Talk:Main Page

From GodWiki
Revision as of 19:43, 24 February 2021 by Bibliophile (talk | contribs) (→‎Moving sections: fix spacing)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Main Page article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
  • Opinionated research if possible
  • Neutral point of view when appropriate
  • Humour
  • Verifiability
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times

This page has an archive

Old and/or inactive discussions have been moved to the /Archive subpage.

A Godwiki survey?

One of the thing I had planned at one point of SummerWiki 2019 was a poll to vote for best article. The idea was to make maybe people that didn't participate aware of the articles and make them read those and further if possibly. After all, people lile to vote anonymouse, so I though a poll would have been an idea to present the godwiki.

Soooo, I was wondering if doing an anonymous survey for the Godwiki could lure people there and maybe tell us why people aren't using it that much (or atleast not contributing much). There is thousands of actives gods and wey less active right here. And maybe with those answers we could improve the godwiki to lure more people in.

I have never done such a survey so well, if you thought it's a good idea, let's work on it together once more! -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Random samples of questions

  • How often do you use the Godwiki.
  • If you don't use the Godwiki tell us why
    • Too hard to use
    • Don't see why I should use it
    • etc.
  • If you use Godwiki, do you contribute often to it?
  • If you don't contribute to it tell us why.
    • Too complicated
    • Not confident in english
    • Don't care
    • etc.
  • Are you aware of events that happened and could happens on the Godwiki?
  • What do you like on the Godwiki
  • What don't you like on the Godwiki
  • What you would like to see on Godwiki?
  • What do you think could be improved on the Godwiki?
  • Were you aware there are volunteers ready to help you with Godwiki articles?
  • Were you aware that you could create your personnal page on the Godwiki ?
Are you suggesting like a Google Forms or SurveyMonkey survey be posted as an alert on the main page? Since most of my motivation for editing is to make editing as painless as possible for other people, I’m actually completely on-board with with idea.
If we do do a survey, I would suggest making the aggregate results public (eg: announcing it on the main page).
We could also not do this as a one-time thing, but a recurring thing at set intervals.
I would suggest that instead of the conditional question for not contributing, we ask the question and then provide a set of “How much do you agree with the following statements” questions after it. Eg: “The editing guidelines are easy to understand.” (And others... I just can’t think of any)
I’d ask a conditional question “Have you recently posted a request for help on Help:Requests?” And if so, do another “how much agree” set. Like: “I feel that my request was satisfactorily resolved.” (Etc) optionally asking the name of the volunteer/for more info they want to provide.
Lastly I’d suggest on the last page we add an optional field asking for god name (should they want to provide it), and an option to perhaps request that we contact them...? Similarly, an “any additional comments” field.
I know I say all of this, but, the simpler the form, the better. Likewise, the less text and shorter the form, the better. I don’t expect us to do all of what I just wrote, I’m just throwing it out there. — Emptysora (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm definitely on-board for this, with a few hesitations.
Getting surveys right is hard. Phrasing questions well requires a lot of thought, so let's not rush. I think we need to keep a few things in mind:
  • Any question that requires typing will cause some people to just stop doing the survey in immediately.
  • We don't have permission to collect personal information, and shouldn't ask for it. No god name fields at all, no personal information at all, neither the respondent's nor others' (e.g., editors who helped them)
  • Information from the community belongs to the community. All answers should be anonymous, anonymized if necessary, and then the data made available to everyone, once we check through to ensure there is no personal or inappropriate information included (all text that is kept would have to comply with the game rules, not mention any individuals or guilds, etc. Any response that wasn't suitable to be made public would need to be discarded)
There's probably others but I'm still working on my first coffee.
A cautious thumbs up from this guy. -- Djonni (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I’m going to start going to you, Djonni, when I have questions about privacy practices... heh.

But yes, everything you said is very valid. Maybe at most, on the final screen (very end) an additional comments field that’s entirely optional.

Surveys certainly are hard, my first reaction to a survey from a company I’m not entirely on board with (virtually everything aside from Mozilla/MDN surveys) is, “Ugh. No thank you,” if I am in a good mood, and, “Yeah, no. I don’t need more people tracking me and my opinions,” otherwise. The longer the survey, the more likely I am to abandon it too.

I mean, I’m not attached to the idea of collecting god/volunteer names anyway. That’s probably just useless information at best and asking for trouble at worst. I’m not even attached to having text fields. The “how much do you agree” kind of things are more than enough for the vast majority of the things we might be looking for. Using them results in less text the user has to read too, which should, if even just a little, raise the odds of someone completing the survey. The most successful surveys are short and sweet. Eg: “would you recommend us to a friend?” (Y/N), “why?” (Text), end of form. — Emptysora (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A draft of what could be done as a survey. Updated the link for the draft, try to answer it so I can see how the results appears and give feedback about it if you don't mind! --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Some informations from what I can see at the moments: there is possibility to keep the survey anonymous easily (just a parameter to check) and there is detailled results for each questions even, written ones. --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm reopening this discussion as per my new topic below. The survey can be a great tool, but I'd like to keep in mind what the goal of the survey is. My personal goal is to make the GodWiki more inviting and encourage more users to come over from the game to the wiki. I'd like to make it easier for the less experienced wiki writers to still create in the wiki. There is a discussion here (in the removing link topic) about adding a page for submitting articles to be switched to wiki text, although it's a bit long winded and off topic. I think the survey should include a question that will let us know if this is something that would get more involvement in the wiki.

In short, I want a survey that will help us implement changes that lead to more involvement in the wiki. The survey should be really really short, like three or four questions. Longer than that and we lose many responses. All questions should have multiple choice answers. An optional comment section at the end might be a good idea. I am happy to take responsibility for creating, managing, and presenting the information from the survey. --His portliness (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi all, I think that the mainpage can use a bit of a facelift. It could definitely look more modern, and use some polishing. In general a new look every few years keeps things fresh. I have a few ideas, but I'm looking to hear from the community what ideas or suggestions they have. Things that should or should not be included, layout ideas, how to make the page more inviting, all good things.

In addition, I'd like to reopen the above discussion about doing a survey. The goal of the makeover is to encourage more participation in the GodWiki. I think the survey is important to help us figure out what is needed to get that participation, and the questions should be geared towards that end.

