Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 4

'''This talk page should be used to discuss thing directly relevant to the Main Page or the edit copy. For discussions regarding GuildWiki in general, please use GuildWiki Talk:Community Portal.''' If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to User questions and add it.

Downtime Notice
 Many recent added or changed pages return no data, resulting in a completely blank page.


 * Would adding some type of banner to the front page warning about the upcoming downtime be a good idea? LordKestrel 10:26, 30 March 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah it would have been nice to find that out here first before I tried to log in a few minutes ago. --DragonWR12LB 16:10, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Links
Id quite like to see a link to the collectors, as a lot of people use it for the collectors yet there is no direct link to it
 * Collectors are only 2 clicks away from the main page, click on Non-player characters and then Collectors (which is at the top of the NPC list). --Rainith 04:21, 2 April 2006 (CDT)
 * On the matter of collectors, it would be nice to link to the collector rewards page rather than the collectable drops page currently, the later being rather useless. 83.159.9.78 08:47, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Could we add a direct link to Pets on the front page? It's amazingly hard to find, unless I'm missing something. Zerris 22:51, 1 April 2006 (CST)
 * Pets are only 2 clicks away from the main page, click on Professions then scroll down to "Ranger" and click on pets. --Rainith 04:21, 2 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, so that's where they're hidden... thank you. I tried to find them under Beastiary, with no luck. Zerris 02:48, 5 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Under Bestiary they are listed as Animals, since pet isn't a guild wars species. -SolaPan 08:50, 5 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I still suggest to add a link to Animal Companions/Pets on the mainpage. They are really hidden in the Bestiary and under rangers as well. See my suggested change on the copy of the main page. --Long 09:59, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't think this is needed on the main page, especially as it's only relevant to one profession. I've added new links to it from the articles Bestiary and Ranger (under the section Related Articles). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:13, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Abbreviations
I've put in a change that expands PvE and PvP to their longer names. I could be convinced that it shouldn't be longer for space reasons (too wide), or because they are links, but personally I dislike having abbreviations players might not know on the front page. As a minor point, PvP and PvE are redirects, not the actual pages. Additionally, perhaps the subtitle text ("Adventure and Exploration") could be eliminated. As it is, there are no other abbreviations on the front page, unless I missed something. Thoughts? --JoDiamonds 02:39, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
 * My $0.02: The abbreviations look clean (roughly equal size for both) and if you aren't sure what they mean, you can click on them and find out. The new extended version looks ugly and overly verbose.  Plus if you're in the game you're much more likely to come across the terms "PvP" and "PvE" than "Player vs Player" or "Player vs Environment".  --Rainith 03:01, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed with Rainith, shorthand looked better. --Xeeron 07:56, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Rainith as well; the abbreviations are pretty commonly used in-game. I also prefer the existing shorthand text; but if there's a concern of understanding, I would rather see the shorthand text modified to spell out the abbreviations, rather than eliminate the abbreviations.  I'll try out that modification, and we can discuss it as well. --Barek 09:37, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I personally like this better than the original, at least. It might make more sense to link the extended version (since the abbreviations go to redirects, as the page name is the longer version; it's also a bigger mouse target, which is a small consideration).  I was never keen on the old descriptive text ("Adventure & Exploration", etc.) --JoDiamonds 13:28, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * When I added the abbreviations back, I changed the links to avoid the redirects (I prefer not linking to redirects as well). So, the links in the editcopy go directly to the articles. --Barek 14:21, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Abbreviations Search Issue: Having done a bit of research whilst adding / updating abbreviations;
 * 1. The entry "WoH" was ONLY returned when I searched for "WoH". When I searched for "WOH" or "woh" I did not get ANY results.
 * 2. The entry "OOP" (which I added) is returned wether I search for "OoP", "oop", or "OOP".
 * From this research it is clear that an "all caps" abbreviation "catches" all "case" combinations of any particular abbreviation, thus I think it might be useful to advise people that abbreviations should be added in full uppercase only, to avoid users searches not returning any entires. Furthermore I think that (If I am right) you can now remove the original "WoH" entry as the new entry I added ("WOH") covers it and will be returned wether users search for "WoH", "woh" or indeed "WOH".
 * As I am unable to delete the "case variations" of them I am going to disconnect them from the "Abbreviations" page and list them here for deletion by an admin;
 * So I humbly recommend the following entires for deletion as they have been superceded by ALL caps, "fully findable" entires I have added); FoTM, FotM, WoH, SoC, WoP, WaW, ViM, ToPK, ToA, SoH, (More comming soon)...
 * (NOTE: I have kept a record of all the above changes I have made to "abbreviations" and will happily change them back if my recommendation is not upheld by the admins.)
 * Raxous 11:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Forum
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum Link on the sidebar should be

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=220


 * Huh, I totally spaced that. Fixed now. Gravewit 09:34, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Bigger help part
Very nice change, that huge header on top of the page always disturbed me and it fits well with the help topic. --Xeeron 07:56, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Game Basics
Guides – Learning for other's experiences should be Guides – Learning from other's experiences Xiong Chiamiov 15:00, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * You are welcome to contribute to GuildWiki by making these types of changes yourself. I've gone ahead and corrected it on the Main Page/editcopy so that it will be reflected the next time the Main Page is re-synced. --Barek 20:12, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I would have (I do lots of minor edits like that on wikis), but the Main Page is protected, y'know... Xiong Chiamiov 16:29, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, but Main Page/editcopy isn't. That is the page to make changes to, then it is synced with the Main Page about every week or so (every so often when one of the admins thinks about syncing it).  --Rainith 16:46, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks, didn't know that. Xiong Chiamiov

