Requests for Comment/Landing page redesign

If you're on Miraheze's official Discord server, you probably already know I had for a long time the idea of redesigning the landing page. While I don't dislike the page in its current form, I don't think it's particularly appealing. In my opinion, for new users, the landing page should be the place where they understand what Miraheze is, what it offers, and the value of it. Currently, the page reminds me a bit of these "free" hosting services, with many of its features and characteristics cramped together in one place, without giving each one a highlight.

Of course, I can't just go and redesign the page myself, so I ask you: do you think the page should be remade/modified? If you support the idea, please use the section to discuss how it should look. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  per my comments.  &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Not a bad idea at all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I very much like the idea and believe it is needed. Agent Isai (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  as per my comment, and If the ideas are gonna be better than the present look, then we're good to go in modifying it. It's all for the betterment of miraheze afterall. I'm not saying the present concept looks really bad that we need an urgent modification or change, But if at the end of the day, we are able to come out with a better, or probably, best design and concept then why should we not modify? Not a bad idea though.Ugochimobi (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I personally think that the landing page could get a redesign, but IMHO, I like the current version a bit better. —Bu kk it  15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) —Mario Mario 456  15:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  While I'm not opposed to the idea of making some tweaks and adjustments and even adding additional featured content to the landing page, in general, I think it's Miraheze's best designed page. I'm uncomfortable granting a carte blanche authority to redesign what is, I think, Miraheze's greatest web asset. That said, if it were to be redesigned, Lake would be one of only two or maybe three people I'd want to do that, as they are an immensely talented graphic and web designer. Dmehus (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Likewise to above, I'm not opposed to a better idea *if that idea appears and proves itself. The trouble is that I don't see what the design would be and find no urgency in the problem that would entail a broad 'this must be fixed' decision. The presented issues do not compel me and I am new enough to know my impression, which was that it did what it was supposed to - give a decent overview of what Miraheze is and invite clicking in to learn more. I believe a redesign must be able to carry this impression (it's not the front page's job to do it all in detail, only to present an overview and invite a deeper look imo) before I could call the change meaningful. --Raidarr (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Object Oppose... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zany (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I simply cannot see this as a good use of limited resources, of all of the pages that one will come across on Miraheze this is by far the most pleasant and the best designed. If you are looking for something to redesign, I would point you to the much worse request a wiki page. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 10:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments
General comments about the proposal.
 * 1) I'll just say that there are some changes that need to happen, and applying this change is a good example of this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) First and foremost there should be a proposition. Simply agreeing there needs to be a change is next to meaningless, given the current layout works and the idea is finding something to work better which anyone can do at any time even with an incomplete content model of what would happen on their user page/an appropriate subpage. In other words I would only support an executable idea from the outset, rather than a sentiment that something is bad and we need better. I would say comment 1's flaw is that the proposal inherently offers no change, and even when it does it could just as easily offer a competition. Support for change, then subconversation for which of the changes... it seems like a messy premise to work from. --Raidarr (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) * I made this proposal first to ask if it needed a change, which I believe it does, but as I said, I don't want to go and modify the page without any consensus. If it does get a large support, then I will start getting some ideas from everyone (hopefully). &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) ** The change may be more appealing to onlookers if it provides a concrete basis of how to execute the change, even if the 'should' and the 'how' are different votes. As it stands I think the page serves its purpose and has no urgency for a serious overhaul. But it would be unwise of me to dismiss a potentially good idea if someone has vision for their change. But therin lies the problem I see - I cannot support an unbacked 'something must be done' sentiment. So at the very least I would prioritize having an executable suggestion even for layout of new information put in the conversation as early as possible. Essentially I would soft oppose if the RfC merely asks 'should the front page be changed - my argument would be 'not unless there's a compelling case for something better'. The premise would stand better against this opposition if it bypasses lack of urgency using an attractive alternative people would be compelled to humor. I'll add that these can stand independently; a first proposal may establish the desire for change, while subsequent proposals offer the means that people can support differently. More to discuss, more to engage with. --Raidarr (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) *** I understand your points, but I cannot open a RfC with just a "concrete", fixed idea for this case because there will be large disagreements. Very recently, I was asked to create the wordmark for the new Vector layout here on Meta, but I got several complaints for using a specific font, and I had to open a RfC for this. Now I'm just asking first before proposing any layouts, to avoid problems. If this proposal does not get successful, it will be closed, and the landing page will not be modified. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 18:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) ****Then I have my position, thank you for humoring the case. --Raidarr (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) I am so much in support of this, I mean the landing page should share more lights and detail not just about Miraheze but as per what the proposer said, share information of what Miraheze offers, what importance/benefits it has, probably how to use it, and even more. Ugochimobi (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) I have a list of complaints about Miraheze. The landing page is not one. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ideas/concepts
If you support the proposal, please share your ideas here.


 * 1)  Maybe something similar to https://wikimediafoundation.org has it —Bu kk it  15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) If it is redesigned, I think we should go back to the pink to blue of the old landing page. I've also generally described Miraheze as a 'no nonsense wiki provider' - when I was looking for places to move out of FANDOM one of the things I kept running into were wiki farms designed specifically for one purpose (Referata and Wikidot are both examples of strange wiki hosts, similarly Neowin doesn't except all wikis) and I eventually gave up looking the first time (I wrote off Miraheze for its needlessly complicated 'Request a wiki' system which I feared would reject my request). ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 10:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)