--His portliness (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the survey discussion to the topic above, I'm pretty open to a facelift of the main page. However the main page is super technical, so it's going to need very careful sandbox testing before any changes are rolled out. And, since it is quite technical, it's probably going to be my job to do that, unless someone else has the skills and interest to make and test any required changes.
What would we want to change, if we can make any changes we like to the Main Page? Are we just talking about freshening up the design to look more "modern and polished", without a major redesign? And what exactly do we mean by "modern and polished", because someone has to do that, and it's just flat not possible to do fancy design stuff here on the wiki. Are we talking about a rewrite of the wording? Rethinking what should be on the front page at all? -- Djonni (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
As someone with zero knowledge of the how-to, I have some ideas and questions lol. I was wondering if it was possible to embed a giant background and have all the text show up against it? That way the background can look nicer in a way which probably will totally screw up the mobile version of the main page 😂. I think the content of the main page should be reevaluated, there is a bit too much on it. Less is more. It needs a cleaner look. I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself. If you look at Wikipedia's main page, there are these little basic pictures with a weird next to it, such as "Commons: Free usable photos", and if we can implement that here it would be great. I'm imagining a little 2d monster, an artifact, a 2d silhouette of a building, etc.
Users with not much experience can still help with collecting the backgrounds, symbols, pictures, and also with rewriting what should be there. --His portliness (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Responding in pieces:
I was wondering if it was possible to embed a giant background: No. Probably not in the way you imagine, at least. You may have noticed the complete absence of background images in the entire wiki, with one exception that I know of: my own user page's {{Usergod}}. It is possible (but not easy) to create a repeating, patterned background using overlapping CSS gradients, but to "embed a giant background" is not possible. And beside the question of it being possible, there's a significant question of it being desirable: such backgrounds can have really significant impacts on the vision impaired if not handled with a lot of care. Perhaps a concrete example of what you imagine would make for a better background than the current plain color blocks?
probably will totally screw up the mobile version: Yes, this is important to keep foremost in our minds when discussing changes. Negative impacts on 1) mobile users, and 2) accessibility, completely override any aesthetic or technical preferences we have.
there is a bit too much on it: I completely agree with you there, I've always felt the main page was way too text-heavy 👍
I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself: I'm afraid I don't understand this, can you try to explain what you mean?
If you look at Wikipedia's main page, there are these little basic pictures with a weird next to it: If I understand this right, you're talking about changing the bulleted list in the top panel of our Main Page (• Gameplay • Monsters • Pets, etc) to resemble the "Wikipedia's sister projects" section of the Wikipedia main page...? That's fine, but it makes it very difficult for people to change that list in future, and it will take up a lot more screen space. So we'd better discuss what that list will contain, and whether it would still be at the top. -- Djonni (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some points:

  1. The background would be unnecessary if the main page was slimmed down and cleaner. A plain white backgrounmd would then be preferable, in my opinion. See [] for what I think we should be modeling.
  2. In regards to a daily digest, I mean that we currently have a Featured Article and Daily Image on the main page. Perhaps to a link to a page with those two on it would be better. Same with a FYI or FAQ or a DYK section. It should be a link to a page, not on the page itself.
  3. Links should appear as Example link.jpg instead of simple links. It is very aesthetically pleasing, and makes the page more exciting. To ease the future editors' job, each link can be an image with a link embedded in it, as explained here. Any editor can replace the picture, change the link, or add new pictures with links quite easily. I made my picture clickable to open the wikibooks site so you can see what I mean.

I don't think this is that hard, especially since the main page will be very clean. It will (hopefully) require less formatting for mobile and be easier to navigate. --His portliness (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think a link to a daily digest is preferable to having all the current articles on the main page itself I think the idea is to create a "Godwiki Times" that would change daily and have the current daily info (featured, do you know, random image, maybe more?)
I do think we should take a look for inspiration at others wikis. I personally do like the Terraria one as example (having every single main content listed on main page with image instead of bullets. Maybe not suited to Godwiki). But the main issue of the main page is clearly the banner to me. I don't think the rest of the page is that bad.
Globally I would gladly also help a little on the redo of the page as I am in training for web developement so that would be good training for me 🤣. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
To ease the future editors' job, each link can be an image with a link embedded in it — It's the use of images at all that makes it difficult for future editors. Let's say in future it's decided that the header there should focus on the game goals, not on the content categories. If it's text only, that's maybe 3 minutes work. With images and links and layouts etc, it becomes a day just finding the pictures, or, in most likelihood, having to make the pictures from scratch which, unless it's something you do regularly, probably takes more like a week of learning and fiddling. 3 minutes to a week. Y'see what I mean? Even just changing one item (say, Geography comes off, Towns goes on; or Godville's History comes off, Ideabox goes on) becomes a massive pain in the arse with images. Right now, it's about 15 seconds work. 30 if you preview your changes, heh.
I'm not saying we definitely shouldn't do it; I'm just making sure we're aware of the non-obvious outcomes of the changes we're considering. And I'm certainly all for things being easier to navigate on mobile, so I'm definitely positive about that in general. But the images are a bit of a pandora's box.
As for a daily digest, my feeling is that if it's not worth having on the Main Page then it's not worth having. Who's going to look at a daily digest? Nobody. The Featured Article is a showcase and reward for people who contribute awesome content, I personally feel quite strongly that it should stay, though the snippets of text should be short. The featured image, well, meh. Quite a lot of the Godwiki's images are old rubbish, and the RandomImage extension has no way of limiting the image choice to certain categories, so if we want to get rid of that then that's fine by me. DYK can probably be reduced to one line now that it's a rotation, which means that if we like the DYK box can be dissolved and the text can be incorporated into some other part of the page. -- Djonni (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I wanna apologize if any of this is coming through as grumpy! It's not intentional, I'm having a bad day and I'm in a bad mood, so I hope it's not bleeding through too much 😅 -- Djonni (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First, Djonni, if this is you at your worst I can't wait to see you at your best. Hugs and I hope your day gets better.

To address WardPhoenix, the Terraria Wiki is really cool, but would be really hard to put together for godville. It would require tons of hours compiling lists of what should be included. As a long term project, I'm all for it, but I think it would be years before we really got to the point of Terraria.

I don't want to be the voice of doom, but I started wondering; before we go into a big project like this, how long will Godville still be around? The devs don't really push the game in the playstore, so the user base is dying out. Which brings me to Djonni's points. Even if this does make it harder in the future, what is the chance that there will be another major overhaul of the Main Page or the GodWiki? I think if we have a good idea and people are willing to join in the effort, we should go for it. With that in mind, I'd love to arrange the page in a way that leaves space for something like the Terraria Wiki, meaning start now on the basic page, and create a sandbox page with the rest as a sort of long term project. I think there won't really be much future editing a few years down the line and we can safely do whatever we want. I am new to this and have only been watching the wiki a few months, and been actively contributing even less, so good chance I'm wrong. Djonni will correct me if I am, he's my guiding voice of reason.

Worst case scenario, some future editor comes along and wants to make a complete change to the page, they can rip it up and make it text again. Maybe even leave a <!-- note --> with a link to a sandbox version of the page as it currently is, so any editor can easily put back the original main page if it is too difficult for them to deal with and they really want to make a major overhaul.

I definitely understand the sentiment about the featured article staying, especially seeing how it encourages more people to write and rewards those that did. We have to figure out a way to include it that looks fresh, and doesn't take over the page. The way it is now, the main opage has no focus, it is a seemingly random jumble of info.

One last point, there are some things on the main page that are there in duplicate or even triplicate. Some examples are the link to the Guidebook (x3), Creators manual (x2), Help:Requests (x2). With a cleaner page, each of these important links will be easier to find, and will not need to be linked in a bunch of places with the hope that people find them.