Why the purge link?
There are no transclusions in Main Page -- it shouldn't need purging. If you mean that the /editcopy changes are not propagating, then that's because no admin has propagated it recently (or they simply think that the current editcopy is not front page stuff). &mdash; Stabber 20:21, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I saw some posts about the article counts, and noticed that I was seeing a discrepancy between statistics and main page. I purged it manually to fix.  Not a big deal though.  I could actually argue myself into removing it as too many purge requests against the server could affect performance.  Likely not big enough of an issue to justify the link on the page, so I'll go ahead and remove. --- Barek (talk | contribs) - 20:29, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, removing is best. Tacking on a  to the URL whenever necessary is something we can do manually, and it's best to leave arcane stuff like "purge" out of such a visible page. &mdash; Stabber 20:31, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Time to re-sync?
With Factions coming out later this week, changes are sure to be coming fast. Can we get the Main Page re-synced to the edit copy this week before release, so we have a clean starting point for all the new changes coming? --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 21:21, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Factions Guide
In the Game Basics section similar to the Pre-Searing Guide should be added a similar link for Faction guide containing link to Shing Jea Monastery and other descriptions Phoenix 02:36, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Sounds good, write one up and link to it in Main Page/editcopy and I (or one of the other admins) will migrate it over to the Main Page. --Rainith 02:43, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I would love to, but i haven't aquired Factions yet so I'm unnable to provide information decent enought for one, but i thought to be a good ideea since the Pre-Searing Guide has proven very useful to me. Phoenix 12:23, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

I've altered the link name for the pre-Searing guide on the editcopy. Assuming that pre-Searing still exists for people who purchase only the Prophecies campaign, I'd like this naming format (or something similar) to be used for the pre-Searing analogue in the Factions campaign. Any thoughts? (I'm not pushing directly to the main page, as I'm sure half of you will disagree) &mdash;Tanaric 00:24, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The ideea isn't bad but i think it should be Newbie Guide: Prophecies Campaign Pre-Searing  Phoenix 02:41, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

One-line frontpage announcements
Seems to me like you would get more traffic to the important stuff if you did a one-line banner announce on your frontpage for it... Like your Elite Fansite Status Letter. Or votes. I guess the real question is "Who reads the community portal?", answer being "Not casual visitors." Or maybe it's just me. :P --Tinarto 13:41, 29 April 2006 (CDT)


 * The question is... should casual visitors even be interested in such things? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:44, 29 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm sure a number of people that find this resource amazingly useful but don't really edit much would be more than happy to recommend it for elite. Edit: As for the votes, I'm sure that's really a separate issue. --Tinarto 13:47, 29 April 2006 (CDT)


 * In that case, my recommendation would be that when we make the final push for the elite status request, we should add a note about the campaign to the front page. I expect everyone's too busy playing the game and documenting whatever to do give the elite status issue too much attention, but when we have a moment to breathe we can dress up the site properly. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 16:50, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Special Items directory under the Items section of the main page
Lets add a Special Items section on the front page. This will include all the fancy hats given from special events. It will include the birthday presents. It will include the christmas presents and easter presents and beverages. It will include the christmas candy cane weapons. Etc.
 * I really disagree with this idea. To me, these items of relatively low importance and of relatively minor importance really belong on a sub-level page, not prominently on the main page. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 10:14, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Barek. Those items are fun, but have nothing to do with the top level of GuildWiki. --CoRrRan 11:23, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Nah, I think you're both wrong. When these things sell for 700,000 gold you know they need some attention on the wiki.  What makes dye higher level than special items, for instance?  Well, many people are very interested in dye.  They're also interested in special green weapons, and special event items.  Everyone on the forums talks about the special items, and this special item phenomenon is quite unique to Guild Wars as a game.  It's a popular topic, and actually something that needs attention because the current hidden page is neglected and out of date.  Not to mention the incompleteness of the Item categories listed on the front page -- you should be listing the discrete item categories, and the notable missing one is the special items.

(first-time players start here)
the line should be changed to "First-time players of guild wars (NOT Factions) start here"

and another tutorial guide for factions should be added below it.
 * Eventually we'll have two guides, one for Prophecies and one for Factions. With Factions so new, it's not surprising that we don't have a first-time section yet - but one will be created and it will be added to the pront page at that point. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 10:16, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * IMO, I think this should even be setup completely different, since GW and GW:F are 2 standalone products. Players reading about a "pre-Searing" when they only have GW:F will/might be utterly confused. --CoRrRan 11:25, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Good work, whoever made the edit, this is a really nice layout for it. -Kingrames

Pestering for re-sync
We have day of the tengu on the page and a new pre-searing guide =) Skuld  09:21, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Synced. --Rainith 11:28, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Problem with Mission Article Linkage
There are currently no links on the main page to a listing of missions by campaign. Prior to the re-sync, the mission link on the main page pointed to Mission overviews. Currently, it points to Mission. The Mission article used to have available the same links as the Mission overviews article, but those were removed. So, which is the correct fix: to change the Mission article to add the links in again; or to change the link from the Main Page to point towards the Mission overviews article? --161.88.255.140 17:14, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: It appears that someone already fixed it in the editcopy ... can we get another re-sync? --161.88.255.140 17:16, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I made another change to the edit copy and re-synced. If possible I think we should avoid linking to what is essentially a disambig. page (Mission overviews) from the main page.  --Rainith 22:00, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I had once added the links within the Mission article, but those were removed. They still acted as disambiguation; but as part of an overall article which seemed a more appropriate link from the main page, as mirrorring the structure of how we're linking the quest articles.
 * When the links were removed from that article, at the time I just dropped it rather than debating the structure; but I still think that's the cleaner way to do it (although I'll admit, my wording could've been improved). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:10, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I've done the same thing for Quests: Linked to Quests (Prophecies) and Quests (Factions). Does that work? --MasterPatricko 08:29, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

Scalability of Main Page
It looks to be a growing trend here; but from a long-term design perpective, I really don't care for the dual links on the main page for Prophecies / Factions (as now in Main Page for missions, and editcopy for quests). It's just not a scalable solution. What happens by Chapter 3, 4, or beyond? The screen real-estate starts getting chewed up quickly.

