it). mccaffry
The number of articles on "Health" could be large. The Environment" would be not so large. The crossover between the two would be small. I feel there should be seperate Health and Enviro topics. Alan Liefting 03:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I see the merit of having an independent topic page for the environment. Agriculture, natural disaster, bio hazard, pollution, and environmental policies are some of the things that it can cover.

Orphan articles sectionEdit

I suggest an Orphan articles(you can choose another better name if you like) section. Articles older than 3 days(for example) would be put there automatically. --carlosar Nov 18 11:46:38 UTC 2004

... more at the water cooler under Wikinews tools; see link above

January 13, 2005Edit

Articles on front page, cat pages, and regional pagesEdit

There needs to be some sort of limit as to how long articles are left on the front page, the regional pages, and the individual category pages. I suggest one week, then remove from those pages. To enable people to find articles from a certain date or category that are more than a week old, we create standard "category" pages using Category: links for each region and each category of news. Place the appropriate category link at the bottom of each article along with the date category linked as suggested in the style guide.

Also, perhaps we could start building categories of articles revolving around a certain topic--for example, the current war in Iraq, the APEC summit, etc. Kurt Weber 02:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps have a small table on the main page with a link to those topic pages? Somewhat like what CNN and other sites did for the 2004 US election, etc? Lyellin 20:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Did we come up with a timeline idea for how long articles should be left on the page? ALso, where do old articles go and wind up being indexed? :P Lyellin 05:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had imagined the Category pages as automated indices of any articles tagged as belonging to those categories, and simply reverse-ordered by creation date? Simeon 06:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Categories are ordered alphabetically, but can be forced into time order by a title containing a date (no method has yet been found to reverse time order.) There are no current category projects that I am aware of, but it might be possible to manually reverse time order an archive category such as [[Category:2004]] added to all 2004 date categories.

Fiddling with Main Page headlinesEdit

Yes, it is suboptimal, but the front page was looking pretty stupid with a Colin Powell story that's closing in on being a week old. That's not news, that's ancient history.

For a new site to be successful, it has to be vibrant, active, dynamic. It's a wiki, not a content management system.

I strongly oppose these carelessly plastered headlines.--Eloquence
I agree. --carlosar
I oppose them as well. If the main page looks bad, write new artcles, put them there, put other articles that may be major on the page- don't just do a haphazard job. We're in demo mode, and just beginning mode. We need to work on perfecting things, not putting in band-aids that will fall off. Lyellin 20:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, what is Latest News? Is it an article that has just passed Peer Review? I added my article [United States anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by report] to Latest News, shortly after it passed Peer Review, 'cause I wasn't sure what else to do with it. jkrusky 22:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Treatments for the Main Page section headersEdit

To start, would there be a strong objection if we were to try one of the following treatments for each of the news section title headers:

  • add more heavily weighted logotypes (small JPGs with "black" type), like on CNN
Yes, there would. Please use images only for displaying non-text graphics, and only when it adds something. Simeon 12:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • add secondary color panels behind each section header (like on Yahoo and Google news)
best option presented here Simeon 12:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • change to all caps, in a smaller, differently colored font (like on the BBC and New York Times news sites)
  • use reversed logotypes (like on the Fox news site)

As the design now stands, the front page is a neutral field, without strong waypoints to draw your eye from section to section.

Main Page TemplatesEdit

I've gotten templates made for almost all the sections. If anyone else thinks there should be one, let me know. Lyellin 04:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General appearance and suggestionsEdit

"Articles in development, controversial and..." : unnecessary and uglyEdit

I think the line: "Articles in development, controversial and unreviewed articles Articles being reviewed Articles which have passed peer review" should be removed from the Main Page because this information is not necessary (and it has an ugly visual). When the reader sees the article he knows if it is in an development, reviewed, or peer review stage, and what this means.Carlosar 01:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean those boxes? I thought that it would be good to have some information about which articles are reviewed already. That is because some people just want to read somewhat reliable news, only those that have gone through the review. Don't you think? Tomos 04:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additions to Main PageEdit

I think we should have a "this date in history" thing on the Main Page like what Wikipedia has. B-101 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the "this day in history" thing if it already is done on wikipedia. This day in history is not news, unless some commemoration of that event is occuring, in which case, simply report the event that is happening currently, as news. Simeon 13:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, on the Main Page, we should tell people that "since this is about current events, expect some information to change quickly". B-101 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right. Out of curiosity, is it known what happens when two or more people edit the same page at once? Is it handled, or not? We should inform users either way, and describe what the user will experience if this happens. Simeon 13:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more thing, I'm not sure how we will be able to post weather for various areas.- B-101 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is now a weather template, and I have updated the Weather page to use this template. It reports about as much as I think we can cope with unless wikinews suddenly becomes the latest 'cool' place for budding meteorologists to hang out at. Simeon 13:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Main page is starting to get stale again. I added the spanish police finds bomb story just to give out the sense that the page has been updated, but still, what is the criteria for adding something in the latest news section? That news was current yesterday, but with the review process and all, it's just not current anymore... :( Shana 12:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last criteria I heard discussed was that latest news had to get passed through review. We should note that review is being discussed, and needs more discussion. Lyellin 04:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This process seems now to have been abandoned (a) in the interests of having real (ie current) news appear on the site, and (b) in keeping with general wikiness. Not much new news coming in currently, but in my opinion the current process is quite good. We have the Article workspace for people to use in developing article. People can flag articles for attention as described in the Article stages page. Main page has suddenly become "protected" so not sure how we are supposed to publish articles now - but in my opinion the process was good up until that happened. :/ Simeon 13:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main Page : Just for our best work?Edit

Wouldn't it be better to have the main page feature your most-polished work? That is, the reviewed articles?

I am "Maurreen" on the English Wikipedia. 15:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That seems to be the more popular view than displaying articles being edited. Does anyone support keeping the articles being edited box? 119 17:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we should move the "Articles being written and edited:" layout to the Article workspace. We could left the "Peer review" with articles which has been waiting for 1/2 hour (or 1 hour) in review mode. Another possibility is: keep everything as it is now, except the articles should been waiting for at least 1/2 hour, before appearing at the Main Page. ---Carlosar 19:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Red links on the main pageEdit

Is it professional or unprofessional? Good for a small site or bad? See Wikinews:Red links for a full set of discussions.

Re-org main page slightly?Edit

I've been looking mainly at the de main page and our main page... one thing we can say is that ours is very crowded. What would people think of moving the topic template up to the right under the section for currently being written articles, and just make it links to each topic page? Makes the page smaller, with less things to edit/update on the main page, and will help to keep that section less out of date- which is a good thing on the main page. Lyellin 16:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old news is worth tooEdit

Some articles get finished when the news is old. Besides that I think we should put these articles in evidence(as soon they are ready) at the Main Page somehow.--Carlosar

Language edit teamEdit

What do you think about a specialized English edit team? The team work would be correcting the speelling of the articles. The team would not delete or change the meaning of anything, except the correct writting of the articles. -- Carlosar 12:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I volunteer for any English work that needs doing. The Wikiversity English course could provide some cross-interest. I have been talking to my mother about an interview with her for the purpose of organizing that section. She is a retired English teacher.

News in Brief articlesEdit

I would like to suggest finishing the News in Brief articles. I have worked on some of them but I think I am not able to do everything alone. If you have time and if you are good in English take a look on them please. --Carlosar 20:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Return to "Main Page/Archive 1" page.