Battlestar Wiki talk:Main page/Archive1

Nav Problem

Your potential design for the front page suffers from the same problem as the existing one. That is lack of propper navigation.

In my opinion there should be a single entry point for each of the 3 series and then through a series of sub-pages (no more than 2) lists of various headings, ie episodes, characters, cast, etc.

Using categories to navigate is not, in my opinion, a good method to find articles. In fact I came accross a page recently (Re-imagined Series References) that that was not linked to any other page, other than a page for Original Series references similarly linked. --Grafix 05:25, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I know. I just started so there is going to be stuff that I haven't done yet. Right now I am just trying to get a base to that I can start from some where. I was reading the discussion on the current main page so I am trying to take everything into account. We should reall have portals and not catagories for all the different things in the upper bar. --Shane 05:42, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I think what we need is a main page that just fits a screen with links to a short summary for each series. This summary then links to separate pages as listed in my previous post and then on to the main articles. None of the summary or link pages should be more than a screenfull for clarity. --Grafix 05:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Yep. I got that in my head. I am just trying to code it now. It's almost like following the format of Wikipedia (English), but with the Battlestar Idea. I got some cool names for the main sections. --Shane 06:06, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Ok. To put everything into a "Portal" like Wikipedia, we have to do some serious re-design and I need to talk to Joe first before anything. Hopefully he will contact me soon. (*Hint Hint*) --Shane 06:36, 14 March 2006 (CST)

If you want to get his attention, you might have better luck if you drop him a note on his talk page. That usually triggers an email (if you've got it set up that way) letting the user know they have a message. Not everybody reads the Recent Changes compulsively. (Like I do.) Glad to see you run with this, though! --Steelviper 06:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I sent him something over Google talk. I saw your community portal. I can work those colors into the design. And I been just going through, during this time off from shows showing, we can really revamp the site and make it very clean and mean! --Shane 07:05, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I'm just amazed at how fast this Portal project is going. Soon we will have a navigable wiki to be proud of. --Grafix 17:03, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Before this goes live are we going to have a period of time to test all the portals? --Grafix 03:08, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Oh yeah. No worries. It'll take some time to get this all going. Even if we got all the portals up, there's a lot that needs to be established in terms of policy/procedure anyway. (Process for selecting featured articles, etc.) The portals are a lot of the foundation that this new main page seems to be based on, so we'll want to have them solid before we prop anything on top of them. --Steelviper 07:17, 16 March 2006 (CST)

This main page will most likly stay under my name until we get everything done. I mean, we have till October to work on it :) --Shane 10:34, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I think the white-on-bright-red color scheme looks odd/is weird to read. Thoughts?--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:03, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree, it doesn't fit the existing colour scheme. I fact I don't like the white on black at all. --Grafix 16:55, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

What I don't like is the bright red bars; I like the dull red. Easier to read.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:23, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

One this I never been good at are colors, so if you want to post some colors to use. I created a template so when can post colors. Color Wheel so you can post ideas. Of course you post the colors on this page and not that page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:37, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

The content on the page looks pretty good so far. Ive got a few idea but im a bit busy today to write them out. My first concern though is all the colour. I quite like the homepage now with its mostly black background, easier to read and looks a bit cleaner. --Mercifull 03:05, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Discussion

I'm not sure which I like better, but I think both are better than the "White on bright red". Maybe not even specify a background, allowing the css style to determine the main background color and text color? --Steelviper 14:16, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

All the colros we spefic if would go in the CSS so it can be used across all the templates. right now everything is hardcoded in. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Style Consensus

Why not use pattern #1 for now, since that's the most readable. Unless anyone objects to it, I don't see the need for a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 18:20, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

All coded in. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:22, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Pattern #1

Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:10, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
April Arcus 18:56, 21 April 2006 (CDT) Comment: I prefer the white header text of pattern 2. Also, you should post something about this on the Quorum, lest concerned users miss it.
Can this get posted where the Portal notice is right now? A link to the User:Shane/Main Page and a link to an example portal? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:53, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
Done. --April Arcus 15:47, 22 April 2006 (CDT)
Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 15:58, 22 April 2006 (CDT) - Go with the white header instead of the yellow one -- besides, it is too confusing with the fact that links are yellow-colored as well.
That can be done. Good point. :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:26, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Pattern #2

--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:21, 22 April 2006 (CDT) The white header is easier on the eyes; I think you meant to post under "pattern 2" Peter.
No, in general I prefer the other aspects of Pattern 1, such as the dark background. --April Arcus 15:46, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Other

Then probably, Peter and Joe should have voted here. I like Pattern #1 with white text. The link confusion is, in a massively cross-linked environment, a dire problem to be avoided at all costs. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 22:44, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Wiki

I thought we were not going to use the word Wikipedia. Shouldn't the heading be "Welcome to the Battlestar Wiki"?

