Talk:Main Page

04:56, Thursday, November 14, 2024 (UTC)

We can do better

Hey folks. Since the main page is largely in the form of protected templates and is (I assume) the highest-traffic page on the wiki, I want to start a discussion about improving it. I think that a lot of it caters to the editors, rather than end users, and while that might fly on a small or new wiki, I don't think it's appropriate for the site that consistently tops the search results for many Magic related terms. I've uploaded a screengrab here that highlights my concerns, and I'd like feedback on where we all agree, and what, if anything, is sacrosanct to some higher power. A brief list of ideas:

• Create some portal pages! We've got plenty of articles - we're one of the biggest Gamepedia wikis! - but we hardly have any navigation beyond navboxes. We really should have something like Mathematics portal for our big topics. Things like Rules, Story, Developers, Blocks/Sets, Supplemental Products, etc could all receive a portal.
• Remove Template:Main Current, because it's hardly current, or find something that appeals to a larger audience to replace its current contents.
• Bring Template:Main Magic higher on the page, and expand it to cover tournaments and supplemental products.
• Remove bad links from Template:Main Left and push editor-centric links lower.
• Talk about guidelines for the Featured Article and see if we can find more content and faster refreshes. The latest expansion is rarely a bad choice, but especially if we can find a way to minimize the effort of updating that template, we can cycle faster, give the impression of activity, and expose more articles to more eyes and get more work done!

So, let's talk. --Corveroth (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As you see, there are only a few of us who care. The other admins are not very active, anymore. Maintenance of the one portal is done by me, the last years, but is not my favorite job. That said, I can understand (and agree with) your points. If there is a way to make the front page more user-friendly without making it high maintenance, I am open for changes. --Hunter (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add one thing. I would move the Announcements and Current Events to the Community Portal and simply add something like this Template:Main General to the bottom part. The forums are dormant anyway and the community portal can be used without creating an account. - Yandere Sliver 12:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding another platform (which even I didn't know to have existed) helps starting the coversations anew. And I'm not a fan of moving announcements to a page that's not seen by the usual visitors. At least the main page is seen. On the other hand, I've never changed the announcements anyway. Maybe Corveroth and others can chime in on this? --Hunter (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That said, I am very gratefull of the fine workd that has been done in the last days by everyone. The wiki is more active than it has been for years. Thx all and best wishes for 2016! --Hunter (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That explains why the community portal is so silent. If the announcements never change, we should replace them by something... More static. And Thanks, I find wiki work always relaxing. ^^ - Yandere Sliver 07:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright folks, I'm back for a bit. Apologies for being busy elsewhere. I'm thinking, for starters: Let's remove Template:Main Current for now, since it's ugly and belongs on an editor-specific page. Next, let's talk about what we want in that navigation column on the left. Do we want that column on the left? What do we consider top-level navigation categories - do we have pages that belong there, or do we have creative work to do? I've got some thoughts, but I'll let you all chime in first. --Corveroth (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the wall of text. I like the Using MTGS Wiki category. This is a wiki after all and these links are helpful.

I also like the two Releases sections. I am a bit confused after looking at it closely, why the sorting in both categories is not consistent. I like the Recent Release sorting better. Perhaps we could even unify the two sections to Releases with two subcategories: Upcoming and Recent, so that you have a bit of a pipeline feeling.

MTG Savation is an interesting section. I think you don't need the Category link and I am not sure how many people are actually intrested in it... It is a good read. Once. But I don't go back reading it.

Navigation is definitely the most disappointing part. I use category navigation a lot, but I would prefer links to pages rather then categories. So I do not tend to use these. To pick a few pages and say: Yes, these are the entries we are proud off, which helps you navigate the rest of the wiki would be much cooler.

Also on the topic of discussion pages. Perhaps we should link to the talk pages of active users to provide guidance. Perhaps Hunter's talk page? I have the feeling we are using his talk page as community portal. Because we are definitely not using the Forum to discuss things. - Yandere Sliver 07:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, you're referencing this forum? --Corveroth (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes exactly, I don't have the feeling that this really the place that we are discussing things. - Yandere Sliver 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There's another forum, but that's only for admin's. At the moment I'm the only active admin. I've asked the five of the other seven admins/sysops if they are still interested. Otherwise, we could replace them with some of you guys (if you are interested) --Hunter (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

On to the topic:

• Using MTGS Wiki Like, keep (without the dead link to the projects)
• Navigation Like, keep
• Releases Could be combined with Magic news
• MTG Savation Could be changed to "About MTG Salvation", don't need the link to categories.
• Announcements and current events is really a dead section. Could be deleted. When neccesary, whe could use the Featured article for that section.
• Featured article Keep, what would a wiki be without it?
• Magic news Keep, works in the current form

A More pronounced link with the forum would be nice. --Hunter (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I am already editing a lot. I could take on a sysop or admin role.

