Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Contents/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Moved from Portal talk:Contents § RfC on a new layout.

Just a note that the buttons at the top currently fail MOS:CONTRAST. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Wait, could you clarify how they fail? JLJ001 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
#000000 (black) text on a #2962CB (blue) background has a contrast ratio of 2.81 (fails WCAG AA) and #ffffff (white) text on a #3366cc (blue) background has a contrast ratio of 5.27 (fails WCAG AAA). TheDragonFire (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't considered that. I might try black on white & blue on white instead and see how that looks. JLJ001 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
However it occurs to me we are looking at #ffffff text on #3366cc background being the mw-ui-progressive class of Template:Clickable button 2, a template which is used on over 400,000 pages. Could this potentially be a problem? JLJ001 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly replaced the buttons with hlist links. I have done this for two reasons:

  1. As above, they use #000000 (black) text on a #2962CB (blue) background when the relevant button links to the current page, which is an extremely bad failure of MOS:CONTRAST, and is quite jarring to me even as a ably sighted editor.
  2. Buttons in HTML are not intended for "static" navigation actions. Thankfully, {{Clickable button 2}} does not implement the buttons with an actual underlying <button>, or this would be an accessibility nightmare, but it's still inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole, and the web platform in general.

TheDragonFire (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

hlist

Would it be a good idea to use hlist and so insert <div class="hlist"> in the Overviews, Lists, Portals, Glossaries and Categories pages?

  • Advantage: The editing interface will become easier to use.
  • Disadvantage: Indenting with : and :: will not work. <div style="margin-left:2em;"> could be used instead.

Instead of writing [[Link]] {{bullet}} [[Link]] ([[Link]]), the similar source will become
* [[Link]]
* [[Link]]
** [[Link]]

Iceblock (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Contents Overview empty category

Currently, in the page Portal:Contents/Overviews, the "Human activities" section is completely empty, and the link it includes "see all page types" links to an page that was created as a test page. I propose removing the section completely from the overview. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, The Transhumanist; It is an omission from the original design. There are a significant number of topics which do not fit into any of the current categories, that would fit into human activities. Populating the sections is not the problem, the problem is I do not know how to add the sections. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't think of a single human activity that won't fit into one of the other classifications, but that is beside the point, as multiple organization schemes can be useful for looking things up. The main problem is that this section is nearly empty, so let's fill it up. :) Human activities make up a huge range of topics, a great many of which are scattered throughout the existing navigation systems (portals, outlines, categories, etc.), and those topics would need to be added to this section on each of their respective nav pages. At least redirects to the tops of each branch of such. For example, all sports are human activities, and there are a lot of sports. To prevent having to list them all again, a section link to (an anchor placed at) sports in the Culture section could be included. Similarly, all the performing arts are human activities. A section link (to an anchor) could be used for that as well. Business, and Communications, both listed under Society, are chock full of human activities. Meanwhile, most applied sciences, such as the fields of engineering, are human activities. And so on.
Overlapping classifications aren't forbidden, because the current classifications overlap a lot. Medicine, for example, is an Applied science, but it is also a branch under Health. Cuisines are Food, but also fall under Culture.
Concerning the new section types being empty, note that the Religion section of the Portal:Contents/Outlines nav page was almost completely empty for years until it started filling up. There's a pretty funny story about how that came about, by the way. :) It all started with a long forgotten outline of Islam, that had been deleted before the creation of the outline project, getting resurrected at Deletion Review...    — The Transhumanist   12:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now edited Portal:Contents/Topics layout and reordered the bar containing

Reference: Overview • Lists • Outlines • Portals • Categories • Glossaries • Indices

to match the top navbar link order and the current section order:

Reference: Overview • Outlines • Lists • Portals • Glossaries • Categories • Indices

This applies to e.g. Portal:Contents/Reference. Iceblock (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is not very good