--His portliness (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve been learning about the wiki the past few months and recently started working more on editing the wiki. I have some thoughts on your ideas based on my short experience so far—to add a less experienced user POV. First, I do have experience with HTML, CSS, and JS; what is easily possible on a website using that trio (or just the first two) is not so easy on this wiki. Djonni and WardPhoenix know waaay more about the technical aspects of WikiMedia and the GodWiki than me. But even I’ve realized how hard it is to deal with images and certain formatting, especially trying to make changes that work on both desktop and mobile devices.
There has been an ongoing effort to make the wiki more mobile-view friendly, which I support since I usually access it through my phone nowadays. I started playing Godville in a desktop browser almost 9 years ago. It is because I discovered the mobile app (iOS) that I came back to the game after 5+ years. I’d guess userbase comes and goes.
Even with all the really hard work on mobile-compatibility, it’s a work in progress. For example, there are still individual articles (not on major pages) that need wiki code adjustments so images and text float properly and the mobile layout doesn’t hide part of the text behind an image.
Do you usually (or always) access the GodWiki from a desktop browser? I’m curious because to me the Main Page doesn’t seem like a jumble of random info without any focus. Sure, there could be improvements, but the main info (or links) I’m looking for is what I almost immediately see filling the screen when I open the Main page. I usually don’t need to scroll much at all. Maybe the stacked layout on the mobile version makes it seem more streamlined? I use the desktop view on rare occasions, but admit I’m more used to mobile.
Even without technical limitations, I’m strongly against an embedded background on whatever screen size. I do have vision issues where certain backgrounds can trigger migraines or make reading difficult. Unless it is an unobtrusive shade in a solid color, page backgrounds can be problematic in general.
Finally, I don’t want to seem like I’m just piling on criticism. Different and new ideas can spark great changes! 👍🏼 I suppose I have a more utilitarian view of the GodWiki, though. I want to be able to find accurate, current, and easily understandable information. From my own experience first poking around, then gradually feeling more comfortable editing the wiki, I know there are many updates and/or reorganization needed (or being considered) for various documentation or content. A fresh look is less important than content updates to me. Of course, if the layout impedes finding content that is a problem. 😊 -- Bibliophile (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The more perspectives the better, Bibliophile, thanks for jumping in 😊 It's really nice to be having conversations about the wiki that aren't just WardPhoenix and I agreeing with each other 😂 And as you're no doubt discovering ((WardPhoenix too, if you're studying web design at the moment), wanting to improve the wiki and having experience with HTML, CSS, and JS is pretty much an exercise in constant frustration 😉 Having no access to the site's CSS is a frequent source of frustration, especially when images and the lack of responsive design rears its head. Anyway, I digress.
Regarding how long will Godville still be around, why don't we proceed on the assumption that this game with ~20,000 active players at its least busy times, which is the little sister of a Russian-language game with closer to 100,000 active players, will still be around for as long as the Devs are alive and earning enough money to continue with it, shall we? It's very important to remember that most of the game's players use the wiki, and that most of the game's players simultaneously know nothing and don't care about the wiki and how it works until it doesn't work for them. As Bibliophile pointed out, and I can also attest to from my own Honoured Renegade achievement, it's totally common for individual players to drift in and out over the years, and for the attention of individual players to drift in and out of the Godwiki as well. The future of the game, and the future of the Godwiki, is as long as it is foreseeable, and our decisions need to assume that during that long future, none of us may be around, and those who want to fix up and improve the game in that future will need to rely on the archives of these conversation and the page histories to figure out what the hell was going on in the last decade. (Trust me on this, it's what FeRDNYC (ʿalayhi s-salām) and I had to do several years ago as we tried to pull this place back from dereliction once already.)
Your impulse to preserve the page state for future editors is a good impulse but not needed: it's unfeasible (and ultimately confusing) to keep a separate snapshot of every past state of a page that a future editor may want to refer to; the page history is already built for that. What's needed are helpful, clear edit summaries, so that in future someone can pull up the history and read through each step that was taken and zoom in on the one they need to inspect. All of us who really care about the Godwiki should head to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and enable the option to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" (and while you're there, probably "Mark all edits minor by default").
I've been thinking more about the images idea for the banner list, and if you'll permit me, I'm suspecting we're falling into an XY problem. Laying aside the actual images for a moment, if I've understood right, the crux of the suggestion is probably an attempt to achieve the following:
  • Some more whitespace around the list items;
  • Some decoration of the list items.
I've actually been on a long-term mission to stamp out small or repetitive images everywhere I can on the wiki ({{God}} continues to be one of my last areas of frustration) for a long list of technical and accessibility reasons that are mostly to do with how infuriatingly dumb this wiki is with inserting images into pages. The solution that we have been moving towards is emojis, with some care to be aware that newer emojis still have really bad cross-device support and must be avoided. Emojis are correctly rendered (with the previous caveat) on any device, they are correctly handled by screen readers (all emojis have a name in words), and they scale intelligently for those who need to zoom pages for readability. (Images used inline with text like we're proposing are a total nightmare for people with a vision impairment who actually like to, y'know, read things themselves, just zoomed in. They can quickly make a page completely unusable.)
So, perhaps one solution is that we create a nicely designed touch target for the banner link list that includes emojis instead of images? It'll take some tweaking and mocking up, but here's a bit of an attempt:
There's plenty of tweaking we can do to that, of course, spacing, subtle borders, etc, but that's the basic concept I'd propose. Take a look at how it performs in various different viewscreen sizes (on desktop, make the browser window narrower/wider, etc, and try different zoom levels). -- Djonni (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not to get too much off the main subject, but I can’t change any preferences on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing or the other preference sections. Either in-app browser or mobile browser. Whenever I try to save, I get a lovely error message like: cbf25ed92a09b357d99092e0] 2020-11-03 23:16:02: Fatal exception of type "MWException". Is this impossible on mobile? -- Bibliophile (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Bibliophile, it's nice to hear more voices joining in. I, too, am pretty new around here. You are going for the functional aspect, and the links are right there. I use godville both on pc and mobile so that I can get both perspectives. I think that from a purely functional standpoint you are right; the most important links are at the top. From an aesthetics pov there is a bunch of random information on a main page, although Djonni brought up some very good reasons for some of it to stay. I am mostly concerned with the outdated look, which brings me to the comment by Djonni. I love that XY problem! It really got me thinking again. You are totally right about what I want, mainly more whitespace and a more decorative look than simple wordlinks. Your solution solves my issue completely. I looked at it on mobile and pc, zoomed in and out, and tried to amke it break a little. It still looks pretty good to me.
The next issue that I would like to look at is rewording or totally changing the setup. I have a few ideas but I would like to hear other's thoughts first. One quick point though, it should probably be put before the featured article because it is about the godwiki itself and is kind of the natural progression of the page. For some reason on pc it comes second while on mobile it shows up first. I'll leave that to the pros.
I think the Help:Requests needs better representation on the main page. I feel like it should be more noticeable, as someone who was looking for it i skipped right over it the first bunch of times I needed it. --His portliness (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm just inserting a random note here: we have just whizzed past the Godwiki's decennary, on August 28. Seems to me like that's an absolutely ideal excuse to really dig into the aesthetics and usability of the main page and, even if some may feel it isn't strictly needed, a fresh coat of paint would probably brighten the place up a bit! So let's keep hashing out the options. Don't be afraid to bring up an idea, even if it turns out to be impossible, unwise, or unpopular. We'll think it through. 😊 No, carry on, sorry for the interruption-- Djonni (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

