Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Bigoted Hate Site: new section)
Line 156: Line 156:
 
:Okay, what are you selling? {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Okay, what are you selling? {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  
== Bigoted Hate Site ==
+
== ǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq ==
  
This site is disgusting. Some of the articles about religion is disgusting. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
+
˙ǝbɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ ǝʇǝןǝp ןןıʍ noʎ ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ ˙sǝʌןǝsɹnoʎ puǝɟǝp oʇ ǝןqɐun puɐ sʇobıq pǝpuıɯ ןןɐɯs ǝɹɐ noʎ sɐ sıɥʇ op ןןıʍ noʎ ǝsɹnoɔ ɟo ˙op sǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq ʇɐɥʍ sıɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sıɥʇ ʇɹǝʌǝɹ ןןıʍ noʎ sǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq ןןɐ ǝʞıן ǝsɹnoɔ ɟo
  
Of course like all bigoted hate sites you will revert this, because this what bigoted hate sites do. Of course you will do this as you are small minded bigots and unable to defend yourselves. Therefore you will delete this message. [[Special:Contributions/82.141.202.11|82.141.202.11]] ([[User talk:82.141.202.11|talk]]) 11:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
+
˙sǝʌןǝsɹnoʎ ɟo pǝɯɐɥsɐ ǝq pןnoɥs ǝןdoǝd noʎ ˙buıʇsnbsıp sı uoıbıןǝɹ ʇnoqɐ sǝןɔıʇɹɐ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝɯos ˙buıʇsnbsıp sı ǝʇıs sıɥʇ [[Special:Contributions/82.141.202.11|82.141.202.11]] ([[User talk:82.141.202.11|talk]]) 11:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
:Marcus, you are such a turd. {{User:Lily/sig}} 11:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:44, 7 July 2010

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

  • General question about the site? If it is technical, go here. If it is about the community, go here.
  • Please do not edit the main page on a whim. If you want to play with things. mock it up in the testing area.

WIGO restructure (sticky)

An idea that came out of the exodus was to revive WIGO aSK with a WIGO Wikisphere, including any stupidity you see on a wiki that is not CP. So aSk, Metapedia, any of Proxima's, if it is stupid we point and laugh. Do we want to start afresh or move WIGO aSK? - π 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't rush, let's get settled in back home first. Move aSk → WikiWorld'd be my favourite. I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not rushing, starting discussion. - π 02:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think moving WIGO AWK would be a good start (not yet though, of course). Shall we make a todo list here of what else has to be altered in this brave new world? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. - π 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Only problem is I can't remember where anything on this wiki is anymore... But I know there's a template that ends up on the main page, and another one that is the header of the WIGO pages. So that's two. And there might be a link at our Whorehouse of Ignorance article. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We can fix that after the move. Have we a) ideas for a name b) what is being moved where and why. Also remember the best of is going to need someone server side to fix it, so either Trent or Nx are going to have to be aware of what is happening. - π 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I know we can fix them after the move, but let's list everything we need to fix. I think RW:WIGO Wikisphere is running strongly as a favorite. Should it be in the RW namespace or main? Should "WIGO" be expanded? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, the "best of", based on poll name, is an issue. That should probably be addressed first. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You would need to change:
I think that is it. I will have a look. - π 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That is why I suggested a new WIGO using the poll id poll=wiki### 03:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keeping with the others I think: RationalWiki:What is going on in the wikisphere? would work best. - π 03:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A problem I've thought of is that how exactly do you tell the difference between the different wikis easily? We have our obvious targets which will crop up regularly. They don't generate enough to make a single WIGO, but combined, it could be confusing. Possibly make the poll ids automatically show an icon of the relevant wiki? Then what about the possibility of filtering them by wiki if you're just interested in ASK? (although this second one is way down the list of priorities) It's definitely a good idea to do WIGO:Wikisphere, but the problems of easily and immediately identifying which wiki each WIGO relates to is an issue (it doesn't really arise with blogs and clogs because they don't so much generate a continuing narrative). Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We could steal all of their favicons. - π 12:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
At Armand., those are both good ideas. I'm trying to get PJR to make a favicon... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
So what happens now with this? - π 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure. There seems to be only the three of us who are up for the change. And you know we've been bollocked by the mob for unilateral action in the past. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move this to talk:WIGO aWK, where it will be noticed by the only people likely to care about or be affected by the change (if we do it)? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hang, didn't this go from WIGO ASK to here? - π 01:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it came straight here from the teflonbar or something. Either way, the AWK regulars don't seem to be chiming in up above at all. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have left a message on WIGO aSk talk again. - π 03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I hope people interpret "sticky" in a non-goat-centric way, though... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection redux

