HRWiki talk:Main page redesign

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 22:30, 21 February 2023

For the original discussion, see the main page talk archive.

[edit] Changes

This section is for discussing some of the changes made, and if they're necessary or should be edited. If you think something should be changed, discuss it here.

[edit] The introduction

I put a little gray box around it because I thought that looked nice, and because everything else on the page is in a box. It also seemed appropriate to link Homestar Runner Wiki to a page about the Homestar Runner Wiki. I'm neutral about these changes— I think it would be fine either way. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The more links the better, I say. The box does look kind of nice, but I could definitely go either way there. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It's been this way since the early days of the Wiki's MediaWiki incarnation. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does that matter? Older doesn't always mean better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2) Not once in all that time has anyone else wanted it changed. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

1) If it ain't broke, that's no excuse not to make it better. 2) How do you know? Maybe they thought it, but didn't post about it because it was such a minor change. But now that we're adding a bunch of minor changes, it seems like the perfect time to change it. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the gray box, since RickTommy disapproves of it so much, and it doesn't really look much different either way. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

[edit] Browse the knowledge base

I moved the "Main Menu" links to this section (in the "Website" part, along with Index Page and Secret Pages), because it seemed like they would fit with the rest of the links. If they're too important for this section, I'd be fine with moving them back to the introduction. A "Universes" section and a "Social" section were both added, because alternate universes and social media are both important to the H*R body of work. I changed "Popups" to "Weeklies", and "Miscellany" to "Lists", because those names seemed more accurate. Also, "more..." links have been added, linking to pages about the sections. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. Those links aren't so important that they deserve to be right under the header; they make more sense in the place where the rest of the links are. The rest of the changes are also minor improvements as far as I'm concerned. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Same as above. But I do think that FeedBurner Page should be replaced with Youtube and/or {with gritted teeth} @StrongBadActual. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Also same as above. These all seem like perfectly fine improvements. (Also, what's so bad about @StrongBadActual? Yes, creating social media accounts for series and stuff is a bit overdone, and it's especially strange for a series like Homestar Runner. But it's still Homestar Runner, after all, and it gives us new content practically every day, so what's there to complain about?) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, the fact that the Chaps are allowing fans to lick their boots. For another, the out-of-character humour. For another, if the Chaps have time for this, why don't they have time for the body of work? RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Should Hremails be added to the Features section? And maybe, just maybe, Skills of an Artist? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I added them. Even if they're not official "features", they should probably still be linked to. Everything else looks fine as well. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Again, think of the people who have been okay with the current design for 12 years. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hremails and Skills of an Artist weren't around 12 years ago. And "being okay with the current design" doesn't mean "the current design should never be changed". For example, I'm okay with the current design, but I happen to like the new design much better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

[edit] What's new?

Nothing is changed here, except the links at the bottom are aligned to the right for consistency, and the text at the beginning has a colon at the end instead of a period. Also, the text at the bottom says "More updates..." instead of "More h*r.com updates..." which makes it more concise, professional, and accurate, in my opinion. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The links do look the slightest bit better on the right, and "More updates" is definitely more accurate. In fact, we might want to change the text at the beginning to have the same level of accuracy. Speaking of which, the colon doesn't look particularly better than the period in my mind, but it's not a big deal. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm kind of indecisive about the colon/period thing, but I like the idea of changing the beginning text. But what should it say? "Recent updates to Homestar Runner"? "Recent updates to the Homestar Runner body of work"? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't say "official Homestar Runner site" when a substantial percentage of the influx is not on the official Homestar Runner site. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"New content from Homestar Runner"? "Recent updates to the website and more"? I don't know. I bet if we put our minds to it we could come up with something satisfactory. Lira (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"New content from Homestar Runner" or "Recent updates to Homestar Runner" sound fine to me. But if it doesn't say anything about the website, should it still link there? Probably. It needs to be linked to somewhere, at least. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, going back to the colon/period thing; the colon makes it seem like it's leading into the updates, while the period makes the sentence seem more like a description. Which should it be? (This goes for {{recentposts}} as well.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, a period at the end would probably look better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Featured content of the day (or whenever)

