Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Main Page/Development

< Talk:Main Page(Difference between revisions)
m (Index: Born of Hope: Tweaked answer)
m (Bot message: re-linked.)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
* '''Is the old introduction text necessary or does it take up too much room?''' I would say it would be nicer if it were a bit shorter, but I do believe it to be necessary.  Perhaps if it were in a box on the right rather than directly under the title?
 
* '''Is the old introduction text necessary or does it take up too much room?''' I would say it would be nicer if it were a bit shorter, but I do believe it to be necessary.  Perhaps if it were in a box on the right rather than directly under the title?
 
::I'll see if we can't move it to a better spot, and maybe we can rewrite it so the same ideas come across in less text. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
 
::I'll see if we can't move it to a better spot, and maybe we can rewrite it so the same ideas come across in less text. --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
:::I'd say: get rid of the second paragraph of the intro, and replace [[Current events|Current Events]] in the left bar by [[Special:Allpages|All Pages]] (as the '''Current Events''' are on the [[Main Page]] anyway, although named '''Latest News'''; you could add a '''More''' link to that Main Page section to link to what's now the '''Current Events''' page). --[[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
+
:::I'd say: get rid of the second paragraph of the intro, and replace Current Events in the left bar by [[Special:Allpages|All Pages]] (as the '''Current Events''' are on the [[Main Page]] anyway, although named '''Latest News'''; you could add a '''More''' link to that Main Page section to link to what's now the '''Current Events''' page). --[[User:Earendilyon|Earendilyon]] 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  
 
* '''Should Tolkien Gateway be more prominent?''' Definitely.  The trouble is getting it there.  Forums such as [http://forum.barrowdowns.com the Barrow-downs] don't allow "advertising" but even one editor here that would be prominent there could say much for it and perhaps get a little more involvement.  Due to complications unfortunate to say the least I was unable to register there.  I don't know about other forums or other Tolkien sites.  It is sort of nice to have a small circle of editors where everyone-knows-everyone, but a lot of our projects require either a lot of work, or a lot more people.
 
* '''Should Tolkien Gateway be more prominent?''' Definitely.  The trouble is getting it there.  Forums such as [http://forum.barrowdowns.com the Barrow-downs] don't allow "advertising" but even one editor here that would be prominent there could say much for it and perhaps get a little more involvement.  Due to complications unfortunate to say the least I was unable to register there.  I don't know about other forums or other Tolkien sites.  It is sort of nice to have a small circle of editors where everyone-knows-everyone, but a lot of our projects require either a lot of work, or a lot more people.
Line 51: Line 51:
  
 
==Portal pages==
 
==Portal pages==
I'm having a difficult time coming up with names for our "Portal" pages. ''Gallery'' was easy as there was no content there previously but even now I wonder if ''Images'' would be a more standard name. For articles like [[Books]], [[Collectibles]], [[Events]], [[Languages]], etc. do we have a portal or an article detailing the general information on the subject, like the Languages article does? I don't think creating a Portal: namespace like Wikipedia would be necessary in our case because we will have so few. What do you guys think?
+
I'm having a difficult time coming up with names for our "Portal" pages. ''Gallery'' was easy as there was no content there previously but even now I wonder if ''Images'' would be a more standard name. For articles like [[Books]], [[:Category:Collectibles|Collectibles]], [[Events]], [[Languages]], etc. do we have a portal or an article detailing the general information on the subject, like the Languages article does? I don't think creating a Portal: namespace like Wikipedia would be necessary in our case because we will have so few. What do you guys think?
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
Line 89: Line 89:
  
 
I would recommend not using tables in structuring the layout of a table. Use all divs instead. From my research you're not meant to put a table in a div if you want both to have identical widths. Furthermore the current version has compatibility problems with older browsers. --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 
I would recommend not using tables in structuring the layout of a table. Use all divs instead. From my research you're not meant to put a table in a div if you want both to have identical widths. Furthermore the current version has compatibility problems with older browsers. --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
:You are right, and I should've spotted this myself: I stuck with the broad skeleton of the existing Main Page whilst I'm from the "old school" of coding whereby you always used tables for layout.
 +
:What compatibility issues are there? As far as I know, the only problem is rounded corners which will simply be ignored and ordinary square corners included. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
::View it in compatibility mode in IE.--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::Resolved. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  
 