I think we should design a scalable solution from the start, using an intermediate page like the existing Quest or Mission articles to both contain general information, as well as links to each chapter's specific items (as it was set-up for both at one point, but has been changed - I'm not reverting again as I don't want an editing war - but instead would prefer a discussion on it). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:33, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, that makes sense to me. We can't have 4 different quest links and 4 different mission links. However it should be the first thing the user sees when he gets to the Quests or Missions page, not something the user has to search for. Also that applies to everything: stuff like the Unique Items, the Skills, everything. --MasterPatricko 13:47, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It appears that the use of the format Prophecies / Factions is spreading on the Editcopy. So, as long as we've abandoned the concept of a scalable design, then I think we should at least be consistent.  Should we implement this same P/F structure for all links where it applies? Storyline and Location are the remaining two that I can think of at this time - any others? --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 11:05, 6 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Well it is a reasonable temporary solution IMO. What about stuff like NPCs, and the Bestiary? Basically *everything* PvE will need to be split up. --MasterPatricko 13:25, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Remove the current events link from the navbox?
We don't have a current events article, and are unlikely to ever have one as GW:CP fills that need. Can that link be removed from teh navbox? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:10, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

Gamewikis Announcements
No offense, Gravewit, but are the announcements about other wikis really that important that we have to put them above anything else, even the welcome line? Would you consider to move it to the bottom, or at least below the welcome text? --Tetris L   05:34, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. Foo 05:39, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I also agree. Either eliminate that line, or move it elsewhere (maybe it's own box on the left, above the Google ads would work).  My primary concern about its current placement, in a very prominent location at the very top, is that it could be a potential stumbling block to the on-going efforts to achieve Elite Fansite status for the GuildWiki site. --161.88.255.140 12:43, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * IMO it seems no different than a banner ad and those are usually at the top of the page, but this is really much less intrusive (no changing colors/moving graphics/sound/etc...). It really doesn't seem to me to be something to get in such a tizzy about.  --Rainith 12:51, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * To me, a banner add should be at the very top; we have links above it that make it obvious that the link is within the article section. If we're going to live with its current location, can we at least set it to a less prominent color - or no color at all? --161.88.255.140 13:02, 8 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I maintain we should keep the general announcements box where it is. We are a Gamewikis project, and the more exposure Gamewikis gets, the more funding we get. I rather like having a server that loads in less than twenty seconds per page! &mdash;Tanaric 21:54, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'll suggest a modification on Main Page/editcopy, moving the box slightly down. It'll still be an eye-catcher, but below the welcome message, so it'll hopefully fit into the design more nicely. Off course, as uausl, if anyone, especially Gravewit or any other admin disagrees, revert. This is just meant as a suggestion. --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 07:38, 15 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I am not an admin, but the new layout is much obstructive, I definitly prefer the old one. Having that huge yellow block up there is just ... --Xeeron 07:49, 15 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree currently it's even more in yar face than the old design, but that's more a matter of the yellow background than the size and position of the box. I'd rather change the background to a slightly less obtrusive color. --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 08:05, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The old design was a one line message in regular text with a dash border. Why is it now multiline in bold text and solid border?  Those changes are what, to me, make it so "in your face".  Reverting to one line of non-bold text and a dash border should adequately reduce the emphasis on that message box. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 08:47, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't change anything about font or border. Just the position. I included the gameswiki blog link and I added the "Announcement" line, but I see now that this was a bad idea. I'll revert that. --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 09:02, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I removed the announcement line, leaving color and position. --Xeeron 13:33, 15 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Can an admin get in and remove the bold text in Main Page/site notice? To eliminate the bold, someone here inserted tags to make the text small.  This results is text that's a little funky looking, as well as making the bold in the site notice a pointless exercise.  If we remove the bold from there, we could remove the small tags here. --161.88.255.140 13:42, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Un-bolded and small tags removed. --Rainith 13:51, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Guild Wars Nightfall
While the site is intended to be unbiased, I think that it's important to list what we do know about the upcoming chapters. I put a note saying that Nightfall is not necessarily confirmed, but I do think that it is very important that the info be on the front page. It would be terribly bad form to have a red link on the front page. --Kingrames 12:36, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The name Nightfall has not been confirmed. It MAY be campaign three's name, it may be campaign four's, or it may be some side-line project that is an add-in and not a campaign itself.  While I agree that in all likelyhood it is to be the name for campaign three, it has not been confirmed in any way and we should not support rumors in articles, and certainly not in the main page.  Rumors and speculation belong in the discussion pages.  At most, the only article relating to it that should be linked from the main page is Campaign Three, and even that's open for debate if it belongs on the main page, or deeper in on some secondary page. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 12:51, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Also of note is that companies often register trademarks/URLs for names to either throw off the competition/media or to make sure that another company won't get them. I do feel that Nightfall is probably what it will be called, but I think it is much more important that we keep this site's reputation for posting accurate info as opposed to posting rumors/speculation.  While I cannot speak for any of the other Admins, I will not be putting anything about Nightfall on the main page until/unless there is confirmation by ANet.  --Rainith 21:31, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Rainith. I still support the existence of the article, but it is nothing Front Page worthy unless it's about Anet confirming it, which it hasn't. - 21:33, 20 May 2006 (CDT)

