Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

Latest revision as of 14:04, 28 November 2012

New Main Page[edit]

I've moved the new Main Page here. Urwumpe suggested that the title is too large and occupies too much space. I think I like it more this way than without the small text under it. Besides, the old page had a title almost as large. I'll leave the page unprotected for a while to let non-admins tweak it if you want. --RaMan 13:31, 30 July 2006 (MSD)

The "Main Page" text is now removed. This saves a lot of space. Hack stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia :) --RaMan 17:46, 30 July 2006 (MSD)

I actually wanted to have the very small title text, replaced by a graphical logo, because the box for the title takes the whole width but we actually only use a small part of this area. --Urwumpe 21:11, 30 July 2006 (MSD)

I'm not sure we can fill in the space that this will free up with sensible stuff, but if you have an idea, do give it a try, I personally have no objections. --RaMan 12:34, 2 August 2006 (MSD)

Nice layout --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 17:05, 13 August 2006 (MSD)

Featured articles?[edit]

With only 54 addons and zero tutorials added, won't these links simply be poor?

The proportion of qualifying articles is unlikely to be high, so we could end up with the DGIII as the featured addon for half the year.

I submit this wiki is not yet ready for this.--BadWolf

You're being unfair to tutorial writers - we do have a few. I don't see any harm in having DGIII as the featured addon for half a year, I still think it's better than the old dull Main Page. On the other hand, yes the links will not be as great as Wikipedia's Featured Articles, but that's the best we can offer at the moment, so why not? Do you think it's detrimental to OrbiterWiki's "image"? --RaMan 12:32, 2 August 2006 (MSD)

Yes, to be honest. I think it makes the site look 1) devoid of content, and 2) a DGIII fan-site. To a certain extent the former is true, but why highlight it? Is that not, after all, the reason the total articles statistic was removed? I don't thing highlighting a lack of articles encourages participation. Also, if a particular author adds a precis for all his works, this will effectively be a showcase of his designs unless anyone else follows suit. Presents the wrong image IMO. --BadWolf 14:54, 2 August 2006 (MSD)

Since there are currently only two opinions expressed on this, shall we wait for some more opinions before removing them altogether? I'd prefer an OrbiterWiki ultimately with Featured Addon / Tutorial, which means adding them at some point. You are right that would be a bad idea if this deters users at the moment, but I'm not convinced that it does. --RaMan 21:56, 2 August 2006 (MSD)

The assertion that "highlighting a lack of articles does not encourage participation" is something I would take issue with. I don't assert the opposite either, though. I believe there are both types of people. Those who want to be able think of themselves as part of something big, feel encouraged when there is a lot to do. People who like to polish things up and bring existing things further towards perfection, feel encouraged when a lot is already there. — Thus, given the choice between the two, I would opt for the more honest one. Don't pretend to be bigger than you are. That includes withholding clues selectively in order to create that impression. It would be intentional deception. — Timwi 14:20, 3 August 2006 (MSD)

To clarify this: What I meant is: If you think the site is devoid of content, then you shouldn't be afraid of showing it. If you think it's making it look devoid of content when you think it isn't, then maybe you should remove it. — Timwi 15:01, 3 August 2006 (MSD)

Featured addon vs Random addon[edit]

After BadWolf has nominated OMB for featured addon, the following discussion took place:

Looks like a joke more than a real MFD, suggest to wait until no other addons are nominated. --RaMan 13:36, 5 August 2006 (MSD)
Actually it is as well a joke as a real existing addon. I think its nomination is a good choice, but the article about it might need some more additions... eg, what beverages are available or how it works. After all, this addon shows another facet of orbiters addon community.--Urwumpe 00:20, 6 August 2006 (MSD)
OK I'll put it back in the list then, after Ariane to allow some time for editing. --RaMan 14:48, 6 August 2006 (MSD)
Yes, it's a joke. It is a real addon, but I simply used the DGIII text and replaced key words. Point being, a totally ridiculous addon can get featured status when there is a poor selection and a worse contributor ratio. Can't we just have random addons rather than 'featured'?--BadWolf 02:49, 7 August 2006 (MSD)

@BadWolf: I thought you might have recommended it to prove a point :) You are right, when there are only three active contributors one of them can easily screw something like Featured addons. However, three contributors with good intentions can surely keep reasonable addons here. And besides, I agree with Urwumpe that this addon deserves to be mentioned.