How long do we have to wait before we can start implementing your emoji idea? I say let's start that now, and continue the discussion of how to rewrite the rest of the page as it happens. --His portliness (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's really nice to be having conversations about the wiki that aren't just WardPhoenix and I agreeing with each other 😂 Sure enough, not that I don't enjoy those talks 🤣. Joking aside, I really like that "attempt" you made Djonni it's really clean and probably more eye catchy than the current list on that banner. It might me space consuming though, especially on mobile view. Maybe we should do a try out of it in a sandbox page to be sure?
I think the Help:Requests needs better representation on the main page. I feel like it should be more noticeable, as someone who was looking for it i skipped right over it the first bunch of times I needed it. That's actually both an interesting and frightening comment. As someone who kinda participated tweaking the main page this year, I was absolutely convinced that having a big bolded button Help right under the banner was clearly enough. Plus it's even mentionned in the introduction and in the do you know of the main page, and you tell me that's not enough? I feel a little sad and like I overlooked something but if you didn't thought that was clear enough, that's surely the case for many other deities (please don't take it personnaly without your comment we wouldn't have input of how not visbily enough it is, and without that we can't improve! 😊) --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I guess a bit of explanation is in order. The reason I had trouble finding help from other users was twofold. First, the big bold help button seemed to be just the regular help like any website, meaning a bunch of articles, not people. I was looking for people to tell me what the hell I was doing wrong. The second issue was that untill recently I was using only mobile, so I never scrolled past the beginning of the page because it looked like nothing I was interested in. I almost never even made it to the main page because I was usually going straight to the page I needed. If I did end up on the main page, it was to find the Creators Manual. The main page itself didn't seem like it was the place to find help.
This was my personal experience, and has much to do with my own assumptions. The Help:Requests is linked twice on the main page. Not exactly your fault. On the other hand, I do believe that it would be nice if it stood out more, and if it would be clear that this is not just a self help but that other users are helping you. A clean section that is dedicated to help is preferable to the help page link being stuck in the middle of a paragraph. Maybe there should be a help section like I wrote about here and have those links directly on the main page? --His portliness (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
His portliness, I took another look at the desktop view again today and can better understand your point about the Main Page seeming unorganized. In need of a “cleaner” look as Djonni described above. My desktop is rather outdated so I’m not using it much now, which makes comparing these things a bit more difficult. I’m planning on buying a new PC soon, though🤞🏼
Hearing your ideas and experiences with the wiki makes me reevaluate my own perspective, which I think is always a good thing. I’ve tended to be a bit too mobile focused lately, partly out of necessity. It’s good to be reminded of all the website designs I complained about when I mostly used a desktop browser! This whole discussion topic has been very informative 😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliophile (talkcontribs) 4 November 2020‎

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering how mobile is overwhelmingly the way that people access and edit the wiki, I don't actually think it's possible to be a bit too mobile focused. The way I see it, the mobile experience should be the focus, and desktop usability should be an afterthought. It's a challenge, though, because any complex editing (especially template coding and design) is just so much harder on mobile, so it means we have to do our work on desktop and then constantly double- and triple-check it on a variety of devices and screen sizes. And even then, it's so hard to make allowances for the smallest, oldest devices which are in use by the Godwiki community — the game works really great on really cheap, old, crappy phones, and works really great with really cheap, slow, unreliable internet, and so the game's really popular with users of those devices. A profound lack of interest in the mobile experience is one of the things that made the Godwiki so awful in its early years, and it needs constant focus to maintain. 😊

As for the observation that the Help link seems like it would lead to a bunch of articles, not people, I can understand that now that it's pointed out. Perhaps, again, this is a bit of an XY problem — is this perhaps as simple as changing the link from just Help to Ask for Help, or perhaps Ask Us for Help? Does that make it immediately clear that there are people at the other side?

This week I have a reasonably full workload and a bit going on that limits my capacity to roll up my sleeves on this (or on the {{Hero}} rebuild, which probably takes a backseat to this project for now). But as soon as I've got The Time™ and the spare mindshare I can get to work on a mock-up in a sandbox page. I'll make it a shared sandbox, so that anyone can fiddle with it. I should point out that while I'm probably the most experienced coder who's active on the Godwiki just now, and I am a programmer by profession, I'm actually not a web developer, so please don't assume that my web solutions are somehow the definitively right answer or anything. 😅 I'm a decent programmer, and a decent wikicoder, and I've been around long enough to have already made and learnt from a large number of the worst mistakes available in a wiki setting, that's all. I'm also fairly opinionated about certain issues around usability and accessibility which one might kindly say is due to our experiences fixing a lot of long-standing problems here, and one might less kindly say means I need to be constantly challenged to question my assumptions, and need to hear a variety of opinions and ideas that aren't my own. So I'm relying on y'all to keep doing that. 😉 -- Djonni (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry I forgot to sign my last comment. Truthfully, I’ve been extremely distracted all week while waiting anxiously for the US election results to show who would win the presidency. (Um, yes, I’m American 🤷🏻‍♀️).
I largely agree with your thoughts. I’m impressed with how much you do on the wiki in general! Real life work definitely takes priority 😉 I’m definitely not a programmer. Nor an expert website developer/designer, but...I know the huge importance of responsive design in making it easier to create cross-platform, cross-device, mobile-friendly sites. Unfortunately, as you’ve said, the CSS-limitations of the wiki makes that much more difficult. The fact this runs an older version of MediaWiki is confusing, too, since some of the more detailed help documents on the other site refer to things we can’t actually do. I’m not always sure which various things are possible or not.
Re: focusing on mobile compatibility. I mainly meant sometimes, at least in the past, designing primarily for mobile, using responsive design (and possibly workarounds) to adjust for desktop browsers created weird scaling issues. In a desktop browser (FF or Chrome) images and/or font size rendered too large (IMO). Or that different site elements were inconsistently scaled on a page. This was on larger, widescreen monitors. It was ~5yr ago when I started learning more about web design, then noticed increasing number of sites with this problem. I never could quite figure out which bits of code were the common denominator. I got in the habit of resizing my browser window just enough to avoid triggering it.
I hope that was somewhat coherent. I had a thought about the help page, but now it’s slipped my mind. I’m kind of exhausted 😂 I’ll comment later when it comes to me. -- Bibliophile (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, is this discussion somewhat finalised? I just want to be clear on what we came out with. --His portliness (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sandbox open for marathon work on the future main page. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox Main Talk

For the proposal and initial discussion of this, see Talk:Main Page#Facelift.

Hey all! Happy this is happening. Perhaps white space with little black borders around each category would look good? --His portliness (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was mucking around with the layout at the time you left the above, His portliness, and I had already set 2px bottom borders as an experimental layout before I saw your suggestion. 😊
My feeling is that the facelift should really move away from the heavy, boxy styles that typified the Early Utilitarian design era of the Godwiki to embrace some lighter, more open designs with that use colour highlighting and eschew the entire boxes-in-boxes-in-boxes schema we had with all the early infoboxes and main page design. I removed the enclosing div that did nothing but made the front page boxed in and grey. The yellow colour scheme — especially the khaki colour of the border and underlines — want really intended to be final, so I think we can and should play with that. (I have a Sony fantasy about having the colours of the top box slowly shift from cool to warm to cool as the Godville seasons progress...)
So, I think all the colours are up for debate and experimentation!
Next: display: grid vs columns. I think the original choice to use columns was to make an attempt at responsive design in a system which leaves us very few options. I think the display: grid looks good on mobile, but on desktop it creates a looooot of whitespace... More than I really expect to see. What do others think about that...? -- Djonni (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The color changing sounds so cool. Basically a gradient from yellows or light blue to purples and back? Like this maybe?
As for the desktop issue, it isn't terrible. Is there a way to force the layout for desktop to be 3 columns? --His portliness (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
If we were in a standard web page, we would just have to add a media query in the CSS and everything will be solved. Here, it's another story. Though I do agree the grid with two columns tend to feel empty on fullscreen desktop, it works well on halfscreen desktop and mobile screen. The columns method was the opposite, looking good on both desktop way, but not mobile-screen friendly since some screens were displaying a single column.
There might be another way to do things like we wish, but we may need to ask ourselves one big question : mobile-first or desktop-first? Ideally, we would optimise for both ; realisticly we may have to make a choice. --WardPhoenix (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I did some quick website analytics in the hopes of finding a mobile vs desktop user traffic analysis. Sadly I could not find that info, although I did reach out to the devs. The overall visits per month average to 246684 and average visit duration is 00:06:51. Currently the mobile vs desktop worldwide hovers at 50% since 2017. I think because this is a game, it is safe to assume that there is a large percentage on the app itself with over 500k downloads on the app store which is automatically mobile, plus, of those that go straight to the website (like myself), at least 50% are using mobile. Which means overall mobile would seem to be the larger platform. Does this make sense to anyone?
Also, I noticed that on desktop, since there are 12 categories to view (such as artifacts and records), they line up as 7 on one line and 5 on the next. If the 5 would be centered that would be nice, but currently they are aligned to the left and it looks a bit off. Same with the list of 6 main categories like the guidebook. I know that the layout changes based on the size of the window, but perhaps centering can be forced? --His portliness (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The columns method was the opposite, looking good on both desktop way, but not mobile-screen friendly since some screens were displaying a single column. From my testing, that's not an artifact of the columns: technique; the exact same thing happens now on narrow screens with the display: grid approach. It's simply because we're replaced a collection of small items with a collection of large items. Some screens are simply too narrow to fit two of these items side-by-side. The only way to fix that is to make the size of the items smaller. Maybe we can adjust down the font-size until it works well on the narrow screens (iPhone 4-5 screen width is probably the target for our 'small screen' layout, 320px wide).