Check out my BIG change
Main Page/editcopy2. I find the current main page a bit overwhelming when I walk in the shoes of someone new to the site. It's just a flood of things. So I considered which links are the absolute essentials to new comers, and nuked the rest (everything is still kept in Main portal. Lemme know what you think of the concept. - 15:28, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Right now, the new user can get to the main page, and look for "Green", "Armor", "quest" or any other basic game feature. this will make it much harder and less friendly imho. also, this will require a different entrance page for us, usual users. one that is actualy the current main page. I think a proper solution is to make a bigger and more noticeable "Starting Out" section in the main page, and maybe even make it a link to a page which explain a little and links the most commenly used pages for beginers. Foo 20:31, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Wait, there are regular contributors that start out at the main page? Everyone doesn't just start with Recentchanges?  :P  --Rainith 21:39, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I completely agree with Foo. I think this would hinder people not familiar with the wiki.  A lot of people (like my guildmates) don't use the wiki at all because they can't easily find what they want.  They say the search is pretty useless.  I'd probably agree, but I know my way around the wiki content well enough that I don't use it and instead go to an article I know and click through one or two pages to get to where I want.  This change just pushes the content an additional link away from inexperienced users.  --68.142.13.97 22:14, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
 * This is missing may links that several people use. I like using the link on the current main page to the skill page for instance. Its easy to find it that way, as well as other resources that the average player will be looking for. --Draygo Korvan 22:39, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith, I think you hit the spot. I come here for two reasons. sometimes I come here as just a reader, when I want to check the items of a collector, or where is a specific elite, and then I go to the main page. on other times I come to check the recent changes and my watch list, to see what's new in the wiki and where I can contribute. I think both you and PanSola see this site from your own point of view, of contributers, and in that spirit, PanSola sees the main page as a portal to the new wiki contributer, instead of the portal to the new wiki reader. and I think we should get us new readers, and just later make them into contributers. Foo 03:59, 28 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually I was thinking for the new Guild Wars player and new guildwiki reader, but maybe my ideas just don't work. - 11:29, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Blog Link
I know there are multiple discussions related to the wiki and "official" status, so maybe this change was related to that. But, if not, does the GameWikis blog link really belong in the "What's New" section? The last new blog entry was in April, and the last comment posted was May 22nd. Not very new to me. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 08:00, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * If Anet does not change skill balances or do any patches for 4 months, does Game updates still belong to the news section? - 11:27, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * LOL - ANet going more than three weeks without an update of some type would be a record, no risk of the updates ever not belonging in what's new! --I am 161.88 11:31, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I think I'm going to put the blog link back. It is still the source of gamewikis news afterall. - 18:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That link is rather off-topic indeed, more deserving of a link in small cases at the page bottom than a bolded topmost entry. I (random anonymous wiki user) keep misclicking on it, and I doubt that I'm alone.

Section icons
I just added basic section icons to the editcopy (did we used to have these a while ago? I can't remember). Since MediaWiki's pseudo/ugly image resize system sucks, the icons look rather pixelated/ugly - but this was just a basic idea. I like the idea, and I think if everyone else does then specially-sized versions of all of these (or other) icons should be made+uploaded for the main page to use, so we don't have to resize them with wiki code. What does everyone think? --Midk 03:46, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I like the idea but it does look terrible &mdash; Skuld  03:50, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * To be honest, I don't think they add anything. Unless they're used to actually represent information (i.e. there's a legend somewhere), icons are just useless clutter. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 04:01, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * The text next to them represents what they're for - so there is no legend. Nah, it doesn't add any more information to the page.. dunno.. just some color. :)


 * I agree with 130.58. Ixnay on the utterclay. –  70.20  (  &#x260e;  ) 2006-06-11 09:48 (UTC)
 * I agree. The icons don't add anything meaningful to the page.  If others decide to keep them, then I suggest new images as the .png format used for the current icons really do not scale very well, and loses a lot of image quality. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:28, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

The principle idea behind the action is good, but the specific icons chosen, in general, don't work out to be meaningful. - 04:26, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree for the most part. I didn't want to bother uploading any new icons for this, just making use of what we have.. dunno, if you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear. :)

Championship Link
Any chance of getting a GWFC link put back into "What's New" in some form? The second bracket is over, but maybe something like: -- 66.92.33.187 09:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Guild Wars Factions Championship – Third Season Ladder, May 30th to June 26th
 * Hmm... - 09:58, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

moved from article page
could we have a chest location page also please ( eg where the highest concentration of 'high level chests' are?) i think this would be very helpful, especially if people are aiming to get the new 'wisdom seeker' title (to open 100 high level chests)

by User:81.79.32.182. (Foo)

Editcopy still in use?
It appears that the last time the edit copy was synced to the Main Page was sometime in late May. Since that time, nearly a dozen edits have been made to the Main Page directly, and not consistently replicated to the editcopy. This habit unfortuneately makes the editcopy less and less useful for drafting revisions, as each edit done to the main page that is not also done here makes it that much harder to sync them at some stage (one or the other is likely to have edits lost). I recommend that edits to the Main Page must first be done via the editcopy (an extra step for admins, I realize, but a step worth taking if the editcopy is to remain viable). The only other option that I see is to abandon the editcopy outright and stop the pretense of staging edits here, an option which I do not see as beneficial to the community. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:46, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, anyone can sync the editcopy. Its purpose is for non-admins to test/propose their edits because the main page is locked.  - 15:59, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And in fact, as of my edit on June 16th, the editcopy and the main page ARE identical with the sole exception of the bullet point level of "Elite skills". Just becuase the edit summary doesn't explicitly say "sync" doesn't mean things are NOT being synchronized (I personally sync by sections) - 16:04, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Anyone can sync the editcopy, which would lose proposed edits. Only admins can sync the main page to the edit copy.
 * As of today, I see edits in all four sections that vary. Some of these edits may not be appropriate for the Main Page, but most seem reasonable (note in advance if this post comes accross as grumpy, recovering from surgery here, came home from work early)
 * "What's New", there's new data added to both the Main Page and the Edit Copy; either being synced over the other could lose data.
 * "Guild, Professions ..." a link to Titles and Collector rewards are in the edit copy. I'm not sure about the value of the rewards link, but I would like to see the titles link moved (okay, I'm biased, I added that one to edit copy in late May).
 * "Game Basics", the scams link was changed; not sure which I prefer more, but as admins have final say to determine the value of the change and to sync one or the other.
 * "Gameplay Types" Commpetitive Missions link was added.
 * Granted, there aren't a huge number of variances; but they will grow over time. In the past, most admins seemed to make edit copy changes then sync the main page from that.  But it hasn't been done that way recently.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In the past, syncs happened barely on a weekly schedule, sometimes they stay out of sync far longer. And when syncing hte editcopy with the main page, new additions can still be taken into account because this is a manual process.  So new stuff added to the main page can be synced back to the edit copy without the proposed additions to the editcopy being lost, unless they were in direct conflict of each other.
 * If you are complaining that admins aren't keeping the main page up to date with respect to new proposals added to the Editcopy, that is one thing. To call the entire mechanism of the edit copy a "pretense of staging edits" is still wrong, but if you feel strongly about it, feel free to come up with a better scheme for non-admins to propose changes to the Main Page in a concrete manner.
 * Regarding "but it hasn't been done that way recently", that was actually only a total of 4 edits performed by Skuld (1), Karlos (1) and me (2) involving addition of two bullet points and change of one link to the Main Page. To generalize that as a trend and call the system a "pretense" is ... well, way over generalization. - 16:35, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You are correct in that calling it a "pretense of staging edits" was an incorrect statement on my part, and I appologise now for that. I hate using it as an excuse; but as I metnioned, I'm recovering from a minor surgery and it has me grumpier than normal.  I should be back to myself next week.  My primary complaint was in proposed changes lagging.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am going to shock some people and cause great distress and anguish by saying this... :) But I don't believe in this editcopy business. People keep fiddling with the Main Page left and right and their suggestions are not put up for review. Half the time, I don't like the edits that have been done to the editcopy, but do not believe I should revert them becuase I think it's "someone's opinion" on what the Main Page "should look like." As such, I don't find them binding to me that I should immediately (or after a bid) sync the Main Page to the editcopy.
 * I think some kind of process should be made with regards to either vetting suggested edits or leaving it up to Admins to incorporate what they like into the Main Page. My understanding has always been the latter, that it's just a space for regular users to suggest changes to the main page (without using the talk page of the main page to describe it) and then, if admins see merit they incorporate it.
 * If the idea is that changes to edit copy are somehow binding to an admin, then I strongly suggest we vet them or filter them or vote on them or something. If the complaint is that the edit copy is not being synchronized with the main page, anyone can do that. --Karlos 17:53, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My understanding is that it is no-binding, but if you never revert it or discuss it on the talk page, then other admins will not know you object to it, or why you object to it. And if the other admins don't see a problem with the proposals, they would eventually incorporate it.  Thus the burden falls upon the people who have issues with the proposals on the editcopy to discuss it.  Thus, whether the editcopy is binding or not is moot if the ppl who don't like the proposals don't shoot it down. - 22:21, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Cache problems
Not sure where else to put this - anyone having problems with pages loading add ?action=purge to the URL, and click the button, this should get the page working again! Have noticed many pages with this problem recently. --62.252.32.16 06:17, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