This has been removed, because it has no point and hardly ever gets updated. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally agreed. "Or whenever" is right— it's still on Trogdor, for Chorch's sake. The other main page additions will make up for the lack of this. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if we had an automatic system to either scroll through featured content day by day or make it random? Otherwise, remove. Guybrush20X6 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of what the featured article section is. So, remove. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This has pretty much been neglected since its inception (It was used as a replacement for FA and updated once since then if I remember right), and it has proven far less useful to the main page — at least for me anyway. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit] New sections

There is a social media section. I feel that this is the most necessary change, since social media makes up a lot of H*R content now. A featured article section has also been added. I somewhat support featured articles returning. RickTommy seems to like the idea of randomized featured articles, while I think it would be best to rerun articles (so that there's a new article every week instead of a randomized one). It would also be great if we could write brand new FAs, like the olden days, but this is unlikely. There are also "Did you know?" and "On this day..." sections, because I thought those would be cool. I'm still trying to decide whether all of these sections are necessary, and which side of the page they should be on (the red half or the blue half, I mean). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I support the social media section. (As I've said, it'll be difficult to keep it updated all the time, but it'll be worth it.) Featured articles look sort of nice, and they do a good job of showcasing the quality of content we have on our wiki. Reruns would probably be a more organized way of doing it. I also like the idea of the two new sections, as long as more will be added to them. Basically— I support all of these sections, as long as they'll fit nicely on the main page. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

All right. Also, the red half is currently much longer than the blue. They need to be evened out somehow. I'd suggest moving social media posts to the blue side and "On this day" to the red side, so each side will have a specific theme— articles and information from the wiki (red) and current events (blue). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Also, I added images for the two new sections, 'cause why not. Is that a good idea? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think FAs should be randomised. That way, not only will no two users have the same experience, but it will also inspire people to check out multiple articles and not just one, and it will open the door for new FAs (and by extension, the reopening of FAS).

As for the other sections, I reluctantly agree with the social media one (though I still don't think the Wiki should stoop to the level of the vast majority of the Internet). OTD and DYK, oppose. However, if DYK becomes a thing, I think the facts should be written in a way that isn't obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact. I've had similar issues with another Wiki's DYK section. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict'd) I agree with RickTommy about randomizing the FAs for the time being rather than showing one for a period of time. I still think we should have gone to monthly FAs starting in 2013, but that's neither here nor there. As for the other two things on that side, I don't really like the Did You Know section. I like the looks of On This Day though, but I think it would be cleaner to have it pull from an organized file folder of some kind rather than a massive list of everything. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the keenest on randomizing FAs. If we're going to use the old writeups, we run into the problem of them being out of date. I'm skeptical that our current user base is ready to handle the cleanup required on these old articles, particularly if they're going to be randomized (meaning the whole cleanup project must be complete on day 1). As for bringing back FAS, just no. We closed that down for good reason: the process was being monopolized and disrupted, and we just don't have an active enough user (and sysop) base to absorb that problem (nor to have good discussions). I used to spend a considerable length of time on it weekly; I will no longer be able to do this thanks to certain changes in my personal life. And as I don't see any other sysops stepping up to do it instead, bringing back FAS is unworkable. Heimstern Läufer 05:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Weekly FAs will bring the wiki back to the good ol' days, when we could wake up one morning and look forward to a brand new article adorning the front page. If it's a different random article every time, it would kind of... lose the magic, so to speak. Seeing new featured articles would be taken for granted, and it just wouldn't be special anymore. As for your reasoning (no two users would have the same experience), I'd say that's why I wouldn't want randomized articles. If it was weekly, users could discuss and view the current article together, instead of everyone always looking at something different. Users can say their opinion on the current article and point out mistakes should be fixed or updated, etc. Or, for that matter, even say "current article" instead of "one of the articles that I saw just now". As for "checking out multiple articles instead of just one", weekly FAs will do the same thing, but slower. And I think there's a chance that weekly articles will open FAS again, just as much as randomized would, if not more. In general, I think random FAs would be less organized and convenient. Maybe we could compromise with a rerun every day...? Maybe? (Also, what's wrong with OTD and DYK? And could you give an example of what you mean by not obsessive-compulsive/matter-of-fact?) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything really wrong with Did You Know; I'm sure we could find enough interesting facts to fill it up with (commentaries, secret pages, etc). And it seems to fit on the page with everything else. But I'll go whichever way consensus leans. Same for the featured articles. Anyway, I kinda like the images, and I still support On This Day. Lira (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What Heimstern said. Cleaning up all the featured articles at once would be a daunting task. Also, I think Did You Know is a good way to show visitors how much interesting information we have on our wiki, while On This Day is simply a cool and interesting thing to read. I agree with Knights that an organized file folder would be better than a long list, but I'm not sure how that would be done. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the majority is voting for weekly reruns. It would be much more organized and easier to handle, and everyone will see the same article. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Au the contrary, you are the only one who has explicitly "voted" for it. RickTommy (edits) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