I don't know display: grid very well, but from what I understand it's powerful and flexible... but in ways we simply don't need (and mostly can't take advantage of without access to the site CSS). Using columns: kinda gives us what we want for free: it automatically chooses the column count in such a way as to keep the content as even as possible. This is actually why there are 12 items in the banner: 12 is kind of a magic number for grids, as it's divisible by 6, 4, 3, and 2. Perhaps there's something technical about display: grid which gives some advantage which isn't obvious to me, but as it stands I advocate for a return to columns: 3 or 4, and try to adjust the item width so that we get 2 columns on a 320px wide display. Right now, it looks like we're collapsing to 1 column at somewhere around 350px width, we so we probably need to drop our column size by around 10% or so.

one big question : mobile-first or desktop-first? No question — mobile first. The least sophisticated users are most likely to be mobile users using the wiki through the app. Those statistics, His portliness, are they for the Godwiki (, or for, or an accumulaton of both?

the layout changes based on the size of the window, but perhaps centering can be forced? Again, this is a strong reason to return to a columns: 3 or 4 6-8em. No need to centering, we get balanced columns with nice spacing for free.

One last point: though I'm generally a gleeful advocate of all uses of {{daily choice}}, I think we should reconsider using it for the equipment emoji this way. One of the main reasons to have a pretty image (image ≡ emoji) next to each option is to give people a clear visual aid to find the item they're looking for in the list. We lose that if the icon's different every time the person visits, and risk creating some confusion. ("If I click that will it lead to the same place as last time?"). Personally I think we should pick one clear emoji to represent equipment in the list and stick to it. 😊 Thoughts? -- Djonni (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Those statistics, His portliness, are they for the Godwiki (, or for, or an accumulaton of both? After a quick recheck, they are for all extensions of When I tried a check on just I got an error that there isn't enough traffic above 10,000 visits a month to give a good estimate. So I guess the wiki gets somewhere in the 10k range... --His portliness (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
To the devs:
"We are redoing the wiki main page. Can you let me know if the wiki gets more desktop traffic or more mobile traffic? This would enable us to focus on the larger contingent of users.
"Mobile traffic is a bit bigger. However, it's also important not too leave behind people because of their device type or screen size (ideally it should be usable on both mobile and desktop)."
--His portliness (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Haaaaah, mmmkay, great. I think that FeRDNYC ʿalayhi s-salam would find that comment from the devs... some mix of hilarious and enraging 😂 The way to achieve what they, and we, think we should be doing, vis. making the Godwiki usable on both mobile and desktop, is to update the hell outta everything, start installing some damn extensions, unlock the damn CSS so that it can be made responsive, and enable us who invest so much of our time and energy into this thing to use proper modern web and mediawiki systems.
Buuuuut we'll just stick with making the best possible use of the resources we have, rather than moaning about the resources we don't. 😅 -- Djonni (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Lol exactly what I responded to the dear devs. I said without access to the CSS at a minimum, we can only do our best. I think if enough of us ask for it they will seriously start considering this. --His portliness (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

New topic on mainpage

I reached out to some players in a very unofficial and incomplete sort of survey. Many said they don't use the wiki so much because they never figured out what the heck was going on. Talk pages were foreign to them, they had no idea what they were or how to use them. They weren't sure how to leave comments or how to find and create their own pages. Perhaps a more comprehensive beginner's guide would be a nice thing. The GodWiki guidebook is nice, but it needs a bit more step by step instruction and it's missing a bunch of the important stuff that a first timer would want to know. --His portliness (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, first response to this is, go ahead!
Second response: I'm all for making the wiki as welcoming and well-signposted as we possibly can, but there's a horse-to-water element to this. My feeling is that a lot of players don't familiarise themselves with the wiki because they just don't care. I... honestly, I don't feel like it's actually very hard to get to grips with it, but maybe that's my own bias. However, I will point out that this is exactly why there was so much text put on the Main Page in the first place, to try to give everyone the biggest chance possible to understand and find resources and help. So, if we prune the Main Page's text and resources down and move them somewhere that's less obvious and easy to find... what are we achieving...? -- Djonni (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your faith in my writing abilities 😂. I'm not sure that I'm the one for this, since I barely understand the GodWiki myself. I think I'm still close enough to the other side of the fence to be a good critic about what needs explaining. I'll definitely try to put something together though.
I think having a box on the main page that says "if this is your first time here, click me!" or something along that vein, it wouldn't be less clear at all. --His portliness (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The Godwiki Guidebook is currently unneccessary IMO, though it was written by the Devs themselves and it appears in the sidebar, so we can't ignore it sadly. Maybe we could indeed replace said guidebook to a real ultra-dumbed down step-by-step guide.
Note: by ultra-dumbed, I don't intend to say that deities are too dumb for current stage of Godwiki but, as I agree with Djonni there, Deities that don't understand how Godwiki are probably not even trying to do things and want us to do it for them. (Yeah I am overreacting I guess).
I joined the wiki on late 2018, not knowing a single thing on how wikis worked and absolutely no programming knowledge. Trial and error is the best way to learn something, that's what gaming and most of things are about.
Nethertheless, we can still try to reach to those people and improve things for them I guess... -- WardPhoenix (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
So, I think that between WardPhoenix's excellent point that the Guidebook, as it currently exists, isn't that useful, and His portliness' observation that a huge "New here? Click me!" somewhere prominent on the main page might be useful... perhaps this thread should graduate to a discussion on Talk:Godwiki Guidebook about repurposing and rewriting that page to be something we thing might help capture those users...?
The only trouble with this is that writing like that is actually super hard, and someone's gotta do it... 😅 -- Djonni (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am ok with trying to give the writing a shot. I copied the text to a local file and will make a rough draft, and then I will repost it to a sandbox for discussion. I know that it would be ideal to do the whole thing on the wiki, but I don't think I will have time to do that type of writing if I can't have access when I am away from wifi.