Technical difficulties warning
Is this still needed or can it be removed? I haven't run into any issues tonight, but I haven't been on much today, and won't be on much tomorrow. But, if we're past the majority of the issues I think the warning should be removed. --Rainith 23:45, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
 * A handful of minor issues remain (for example, no longer works as an inclusion), but I think we're past the major issues that triggerred the message being posted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:52, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Out of synch again
The Main Page editcopy has been out of synch for quite a while. Synching is done only sporadically, and only for some few items. I'd suggest to re-synch the two pages, overwriting the editcopy with the current Main Page, and proceed from that point. In future admins should monitor the editcopy more closely. -- 07:38, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Sync has been done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:10, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Links to Missions / Quests
We should really start rethinking how we link to the quests, missions, and New player guides. I would love to see a redesign prior to the release of Nightfall, rather than waiting until then for a discussion. With out current design, the Quests entry is "Quests – Prophecies / Factions / Core", adding Nightfall, then campaign 4, 5, etc is just not good design to me - the lines with campaign specific links will grow to consume more and more of the main screen. I know that several people dislike routing through a secondary screen to choose the appropriate campaign, but I honestly believe it's the best long-term / scalable solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:33, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * This is something I've been wanting to discuss for a while, too. I'd say either we get rid of the quick links for campaigns on the Main Page completely or we shorten them, for example like this:
 * Locations – A list of all towns and areas. (C)   (P)   (F)   (N)
 * The way of shortening can be discussed, off course. Using the first letter of the campaign name in brackets is just one of many possible methods. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:43, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * A type of shorthand sounds like a good solution. It too would eventually grow to a large list, but not for quite some time, so it would be manageable.  While the first letter works for now, it may not work going forward in C4 happens to start with a P, F, N, or C.  But as you said, that's just one of the possible shorthand methods that could be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:51, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I am in favor of a shorthand as well, and if one of the upcoming campaigns happens to start with a bad initial, we'll just make icons. (or maybe we can make some icons now, with the inital and theme coloring of that campaign: [[Image:core icon small.jpg| Core]][[Image:prophecies icon small.jpg| Prophecies]][[Image:factions icon small.jpg| Factions]][[Image:nightfall icon small.jpg| Nightfall]])
 * a quick afterthought: with simple icons like this, we can easily make a noteable difference between chapters, even if the initial is the same. We could even incorporate the chapter number in the icon, very small but noticable. ([[Image:core icon small2.jpg| Core]][[Image:prophecies icon small2.jpg| Prophecies]][[Image:factions icon small2.jpg| Factions]][[Image:nightfall icon small2.jpg| Nightfall]]). A second afterthought: now that I've created the icons, there's no way to use them is there? As far as I know, you can't use an image to link somewhere in Wikicode.. -- Ifer
 * After thinking about it more, I've realized that the use of icons would be a totally different style than the rest of the main page, they would look completely out of place, so I'm against using them.
 * The specific campaign articles can be reached either via the Quick access links on the left toolbar, or by selecting the over-all mission/quest/locations articles. That seem sufficient to me, and far more scalable than anything tried to the main page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:05, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Gamewikis Announcements Revisited
This one gets me all the time... "new and improved." Which is it? Either there was something before it to improve on (making it not new), or it really is new, and therefore, not an improvement. Throw that together with the super-cliche-ness, and it becomes the banner from hell. Especially because it concerns something as important as gamewikis, maybe we should word it a little less... obnoxious? (P.S. I don't want to re-write to add a more colorful adjective in there, because I am too tired to think ATM) -Auron  17:45, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Layout questions
A few questions on the formatting of the Main Page ... Any opinions on any of this? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Within each section, three had all top level links bolded, one had only one bolded, and one section had none bolded. I've changed it now in edit copy so all top level links are bolded - keep that format, or remove bolding from most?
 * Do we want to keep the GameWiki blog in the "what's new" section, or move it to the left navigation box?
 * The same question for the GameWiki forums, leave it in the site announcement, or move to the navigation box?
 * Do we need the "Random page" link in the navigation box? Does anyone actually use it?
 * Do we want both "Help" and "Contact an admin" in the navigation box, or just the Help link, with a link from there to contact an admin?
 * Does anyone really care about any of this, or should I just make changes and move on?