By "vote", I mean "has expressed their liking of a specific idea". I think that counts. Voting doesn't have to be explicit. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I added daily reruns as a compromise. In some ways, it's the best of both worlds — everyone will share the same experience, and users will see multiple articles faster. Is that good? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

[edit] Page footer

I added a languages section for people who don't speak English fluently, because they might not see those pages otherwise. I'm neutral about this. Also, the color of the donations box has been changed from a weird peach-ish color to beige, which looks nicer. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We may need to work on placement, but it's a good idea to include a portal for non-English speakers. The color doesn't matter to me— whichever everyone else thinks looks nicer. Lira (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How should the placement of the language box be improved? It looks sort of okay, but not great. I tried to make it like {{welcomebox}}, but smaller. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Most everyone who uses the Wiki in this day and age speaks English natively. Not to mention that H*R has the lowest percentage (if not number) of non-English-speaking fans of any franchise I know. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(See my response below.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess there's nothing wrong with its placement, if it's going to be on the page. I pictured it maybe being toward the top of the page, but it might look better at the bottom anyway. Lira (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think RickTommy has a point. Homestar doesn't get very many non-English viewers. And if one of them visited our wiki, they might not scroll to the bottom of the page. But if we put it at the top of the page, it might be too obvious, since there aren't many non-English viewers.

The Subtitles project is still super cool and important, though, so it should be linked to somewhere. Maybe in "Browse the knowledge base"? Not sure if it should link to the Subtitles page, or individual language pages, though. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I added Subtitles links to "Browse the knowledge base". Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

[edit] Subtitles

However, I do think that there should be a way to attract non-English-speakers to the subtitles project. RickTommy (edits) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what the languages box is for. Alternatively, though, we could put a Subtitles section in "Browse the knowledge base", with links to the different language pages instead of a box at the bottom of the page. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Or instead of language links, maybe we could even include a link to HRWiki:Subtitles somewhere. I'm fine with all three options. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the links to "Browse the knowledge base". Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding links to the subtitles project was a great idea in 2017, but three years later, with Flash's untimely demise looming on the horizon, what will become of them? You can still watch the toons in their original format through emulated archives, or by downloading a standalone Flash Player, but the subtitles may not be so lucky. The Homestar All-in-One extension seems to have stopped working, at least for some people (presumably in preparation for the Flash-uneral). Even if it still worked, how will you be able to view the subtitles if you can't watch the toons on their original pages, or the local subtitles viewer? The potential death of subtitles probably warrants a bigger discussion at some point, but right now I'm just asking if the subtitles should still be linked to on the Main Page. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a good question and I'm not too sure about what the future of subtitles will be. However, I still believe that the flash/subtitles system can be salvaged with the appropriate amount of work (if somebody is available to work on it). Moreover, Youtube has its own subtitles system! Ideally if the subtitle data could be synched with each video then we could breathe new life into the project! Of course that would also mean that a. we'd have to be able to generate a subtitles formated file from our wiki page and b. we'd have to have different timings for flash and youtube media. This just needs to be worked on in the corresponding talk pages. Overall, I think there's still value to keeping the subtitles links. --Stux 14:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