Djonni, feel free to move this discussion to the talkpage for the guidebook, I just don't know how. Maybe I'll write a giude on how to move it 😂. --His portliness (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Color scheme

I think a color gradient (perhaps that is "style = linear-gradient|bottom"?) would look nice on the page. Maybe a bold modern color fading out. (You can see an example of this on the talkheader) Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by His portliness (talkcontribs) 29 November 2020‎

Hmm, across the whole page...? Or on the top box? We've been using simple gradients more and more in the various hatnote templates to try to make them a little more aesthetic than the block colours that they were before. Too many gradients in one page can be quite distracting if not done well though, so it's one of those "use wisely" CSS features. 😊
I had mentioned, somewhere... oh right, just up in #Main Page Facelift 2020, the idea of having the colours of the top box slowly shift from cool to warm to cool as the Godville seasons progress. That's certainly not incompatible with a gradient. I thought I should mock up the kind of thing I had in mind to make it clearer what that could look like.
So, with four seasons, I imagine the colours slowly shifting through shades between four colour points, each colour being strongest mid-season. I had thought (but am open to alternatives) that broadly speaking, Winter would be blue, Spring would be orange (tough that transition may be strange), Summer would be green, Autumn would be red. (As an Australian living in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm painfully aware that the Godville seasons cycle in opposition to the Souther Hemisphere's seasons, but c'est la vie.)
So, with plenty of room for tweaking and changes, I imagine the key frames of the colour schemes to be something like this. Winter, peaking on Day 0, with a highlight color of rgb(50, 160, 220):
Next, Spring, peaking on day 365/4, with a highlight color of rgb(235, 160, 15):
Summer, peaking on day 365/2, with a highlight color of rgb(50, 160, 60):
Autumn, peaking on day 365*3/4, with a highlight color of rgb(235, 90, 60):
Obviously, in between these peak days, the colors would be in transition between those shown above. At the change of seasons from winter's blue to spring's orange, or day 365/8, for example, the color would actually end up being a surprisingly nice earthy green color:
Now, doing all the math is fine, it's just a matter of some clever parser functions, but doing it elegantly and in a way that someone reading the code might stand a chance of understanding, well... I'm still gnawing on that. And I'm definitely not so attached to this idea that I can't throw it out if we think it's a terrible (or ugly) idea. Just thought I'd do some mock-ups for us all to consider. 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit: the original Autumn colour, rgb(235, 75, 60) seemed a little pinker than I liked, so I adjusted it to a slightly oranger red. -- Djonni (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As I said the first time you mentioned the idea, I love it. I just like gradients, but I am not terribly attached to the idea. The colors you chose are good. I think we should implement the idea as you have it and hold off on the gradient. It would look messy if it was separate in every box. Perhaps there can be a backgrounds color over the whole page? Maybe that would be nice with a gradient, something that starts off strong and ends light. --His portliness (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Color block changes and flex-flow reflow

This post refers to this draft revision.

So, I had an idea about the flat colour blocks, trying to think a little about His portliness' suggestion of trying some colour gradients. I'm sure this isn't what he had in mind, but I realised that the colours that were chosen for the blocks in the long-ago just happen to line up quite well with the desktop Godville color themes.

So I went back to {{Diary}} and reimplemented those themes that were taken out when it was rewritten and modernised (perfectly reasonable decision at the time, they weren't used) and then replaced the flat color blocks with the corresponding diary styles. I've also reflowed the flex box layout so that it may be a little more intuitive: main, large boxes make up the left column, small narrow boxes the right, and on narrower displays they will collapse to a single column.

There's plenty of tweaking to be done, especially around the flex: parameters (relative column widths, how narrow it can be without collapsing to a single column, etc), along with padding between the blocks. This also is purely addressing layout, not the content in the boxes; the text still needs editing, and I still consider the Random Image box in particular to be pretty disposable, especially if someone can come up with something better to go in there. (Perhaps moving some of what's currently in Welcome to the Godwiki to the fourth box might improve both?)

Also, as always, feel free to hate my idea, so long as you express yourself constructively! 😁 -- Djonni (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I do like the idea of using {{Diary}}, looks neat.

I do wonder though if alongside the random image, the introduction could also be removed.

All it's content is currently within the main banner, whose top introduction text could be tweaked to act as a replacement for the whole current and too long introduction -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Content of the page

Did you ({u|WardPhoenix}) add the test templates to the mainpage just to balance out the columns? If yes, maybe we can find something a bit more relevant? --His portliness (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Belated answer here as it can be useful for everyone woking on the page to know the answer!
Half yes and half no. I wanted to balance it, but I also do think Tests templates could have their place on that section. After all, testing them is a contribution.
I can understand that it could be too difficult for newcomers to understand how the whole thing works though.
Then, the sandbox is free for anyone to edit, so if you (or anyone reading) have a better idea to place there or do think that link doesn't belong to that page, be bold and edit it 😉 -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest putting Ask For Help. That probably belongs there more, and we can find something else for the GodWiki universe section. --His portliness (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The emojis

Godville adds emojis to the mainpage every holiday season. Will those be an issue with the ones that were added in on the sandbox version? --His portliness (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the emoji change on the main page bullet list is actually due to this code including the {{Navbox list/Bullet}} template (which was made by Djonni).
{{#ifeq: {{Navbox list/Bullet|bare}}|{{Navbox list/Bullet|default}}||list-style-image: none; list-style-type: '{{Navbox list/Bullet|bare}}'}}">.
This was removed from current sandbox page which is why, as you can see, the emoji currently used doesn't change. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

First Feedbacks

I have now stumbled upon this and have seen that the random image is to be removed and want to say that I like seeing random images dredged up from all uploaded images to the GodWiki and think that it should stay. Also, the underlining of the links at the top doesn’t format well on my (iPhone 5S) screen, with all of them sticking outside the boxes and I thought the diary-style boxes were good. —Holy Spirit of Hell (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feeeback 🤗. Put back the random image. As per the underlining (I guess we are talking about the yellow lines between each links), does that happens to you on every web navigator? -- WardPhoenix (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed! The random images is great for finding pictures that should be deleted 😂. --His portliness (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here some feedback I got from Godville's discord one weeks ago, thanks to those who gave one :

That looks looks pretty great!
I like the emojis. I don't like the smaller box titles. I'm okay with them being centered, but us old people with poor eyesight could use bigger text. And making things collapsible was a nice touch. I always like when things are collapsible even if I never collapse them
They look neat, except the text that crossing border over there ("Missing pictures" crossing border on mobile view)

The title's size issue HP4M raise up was fixed by adding a variable in the {{diary}} template and said variable applied on the page. The text crossing border, as Crisismana noticed, was fixed by adding overflow rules which cut the overflowing text and replace it by three dots. --WardPhoenix (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on new Main Page

Hi! Just want to leave some feedback on the new Main Page. First of all, I really like how more modern it looks than the previous one. There's just a few formatting/layouting issues I've noticed on mobile. I have some screenshots so I hope they will help.

  • Some long text get cut off. This isn't really a deal breaker for me because I know what it's supposed to say. But it may be an issue to newcomers.
  • It would also be nice if the icons are more align. Again, not a real deal breaker. Just a minor nitpick.(Please see screenshot above.)
  • Some layout/alignment issue on the collapse/expand button. This is probably an easy fix with an additional div or something.

I could try to fix the last one but I'm on mobile right now and I'm about to go to sleep. I've been looking at the sandbox before on desktop and it looked great. Will try to see how the deployed Main Page actually looks like when I'm back on desktop tomorrow. Again, great job to everyone who developed this. -- Zoombie (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

* Some long text get cut off. This isn't really a deal breaker for me because I know what it's supposed to say. But it may be an issue to newcomers.