 * My 0,02 €:
 * The formatting should be uniform across all sections.
 * I'd rather move the GameWikis blog to the sidebar. If there is anything really new and important in the blog it can be put in the announcement section. But I'm afraight that is up to Gravewit to decide.
 * The same goes for the GameWikis forums.
 * "Random Page" is utterly useless. Dump it.
 * I think both "Help" and "Contact an admin" should stay, but "Contact an admin" shouldn't redirect to Tanaric's talk page, but rather to the admin list.
 * Yes, I do care, very much. :)
 * And while we're at it:
 * It would be nice if by clicking the "Specialty Fansite" image in the sidebar users would be redirected to Fansite.
 * The About GuildWiki article linked to in the footer is in pretty poor state. It should be updated. The same goes for the Disclaimer.
 * I think it is an imperative that we add a prominent link to an article with the appropriate ArenaNet and NCsoft copyright notes and logos to the footer, in order to meet the Fansite requirements!
 * Long or mid term we should consider a real "News" section, in order to meet the requirements for an Elite Fansite. See Gaile Gray's complaint.
 * That's it from my side, for now. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:21, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Feel free to propose changes to About GuildWiki on its discussion page. I've added it to my watch list, so would see any revisions that are suggested for it.
 * I agree with your comments about the ArenaNet and NCsoft copyright notes. I thought they were in the bottom box at one time, and posted at Gravewit's talk page asking about it, but didn't get a reply.  Pending their re-insertion by him there, I think we should look into adding them elsewhere on the site.
 * I think that linking from the Specialty site tag may be a Gravewit thing to address, but I'll look into it to see if I can find a way to do it.
 * As for the news section; I think we need to hear from Gaile before making any changes. It was never clear to me if she just overlooked our news section, or if they trully do want expanded content.  My personal belief is that the concept of needing expanded coverage is an idea we created, and may not reflect the actual requirements for elite status.  If you look at the details of the Guild Wars Fansite Program, it merely says "Update when the official site is updated; carry Guild Wars news as it is posted or, when possible, as it takes place".   --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:20, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I had moved the GameWikis links to the sidebar, but the change was quickly reverted - see discussion here: MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar. On the Main Page editcopy, I've now proposed moving them to the bottom how to help block.  If no objections come from that, I'll move the change to the Main Page on Friday. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Update: I need to learn to be more bold and just make changes. Tanaric beat me to moddifying the Main Page to move the links for GameWikis.  I did some format revision.  If all agree, I'll over-write my edits to editcopy with a re-sync from the Main Page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:23, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Rawr. :) &mdash;Tanaric 14:01, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Believe it or not, I actually use the Random Page button. Sometimes when I'm bored, I just randomly browse and find things that I might like to update. It's not hurting anything, so I say we keep it. Lord Ehzed 09:24, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

As far as the "contact an admin" link goes, I agree that it shouldn't link to my talk page. That said, I don't think it should link to Administrators either. The purpose was to add a one-click solution for contacting an admin, which the talk page does well&mdash;the administrators list cannot do this, and I think it would be used less if we direct it there (I'm currently getting around 3 emails a day). I'm not sure what an ideal solution would be&mdash;perhaps an admin@gamewikis.org email redirect to me (or whoever else wants the job)? The problem with the standard MediaWiki email form is it requires you to be a logged-in user with a validated email address to use, so maybe Gravewit could put up a simple email form to take care of this, if no better solution is surmised.

Random page should stay, as I use it to make sure everything's meeting my standards. I wouldn't find things to get upset about without it. :)

Finally, regardless of what Gaile wants, I think we should have a news section just because it's a good thing to do. We keep claiming that we're a fansite, not an encyclopedia&mdash;well, every decent fansite has a news section. I think a slight restructuring to have more section portals will allow us to put more stuff on the front page, like news. That's a big step, though, and I agree that it's at least a medium term thing.

&mdash;Tanaric 14:01, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * On news, we already have a section for it that's updated regularly. That's why I think we need clarification from Gaile Gray if the goal is to eventually try for elite status.  The fansite criteria states "Update when the official site is updated; carry Guild Wars news as it is posted or, when possible, as it takes place" - which we already do now, with a link from the main page's what's new section.  Is Gaile saying that we need expanded content, or more visibility to the news material, or was it just overlooked in the review of the site when they said we lacked a news section? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Skills a sub-item of Builds?
Since this point has been ignored repeatedly when synching the Main Page I'll post it separately here: Why on earth are "Skills" and "Elite Skills" sub-items of "Builds"? Can anybody explain? -- 02:27, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I'd stick "Builds" and "Skills" under "Professions" and "Elite Skills" under "Skills". -- Gordon Ecker 22:22, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I could argue skills/elite skills under either builds or professions - they both are equally appropriate to me. But, I would keep both at the same level - I see no point in making elite skills a sub level of skills (Note: Currently, they are under Builds in the editcopy). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Today's "Kurzick Invasion"
Should be make a FAQ and/or news item under "What's New?" for today's Kurzick Invasion? There are a lot of misinformed people and a lot of questions being raised, such as the ability for the Kurzicks to take over Cavalon.
 * I'd suggest to add any new info to Kurzick-Luxon border. I don't think it is necessary to add it to "What's New?" though. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:45, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Re-add "Quick Access"
In the early days, before the major remake of the Main Page, we had boxes labeled "Quick Access". We removed them and sorted the items in a different way. But then the "quick access links" sneaked back in in the form of links for "Prophecies", "Factions", etc. Which is fine, because those are popular demand. We have a pretty clear picture what the most popular pages on GuildWiki are, and it would be helpful if our users could reach these pages by a single click from the Main Page instead of clicking through multiple layers of sub-pages.