On the topic, I basically agree with most of your points... I still think that it would be nicer if the Navigation section could link to pages like Comprehensive_rules instead of Category:Magic rules. - Yandere Sliver 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with this talk about doing a rethink of the main page and other things. I support all of you guys with these topic if it helps to achieve a consensus.

About adding new admins, I don't know if it will help because we have already done a lot of editing without being an admin. I am already happy to help in what I can with being only a simple editor, but if you think I can help more with a higher role, then I could take that responsibility. --Tuamir (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I dig all of this, and definitely think we could use a bit of an overhaul. In particular, the "Announcements and current events" section is just not good. As for my personal activity, it hasn't been insanely high during the past couple of months, while it was very high immediately before that. That's just how it's going to be with me, frankly; I'm very much an on/off guy. Interest level comes and goes, and sometimes I'm more busy than others. That said, I'm always going to at least keep up what I'm doing (which is the Pro Play section), so even if I'm not super active, the pages I suppose I feel responsibility for are still getting updated by me as appropriate. When I'm in the mood/have the time again, I'll once again massively write and expand, and so it'll go. But I am keeping an eye on things. Oh, and I approve of the updates to the Magic news section. I was actually coming here to add the Twin/Summer Bloom ban to it myself, but I was beaten to the punch! --Sene (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Being "on/off" is just fine. We're unpaid contributors to a community resource and we have priorities, and sometimes, ensuring that no one can contest the definition of "shard" or the color of Urza's hair just isn't doesn't rank. As long as there's enough in motion to avoid the tragedy of the commons, there's no reason to feel the slightest bit guilty about stepping back - and trying to find more contributors is, in my mind, one of the most compelling reasons to push discussion out to the MTGS Forums. I'll post over there now with my thoughts. --Corveroth (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The header

I played a bit with the header and would propose an update.

1. I picked a darker gray the white is barely visible. I think it is not ideal. So I would be grateful for suggestions.
2. I moved the pentagrams to the side and made them a bit bigger.
3. I used the new svg picture.

((Here were 4 diffrent options for the header)) So what do you think better worse? I would be greatful for some feedback. - Yandere Sliver 03:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely better, warmer. --Hunter (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I like it! --Sene (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I experimented a bit with the background color, but am not entirely sure, since my monitor is not true colored. - Yandere Sliver 12:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I approve. I don't think there's much that can be done to better optimize the background against a foreground containing a white dot, a black dot, and black text. Maybe the ideal solution would be to add a drop shadow to the mana symbols, so that white stands out against a traditional reading background. For perspective, some block content bg colors used on Wikipedia are #F5FFFA, #F5FAFF, #F9F9F9, #F7FAFF - all very very close to white. Headers trend toward darker colors, to the point that some even use white text, but theirs aren't subject to the limitations caused by the white symbol. --Corveroth (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I Prefer the second one, but that is personal --Hunter (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

After looking at it for I while I think I would also prefer the second and yes... The backdrop is complicated unless you go fro a yellow, brown or gold, which are all not really good background colors. But grey scale probably looks good on most computers. Colors can be problematic. - Yandere Sliver 08:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I also vote for the second, but I would prefer a lighter gray. Somehow between the color of the first and the second. --Tuamir (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a lighter grey one the original is F5F5F5, the second one is D0D0D0. The mean of the two is E2E2D2 which is presented in the fourth one. - Yandere Sliver 19:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice, I really like that fourth option :D --Tuamir (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Any last comments on this 2 and 4 seem to be the favored? - Yandere Sliver 19:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I like 4 slightly better. I think it plays better with the overall color scheme of the Wiki. --Sene (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm undecided between 2 and 4. Both are good. --Hunter (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I switched out the main header to version 4 because most people like it and I am also undecided between 2 and 4. - Yandere Sliver 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The magic logo got an update

And I thought we could make our header a bit more simple and sexy.

