Wikisource talk:Maintenance of the Month/Main page mockup

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments on the draft[edit]

  1. I like the introduction of an automatic list of newly proofed works, but is it possible to list the page/author titles instead of the index pages? These are sometimes not very informative.
  2. The list of Works/Authors/Portals needs more emphasis, maybe with a heading such as "Explore". Possibly a box to balance the welcome box? Also I do think we should use "Subjects" as a synonym for Portals - it's too technical a term. I've removed the brackets round categories because when I read it I assumed that everything was categories, which it isn't.
  3. I'm not sure about Wikisource:Works. Is anyone really maintaining it now? Though I like the galleries, it's too close to "Portals". What would make more sense is an A-Z of titles, which can be browsed. Is it possible?
  4. Do we need both "newly proofread" and "newly validated" (assuming it arrives)? I'd prefer to see as the second box a set of carefully crafted pointers to some of the highlights of Wikisource. I realise that's somewhat subjective but it doesn't have to totally static and it would certainly provide plenty of room for discussion! Chris55 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. Displaying the title and the author automatically is not possible. The list will probably be manual, like the current one.
    • Ok, what about title alone?
  2. Yes check.svg Done : I used "Explore Wikisource" to give emphasis and "Subjects" instead of "Portals".
  3. Wikisource:Works is in the suggestions list for MotM. We could create categories like "Works-A", one for each letter, and let {{header}} add them automatically, but not to sub-pages. Hiding the categories would avoid any visual impact to the works. Then we could use these categories to generate an index. However, a preliminary discussion is needed.
    • What it says is it should be reformed. I suggest the subject index is removed but we don't have to keep it on the front page.
  4. Having both "Newly proofread" and "Newly validated" makes sense. Highlights would maybe create disagreement.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, but is it worth that much real estate in a very limited area? You could show them on alternate days:) Chris55 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
1. Dynamic page lists just show the latest additions to a category (or combinations thereof). They come from Wikinews where they show the most recent stories by subject. The software does not follow the link or pick up any extra information. I'm pretty sure that would be technically possible, and both headers and Index pages are machine readable, but new software would need to be written, tested, approved and installed to do so. You would need to either create it yourself or contact a developer to create it for you. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm considering it, but am still learning the basics, so maybe not yet. Chris55 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1. A lot of things are technically possible, but having a human control before things appear is better. Suppose that yesterday someone proofread seven one-page index files (for example seven US-government-related documents), so today the list shows them all and them only. It is not a beautiful view, is it?
3. Removing the link to Wikisource:Works until its improvement is feasible, but... how will the nook look like? Do all tests you want.
4. Chris, please show me how a highlight would be graphically organized. I really like displaying things according to the day of the week.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't understand your problem. I was suggesting putting e.g. "Ameen Rihani (1920) The Descent of Bolshevism" instead of "Index:The Descent of Bolshevism.djvu". The information is all there in the header in the majority of cases.
4. The graphics are certainly the challenge and not my strongest point. But I need help from more experienced WSers on highlights. I'll start an extra subpage: we need things (e.g. US law reports) on which WS is noteworthy as well as more attractive options. They are probably all names of portal pages. Chris55 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1. I think Erasmo means that, without human oversight, either "new text" selection is vulnerable to being swamped with very similar texts. To take his example, if a batch of short US government reports were to be validated together, they would be displayed on a computer generated list, pushing out any other recent texts. The current new text system has a rule to prevent two works by the same author being displayed at the same time (and I try not to add two works from the same publication even where thay have different authors). An automatic system would not necessarily be able to identify and prevent such list flooding.
4. Do you mean something like a physical library's Librarians' Picks/Selection/Favourites display? Just a manual list of works wikisourcers happen think are best? If so, they would have to be chosen by vote; it would be very similar to Featured Text in many ways. In fact, you could just use the last X featured texts (or a random selection thereof) to achieve this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1. Right. Computers are not intelligent.
4. I added some "tips" in the "new texts" sections (I center-aligned them, but they might be left-aligned as well), and they seem to be a good thing. However I wait to see what Chris will do.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I thought you were responding to what I'd written. Yes, Erasmo's point is a fair comment on Adam's subpage, but remember there is a "notcategory" argument to DynamicPagelist which could be used if that sudden rush of similar titles appeared (a small work category?). Adam is pretty good with hotcat. My grasp of templates is not enough to be able to reformat the items as I suggested.
No, Adam, I wasn't suggesting single titles, but portals pointing to strong areas. I'd be happy with a vote as I'm not at all sure what should be included. Chris55 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Highlights[edit]

Erasmo, I've finally added the highlights section to the draft front page. It's obviously a personal selection but I tried honestly to see where WS's strengths were and was surprised by the result. It has quite a different flavour to Gutenberg for instance, and that really is good - there's no point in 2 organizations trying to do the same thing. It's mostly links to portals with a few exceptions (e.g. translations). There's not a lot of room for illustrations but I could scratch around for one or two. And we could have a list of other portals ready to slot in to give some variety. Chris55 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)