==Index: Born of Hope ==
 
==Index: Born of Hope ==
Line 102: Line 109:
 
::::I included ''Born of Hope'' because it's a very popular fan film which has actually been well-received by the media and Tolkien fans at large; as KingAragorn pointed out, I didn't include the 1966 film because it, to all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. I'm thinking about adding ''[[The Hunt for Gollum]]'' too.
 
::::I included ''Born of Hope'' because it's a very popular fan film which has actually been well-received by the media and Tolkien fans at large; as KingAragorn pointed out, I didn't include the 1966 film because it, to all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. I'm thinking about adding ''[[The Hunt for Gollum]]'' too.
 
::::I personally don't think there's any confusion, as you'd have to have such little knowledge of Tolkien it's amazing you'd even be on TG; after all, the Index doesn't actually state that they are official or unofficial, merely that they are films. I am confident that no one will be confused. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 
::::I personally don't think there's any confusion, as you'd have to have such little knowledge of Tolkien it's amazing you'd even be on TG; after all, the Index doesn't actually state that they are official or unofficial, merely that they are films. I am confident that no one will be confused. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Re: Portals ==
 +
 +
Would it be good for the new portal designs to follow the style of the new home page? --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:I think that would be better too. --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
::+1 (if it's not not too much work too change)--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Mith's Check List ==
 +
 +
These are things which I want to finish doing on this page:
 +
*<strike>Change the background image of the Index to something longer - maybe dwarf or moon runes;</strike>
 +
*Sort out the "Get Involved" and decide what it is that should be in there;
 +
*<strike>At [[User:Morgan|Morgan]]'s request, perhaps some more Middle-earthian colours: green, brown, grey, silver, gold (but not too much, because the balance of pastel colours shouldn't be disturbed);</strike>
 +
*The Languages Portal needs creating;
 +
*All the ''On this Day''s need sorting (big job);
 +
*The Index: needs sorting (see [[Forum:Index namespace]]);
 +
*Link to the Facebook group (need to be able to include iframes for that);
 +
*A "Sign up now!" link?;
 +
*Do we need more links like Community Portal/Projects?;
 +
*Should [[The Hobbit (film series)|''The Hobbit'' (film series)]] feature more prominently on the page?;
 +
*Should we have a list of admins so people know who's in charge and who can help? --{{User:Mith/sig}} 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
*''Should [[The Hobbit (film series)|''The Hobbit'' (film series)]] feature more prominently on the page?''
 +
**+1--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
*''Should we have a list of admins?''
 +
**+1--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 12:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:37, 22 November 2012

Well, I've got some suggestions and comments for the questions given:

  • Incorporate another search box? What exactly do you mean?
Well, I've always liked the idea of a simplistic Google-like index, maybe the main page should focus around a search box so people can just look front and center and see where to type what they need. Though the more 'introduction' text also has its benefits. Maybe in the future when TG needs no introduction we can relocate the text to an About page and stick with the simplistic look. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I think the search box we've got works just fine. If it works for Wikipedia, why wouldn't it work here? --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Which color scheme is most Tolkien-ish? I would say most definitely green.
Green it is, Tolkien is all about earth, trees, plants, etc. and I think the color would do justly, maybe a green/red style to complement our logo? Or maybe blue to go with the blue links. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I don't think there is such a thing as a Tolkienish colour scheme. Tolkien used a lot of different colours in his discriptions of, say, Valinor, or Gondolin. --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I agree with you, Earendilyon. With the Teleri you picture blue, the Vanyar gold, the Noldor dark blue or red (though some could argue for silver or gold), the Sindarin and Silvan elves green, the Hobbits green, the Ents green, the Númenóreans/Gondorians silver, the Rohirrim red and gold, and et cetera. But the arguement for green rests primarily on that Tolkien was a sort of enviromentalist; he loved trees and woods and you might say that he hated their destruction. Also, he seemed to have a particular place in his heart for Hobbits, which were obviously "earthy". I could go on and on. . . but I won't. There is enough support, I think, to presume that "green" is the appropriate Middle-earth color. We can place the specific appropriate color on the infobox for each article. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:57, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Is the old introduction text necessary or does it take up too much room? I would say it would be nicer if it were a bit shorter, but I do believe it to be necessary. Perhaps if it were in a box on the right rather than directly under the title?
I'll see if we can't move it to a better spot, and maybe we can rewrite it so the same ideas come across in less text. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I'd say: get rid of the second paragraph of the intro, and replace Current Events in the left bar by All Pages (as the Current Events are on the Main Page anyway, although named Latest News; you could add a More link to that Main Page section to link to what's now the Current Events page). --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Should Tolkien Gateway be more prominent? Definitely. The trouble is getting it there. Forums such as the Barrow-downs don't allow "advertising" but even one editor here that would be prominent there could say much for it and perhaps get a little more involvement. Due to complications unfortunate to say the least I was unable to register there. I don't know about other forums or other Tolkien sites. It is sort of nice to have a small circle of editors where everyone-knows-everyone, but a lot of our projects require either a lot of work, or a lot more people.
Heh, actually I meant the literal "Tolkien Gateway" text in the layout ;) But I entirely agree, I think at this point in time TG has a lot to offer and we really need to just get the word out. I forgot to thank you for your Screenplays thread at BD's Fan Fiction forums. You were unable to register at the main forums though? Strange, if I can be of any assistance do let me know. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
See comment on the search box ;-) --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I feel a little sick. I should have guessed what you meant since it was on the talk for the Main Page. Anyway, I think that it might be a good idea to make the "Tolkien Gateway" letters a bit larger and to the left by the icon. It would also be nice if it were in a different font, if that's possible. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:57, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • In the live version we will format the content in such a way that it utilizes subpages to separate the content. Could you elaborate on that a little? Will there be a "main page" for each type or article that has links to all its subpages or something like that?
I should have elaborated first, I tend to think everyone can read my mind :). What we can do is separate the Main Page into subpages such as: Main_Page/Featured_article and Main_Page/News and Main_Page/Featured_Gatekeeper. I would be much more willing to allow say the "Featured article" sub page to be editable by anyone, that way anyone can change it if I'm not around. Due to caching less people would see spam if someone attempted it. Maybe we can even 'semi-protect' the page so that maybe the person has to be registered, or registered for X amount of days before they can edit it. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
Nobody understand what you write, let alone what you think! Anyway, I think it's a good idea, if protected. --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Top contributors might become prone for abuse with lots of useless edits (such as myself), maybe we should change it to a Featured editor? Featured editor is a good idea (especially if we could have more people voting on it). I'm not sure what you consider "useless" edits. I can see people changing the wording of stuff just to get more edits. I see what you mean, though. Some editors will spend a tremendous amount of work writing, revising, and expanding articles, and will only get a small number of "edits". Others would spend a large amount of time correcting spelling mistakes. This would also take a lot of work, though of a different kind, but still get more "edits" for it. Others might just make minor edits here and there, and not spend a whole lot of time on it but still get edits. I find that I am quickly convincing myself against awards for the number of edits. "Featured editor" would be nice, but I think awards for specific work would be better. For instance, suppose someone wrote a great article of high size and quality, or on a particular article spent a lot of work, there would be voting open for two weeks as to whether or not that editor deserved the award. Or there would be another for an editor who spent great time undoing the work of vandals. You get the picture. But I should really be discussing this on the "User awards" thread in the forums. . .
Exactly. One thing I don't want to do however is have user created awards that they can give away whenever they want. I've seen some wikis do this but what good is an award that anyone can give someone? I like the idea of a formal voting for official awards at least to recognize dedicated individuals. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
Personally, I'm not that competitive, so I wouldn't mind if there wouldn't be a Featured Editor or something the like. But don't let my opinion stop you if you realy, realy, realy want this. --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
I understand exactly what you mean about anyone giving the award to anyone. I never considered it, and always disliked it in Wikipedia. But if we are going to have voters we must have more people. . . --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:57, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
  • Speaking of editors, what are we called? There's Wikipedians, Wookieepedians, Tolkien Gatewayers? Tolkien Gatewayians? TGers? TGites? I favor Tolkien Gatekeepers, or for short, Gatekeepers. Say "Gatekeepers" outloud. Sounds nice, doesn't it?
...Gatekeepers...I love it! --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
What's wrong with "Editors"? --Earendilyon 16:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
To have an actual title sounds more. . . professional. And anyway, if TG ever becomes more popular in the Tolkien community, people can say "Gatekeepers", and know what is meant. Even if it doesn't, it feels good to have an informal title. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:57, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Anyway, those are my thoughts. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:03, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Awesome ideas Narfil! It helps so much to bounce these ideas off of people, we can get some really innovative plans. I've added my comments below your comments for ease of reference. --Hyarion 14:53, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Tolkien Calendar