[edit] General

I think the main category should be linked to somewhere, since it's a convenient way to get to pretty much any page on the wiki. But where? Also, are the ellipses after links ("More updates...") necessary? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess the Main category isn't that important, but a link might be nice, if possible. I don't think the ellipses are needed (except for the "more..." links in "Browse the knowledge base", since plain "more" would probably look worse.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that everything's finished (except for the OTD and DYK templates), and we seem to have near consensus on most of the discussions (at least, based on their inactivity), does anyone have any objections to any of the changes? Also, does anything else have to happen before this becomes the new main page, besides finishing the aforementioned templates? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now everything is finished. {{onthisday}} and {{didyouknow}} could use some expansion, but they're templates, so they can be edited whenever. Unless anyone has any objections, the new main page is ready to be unleashed unto the world after 3.5 years! Can any sysops look over this and make the change (assuming there are no disagreements or complications)? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

To keep this discussion moving, here is a list of all the changes:

• "Homestar Runner Wiki" now links to HRWiki:About.
• Browse the knowledge base:
  • The main menu has been moved here under "Website", with additional links to the Index Page and homestarrunner.com.
  • "Universes" section for alternate universes, "Social" for social media (including FeedBurner, which was previously in "Features"), and "Subtitles" for subtitles links.
  • "Features" has been rearranged to its order on the Toons menu, with Hremails and Skills of an Artist added.
  • "Miscellany" has been renamed "Lists" and rearranged to flow better.
  • "more..." links have been added to each section, linking to the relevant pages.
  • The {{dot}} template is used for separation dots.
• What's new:
  • The description and "More h*r.com updates..." link have both been tweaked to encompass the entire body of work.
  • The RSS feed and yearly updates links have been moved to the right to make them more visually distinct.
• Daily featured article reruns, a randomized "Did you know?" section, and "On this day..." have been added below "Browse the knowledge base", and "Recent social media posts" below "What's new".
• The "Featured content of the day (or whenever)" has been removed, since it's being replaced by multiple new sections.
• The donations box is a slightly darker color (similar to this 2010 edit) because I thought it looked nice.
• A few tweaks regarding coding, capitalization, etc. that aren't worth mentioning.

I think pretty much all of these changes are objectively good. So what has to happen next? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gfdgsgxgzgdrc,

How's it going? I'll first preface my comment by observing the impressive amount of template work that you put in to the {{onthisday}} and {{didyouknow}}. When filled with the right amount information I'd probably not mind their inclusion in the main page. (Although "on this day" has several dates missing, what happens then?). This leads to my main point: I think the main page redesign kind of got away from us and with differing opinions interest in the project (and how to resolve these differences) waned. I think that before approving the redesign as a whole, the wiki community needs to first decide which major elements to include and which ones not include in the redesign. Heck, these new elements could be even be added to the main page one at a time. There's also at least one element that is conspicuously missing from the redesign (the "MAIN MENU" bar on top). Also the twitter feed would add work to those who have been working hard to keep the pages up to date. Keeping both the template and pages updated would probably work best with a twitter bot working. So, as I said, I think the components of the redesign need to be looked at separately before everyone can say they're happy with the finished product.