It is protected again, why? - π 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Trent fixed it. I'm too lazy to chase the logs on this, but perhaps an overzealous new sysop? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It is strange how the first thing a lot of new sysops do is protect the main page and other things in the RationalWiki name space. It must be because they are protected at Wikipedia they feel it is a widely applicable rule or maybe they just like the power. - π 02:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
They "we don't protect anything" clause has died down a bit as of late, and I dont really care other than the main page, it is symbolic. And I still remember an argument about whether or not to include RW as an interwiki link in Mediawiki when the retort was "they don't even protect their main page!" For that I shall always argue to leave it unprotected. tmtoulouse 02:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Red herrings are red. - π 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't like red round these parts. tmtoulouse 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected articles

What of these are necessary? - π 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

To address almost none of your question, many people have protected their sigs, I think. The high use templates are protected because altering them, supposedly, would overheat Trent's garret as the CPU caught up. As far as the three redirects, they were probably wandalism targets? There's no need to protect much for long, really. Private pages like sigs are no big deal IMHO. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

If you are going to protect it Goonie could you set it to autoconfirmed so that established vandals can blank it? - π 05:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You being serious, or......? Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You have to be around a while to be autoconfirmed, so a newly signed up vandal can not edit the main page or someone in the vandal bin. So by autoconfirm protecting it, you are protecting it without it being a huge impediment to our open editing policy. - π 06:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I thought that "autoconfirmed" just meant that you had an account. It looks like, for example, that one of a certain person's accounts was able to blank it as their second edit ever, for example. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 06:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't protected at the time, a BoN could edit it. - π 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. I had misread it (as I'm a little non-sober) to say July, not June. Autoconfirmed for a week it is, then. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 06:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

what is going on?

I log on and everybody's vandal binning each other and there's a dozen block? WTF? User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some trolls and Neveruse being a prick. Nothing to see here - move along... Acei9 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering the same a few moments ago, but it's just the usual HCM. Tetronian you're clueless 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
HCM? What HCM? -- Nx / talk 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd call it simulated, rather than real, HCM, in that it was only one user and a troll or two (I don't think the cheerleader is to be blamed, however) causing trouble for everyone. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we don't really have a good metric for determining what qualifies as an HCM; I simply assumed it was because Recent Changes was clogged with blocks and reversions and such. Tetronian you're clueless 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the bin on 66.BON was necessary. -- Nx / talk 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Was just going for some sanity. Anyways, I got work to do so I'll leave it in others capable hands. Acei9 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Random design thoughts

So, how many of you actually use the main page?

As in. Not immediately click either the "Recent changes" link or the "Saloon bar" link? Which sure is what I do. (with some very rare cases of using it to find the essay etc portal) So I'd like to tell you what I really think about it, and see if it actually mirrors things you might think.

I think that a lot of modern websites (especially demi political) are basically just a continuous stream of new information. This is a case with the BBC and Reuters front pages, this is the case with blogs, etc. That's what makes them visit worthy.

In contrast, a main page that doesn't really update ends up becoming boring. You have seen it once, you have seen it twice, then you know what it has and don't care about it any more. This might make sense for a website that is someone's portfolio or something, or intended to be seen once, this isn't necessarily the way to go, if you want a place which wants to give the feeling of anti-rationalism gets debunked again, and again and again. (a process). This might be what is happening underneath, this is not the impression a static main page gives. To see it, you need to do additional actions and if it is not interesting to us (again, how many of you use it?) why would it be to anyone else?

So instead, this is what I propose. See those WIGOs? (which are actually the active parts). How about a main page which is nothing more than 4 WIGO columns (all except the bar) and nothing else?

ZOMG, TERROR, HERESY, WTF, yes ok, but hold on a minute to explain why and my analysis of the main page elements.

The reason the WIGOs are interesting, is because the WIGOs are essentially the active part of the main page. The problem is that the WIGOs are also hidden. You just see a couple of titles in the main page which of course have meaning only to us until someone bothers to research what a "WIGO" is. They are active, underneath their links, but they don't appear active until someone does extra actions again (click them). And similarly, the reason the "saloon bar" is (for me) the most interesting part of the main page, is because it has become the equivalent of the "RW commentary on current events" button. Because it is the one bit that is constantly active and updating, thus worth subsequent visits.