Here my suggestion: User:Yanderesliver/sandbox2

- Yandere Sliver 21:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Moving further discussion to MTGS Forums

Forum in question

Pro: Stop fiddling with indentation and signing edits. Pro: More likely to engage outsiders. Con: I'll betcha we all know what's up because we keep checking that Recent Changes link, so we'd have a new place to watch. --Corveroth (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Pro: My talk page isn't exactly a convennient place (for me) --Hunter (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. I like the wiki talk sections, but it doesn't help if most people are uncomfortable with it.

My biggest problem with the forum is that it is basically unused. If we want to keep it as a communication platform, we should at least put a status update once in a while in there; like: "Currently streamlining all Navigation bars." or "Working on the Magic History." We we don't start using the forum nobody else will. Also threads like "Ask a wiki question" or "What information would you like to see in the wiki." would be interesting to generate a bit more traffic from the rest of the forums.

A big plus on the keeping things in the wiki is that IP addresses can post here. On the forum you need an account. However MTG salvation is a very active forum, so that might not be such a big hurdle. And nobody is stopping IPs from posting here... That would be my two cents on the issue.

And yes if we decide to keep the forum a more prominent link would be nice. - Yandere Sliver 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the forum to be the best for this kind of discussion. It's easier to get an overview of what's being said and discussed; plus, the forum itself is a better way to talk than the Wiki is, quite unsurprisingly. I'm not sure whether you all have MTGS accounts, but if you do, I would suggest using the Wiki forum there. --Sene (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now made a thread in the forums on the topic of the front page. --Sene (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Main Page replacement

Following up on earlier discussions, I've created a demo of a suggested replacement for the front page. Please take any discussion about this proposal to this thread on the forums. --Corveroth (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Two admins have expressed satisfaction with the current state of the demo. If you have any objections, or further changes you want made before it goes live, please visit that thread! --Corveroth (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Mobile view

Added a flag to the individual chunks that would allow for mobile use. However, they don't span the full page, because the other column is still there, despite all of its contents being hidden. Until that's worked around, please do not use the mobile flag. --Corveroth (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Poking at this again. When considering a small smartphone screen, which of the chunks on the main page do you think are highest priority? Which ones need to be shown (first, or at all)? --Corveroth (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In order: 1)What are you looking for? 2) In the News 3) Featured article 4) Upcoming events --Hunter (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I used basically the same front page design on the L5R wiki, because I am a bit lazy. I had the same problem but simply implemented the mobile view completely seperate Just take a look at the source and you can see what I have done. - Yandere Sliver 08:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hunter. --Sene (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(reset) Okay, progress! On sufficiently small screens, the main page now snaps into a single-column view. Please, check it out on your own devices and report any issues!

However, CSS cannot break apart the (desktop) columns. It can rearrange chunks within each column. So, I'd like some further feedback: is everyone in agreement, at least in principle, with Hunter's suggested ordering? Should we modify the desktop site to accommodate that ordering, or leave mobile with the present ordering? --Corveroth (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If that is the choice, I wouldn't change the desktop in favor of mobile. --Hunter (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Our wiki logo

I think it comes from the time where we had the name mtg salvation wiki. It is a nice piece of lagacy, but I would assume a color wheel would be more relevant. Like this one - Yandere Sliver 22:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I am partial to the current logo due to its history, but I do see that it could use an update. You wouldn't necessarily be able to immediately associate the logo with Magic: The Gathering, which is an obvious weakness. --Sene (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean I like the old logo and I associate it to a certain degree with the magic wiki due to mere exposure. It just hit me, that this is probably only something whch editors experience. - Yandere Sliver 06:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion:

File:Wiki logo suggestion.png

-Yandere Sliver 14:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that an issue with the old logo is that it's too busy - there's too much stuff in it. I kinda feel like that's also the case with this one. However, I certainly don't have a better alternative, so I realize I'm not being particularly helpful here. Ultimately I don't feel super strongly about this either way, and wouldn't be displeased about any of the options. --Sene (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I approve the new log. I'm here just since some months, so I cannot relate to the old logo, however I must say that it doesn't easily remind Magic, it is too much generic.--Firebead elvenhair (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So let's try it. When people are absolutely not liking it, we can always find new consensus. - Yandere Sliver 00:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I like a lot the new logo. --Tuamir (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It reads a little busy to me. Could that be resolved by something like fading the color wheel, or some other approach to layering/precedence? Also, and this may be entirely too cute, I'm entertained by the idea of flipping the M into a W for wiki. --Corveroth (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I did take another shot at this.
File:Wiki name.png
Thoughts? - Yandere Sliver 18:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)