That said, thanks again for your tireless work! --Stux 12:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stux,

Things are going well, thanks for asking. You make a good point about the redesign. It got more ambitious than intended, and it would be in our best interest to gauge community interest in each of the changes before implementing them. (Rolling out the updates gradually is an interesting idea as well, as long as we eventually come to a finished product in some form.) For these decisions to be made, we need more involvement, which could potentially be increased through the wiki notice I proposed earlier. I don't know how much of a difference it would make, but I'd say it's worth a try. As for your specific concerns; when a date is uneventful, the template defaults to "Nothing happened.", and the main menu bar has been moved to "Browse the knowledge base" under "Website" with the rest of the important links (although I wouldn't mind moving it back). Also, keeping the Twitter feed updated wouldn't be too time-consuming — my update the other day took only a minute or two, and if we keep it up to date, it'll be even less. My main priority is to create a main page most users can agree on, and continuing these discussions would help make that a reality. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through these discussions, and here's what I've gathered (including scores because why not). Let me know if I interpreted any opinions inaccurately.

• Lira and I support the HRWiki:About link. RickTommy seemingly opposes it because it's been this way for years (not really a reason), but his comment may have been referring to another addition which has since been removed. (2-1)
• Lira and I support all the changes to "Browse the knowledge base", and DeFender1031 agrees that "main menu" should be moved here. RickTommy opposes these changes (not sure which in particular) for the same reason as above, but agrees that YouTube and/or @StrongBadActual should be linked to, and that non-English speakers should be attracted to the Subtitles project. (3-½)
• Lira and I support the right-aligned text below "What's new". (2-0)
• Lira, The Knights Who Say Ni, and I agree that "What's new" should refer to the entire body of work rather than just the site. (3-0)
• Lira, The Knights Who Say Ni, Guybrush20X6, and I agree that "Featured content of the day (or whenever)" should be removed. Guybrush20X6 suggested an automatic system, which has since been added in the form of featured articles. (4-0)
• It's dot com, Lira, RickTommy, and I support the "Recent social media posts" section. (4-0)
• Lira, RickTommy, The Knights Who Say Ni, Heimstern Läufer, and I support the "Featured articles" section. (5-0)
• Heimstern Läufer and I think featured articles should change daily or weekly, while RickTommy and The Knights Who Say Ni think featured articles should be random. (2-2)
• Lira, The Knights Who Say Ni, Stux, and I support "On this day...". RickTommy opposes it for unknown reasons. (4-1)
• Lira, Stux, and I support "Did you know?". RickTommy opposes it, and The Knights Who Say Ni doesn't really like it either (both for unknown reasons). (3-2)

So that's everyone's opinion so far. If we could get more of those, that would be great. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll add my support to what's new covering the whole HSR body of work as since Flash started dying it's been scattered all over the place. YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Board James... I also support "On this day". Guybrush20X6 21:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

My unknown reasons for opposition to the Did You Know section: When I said I didn't like it, I didn't know at the time that Wikipedia already had such a section. Either way, HRWiki has a far more limited selection of facts to choose from, and I figure that most hardcore fans will already know most if not all of the facts that could go in that section. That ought to be a learning tool, and I don't see it working that way, even for the new users for very long. The Knights Who Say Ni 14:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point I didn't consider. I ran into that problem while coming up with facts — I couldn't think of many, and I wasn't sure what demographic I was aiming for exactly. I still support the section, but I'd be fine leaving it out for those reasons. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is it a problem if people already know the facts? (It’s not called “You definitely didn’t know:”) -50.234.189.37 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely why I still support the section, although I admit it takes up quite a bit of space. And it could get old after circulating the same hundred facts over and over. So I understand if it has to be removed, but I still don't see the harm if it stays (especially since the templates have already been made). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Anonny 50: Boring! Like I said, it should be a learning tool rather than a known fact generator, and it would get stale too quickly this way. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to come back to Stux's proposal of implementing these changes gradually as we slowly gain support for them. Since it's taking so long to gain consensus for most of these decisions, I say we should at least make the changes that do have consensus. Right now, it seems we have consensus (at least three people supporting, with less than two opposing) on the "Recent social media posts" and "On this day" sections, the changes to "Browse the knowledge base", the wording above the "What's new?" section, and the removal of "Featured content of the day". Meanwhile, changes such as "Featured articles", "Did you know?", and other small details can continue to be discussed. (I suppose it's worth noting that by the definition given, the "Featured articles" section has consensus as well, though it is undecided how articles should be selected.) Obviously I'd prefer the changes to be made all at once to avoid the hassle of separating pieces of the proposal, but this gradual implementation would be worth it to make these ideas come to fruition sooner. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