In contrast, here's what I think of the current main page elements:

  • "Welcome to RationalWiki!" Header. I always found that a bit silly because it basically tells you that you are in Rational Wiki. But you know that! You have a big brain symbol on the top left telling you that in every-single-page. Why do we waste space telling people that twice? The only useful information is the "community standards" etc links, that should be part of a general writing guide section. Notably, this is information only an editor would care anyway, rather than a visitor. It's the equivalent of Epson, putting a link to their printer manuals on their main page. Why? Let someone start editing first and then worry about that.
  • "About RationalWiki". That's kinda useful. That's also a thing you would ever glance once, while taking 1/4th or so of the main page. How about people figuring it out by themselves by, oh, say, the 35250illion articles saying "creationists suck" or something? How did they find that site in the first place? Someone shouldn't need help in figuring out that rational wiki is a rational wiki the same way, say, Reuters doesn't say under it "we write news articles". I'd say the entire about section could become a link on the navigation menu on the left (call about) and if that isn't possible then I wouldn't worry about it.
  • "Random Featured Article". Random feature article is kinda cute. Every "-pedia" seems to have it. At the same time I don't know about others, but it is also an enclyclopedia part I never look at. That's because when I go to one, I usually go for something specific and thus go straight for the search button. I know that the idea is for people to get "interested" in something in the hope that they might also check other things through it, but I question wither it really works. I also do note that there is a "random page" button in the left navigation button.
  • "WIGO". As you probably have figured out, I like that, but for some reason it always felt awkward to use. Probably because it required me to first go in the main page, and then click in one of those links, in order to finally go to an actual WIGO. The idea of the proposed modification is to bring those forward, but not as static links, rather as active news columns containing part of the corresponding WIGO information. So basically you would see something like 4 mini blogs containing (part of) what the dedicated WIGO pages have, complete with little up and down voting arrows. The way I imagine it, the whole thing would kind of remind of a stock market a bit and since the whole arrow mechanism would no longer be hidden, I expect that more people would end up clicking them.
  • "Participate in Rational Wiki". "How you found Rational Wiki?", "Join our Article-a-Week Club"? am I the only one who things that this type of "community building" attempts are a bit, well, cheesy? I don't know how much these things are worth, I do think however that all these things are not things you have any reason to be seeing every time you go in the main page, and could simply be included in what I called the "manual" page, which is something only a user that would care about editing would ever have to see. Possibly having a link in the navigation menu.
4ci.jpg

This section also includes the "Essay Portal" and the "Debate Portal" which is interesting because these are separate, yet technically part of, with what the section next to it (More featured Content) has, which contains all the rest of the Portals. (Pseudoscience Portal, Politics Portal etc).

To sum up then, I consider that section "More featured content" + the "Essay Portal" and "Debate Portal" links next to it, to be the single most useful thing in the main page. The final design I would propose then is this. (with a couple of tweaks in the navigation bar on the left as well):

4 colour coded WIGO columns. 1 "Index" section, that is essentially all the Portal link titles collected.