Please have a look at what I've done here:

It was meant as a draft, but it already got some positive feedback. May I suggest to add something along that line to the Main Page, and in turn remove the quick access links in the other boxes? -- 02:55, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm in favour of quick access. -- Gordon Ecker 22:22, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I like the quick access idea. However, one of my bigger ongoing complaint about the existing method as well as the quick access is the limits of scalability.  The above proposal provides little room for campaigns 4, 5, etc.  I'm yet to see a proposal come along that will scale well with future additional campaigns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Scalebility shouldn't be a major issue. I already switched the professions table from landscape to portrait format, so additional professions for future campaigns will just be additional lines, not columns, which is much easier. Switching the campaigns table to portrait is a bit more tricky, but should be possible too. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:30, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The campaign quicklinks will possibly end up taking the full page width if converted so that campaigns are listed on rows instead of columns, but that would resolve my scalability issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:53, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * BTW: It still needs more work, but is this getting close to what you had in mind? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:22, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd put the quick access further down, just above the "We are currently maintaining ...." box. Also, I prefer the other boxes the way they are currently positioned on Main Page. Putting "Game Basics" in the same box as "What's new?" makes little sense to me. And I'd keep PvE/PvP in the same box. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:30, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Is this getting closer to what you had in mind? In my original draft, I had purged several topics from the original sections that were duplicated in your quick links - in this revision I kept several of the links to confirm first what you had in mind. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:51, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Seems like you got me a bit wrong. :) My complaint was only about the re-arrangement of the boxes, not about the purging of dublicate links. I agree 100% that we should prune the other boxes from redundant links once we add the quick access boxes. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:12, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I made another attempt at it. As this is really your proposal, feel free to make changes yourself, or create a version in your namespace.  I wanted to do a full-page mock-up rather than just the sections above so that everyone can get a feel for how it would look.
 * Personally, I like the quick links. I think the remaining boxes could still use some cleanup, but overall I like the ease of navigation that this provides. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:04, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

I like the boxes, but I would dislike them on the main page a lot. The main page is slowly getting bigger and bigger, which imho is a bad thing. These boxes would contribute hugely to that. They would be better accessed by linking them (from the navigation panel seems to be the best way to do). That way we need not worry about size, since they will have an extra page all for themself. --Xeeron 00:51, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That's part of why I wanted to create a mock-up of what the main page would look like with the quick access boxes added. With the number of other links that can be eliminated by using the quick links, it's really not that much longer.  But, it does greatly change the look and feel of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:02, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The scalability would be much better on an own page, both with regards to future chapters, as well as content of the page. We might want additional collumns or even an additional box. All that would be much easier to accomplish on a separate page. I think the example of the Builds portal shows that people like additional pages that give quick access to all pages of one theme. --Xeeron 02:51, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * If we were to add the quick access as their own page(s), then I also have these modified versions of the quick access links that shift the campaign quick reference on its side (for better scalability in adding future campaigns), and added some additional columns to the profession quick access. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:51, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Quick access links (campaigns):

Quick access links (professions):


 * I forgot to insert it, here's a link to the drafts of the quick access variants above that were developed by modifying Tetris L's originals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:38, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I created quick access articles on their own pages, and inserted the templates shown above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:37, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * NOTE: This discussion is continued at Talk:Quick access links

Line 327 of index.php
Currently is: Should be: Spat an error in the validator.~Shadou 11:31, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I've informed Gravewit &mdash; Skuld 11:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Semi-quick-access-links
I purged all of these from the main page. While it is always a delicate choice between having to much and to little information on the main page, the recent introduction of the quick access links in the navigation bar should make the ones on the main page less needed. That apart, with the nightfall release at hands, the current layout is definitly not scalable anymore. --Xeeron 08:39, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Registration Link
I've noticed that the Register link in the pink table links to the Login page, and not the Registration page. This is just a minor nitpick, but it should be noted that "register" and "login" are different terms in this case. Ordin 15:39, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * At a quick glance (since I'm at work), it doesn't look like you can use wiki-links to link directly to the register page, only to the login page. --Rainith 16:06, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That is indeed the case.. Wikicode has its weaknesses.. -- Ifer 17:56, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

nav bar message is unclear
At the top of the main page, there is a message to inform older users about the new nav bar. It suggests changing the skin 'via the preferences page to "GameWikis."' I typed in "preferences" and pressed the Search button, but I only got 3 hits, including the main page msg itself. Could someone explain precisely how to get this new nav bar installed? I think the message should include a link if possible, or if you have to sign in first, it should list all the steps--or better yet, link to a page that has full instructions. Queen of Spades 06:32, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * In the upper right of your screen (assuming you're using the old default skin) are links for your user page, your talk page, preferences, your watchlist, your contributions, and log out. Select Preferences from there.
 * In the preferences window, select the "Skin" tab.
 * Select the radio button for "GameWikis".
 * Click "Save".
 * You can then use the navigation bar on the left to return to the Main Page or Recent changes etc. The new skin should be displaying the new gamewikis links at the top. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:02, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Star on Main Page
As the lone graphic image, the star icon on the Main Page really looks out of place to me. I was about to remove it myself, but decided to check with others first to see if it was just me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:04, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not just you, I stumbled over that one as well. --Xeeron 12:28, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Holy crap, it's my star! :D I shouldn't be so surprised really, I just didn't think anyone else was using it. It does look out of place, but look at it there, in all it's glory. Ahhhh....  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:53, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

Giving "Builds" an own heading
At this time, the "Builds" hub page has been accessed over 1 million times! That makes it third most accessed page in its category, right after Armor types and Elite skills list. I think it's time to take out the Builds link of the "Professions" heading and give it an own heading. This is my suggestion:


 * Builds – Character and team configurations.
 * Tested builds – The communitites' builds of choice.