To write the content page, should require study of works like this.
  • It is poorly written.
  • It is instantly deflective of what it is supposed to be.
  • Before content, classification systems are listed, as though mentioning the fact categorisation has been studied in the past will appear to be a tree or even listing of content.
  • After that, before content is directly mentioned, is the section "Reference collections". Noting categories of lists is not the same as a categorical content lsiting.
  • Then, after a bare suggestion of content itself, is the section "Special format collections". This refers readers to other books, literally. All this stuff would be great in the "See also" section.
  • It's not far to the bottom, so I scroll down anyway, and there is apparently some content listings, elsewhere of course, but, in spirit, part of this page. I say to myself, wait a minute, should this not be at the top of the page? So, instead of checking the listings, I scroll back to the top to look at the top of the page. And it is not empty...
  • At the top, a fraction of subpages from the bottom, are listed as part of a... minimised portals bar.
  • A good starting place may be with encyclopaedias of the past, which have made trees of the knowledge within, such as illustrated by the Chambers Cyclopaedia on the right (thank you User:Llywrch). What is in that picture blows this page out of the water for comparison. (I so hate war analogies but I'm struggling here)
  • This is not the contents page itself, as the title suggests.
  • This is not a main space page. We are supposed to research and construct this page with original research and discussion.
  • This page currently begins with: "There are a couple of ways to look things..." ... up in Wikipedia. It's impractical. It's a very important page.
  • I've been through the archives. Relevant discussion has been mostly to the subpages, and in that respect shallow. Rarely if at all have content listing styles been referenced beyond the Dewey system, which is barely relevant at all to what this page seeks to be. My impression from the archives is that originally, editors were totally against the idea of lists of lists being used as a content listing, yet here we are. I suppose I'll ping you all because, while it might appear I simply haven't been able to attract the attention of the above discussion, the archives show, most of them aren't actually interested in this. Those who are include:@Ancheta Wis, The Transhumanist, RichardF, Cirt, OlEnglish, Moxy, Kumioko, Trovatore, Jowa fan, Dmcq, Ozob, Gandalf61, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Gregbard, Mschamberlain, Jdlrobson, Edokter, Beland, AfroThundr, Cesdeva, Wumbolo, Nosebagbear, John Gohde, Erich gasboy, TwoMightyGods, Fram, Aervanath, Elekhh, Sj, Brent Gulanowski, TimNelson, NetEsq, DanKeshet, Larry Sanger, Simon J Kissane, and OprgaG:@AstroNomer, Sjc, Kpjas, StefanRybo, AxelBoldt, Zanimum, Beland, Conan, Brettz9, N2lect2el, Oleg Alexandrov, The Tipster, Nexus Seven, DGG, Rfrisbie, Carcharoth, and Palaeovia:
  • A good place to start onwiki is to go to the contents bar at the top of the page and see what the subpages are made of. This page is the only part of that set which has no real structure, but this page should have the greatest structure to this purpose.
  • Deweys has only 3 levels and is based on groups of ten. Great for a library shelf scheme, but far too mechanical for this page. Chambers (illustrated) has up to 6 levels. It was considered the new standard for a long time. This site is enormous and defines all of the standards it does not set. This page can be part of that. It's been asked for loads of times, but the discussions have been sporadic with no attempt to connect them. Well here you all are. ~ R.T.G 15:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved After a month of discussion, there is consensus that this page should be moved. Editors were divided on whether to move the page to Help: or to Wikipedia: namespaces. While a number of editors expressed a preference for the Help: namespace, no consensus title emerged; the original proposal was to move to Wikipedia:Contents, but Help:Contents already exists so simply swapping the namespace would not work. Given the multiple options and clear consensus to move, I (with some help) have moved the pages to the Wikipedia: namespace which was the original and most clear proposal. Any editor may start an RM at any time to try and achieve consensus for a name in the Help: namespace. (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 05:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Contents → Wikipedia:Contents – By Portal:Contents read the portal, its subpages and Portal:Featured content.

In fact Portal:Contents has never been considered a portal. Ignored by the policy related to portals (WP:PORTAL, WP:POG, WP:P/I and WP:WPPORT) and having a totally different layout.

Portal:Contents was not initially created as a portal but moved to the portal space [1], I did not find discussions that endorsed this movement.

The discussion raised is not the simple move, but whether Portal:Contents will be worked as a portal (linked in articles, treated by WP: PORTAL and the possibility of creating similar new portals).