Yes, another thing to add on. If possible it would be nice to have a display of what day it is in the Shire calendar, and if anything happened on that particular day a note below it. For instance, today, August 2, would be shown something like the following:

[edit] August 2

Shire Calendar: Wedmath 10
Steward's Reckonining: 11 Urimë
1019 - Funeral of Théoden King of Rohan

Just an idea. For all the calendars see The Encyclopedia of Arda/Interactive Calendar. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:38, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

Another great idea which I definitely think we need to have on there. I'm trying to imagine the most efficient way of doing this. We've already started on creating articles for years, but maybe it is also necessary to create articles for days, specifically for the times of the War of the Ring. We almost need to develop our own extension which converts the current date to the Shire equivalent so we don't have to change it everyday.

[edit] Portal pages

I'm having a difficult time coming up with names for our "Portal" pages. Gallery was easy as there was no content there previously but even now I wonder if Images would be a more standard name. For articles like Books, Collectibles, Events, Languages, etc. do we have a portal or an article detailing the general information on the subject, like the Languages article does? I don't think creating a Portal: namespace like Wikipedia would be necessary in our case because we will have so few. What do you guys think?

[edit] Introduction

If not on the Main Page, we should have a easily-seen and recognized link to an introduction. I have written out a rough draft, based much on Hyarion's:

Welcome to Tolkien Gateway! We are currently the largest and most active wiki as well as the fullest encyclopedia dedicated to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, as well as full articles on objects related to these works. This is a site based on the books, from the Lord of the Rings to the History of Middle-earth, though movie info is featured in its own sections. You may be a bit confused, seeing as this is a bit different than most sites. It allows anyone, anywhere, to update any page, instantly. We have moderators online 24/7 to watch for and revert spam and vandalism, but giving users the ability to update mistakes, and add to content, we find the site expands much quicker and gives users the sense of contribution.
Our editors, called “Gatekeepers”, are dedicated to increasing and improving the content of this wiki. Anyone may become a Gatekeeper by registering, which is free, and while not required, is necessary for many benefits. Although our editing team is currently relatively small, we hope that in the future we may hold Tolkien-themed contests. Every Gatekeeper has his own page, from which he may publish fanfictions, essays, and various other Tolkien-related works that he/she wrote.
Feel free to use the search tool on the left. The Recent Changes link is also a good way to check out what is getting updated. The All Pages link will give you a good idea at how much content we really have on here. If you find a page not listed, make it! If you find some content you want to add to, add it, alter it, this is your site.