Now, Random addon sounds like a good idea, but I see two problems with it: firstly, this still requires a precis or a really good first paragraph (otherwise it'll be worse than whatever addons we pick manually, even OMB), and secondly I don't know how to implement such a random feature. How about the following compromise: we call them "Random addon" rather than "Featured addon" to avoid the connotation of quality, but these Random addons are only selected from a pool of addons which have a precis and have been manually added by someone. Initially there will only be a few, but we'll hopefully add more.

It's just that a quick look through those 54 addons we have reveals that most of them are nothing but stubs. Don't want to see one of those come up as a Random addon...

--RaMan 13:38, 7 August 2006 (MSD)

Afraid I've no idea what the technical limitations are, but agree we only want to show addons with a proper article. Just avoiding those in category stub would seem a logical route, but as I say -- may not be technically possible.

I'm sory I don't have a better suggestion, but I still think a featured article system with such a limited selection and editor-base can be abused. Be it for comic effect ( ;-) ) or because it will simply be a highlight of popularist addons as opposed to Wikipedia being a highlight of quality articles.--BadWolf 16:50, 7 August 2006 (MSD)

I don't want to get into an argument about how popularist addons can ever get a real problem. I don't believe its bad to have more people supporting to see the addons they develop and play more often on the main page, as other less popular addons. Its a bit like pop music - popular music isn't very often better music as less popular music, but it makes more people agree, that it is good. A compromise. So, popular addons, like NASSP, DGIII or AMSO will of course find more supporters, and more authors for their articles. But if each user also write in two-three other articles for improving quality, we have already won, by having one day enough addon articles for making "addon of the week" a once in a lifetime acheivement for articles.

There is only one way to avoid a lack of articles - have more quality articles. And how do we get more quality articles? Only by making it attractive for people to contribute. And for making it more attractive, if we can't offer more rewards, is it to make the psychological barrier for people writing articles lower as it is now. Eg by showing where they might participate.--Urwumpe 23:21, 7 August 2006 (MSD)

Implemented random addon thing - check out OrbiterWiki:Sandbox, and make sure you reload a few times. Looks pretty cool! So what to we choose? Let's make this a poll:

Random: Timwi, Timwi's Sockpuppet, Timwi's other Sockpuppet, BadWolf
Featured:
Undecided: RaMan, Urwumpe, GW_Simulations

The main page now uses Random addons. Please play with it and make up your mind about which is better. One problem with Random addons is that it doesn't provide that much motivation for someone to write up a tidy article. Of course this is only a problem when there are lots of addons :) --RaMan 10:45, 17 August 2006 (MSD)

Looks and seems to work great. Cheers. :)--BadWolf 18:15, 24 August 2006 (MSD)

IE support & [Link]s[edit]

Whoops sorry for the somewhat messed up layout for IE - did I really expect it could render something as advanced as a page using CSS?... I'll try to make it more user-friendly, but it probably won't be as nice as it is in real browsers... --RaMan 11:38, 18 August 2006 (MSD)

The text "[link]" is appearing in square brackets before section titles on the main page. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 00:30, 19 August 2006 (MSD)

This should work now. I can't be bothered to fix the crappy ugly marings/paddings for IE, if you can, feel free. Unless Timwi feels like helping out (which I doubt because he totally hates IE, and I know why :D) --RaMan 02:10, 19 August 2006 (MSD)

It would appear to have moved from the left of the box to the right, and reduced in size, but it is still there. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 02:14, 19 August 2006 (MSD)

Yes, that was the idea. I wanted to make sure that there is an easy way to find the source of random addons and other elements that make up the main page. Not everybody can read the source of the main page with ease (I certainly can't). If you dislike them then you can add some user css to hide them. If you still dislike them then I can agree to remove those for Pilot Section, Developer section & Contributor section, but I'd still want to keep those for Random Addon & Article. --RaMan 12:38, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

I see. I just thought that it would make more sense to link the titles. It's not a problem as it is though. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 13:00, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Fanfiction Wiki[edit]

Hello, everyone! I'm not sure if this should go here, but I've created a fanifiction wiki for Orbiter. You can share the stories you've come up with in your head involving Orbiter for other fans to see. Here's the link. -- User:Spyder