Previous discussions

It's my understanding that the "Portal:" space is primarily for readers for navigation, while the "Wikipedia:" space is for editors, for Wikipedia's meta/discussion/policies/guidelines. In this sense, the portal space is much more applicable for these pages, written for reader exploration of Wikipedia's contents. ɱ (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ɱ:What about the "Help:" space.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. Portals offer thematic "slices" of Wikipedia. This page talks about the entire contents of Wikipedia and different ways of exploring it. This is, basically, a Reader's Guide to Wikipedia. It belongs either in "Wikipedia:" or, even better, in "Help:". — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"Help:" It is a very interesting option.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Support. This page is a high-level outline, not anything resembling a "Portal". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the nominators' core claim is that these pages are ignored by the policy related to p policy related to portals (WP:PORTAL, WP:POG, WP:P/I and WP:WPPORT. This claim is false. None of those pages is either a guideline or a policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is more "death to portals" activism by a small group of people who can't get what they want other than by forumshopping us all to death. This should be closed as an improper RM, being an end-run around an ongoing RfC. After the larger discussion about "the future of portals and what they are/should be" is resolved, then maybe revisit this particular question. The wiki-political move being made here is that there is principled and solid opposition to just nuking portal-space since some of what it contains is of genuine value and broad appeal, so the idea is to yank those pages out and make portal-space look like it has nothing but micro-topical, special-interest content. (In reality, portal-space was mostly intended for major/sweeping encyclopedic categories; if anything should go, it's micro-topical portals, not the big and broad overview ones!)  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 08:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The proposed change would result in a more logical arrangement of pages. That may make some discussions less messy which would be a good thing. DexDor (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey on destination namespace

Looking through the discussion, there is a clear consensus to move this away from the Portal namespace, but there is currently no consensus on the destination namespace; I'm relisting with a survey to see if there is a way to break the deadlock. Pinging people who have already contributed to this discussion: @Ɱ, Guilherme Burn, UnladenSwallow, Arthur Rubin, DexDor, BD2412, PC78, OxonAlex, Moxy, The wub, and Mark Schierbecker. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the move can be realized as proposed and the cited names in the "Help:" space reserved per redirects for future discussions.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also "Glossary:" space needed, i.e. Category:Wikipedia glossaries ~ R.T.G 23:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean toward Wikipedia:Contents, although Content:Wikipedia has something to say for it, if it were a real namespace. It's not really [[Help:]], as it's more where to find things, rather than advice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think Wikipedia space is the better fit: Help:Contents already exists and provides an overview of help topics, so what we don't have is a solid proposal of where this page would fit in Help space. Creating a new "Content" namespace is an interesting idea, but I think it's beyond the purview of this discussion. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I can see the argument for a new namespace named "Contents" or "Index" or similar and almost suggested that myself. It would be for assisting readers' navigation and browsing of article content, maybe also incorporating some of the existing Portal and Outline pages, and akin to Britannica's Propædia. However that would obviously require a wider discussion. For now I continue to oppose moving this page to the Help: namespace, but would not oppose a move to Wikipedia:Contents. the wub "?!" 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. P:Contents does indeed have a very different layout to most portals. But has a massively better layout than most portals, which are basically crude magazines with a daft structure which displays a few sets of articles chosen on an undisclosed basis, and daftly displays them one at a time with a refresh required to take another lucky dip from the set. That's a huge usability fail, and its pointless now that the Wikimedia software offers logged-out readers a built-in preview of every link.

    There is much better style of portal on de.wp, which is more like a mega-navbox. Several examples have been copied across to en.wp by Bermicourt, e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The fact that the Portal:Contents more closely resembles Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern than other portals is mark in favour of Portal:Contents, not reason to move it out of portal=space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

P:Contents describes/lists different types of (reader-facing) wp pages (portals, outlines, timelines, indices etc). That's very different to what actual portals (either enwp or dewp style) do (mainly showcasing articles about the portal's topic). DexDor (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, the style of Bermicourt's portals (with visible lists) may be better than many portals (purge-for-another-random-selection) and they look nice, but take a look at, for example, Portal:Thuringia - the "Current Events" section is about an event that "will" take place this June (and the linked article makes no mention of that event), "News in Thuringia" takes one to a page titled "Portal:Other", "What happened in October" is a redlink to "Portal:Thuringia/October", the only Event listed was in 2007 ... I.e. it's not getting enough maintenance (if the portal is expected to be a "showcase"). DexDor (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is an excellent example of an Outline, rather than any of the attempts to describe what a Portal should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
👍--Moxy 🍁 23:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories by parameter

Editors here may be interested to contribute to a discussion about meta-categories "by something" at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Categories_by_parameter. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed double redirects, but...

@Wugapodes and El C: After the move of Portal:Contents (and its subpages) to Wikipedia:Contents (and subpages), several double redirects were causing Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews to be broken (showing transcluded redirect messages rather than the intended content). I have just fixed those double redirects. (There may be other double redirects I have not noticed.)