[edit] What's New is Old

The subheader for the "What's New" section is currently Recent updates to the official Homestar Runner site:. While this was fine many-a years ago when updates were strictly to homestarrunner.net, Homestar Runner as a body of work has transcended beyond that. Instead of being strictly on the site, content is now released on a variety of platforms such as Twitter and Instagram. And since we are also putting in Tweets and other updates outside of the wedside, the subheader in this section should reflect that as well. - Catjaz63 06:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's already kind of a discussion on this in the "What's new?" section. I like "New content from Homestar Runner" or "Recent updates to Homestar Runner". Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Is this ever gonna happen?

With how much the series seems to have moved to twitter it seems appropriate to at least add the recent tweets section to the main page for those not in the twit zone.

Anyone?

I agree one thousand and five percent yes absolutely, but we need to get consensus before making major decisions, and even after a decision is reached, we need to get a sysop to implement the changes. (Although the consensus part could potentially be sped up if a recent changes notice was added, like that time we changed the logo.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Recent update

Section continues discussion from: HRWiki:Main Page Talk Archive 47#Remove_FeedBurner_from_the_main_page.

Since the main page redesign project had been stalled for so long I went ahead and updated it again, hoping to capitalize on recent activity and edit momentum. I made two primary changes: 1. I brought the page more in line with the current page, while keeping the {{didyouknow}}, {{onthisday}} and {{recentposts}} sections (removing FAS since it has been voted deprecated) and 2. Separating the {{browse}} section into its own template so that editing, discussion, arrangement and protection can happen separately. I think this should help the project forward while remaining close to what we currently have on our main page. That said, the recent posts template needs to be brought up to date and kept up to date, but main page visibility should help encourage that. --Stux 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, FAS was voted deprecated, but we were only bringing back the first two words of that abbreviation. The "selection" part is done automatically each day. So far, everyone who has voted on this has voted in favor of it, as well as the removal of "Featured content of the day (or whenever)". The whole point of bringing back automatically-selected featured articles was to replace the rarely-updated "featured content", so I don't see the point in reversing this decision. Also, no reason was given for the separation of the main menu from "Browse the knowledge base". So far, it seems most have agreed that the main menu should be combined with the rest of the important links. (Also, why "the official Homestar Runner site"? We specifically changed that because most of the updates aren't on the site. And I still find the icons more unsightly than they are helpful.) I definitely approve of {{browse}} being its own template, though. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so to try to explain my rationale: I went as far back as I could with early templates and the current main page in order to follow my earlier suggestion of implementing changes gradually. Thus I made the preview match the current Main page as much as possible. I think there are changes in here that people quietly don't like (since not everyone that has a vested interest in the main page actively participates in this discussion) and I think that's slowing down adoption for these changes. It also wasn't clear that the {{dailyarticle}} template was automated. I looked at the code and it wasn't entirely clear to me how it worked, sorry. Perhaps some documentation might help.

I generally find the icons helpful to the eye, it's easy to see what each link represents from looking at the icon. That's the main reason i brought them back but that can be discussed on that template's talk page too!

So with the above in mind, I've done some partial reverts to minimize changes. I'm hoping new discussion with a wider audience can bring about better consensus. Again, I'd like to stress that I think that there's a wider wiki audience that has not participated in the discussions and I think that having too many changes as one may have contributed to diminished interest in the project. I think more conservative and incremental changes in the short term would benefit the project in the long term. --Stux 21:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense! While I still support the removal of the main menu bar, the "Featured content" section, and the icons (which I'm admittedly warming up to) eventually, I agree that they're far from our most pressing priority. It's more important that other changes be made first. Keeping the preview close to the current Main Page and implementing changes gradually is probably the best course of action. It's also important to make sure users aren't too overwhelmed by all the changes being discussed on a single page, so it's great that {{browse}} has been moved to a template for discussion of icons and such.

