Wikipedia talk:Main Page (2016 redesign)

When is this going to be released?

It is called the 2015 redesign. It is now 2016. When will it be released? Cole128 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is simply not enough motivation/participation. Someone should just compile the suggestions mentioned above, and get the versions out for a public vote, on a fixed deadline. I'd like to do this, but RL is seriously tough these days... I was really hoping that this would be released on our 15th birthday... Rehman 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ive opened a 2016 version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_Page_(2016_redesign) Paladox (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to move or copy the current page. The redisign in its current form originated in 2015. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And for those of us living in the year 2016 who don't like the 2015 design? These pastel gradients are abominations that I feel would detract from value of the entire site. --MCEllis (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Purpose?

Out of curiosity, what issues with the existing page do you aim to solve with this one? Not sure if I'm digging this style yet but I'm curious what the agenda is. Atreem (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not a fan of the style in the latest redesign proposal at all. The pastel gradients all over the page just make me feel nauseous. I much prefer the clean look of Chinese Wikipedia or French Wikipedia. --MCEllis (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Panels, colors and our clickbait

• I see today that the panel background colors have disappeared from the proposal. I repeat that this is pandering to the 30% mobile users at the cost of 70% of the other users. How immature a design. I am still wondering why there is no w3c/css form that serves all, uncompromised.
• I note again that this proposal does not aim for icons in top to click. Exactly that is the modern UI approach (serving both mobile and desktop users right away). -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Response

Hi DePiep. I thought exactly the same as you when I first saw the 2015 redesign. Then I noticed the article message box at the top of the page:

You have to click on the hyperlinked text saying “this link” to view it in all its glory.

Regards, Ntmamgtw (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Some feedback on the design

Just stumbled upon this for the first time. First impression I got was that it looked 'old' for some reason. But then I scrolled down, took it in a bit more, and kind've liked it. Though again, nothing 'new' or exceptionally special really stood out. But that's okay with me, the status quo is time-tested well-worn, and maybe a little 'rearranging of the furniture' wouldn't hurt. The one suggestion I'd make is to change the font/styling of the big WikipediA at the top. Can't quite place it, just doesn't 'feel' right. Overall though I like it. -- œ^™ 09:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Wikipedia workmark is the official wordmark though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Take note that while it looks visually similar to the current design, the underlying code has changed considerably. Eman235/talk 00:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

HERE I HAVE WATHED THE PAGES AND I HAVE I AM FEELING SOMETHING IS MISSING .THERE IS NO ANY GOOD AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ARTICLE.DESIGN IS GOOD BUT CREATION IDEA IS WRONG.DID YOU KNOW QUESTION ARE NOT GOOD IN FACT DESPITE OF SOME .SO ALONG WITH DESIGN THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING COVERED WITH SOME OF THE KNOWLEDGAABLE AND FASCINATIING CREATION Rahul Prasad wagle (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

AND THERE IS NOT ANY FEAT HERED PICTURE.TRY SOMETHING OTHER.THERE ARE MANY OTHER PICTURE OF NATURE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY BIRDS ANIMAL HISTORICAL PLACE AND SO ON WHIC ARE GOOD .TRY SOMETHING BETTER WITH REGARDING THIS PICTURE Rahul Prasad wagle (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gradient Pastel Title Background

A few people have complained about the gradient background on the titles. Personally, I like them, but think there is not enough colour selection. Cole128 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What colors would you suggest? Eman235/talk 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Layout

I'm not going to quibble about the coding and color issues. I question why the layout is now a series of horizontal sections, instead of the left-half, right half layout currently used. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a design decision. However, a two-column design as we have now, is very hard to incorporate into a responsive design. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok; I'm not sure what that means. I think there's utility in making the other sections visible at first glance rather than requiring the reader to scroll down to see DYK and ITN, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A design decision made by whom? The Transhumanist 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a perpetual discussion which I try to avoid; scrolling is unavoidable for any section which falls below the fold, no matter what comes first. I think we need to let go of the idea that scrolling 'should be unnecessary'. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I also like the 2 column format, and I don't think we should avoid this discussion. I request that it (2 column format) be put into this redesign. With the current Main Page, I usually see 4 sections (featured, in the news, did you know, and on this day). I like it that way. And so do a lot of others. I think if a redesign is to have any chance of approval by the community, it will need to retain the 2-column format. The Transhumanist 03:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The page switches to two columns when the window is wide enough to accommodate them. Enlarge (or shrink) your browser window to see this happen responsively. Bazza (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Why, though, does the TFA part take up a row by itself by default? Eman235/talk 00:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)