This was actually a deliberate attempt at fixing another issue : having the text overflow over the border. I personally didn't find a better solution than the ellipsis on small screen, but others might.
As for the others, I am unsure this would be actually fixable, but as said above, others might find solutions where I didn't --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding in a random comment, but the section topic was created do I'm gonna use it :)
I think it would be an easier navigation if all sections started collapsed instead of expanded. That way people can see all the options and choose what they want to see, instead of scrolling through a bunch of stuff. This only holds true for mobile. If anyone has a issue with this please let me know, as I plan on changing it in a few days. --His portliness (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if I overstepped any boundaries in my haste to contribute and sounded rude and condescending above. I might have been too hasty last night and neglected to check the Sandbox and the talk pages before giving my feedback.
I did some more investigating/testing with my mobile in landscape. Some interesting stuff happens in the collapsibles. Dunno if anyone else has seen this but I'm dropping them here just in case anyone is interested. It's not really a big deal since most people on mobile would probably look at GodWiki in the app. And I dunno if anyone would collapse sections on a wider screen.
This also somewhat happens on desktop but again, I don't think anyone would be collapsing stuff on wide screens so it might be okay to leave it alone. Plus it's just some really really minor thing that I don't why I'm so hung up about. >_< -- Zoombie (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

* Some layout/alignment issue on the collapse/expand button. This is probably an easy fix with an additional div or something.

Fixed this one. Added some manual line breaks between the div and the content to force the content one line below and stop it from overlapping with the collapse/expand button. I only did the last two sections (Did you know... and Random Image). Let me know if I accidentally broke anything in the process. -- Zoombie (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I followed the redesigning of the Main Page right from the beginning, and I'm glad to see it finally up and running! I like everything about it except the colours, well actually just one colour. Can we change that yellow to some other colour, please?

* I think it would be an easier navigation if all sections started collapsed instead of expanded. That way people can see all the options and choose what they want to see, instead of scrolling through a bunch of stuff.

Yes to this, His portliness! It dramatically shortens the page, and it actually gives it a cleaner look as well.

I just want to say a sincere and warm thank you to everyone who was involved in the redesigning of the Main Page. The time and dedication that you put into it is greatly appreciated and noticed by many, including me. At times, maintaining the Godwiki can seem like a thankless job, but for the people who use it, people like me, we are very grateful that all of you exist to do this. So again, thank you so much everyone. Please continue the excellent work! 😊 -- Lakefire Arrow (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Zoombie you didn't overstep anything. Trust me when I say that everyone here is just ecstatic that a new voice showed up that is interested. And you actually did work! Hallelujah 🎉🎉. Thanks for contributing, it's nice to have more people here. --His portliness (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I was about to say the exact same thing, but the great mind above was faster 😅. Thanks for finding a way to fix the placement of the collapse button!
As for the collapse themselves, I was personally worried that having everything collapsed would augment the chance of people missing the content, but if you guys thinks it's not an issue, well that's an easy fix.

Can we change that yellow to some other colour, please?

Well I guess that color was chosen to avoid something grey or similar to other colours used on the page, but if you have suggestion for colours feel free to say (or test). -- WardPhoenix (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
lol I wss in middle of typing out what WardPhoenix just said for me 😛
I applied the collapsed element to the last three tables and left the intro open because if that exact fear that people would miss it. What do y'all think? --His portliness (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks, His portliness and WardPhoenix! I guess I was way too worried about things. Haha. 😅

I've been self-studying front end dev these past few months so I'm a bit obsessed about getting things to layout and format properly. The limitations this wiki presents is a welcome challenge although it can be a bit maddening at times. If there's anything I've learned the past few months, it's that different devices give different results for the same lines of code. So I got screenshots of the new collapsed sections edit for everyone's perusal. Mobile Desktop That's how it currently looks on my screens. -- Zoombie (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Going to have to dissent on the new page layout, unfortunately. There's just too much empty space in the new header block, & by extension it's just too large. On desktop I've gone from this to this. In the mobile app it's even more noticable, but I don't seem to be able to get the mobile version to show a previous edit state to compare & contrast. -- S624 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi S624 long time no see here 😄. I'd like to hear more about your opinion, thinking it's too large is one thing but I'd personnally genuily (or however it is written) like to know why it is a cons for you, and if you think precise things should me either removed or adjusted (This is probably more fixing that making the whole interface again).
I like to think that making larger made the header more obvious to read, especially for people who have eyesight issues. Though i hesitated to reduce the 2 paragraph before the columns because well, they are kinda redundant, but they are almost legacy. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
That is a very interesting point S624. What do you think about those being collapsible? That would make the space less noticeable until you actually needed one of those sections. Personally, I'm ok with the extra space. White space isn't a detractor to me. But if it bothers ppl, and I'm sure you aren't the only one, this might be a solution. As WardPhoenix pointed out, the new version is far more legible and navigable, besides the nicer look.
The real issue to me was the horrible outdated look of the old version, and personally I disliked it immensely. --His portliness (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Putting in my two cents. As S624 pointed out, the new layout does take a lot more space than before. It looks smoother and less cluttered for me though so I kinda like it. I understand that it's for making things more legible and noticeable but I think it's a bit too large. Some possible solutions I can think of right now:

  • Make the text a bit smaller. It's at 130% right now. Would making it 120% or 110% be better?
  • Fix the dimensions of the div containers the Categories are in so that there's less space between the text+icons and the borders. Not too much because we don't want them to be too close together. That would make things hard to read. But I think we still have a lot of space to wiggle around right now.

Collapsing the top part doesn't feel like a good idea. It's probably the most used part (I mean, I use it mostly for crossword to get to the categories on mobile and I'm pretty sure a lot of others do so to.) so collapsing it would just add an extra step for people to get to where they want to go.

Re: the collapsed sections on the lower part.

After thinking about this for a day, I think we shouldn't collapse Featured Article. It looks weird and unbalanced on desktop seeing a large blank space on one side. (Please see my screenshot above) Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the goal of the Featured Article is to show people the kinds of article that are present in GodWiki to give them a sense of the writing style in the wiki and what they can write.

I have mixed feelings on collapsing Did You Know.... Again, if I'm not mistaken, the goal of that section is to show people what other things they can do and what other information are present. So it seems important to show them. But, I don't really care all that much for it that I don't really mind having it collapsed by default. I don't really care about the Random Image section to have an opinion about it. 😅 But if we're going to collapse the Random Image section, we're going to have to collapse the Did You Know... section just to provide balance on the layout in desktop. -- Zoombie (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ouch! I should have checked desktop before implementing that. An unbalanced look is disconcerting.
Can we get a vote on opening featured vs collapsing the intro to GodWiki?
To be fair, I first thought we could collapse it since I don't think anyone actually read it, probably because there is too much to read. But on the other hand it's sad to have featured article collapsed (even though, I don't think many people read it either).
It might be better to have all 4 tabs uncollapsed to leave the choice of collapsing them or not when coming accros it (there is still the collapse button -- which can be renamed by the way).
Let's hear others opinion on that. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Quick question before I respond later on reasons for not liking the new layout: what's the easiest way I can see a what the old front page looked like in the app without having to revert the change for everybody temporarily? -- S624 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Same way as dektop, but when you are on the old front page go at bottom : there is a mobile view button. Just click on it and reduce the size of your window and voilà. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks WardPhoenix, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. On the desktop version (including using the desktop skin in the app), I can go to the history, click on an edit time & see the actual page layout as it was then. Clicking on the mobile skin option then loads the current page as it is now.
On the mobile version, going to a historical edit only shows the changes made, & doesn't seem to have any option to show the page as it was. -- S624 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, by same way as desktop I meant you have do it on your desktop support (where you can see mobile view as well). Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. --WardPhoenix (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to the old version of the Main Page.
The main difference besides the obvious layout and coloring stuff, is that the fonts are now much bigger with tons of white space around them. If we minimize the white space and make the font more comparable to the size, that would probably alleviate some of the issue. --His portliness (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I know this was probably a stupid way to do this, but I dumped the main page on my user talk page here and you can see the changes I was reffering to. Does this solve the issue S624? Also, anyone feel free to mess with the code there! --His portliness (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I checked both via app and via browser but I don't think there's a way to check the previous versions of a page via mobile, S624. I think what WardPhoenix was saying is a method to simulate the mobile view via desktop.