As for the wider audience that has not yet participated, I'd like to once again bring up my proposal to add a notice above the recent changes to encourage users to contribute, like we did when redesigning the logo back in '06. Aside from occasional edits to this page, there is nothing informing users of the redesign or encouraging them to give their input, and I think this notice could potentially help with consensus (at least a little bit). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the point of changing things gradually. That just means you have a weird limbo period in between. If you want to change everything, why not change it all at once -50.234.189.45 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi 50.234.189.45, that is also true. But I'm trying to get *Some* sort of momentum going even if it's a small change over the current stalemate.

Hey Gfd, thanks for updating the template with test code and a description! I have some suggestions but I'll make them on the template's talk page instead. For now I'm trying to focus on getting some resolution with the status of this project.

Hello everyone else, especially our leadership team: what do we all want to do with the main page. Do we even want to change it at all? If so, please give your opinion on this matter! Without everyone's participation, this project will never see completion! Thanks! --Stux 13:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Next Steps

I am adding a break to this discussion because I think this question is simple but crucial to the project: Should we proceed with this redesign project, or should we shelve it? (And I guess why.) If we decide to proceed then we should probably vote on each change separately. I'm not sure what the best format for this is and I was briefly tempted to use the Stuff templates! XD --Stux 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's not obvious, I would like to proceed with this project and complete it in the next month or two. With the new emphasis on Social Media H*R content is still alive and well and the main page should reflect this change! --Stux 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that I'd like our 4+ years of work to not go to waste. Some of these changes are a bit divisive, but I believe there are plenty of changes that are an objective improvement, so there's no reason for this project to be scrapped in its entirety.

I created a draft of a voting format in the Sandbox. We don't have to use this exact format, this is just what I was envisioning. I thought using the STUFF templates was a good idea, but I chose to exclude the rigidity of the STUFF method in favor of free discussion. Whatever format we use for voting, I feel like a new page should be created for it. This talk page is pretty long already, and could continue to be used exclusively for more general discussion, while voting could be done on the other page. I am also unsure exactly which changes are important enough to discuss. For convenience, I included a list of changes in the Sandbox as well, although I doubt we'll need to vote on them all. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Any comments or objections before I create HRWiki:Main page redesign/Votes? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created it. If anyone has a problem with the format or anything else regarding the page, feel free to discuss. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t we just skip the voting and make the changes? -50.234.189.45 23:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Gfd: Thanks for creating the voting page. It makes sense and looks well organized. I'll vote but kinda I gave up on this project the last time I tried to work on pushing this forward.

50.234.189.45: this project involves updating the Main Page which is protected (since it's the most prominent page in the wiki) and can only be updated by sysops. This page lets the community contribute suggestions in hopes that consensus can be reached and then the actual page can be updated accordingly by the powers that be. --Stux 14:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

[edit] A Modest Proposal

Happy 2023 everyone! Given that the overall redesign has stalled for a while, I'd like to propose an alternative: could we just update the main page to use the {{browse}} template created for the redesign? This would ensure that the "Browse the knowledge base" section remains up to date (it looks a little bare), and would allow the community as a whole to participate in its maintenance (with the right page protection, of course). We can also tweak the template (such as hiding the "subtitles" section until ruffle can handle js hooks) to make it more presentable. --Stux 10:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

[edit] current miscellaneous news

In addition to whatsnew, we should also have something that lists more miscellaneous HSR-related news, such as Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind the Dangerdesque being playable again, the upcoming card game. Basically stuff noteworthy enough that isn't new toons/games/store items, etc. It could look like this:

Template:currentmiscnews

I think it could work. - HoveringSombrero (talk)

Most of this stuff comes from @StrongBadActual Tweets, which are already documented on this page design. If an announcement is deemed notable enough to include on the main page, we would just add it to {{whatsnew}}. Besides, this template takes up a needless amount of space and would complicate the process of getting this redesign approved, as all the other additions already seem to have consensus in their favor. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)