The reason this was happening was that the pages named "Portal:Contents/Overviews/*" were all moved to "Portal:Contents/Overview/*" back in 2011, following the reasoning that the "overview of health and fitness", for example, should be called "Portal:Contents/Overview/Health and fitness" rather than "Portal:Contents/Overviews/Health and fitness". This ignored the fact that "Portal:Contents/Overviews/Health and fitness" (and the like) was a subpage of "Portal:Contents/Overviews", which was not moved.

I would make a formal proposal to move those "Overview" subpages back to "Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews/*" (which will require moving them over redirects, and will cause other double redirects that will need to be fixed), but I don't have time to write that up right now. Someone else can, though (in a new section). - dcljr (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Category:Contents portal should probably be renamed (its subpages recategorized) now that this is not in portalspace anymore. Also, I've changed all the mentions of "Portal:Contents" (in visible page text) that I noticed in the immediate subpages of Wikipedia:Contents. I'm sure there are other instances around that should be changed. - dcljr (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dcljr: I've tagged the category for speedy renaming. Following Category:Wikipedia outlines I suggested Category:Wikipedia contents. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Somehow in the move of Category:Contents portal to Category:Wikipedia contents, the category got almost completely depopulated. I have just readded the topmost subpages (Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews, etc.) to the category. Do we want to place all the deeper-level subpages there, as well (e.g., Wikipedia:Contents/Overview/Reference, etc.)? I think that's how it was before. - dcljr (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, heh… at least some of the pages are still in Category:Contents portal. I saw a bot edit that made me assume that the move was already completed. - dcljr (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, now it's completed. I see that it (for the most part) only contains the immediate subpages of Wikipedia:Contents, including the pages split by type (Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews, Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, etc.) and those split by topic (Wikipedia:Contents/Reference, Wikipedia:Contents/Culture and the arts, etc.). I guess that's how it was before. There's over 200 deeper subpages. Do we want to categorize those into a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia contents? - dcljr (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Page has been edited and look incorrect

This looks wrong but the contents may need to be kept in its own article, not sure how to proceed

The Original Filfi (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No one can help with this unless you are more specific. I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Contents, since you copied the entire contents of the page into your personal sandbox before posting here. What about the page seems wrong to you? Can you point to a specific edit that changed something in a way that you don't like? - dcljr (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a super high traffic page but it does not have much Wikipedia editor development.

I wish we had an easy way to get traffic reports for all the help pages so that we could identify where readers are going, and prioritize the development of those pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well… there is {{Annual readership}}:
which can be used on each individual (talk) page, or even used multiple times for different targets on a single page — although I'm not sure how many instances you could put on a page before problems start happening. But it sounds like what you really want is the Massviews Analysis tool at Toolforge. (Note: Don't just point it at Category:Help and use "Include all subcategories", because it will try to pull in tens of thousands of irrelevant pages!) - dcljr (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bluerasberry, yep, this and WP:About are both sorely in need of attention. One task that needs to be done here, following up from the removal of WP:Featured content from the sidebar, is to place a little more emphasis on featured content here. I'd also like to see addition of things like a button to go to a random vital article at a given level. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
We could run Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics again. Best not use buttons in this manner as per very basic in accessibility Guidelines. Most will avoid buttons because they think an action will take place. --Moxy 🍁 12:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dcljr and Sdkb: Okay, several issues here:
  1. If anyone were to improve this page, then what should be done
  2. This is one of several high-traffic neglected pages. How can we identify such pages, perhaps with a process for listing high traffic pages?
  3. Suppose we identify high traffic neglected pages. Is a demographic of editors who would prefer to develop high-impact pages if they could find them, and if so, how do we communicate to them?
Massviews is one aspect of the Pageviews suite. There is also "Topviews", which right now presents the top articles in all of Wikipedia. I think what I really want is Topviews for arbitrary categories, like "topviews for each WikiProject" or in this case Topviews for all the Wikipedia help pages. I also would like some interpretation, like to know in a given year what amount of traffic puts an article in the top 1% or 10% of all articles in that category, just to help understand what the numbers mean.
I do not have answers for any of this. I am just puzzling over how it came to be that pages can be super popular and also unnoticed in the editor community.
About accessibility - I made a request for the WMF to build out recommendations. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Request_for_accessibility_specifications. I use buttons on some kinds of pages to increase accessibility, but if there were expert guidance to not do so, then I would quit. It is nice that Moxy found the recommendation, but that text is off-wiki and we have no easy to find in-house guidance.
Thanks for the chat and the annual readership template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This thread seems to be based on the premise that a page that's read a lot but not edited a lot is somehow a problem, indicating that it has "fallen through the cracks". I'm not sure that is necessarily true. What if the page seems to not be "noticed" by the editor community simply because everyone is satisfied with the way it is (well… except for Sdkb ;)? Note that, as I type this, 8,586 users are watching this project page, which seems to me to be a pretty high number. Not all of those will be editors, but I assume a large proportion of them are. - dcljr (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I adjust Wikipedia’s clock to local time (NYC as an example or Iowa City)