Now, I don't expect any of this to happen, or even liked. Instead what I want is to spark some debate regarding the main page content towards a future redesign of it. What is useful and what isn't.Sen (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. The main page is more useful to new visitors than regulars.
  2. I often find myself hunting for the "about" page of a website/wiki to find out what the hell it is about. It may be obvious to you what RationalWiki is, but it won't be to someone new.
  3. Not everyone has a 30" monitor. 4 wigo columns would be a mess.
  4. Aside from WIGO:CP, which RW should be moving away from, the other wigos are not updated very frequently.
+1 Why are you ruining my wiki? -- Nx / talk 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You can also transclude recent changes like so: {{Special:RecentChanges/50}} MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, splendid idea. Let's put MC's trolling on the main page. -- Nx / talk 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of the points raised, but not really the solution - not least because I mostly still use 1020x780 monitors. It is probably useful to newer editors, but people visiting the site don't tend to come in via the mainpage. We do need something updating regularly to make it worthwhile, however. CP *shudder* has mainpageright with "news", similarly, we have WIGOs. However, figuring out what to update and how is a little more tricky. Transcluding all four is impractical, transcluding just one gives the wrong impression. The portals are nice, I sometimes use them (particularly the essay one) but I'm sure they're mostly glossed over by people and don't really add much, I think. The random article is also nice and I think that should be kept. However, a bit more balance could work. If we shunt all the "about" and "read this first" type links into the top bar (perhaps drop the "welcome to" but I'm not sure) then we can split the top half into two featuring the WIGOs and the random article; thus giving 50:50 prominence (kind of) to the two main parts of the site; the wiki and the interactive section. The remaining two sections of "more featured content" and "participate in" are probably easily cut without many tears being shed. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Re #4, "...because it required me to first go in the main page, and then click in one of those links...". Most modern browsers allow the user to save a "bookmark", that is, a direct link to any given web page. I bet many people here have RC bookmarked. I use my watchlist as my "active portal" to the site. Others might just bookmark the SB or... well, you get it. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I just have the main page on speed-dial, actually. However, surely that means we either need to look at making the mainpage better for non-regular visitors or enhancing its ability to act as a portal for the regular users. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't see why it isn't "useful". The left side acts as a front door for strangers; the right side has the "busy places" all linked. I use it to get to the book of the month club, since I haven't bookmarked it. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
2nh.jpg
"thus giving 50:50 prominence (kind of) to the two main parts of the site; the wiki and the interactive section"
So how about this? (assuming that it is possible for a bit of the main page, to reload another bit of the main page) Sen (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but the other three wigos are updated very sporadically. I don't really see the point of trying to make the main page "lively" anyway. Also, you kept comparing us to "pedias", which we most assuredly are not. While the wigos/SB may be high-action pages, they aren't the point of the site. The point is the snarticles. IMHO, anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "sporadic", the Blog and World WIGOs are updated fairly frequently. Clog is quite infrequent and CP is slowly dying, but on average we get a few each day. If that rate increases, then it would be worth seriously considering. But trying to figure out how to make a consistent and automated "News Feed" type thing will be difficult. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I shoved something into my gravelbox to see what it could look like. It's certainly painfully ugly and I have no idea how we'd actually make a "news feed" type thing (my guess would be a bot that monitored the WIGOs and copied them to that place, similar to how the Best Of Bots work) but this is generally how it would end up panning out if we decided to go that route. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually that's far from as hideous as I expected. Is the VH front page chunk really that big? It's a good use of the buttons, too. The only thing that really struck me as clunky was a really long World post. If we do this we're going to have to discuss a "no swearing in wigos" guideline? Also, no wigos that say "facepalm!" and nothing else. But anyway... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing, such an idea would be limited by the quality of the WIGO writing - length, style etc. - and any WIGOs that go oversize may have a problem. I briefly toyed with putting a coloured border around or to the side the WIGO entries but that didn't quite work in melding the oversized entries (I'm glad I added an oversized one to look at, as many of the highly rated CP ones are constantly updated and grow to be huge!). There's also a problem with how to automate such a system. The idea could be solved by putting WIGO entries on subpages and transcluding with DPL but I imagine that would be a nightmare to manage and would need a serious re-work of the system from the ground up; we're talking proper RW 3.0 here. Anyway, consider that version a more "proof of concept" than anything workable. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How did miss this? I can think of a way of having that clicking thing, although what it would consist of is having four mainpages, the default and three that look like it, but with WIGO CP, WIGO Clogo, and WIGO Blog transcluded instead of world. A while back I asked Nx about having a display like best of but instead of having the highest voted being displayed it would have the 5 highest numbers, he says that that would be doable. All we need to do is convince him to come back. - π 13:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most wikis

Are in severe need of websearch visibility.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thing most of our good articles rank pretty high in search terms then. tmtoulouse 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not on the things most people look for. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've been thinking that we really ought to broaden our range of articles to incorporate celebrity gossip and pornography. SJ Debaser 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As long as there is a strong anti-woo theme, I see nothing wrong with expanding into hardcore pornography. tmtoulouse 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And all of that content would get stored.... on that server in the corner of your room...? Just for anti-woo purposes, of course... Bondurant (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, I did see a porno where the young lady involved was advocating the benefits of Kinoki Foot Pads between moans. SirChuckBThis country needs more Rutabegas 19:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, RationalPorn is so the fucking way to go. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Going down the plughole - or attempting to come up it - and making forays into the oldest profession using Mary Sue plot-insertions (slashwise or other 'not elsewhere specified') will give you the wrong sort of webvisibility.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what are you selling? - π 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq

˙ǝbɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ ǝʇǝןǝp ןןıʍ noʎ ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ ˙sǝʌןǝsɹnoʎ puǝɟǝp oʇ ǝןqɐun puɐ sʇobıq pǝpuıɯ ןןɐɯs ǝɹɐ noʎ sɐ sıɥʇ op ןןıʍ noʎ ǝsɹnoɔ ɟo ˙op sǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq ʇɐɥʍ sıɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sıɥʇ ʇɹǝʌǝɹ ןןıʍ noʎ sǝʇıs ǝʇɐɥ pǝʇobıq ןןɐ ǝʞıן ǝsɹnoɔ ɟo

˙sǝʌןǝsɹnoʎ ɟo pǝɯɐɥsɐ ǝq pןnoɥs ǝןdoǝd noʎ ˙buıʇsnbsıp sı uoıbıןǝɹ ʇnoqɐ sǝןɔıʇɹɐ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝɯos ˙buıʇsnbsıp sı ǝʇıs sıɥʇ 82.141.202.11 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Marcus, you are such a turd.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)