Sorry forgot to sign before. Other than that the portal is looking good. --Grafix 13:37, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Oops. :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 13:47, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Doesn't the 'Did you know / So Say We All' section look a bit weird ? In the context of other wikis it sounds really awkward imho. 'So say we all' is a statement, not a question; it flows strangely as written, to me. --northtwilight 17:45, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Hey, looks much better, thanks. --northtwilight 01:31, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Link locations and Miscellany

I recommend that the series links below the central header be centered on the page. Also, it's not clear that the links to the right of the "Welcome" are for RDM. We know that the site is RDM heavy, but I remember that we try not to make so much emphasis on this unless spelled-out. Can we place a subheader over/near these links so that people know these links are generally about the RDM show? Else, also add a link to the RDM series with the other series links.

Finally, there remain some significant typos and other awkward phrasing. I, too, am not too cool on the "So say we all" usage. It should probably just be "Did you know...?". --Spencerian 11:42, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

I can check on the headers. Just so Wiki code to code in. The links underneath the header could be the problem. Maybe instead of putting the RDM stuff all in a row, maybe just all of the series links. So say you all, it as something Steel started. I liked it.. Maybe another phrase instead of the generic. :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:54, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

More Comment

More comments are needed to get your input in. The main page could go active at acnytime now, with most of the "backend" done get your input in while it can still matter. We can only assume that there is no problems. that's about it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 05:55, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

I have some pretty big issues with this whole system, but as I've been very busy dealing with other things recently. I'll compose a full reply on this topic in due course. --April Arcus 05:56, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Not all the sections are the same width. Now this could be just an IE only issue but i dont have Firefox here at work to check. (ligntened up the red to show what i mean.

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4444/spaceissues2yl.png

I also dont really like the "Have you heard..." section. I dont think theres enough data to make some kind of rotational fact thingy and to mee it seems a little cluttered and pointless. I'd rather see that remove and links to other sites added than the other way around.--Mercifull 03:44, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

A total IE error. They don't follow the www standards that Firefox does. In my IE though, the PNG images, minus the logos are not transparent... just an error or can we do something about that. We will pull the Wireless section. See how it fairs up to everyone else. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:15, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

IE6 and below hate PNG files and fubar with loading of them. Sometimes its a black background, others grey and sometimes blue. Apatently this is fixed in IE7 but if its not working in IE then tuff. People should be using a decent browser anyway -- Mercifull 09:11, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

Page as of this date looks better. Good use of "white space" around items. Less crowded. Love the logo badges, gives the site flair. However:

The links left of the title appear too small. There still is a typo there, I think: "Original."
Instead of "An encyclopedia that covers Battlestar Galactica", suggest:

An encyclopedia of the Battlestar Galactica sagas.

(My favorite, rings better as a wiki) The Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Also, add a link on the "Have you heard on the wireless..." just so newbies can understand the reference. Or, just shorten to "Have you heard...?" I recommend a question mark at the end in either case. --Spencerian 07:29, 28 April 2006 (CDT) --Spencerian 07:29, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

Not that we don't love ya ( :-) ) but we are pulling the section. Nice Jingle. #1 is the choice. Spelling is fixed. Mercifull did the logos. Kudos to him :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:15, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

Nice. Looks good to me, virtually ready for going live. Kudos to you, Shane, Mercifull, SV, and others. Wikicoding is still beyond my abilities, so I'm happily amazed when this stuff works. --Spencerian 09:52, 28 April 2006 (CDT)

I also am at a loss when it comes to HTML code, but I hope my comments are insightful (i.e. I'm not going "YOU IDIOT CHANGE THE FONT!", but rather "Hey, I think italics are hard for people to read; maybe we should make the font clearer in that section on the side over there" etc. etc. :) ) --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:18, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Your feedback is appreciated, and in fact spurred quite a flurry of activity. Have you seen the trimmed down banner? (We at least got it so that the banner is bounded at the bottom by the left side instead of the portal links on the right). --Steelviper 14:21, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

New Section?

Maybe we should have a Q&A section on the front page, to make it easier for people to get questions answered. Links to the Quorum, the Admin noticeboard, and a prominent link to the "Reference Desk" might be the content. We could also potentially link in the "Official Communiques" article, though it is tempting to keep that lower profile. (It's mine. My own... my precious.) --Steelviper 07:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Most of these links can be found on the BW:CP already. No need to double. I added a sample BW:OC project section on main page. More on the BW:OC talk page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:10, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Airdates

Has finnaly expanded, but the list has gotten really long. I suggest, at least for the "English" lang. (soon to be en.battlestarwiki.org) that we put other lang where it not primarly English on a sub project page. In this case, Phillipines and Norway would move. AU stays because it's primarily speaks English broadcasts. Other ideas? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:19, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

As long as the link to the non-english airdates page is prominently linked at the bottom of the english airdates page, navigation shouldn't be that inconvenient. It is starting to get pretty large at present. --Steelviper 10:24, 18 August 2006 (CDT)