Of course, this will have to be shortened and smoothed. Tell me what you think. --Narfil Palùrfalas 09:24, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

By the way, did you ever upload that screenplay tool? --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:35, 21 September 2006 (EDT)


[edit] Article to be fixed, cleaned, or expanded

I had an idea. What if we had at least a link to one-five articles that are in urgent need of cleanup/expanding on the Main Page. A sort of "featured article-in-need", if you see what I mean. That way Gatekeepers could instantly find and work on those articles that are especially in such need. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:14, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

Great idea Narfil. --Dwarf Lord 14:27, 12 October 2006 (EDT)
Always a good idea. Wookieepedia has this feature and they call it the "Improvement drive", although they do one article a week. I think we need to think of a new name and decide on what will receive more improvement, 5 articles which I assume are gain "average" status, or one a week. I really want to get this new main page live but the thing holding me back is those top right "portal links" as they need to be written, maybe those should be our first Articles in need :) --Hyarion 14:33, 12 October 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Launch Date

Even though it still won't be perfected, I think our best bet is to just roll this out onto the Main Page soon, as it's unfinished state is still an improvement over the current version. I think the day The Children of Hurin is released will be as good a day as any. --Hyarion 13:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Image

I think it would be best if we added an image on the left side (or to the left) of the title bar. I know we did have several options, but I can't seem to find them. I might be so bold as to suggest an emendation of these; somehow it's always what I imagined the front image should look like. I might be able to contrive an experimental image, just for fun. Or, or course, we could use one of the old ones (wherever they are). --Narfil Palùrfalas 15:46, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The only issue I see with that is I haven't tested the page on different resolutions but I think the title bar is already going to be too long on the smaller resolutions. I do think we need more TG logos/banners, maybe we need a simple image of a gateway as kind of the background of the title bar in the center where there is going to be some whitespace. Or maybe we can have an image we give to a featured gatekeeper, and we can put that image down by the featured gatekeeper box. --Hyarion 15:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Width Issues

I would recommend not using tables in structuring the layout of a table. Use all divs instead. From my research you're not meant to put a table in a div if you want both to have identical widths. Furthermore the current version has compatibility problems with older browsers. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and I should've spotted this myself: I stuck with the broad skeleton of the existing Main Page whilst I'm from the "old school" of coding whereby you always used tables for layout.
What compatibility issues are there? As far as I know, the only problem is rounded corners which will simply be ignored and ordinary square corners included. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
View it in compatibility mode in IE.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Index: Born of Hope

Why is Born of Hope, a unofficial fanfiml, named in the index, while an official film as The Hobbit (1966) isn't named? --Amroth 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume because the 1966 film is lost and extremely little is known about it.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  00:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
yes, that would be a logic reason. But I still don't see why Born of Hope is listed between all official films. Now it looks like Born of Hope is, like the others, is an official film. --Amroth 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You've got a point, Amroth. Perhaps it's listed there since we have quite a large article on that film (which I think is a good enough reason). But I agree with you, it's a bit confusing.--Morgan 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I included Born of Hope because it's a very popular fan film which has actually been well-received by the media and Tolkien fans at large; as KingAragorn pointed out, I didn't include the 1966 film because it, to all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. I'm thinking about adding The Hunt for Gollum too.
I personally don't think there's any confusion, as you'd have to have such little knowledge of Tolkien it's amazing you'd even be on TG; after all, the Index doesn't actually state that they are official or unofficial, merely that they are films. I am confident that no one will be confused. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Portals

Would it be good for the new portal designs to follow the style of the new home page? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be better too. --Amroth 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
+1 (if it's not not too much work too change)--Morgan 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mith's Check List

These are things which I want to finish doing on this page:

  • Change the background image of the Index to something longer - maybe dwarf or moon runes;
  • Sort out the "Get Involved" and decide what it is that should be in there;
  • At Morgan's request, perhaps some more Middle-earthian colours: green, brown, grey, silver, gold (but not too much, because the balance of pastel colours shouldn't be disturbed);
  • The Languages Portal needs creating;
  • All the On this Days need sorting (big job);
  • The Index: needs sorting (see Forum:Index namespace);
  • Link to the Facebook group (need to be able to include iframes for that);
  • A "Sign up now!" link?;
  • Do we need more links like Community Portal/Projects?;
  • Should The Hobbit (film series) feature more prominently on the page?;
  • Should we have a list of admins so people know who's in charge and who can help? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)