Re: layout changes. I think it would be more prudent to wait a few more days for more opinions before making changes again. Some people are just finding out that the Main Page has changed. I'm also under the impression that leaving the new layout in a sandbox somehow makes people more reluctant to share their opinion about it.

Also, I'd like to bring up something tangentially related. That is, making the rest of the site consistent with the Main Page layout / making the layout of the whole site uniform. As it is, the Main Page is glaringly different from the rest of the site. This is not an immediate concern as we haven't really even finalized things in the Main Page 😅 but I think it's something that should be considered in the future. -- Zoombie (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

His portliness mate you could have just edit the Sandbox page, this is what it exist for 😂. Anyway, your changes makes the header a little smaller (though it breaks a little on mobile, but that just adjustement). But I don't think that resolves the too much space issue, but again that's fixable.
Though I do agree with Zoombie, it's urgent to be cautious. And as he noted, people don't usually give their opinion unless it affects them, if they give one at all (which makes getting feedback on Godwiki very difficult and frustrating). Let's see if some otherd give their full opinion before doing hasty changes. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with collapsing everything by default — it adds an extra click unnecessarily should I want to read anything in the boxes, which I think kind of defeats the purpose of the FA and the DYK and heck, even the random image, which seems to me to be things you scroll across and read from interest, not something explicitly sought out. —Holy Spirit of Hell (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Holy Spirit of Hell, the collapsed boxes should be open by default. Also, the comment from Zoombie on matching the formatting of the rest of the GW was one of the things I didn't like about the new front page - the yellowish colour background was pretty jarring. The latest sandbox edit by WardPhoenix with a plain background looks much better.
Thanks also for the attempts to show the historic front page in a mobile view as well. -- S624 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! The edits I did, though not professional at all, did make the entire top section significantly shorter on desktop. That was my goal. Someone with experience in the choosing will have to fix the whitespace issue. Sadly we can't format separate for mobile and desktop. Also, by making the font smaller, none of the words get cut off.
Can someone suggest a color they would like better than yellow? The plain background makes the wiki look old in my opinion.
I will undo the collapse for now, it seems that it was better open according to popular opinion! --His portliness (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! I've been playing around with some color options. (Special thanks to His portliness for opening his talk page for use.) The white one looks good but in case anyone wants more options, here's what I got so far: Some blue-ish tint. You can see this in the Sandbox right now. and Some gray-ish tint. The same one that's used in the sidebar that you can see on desktop. I tried to keep the colors as close to the site as possible so that it's not a sudden change. Let me know of your thoughts. 😊 -- Zoombie (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Popping in to comment on the color issue. I only just realized this makeover was happening, and this seemed the easiest place to jump in.
I'll start off by saying that I'm not fond of most colored (even lightly tinted) backgrounds behind text. First, it usually reminds me of horridly colored Geocities websites from the late 1990s. More importantly, I find it distracting and more difficult to read whatever content is on screen. I also have chronic migraines and certain color combinations or color contrasts can be a trigger. In general, I prefer more clean, minimalist looks. White space is my friend 😉
That said, I rather liked the grayish-tint. It is very subtle, but does add a touch of color if people really don't want plain white. White is totally fine with me, though.
I don't the like bluish tint at all. It's almost more greenish than blue on my screen, as an aside. It isn't visually appealing to me—something about the contrast against the black text and the brighter blue of the links. I can't explain it. Plus, it makes my eyes physically start to ache. Not kidding. I actually prefer the infamous yellow over the bluish one.
Overall, the white or grayish-tint options get my vote 😊 --Bibliophile (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for the feedback, Bibliophile! Someone in the forums also vote for white or gray so I guess the color options is down to those two now.

Btw, this is off-topic but I got some news I'd like to share with everyone. I sent a bug report about nested collapsible toggles which might be fixed by updating the current version of MediaWiki (1.31.6) that GW is using and added that that version is nearing end-of-life. The devs replied that they plan to update GW to the next LTS (1.35.x) some time in the future. I don't know how much this update will affect GW so I'm putting this here to notify everyone more experienced than me. On a side note, VisualEditor is bundled with version 1.35.x so fingers crossed that it will be implemented as well when GW is updated. More info on MediaWiki versions here.-- Zoombie (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Booyah! This calls for much celebration!
Bibliophile do the less intense slightly darker colors also hurt your eyes? --His portliness (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you referring to specific examples, or in general? I wasn't quite sure which you meant. If you had specific examples in mind, just tell me where to look (or where I overlooked 😊). I don't have a color problem with the vast majority of websites I come across to put it that way. The colors shown in the Talk:Sandbox#Color_scheme thread or colors in the Omnibus List sections don't bother my eyes, for example.
A background color on the Main Page top "menu section" is tricky situation, IMO, because there are all the colored emojis along with the blue/purple links. It isn't just black text. Plus, each of the collapsible diary boxes have a different color. Adding yet another background color to the top menu box can easily become visual overload. Thus, my preference for unobtrusive white or light gray. --Bibliophile (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone in the forums also vote for white or gray so I guess the color options is down to those two now.

S624 liked the white version earlier in this thread (though it was before grey one was out), and I'd personally vote for the white one (looks better in mobile view imo). We could also implement a slight reduction of the font-size like His portliness did (if it wasn't push on main page already).
As for the wiki update well, we'll see when it happens. --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At this point, I'm open to any of the colours that have been suggested. From reading what people have written, it seems that gray would be the first choice. So, can it be implemented soon? I just want to see that horrid yellow gone. -- Lakefire Arrow (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I play GV only on my phone. Before this, those divider lines weren't even noticeable. Now they are too prominent (the black just contrasts too sharply against the white background), and they extend beyond the screen! But if I change the phone to landscape view, then everything's okay. So the problem's in portrait view. Can the problem be fixed? -- Lakefire Arrow (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Colors is technically easy to fix, though I need to guess where they "extend beyond" since I don't have the issue (don't forget, when bug reporting or feedbacking, one can never be too precise). Contribution section I guess but confirmation would be nice ^^ --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving sections

It was pointed out here that for some reason people have a difficult time finding help with the wiki. Is it s good idea to put the "Your contributions are welcome!" stuff before the "gameplay" links? Will that help? --His portliness (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good move. The primary reason people come to the wiki is for the Gameplay stuff. Putting it below and making people scroll to find them would add more burden to them timewise and movement wise. People want to find things fast. What I meant in my comment in that page is this: (insert crappy MSPaint edit). Since the English language is read from left to right, it would make sense that people would be more likely to notice the left-most things than they would the right-most things. We can't really do anything about people just ignoring stuff but moving it to the left would at least make it a bit more obvious. -- Zoombie (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that putting "Your contributions are welcome!" before the gameplay section would be confusing. It would be great if tons of people wanted to contribute, but I agree with Zoombie that most people come to the Wiki to find info on the gameplay. It's important the Gameplay section is easy to find and understand. Especially on mobile, if people have to scroll past a bunch of irrelevant (to them) info, they will probably give up and not use the wiki at all. Perhaps, adding/changing some of wording about contributing to literally say something like "How to Help with the GodWiki" would make it more obvious. I don't know. 🤔 -- Bibliophile (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)