I’m wanting to change Wikipedia’s clock to my time areas. How is that possible. Can somebody please clarify? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This question should be asked at Wikipedia:Help desk. When you ask it there, you should clarify what you mean by "Wikipedia's clock". - dcljr (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New Beat/the evidences

Bassline Boys attracted controversy, on the other hand, with their single Warbeat (1989), which sampled the voice of Adolf Hitler. Rhythm Device single Acid Rock (1989). Click on the links (evidences). "Warbeat" is a 1989 new beat song by the Belgian electronic music group and new beat band Bassline Boys. Frank De Wulf (Rhythm Device) was born in 1968 as the youngest of three sons. His brothers introduced him to new music and soon he started to create his first tape mixes. In the 1980s, he had his own radio show, Seventh Heaven Radio. In 1985, he began working for SIS radio. He also had his first jobs as resident DJ in two clubs in Gent. When New Beat became popular in Belgium around 1988 De Wulf started to produce his own tracks. One of his first hits was the 12" Acid Rock which he released with his project Rhythm Devic Luckal5962 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Prove it. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Redesign

@Moxy: I think this redesign has potential (and I would appreciate attempts to improve instead of immediately wiping it off after 5 minutes ). I think css could be added that adapts the table somehow so that it stacks vertically (with one table cell per row), for example, what the Main Page and WP:CBB do on mobile. Do you think this solution would be acceptable? Do you have any other issues with this design you'd like to air? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This is now implemented using display:table-row;. See the two subpages here (1,2) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No Gallery that causes side scrolling or mass mobile scrolling to reach information as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images. Page should be as simple as possible. Last thing we need is a nav aid page to be a scrolling nightmare. As we know most only scroll ONE time and if all they see is a few images each scroll (or next page button) they will move on and not get the info they need data. KISS principle should apply to our help pages Wikipedia:Help Project/Guidelines. Moxy- 16:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The gallery navigation recently added to Wikipedia:Contents I feel adds a bunch of needless clutter to the page. Sure it may look nice, but it doesn't help with navigation all too much. In fact, I would even say that it hinders navigation more than it does to aid it (especially on low-res displays). Macbrew (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it does more to hinder navigation than aid it. I understand that they can enhance the individual topics, but I don't see a practical reason to add these images on this particular page. Just a bunch of large imagery distracting from the text imo. Jay eyem (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
So thus far clearly WP:NOCONSENSUS for image addition ...WP:BOLDGRAPHICS. Moxy- 15:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The redesign can be viewed at WP:Contents/gallery since it has been reverted. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jay eyem: The status quo design hinders navigation much more than the redesign, for a few reasons. The links (the MOST important part of this high-level page) are not given emphasis and given the same weight as the description texts. The page is very, very boring due to the plain, colourless text. I don't think its a contested point that people are more drawn to colour and images, which is why the Main Page (for example) uses both. The images are not unnecessary: they provide a visual representation of the broad subjects (allowing quicker comprehension of which subjects are which) and draw in reader attention, making them much more likely to stay on the page for longer. The images also serve as large hyperlinks (while still providing copyright info).
If you compare the vertical length of the page between the status quo and the redesign on desktop, the redesign is MUCH more compact due to the cards. This means that a desktop viewer scrolls less to reach their desired subject. On mobile, the redesign is longer due to the images, but this could be easily fixed (if considered an issue) by hiding the images on narrow screens. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I would love to consider alternate or completely new designs. But the way I see it, the current look has to go. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
In my view this version was the easiest to navigate. Moxy- 16:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I completely disagree, I think the addition of images is totally unnecessary and doesn't add any needed weight to the page. I found it extremely jarring upon opening the page for the first time in a while and seeing it littered with random images that didn't enhance navigation of the page at all. The topics already fell under the classification of "Navigating Wikipedia's Subjects", why did it need large images to emphasize that further? I am in agreement with Moxy, the previous version was the easiest to navigate. Jay eyem (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents/Archive_7&oldid=1188072520"