Should I put it on the editcopy? ~ Nilles (chat) 11:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Indifferent. In my mind, the builds page already serves as a good "portal" for builds, so there is less need for linkage on the main page, as long as that page is linked. --Xeeron 12:15, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the main page should only have a link to the Builds, as that page is really the main builds portal. But, I do agree that Builds should be a main level link (not a sub of Professions, etc).  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:18, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Votes in Progress Page
Citing numerous complaints, such as Greven's and mine in the untested nightfall deletion votes, where he was not aware it ended, a link to all things being voted on directly on the main page would make decisions by the guildwiki community easier to decipher and find, as well as giving people other than Rapta, Skuld, and Honorable Sarah the chance to contribute with decisions regarding the wiki. --Mgrinshpon 12:20, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I am against making voting so central in the wiki that a link starts from the Main Page. Links to Category:Votes already exists in Community Portal.  We could probably improve visibility on that page, but such a link does not belong on the Main Page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:24, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Barek on this one. Discussion on the topic should be first and foremost the deciding factor. Only if that reaches a stalemate is when we need to resort to a vote. However, if a vote does take place, I will add on what Barek said regarding improved visibility. Off the top of my head, a toolbar at the top of the Community Portal page would provide adequate visibility and provide user friendly links to other places should users what them, for example a link to the Style and Formatting section or something else a user might would like to find rather easily. -Gares 12:44, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Main page drafts
Out of boredom more than anything else, I've been playing with this some more lately. To be honest, the idea of adding quick access links has started to grow on me some, so I tried some modifications to make the mixed styles a little less jarring, as well as adding section headers similar to my user page (which were directly inspired by Wikipedia's main page). I'm not saying that either of these should be used; just tossing out a mix of different ideas for consideration - maybe some will stick, maybe they wont. But it can be used to start a discussion to see if anyone likes either the section header style changes, or the quick access links on the MP (which in an earlier version were not supported, so I'm not expecting a huge change on that - just tossing it out there). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Barek/Main Page (rejected by most)
 * User:Barek/Main Page2 (rejected by most)
 * User:Barek/Main Page3 (added to show section header boxes without the QA)
 * I admit, they both do look nice. However, I'm not sure how the quick links should be handled and how we avoid that users miss them because they were too blind to scroll down. Good job though. We should pursue the idea. :) ~ Nilles (chat) 18:37, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I never actually use the main page... but I don't think it's possible to make those tables look good without a major overhaul. If something's got to be on the main page, I'd prefer a single, if prominent, link to the existing QA page.  Besides the QA stuff, I like the "boxed" headings but I really dislike the colors compared to the current main page.  --Fyren 18:48, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree on the colors, especially the green is too bright - but those can be tweaked. To be honest, my main motivation on these drafts was to discuss the change in section headers - the QA stuff was more of a tag-along.  I originally preferred them on their own page, and while the idea of them or something similar on the main page is seeming more reasonable to me now, it's not the main reason for the drafts.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:56, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * We have been trying to fit those in on the main page when we designed them, but gave up. I love the quick links, but a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen. I do however love the boxes around the titles of each section! -- Ifer (t/c) 19:01, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like your second example, I seriously think it is much more functional than the current main page. This would bring the information I use more often one click away from the main page (one click closer to me). Me likes! --Theeth (talk)   19:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

I added draft 3 (above) - it also uses the section header boxes, but drops the quick access links, which should be treated as their own issue anyway. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like it :) I think we can make this third edit the new main page. It's all new and stylish :) -- Ifer (t/c) 02:49, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I do prefer this design to the current design. I like draft 2, but I feel as though the QA links take up too much space. Is there any way we could cut this down to only the most popular information on the main page, and include a "more" link to take people to the QA article? Or perhaps even some JavaScript to hide certain columns unless you press a button (like Fyren's build javascript idea)?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:58, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

"a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen" 100% agreement here, the quick links mess up the main page, making it long and confusing. I could live with the section headers if the colors are doned down, but a definite no to proposals 1&2. --Xeeron 05:07, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * One computer screen is an unspecific measurement. Do you mean 1 screen at 800x600? Or higher?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:25, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I know we're not Wikipedia, but their main page is 4 pages long if one page is 1024x768. Our main page is currently 2.5 pages long at 1024x768.


 * I'm not opposed to the main page being longer than 1 page, provided the most important and most likely needed sections are linked to at the top of the page.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:28, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * One screen at the current standard. Someone posted that some months ago, but I remember 800x600 only being in use by very few percent of users, so the standard would be 1024 or 1280. And I dislike the long main page of english wikipedia. The wikipedia.org portal is much better. Or take a look at the page of the most successful internet company ever: http://www.google.com/
 * There is a reason it is so popular: Simple, non-confusing, small. --Xeeron 06:43, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree in principle, but I think our goal and Google's search engine's goal are different. When you go to google.com you are going for only one thing, to search. Google has a few links to subdomains etc. for it's other services. In our case we offer all our services on the main page, and we don't know what the user is going to want. I can appreciate the argument for a simpler main page, but I'm not sure I agree with it in practice. Equally though, I think the success of google has more to do with investing in search engine technology when its competitors were investing in portals than it does its user interface, although I don't doubt that it was a contributing factor :)


 * If we could get some usage statistics regarding the way in which people use the main page that might affect my opinion one way or the other.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:51, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, it could've easilly been me that said Main Pages should ideally be one page or less. I know that I said something along those lines near the start of the year, although it may have been someone else who said it more recently that you're thinking of here.  However, the Main Page again grew beyond one page even on a 1024x768 many months ago.  It's even slightly longer than one page on a 1280x1024, so I've given up on encouraging the smaller Main Page like I once did.  Also, just an FYI on the background: When the QAs on the main page were originally discussed, I had done a half-arsed job of doing a mock-up of them because I really wasn't in favor of them at the time.  Now that a more evolved version is also being rejected by most, I feel better that the idea died on its merits rather than due to a lack of effort on my part.
 * For those who do like them on the Main Page; the only two options I see would be to either create a Java option to expand them (still a click, but faster than a regular link); or convince the community to make the Main Page modular so that the content could be shared between more than one page - I believe a css setting could then be created to redirect those who want it to the alternate version. The downside of course is that modular content would require more effort to maintain with limited benefit to most users, so I wouldn't expect a lot of acceptance for that option unless other benefits could be seen.
 * That just leaves the section headers. Personally, I like them - although the colors used could benefit from some experimentation.  I like the darker borders, but the headers seem to much to me.  I'll experiment with some other color combinations later today, to see if any work better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:01, 4 October 2006 (CDT)