Talk:Main Page

This page is undergoing a trial period. Please post any comments or bug reports on this talk page.

New Look Discussion
Very professional indeed.

I liked the old one better, this one has more of a mass produced look

I love it. It looks cool and is relatively simple. I need more pictures though!

The top box doesn't work properly in IE at a resolution of 800x600. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. This is very much under construction. =) --Imp 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the Search box in IE7 at 1024 x 768 resolution. Just letting you know. 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I too have a problem with it. The upper and left borders of the input box seem to be 2 pixels wide as opposed to the "Go" button whose border is 2 pixels wide to the lower and right (This could maybe be solved by modifying some .css pages). --Imp 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great Imp. --Eyrezer 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good with Firefox, Nice job. Greyman 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The featured article is seriously confined to four or five words a line while the news and stuff is massive. I'm using Safari and it looks very disproportionate (i cant spell that word) The Ravager 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same problem here. I'm also using Safari...and the FA is really small. Darth Fett 13:43, 22 Februrary 2007 (UTC) - actually posted by User:131.123.49.149
 * Screenshot, please? There seem to be no problems in all browsers I have (Firefox, Opera, IE and Konqueror). - Sikon 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good Nejee16 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the old one better. It was more better.
 * I like the extra features that are now on the main page like "On this day" and "In the News". The new design also doesn't bother me much at all. I can definitely get used to it. Kyp Fisto 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A short addendum though. I would like to have the era and regular star wars boxes that used to be on the main page to be placed there again. Kyp Fisto 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're still on the main page. Just hidden. Press the "click for article navigation" button to show them. - Sikon 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is problems when one resize the web browser. No one should be forced to use a fullscreen mode to read a web page. But now, when I see Wookieepedia (around 640px to 800px wide, on Firefox 2), all the texts of the main title, including the input/text field overlap each others. This only happens on the title section. this anomaly DOES NOT happen on the sections below (e.g.: the "Click for article navigation" (I like its display none/block feature, by the way), "Quote of the Day", etc.), where the text reflows to accommodate given width. Paercebal 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem... Must be me, but, looking at both Anakin and Obi Wan articles, I saw a grave disturbance on the CSS: The white "page body" background featuring the article disappears when the browser's width is under 800px... I switched to Linux recently, so I can't tell if it is my Firefox whose bugged, or if something in the new design caused this. I took a screenshot. I'll try this on Windows (Firefox+Internet Explorer) as soon as possible, and add information here when I have more. Paercebal 10:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is two search boxes. The one on the title section, and the Chewie box at the left side. There should be only one. Perhaps moving the Chewie Search above the navigation menu, under the Death Star Logo, and removing the search box in the title section? Everything else is very cool. Congratulations to the people who worked on the new theme. Paercebal 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Chewie search box can't be moved. It would possibly make sense to dispose of the search box on the right, though. It's causing nothing but problems. - Sikon 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate the new look. Sorry, just do. It seems like it's lost the spirit of Wikia with the new look.
 * I think its too...modern perhaps? It doesnt blend well with the rest of wookieepedia. Its just not our format.
 * After thinking about it, it seems too much blurry: We have at least two sections defined by their light background color and no borders, where the other sections have a clear defined border. I still hate the title section with its search box, and still love the "click for navigation" section's display mode. I visited the other, localized Wookieepedia, and the one that impressed me was the german one, "Jedipedia": Easy to read, we know what's the page, and what are border info (with the yellow background). Anyway, I would not have believed someone who told me one could do a cool Jedi web page with a yellow background color. But the results are there. The light blue one used on the Wookiepedia is almost invisible, which means that it has no use (unlike the yellow from Jedipedia). Paercebal 09:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should think about a more "Star Wars"-like look. I'm not talking about a black background and a yellow font-color!... ;op ... Looking at Memory Alpha we see a different, Star Trek-like style. Ok, it's almost unreadable for someone with a bad screen or poor sight, and it's not what I want (accessibility is important). But at least, when we reach the page, and look at the GUI, we know this is Star Trek, and not some random wiki page. Paercebal 09:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some gizmo add-on that could be done easily: If we could find a free auresh font, and provide a link to download it on Wookieepedia, changing the actual font of the Wookieepedia into auresh, and back to normal would be an easy thing to code (I can provide the D-HTML code for that). As most characters, if not all, in Wookieepedia are english-based (ASCII), there should be little problems. This is useless as a feature (who's reading auresh, anyway?), but this is the kind of feature that could add a Star Wars-like mood to the Wookieepedia. Ok, it is borderline childish, but... : / ... Paercebal 09:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about no, okay? :) I know the needed HTML code (and the term "DHTML" is a meaningless buzzword, forget it), but no websites do that. It's inconvenient, and it's considered bad practice to ask users to install a font. If there's going to be any Aurebesh on Wookieepedia, it will be a pre-rendered image. - Sikon 10:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok for the "no font download", you're right about "no website do that". The point of the Aurebesh thing was to illustrate with an exemple the possibility of giving Wookieepedia a more Star Wars-like gui. I'm sure, if the "Star Wars GUI" idea is good, someone will find a convenient way to put it up. Now, your pseudo-technological comment "forget about DHTML" is both wrong, arrogant and misplaced. I never intended my help offer to be a way to bully an "hypothetical technological superiority" over my fellow Wookieepedians. This is plain silly. I won't enter a flame war on Wookieepedia about technological vocabulary issue, just because I offered help if needed. Apparently it isn't, so forget about it. Paercebal 12:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about having the "Wookieepedia BETA" thing at the top done using the same font as "Star Wars" at the beginning of the crawls. This would go well with yellow text where there is black text and black background where there is blue, and maybe gray behind the white backgrounds. That blue by itself is not just not starwarsy. And yellow borders. HM-005 00:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has this font installed. In fact, hardly anyone. - Sikon 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Im just not feeling the 'quote of the day' at the top, the featured article should really be the most prominent thing. Its not a big deal or anything just wondering what other people thought. The Ravager 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism already??
Uh, the main page has been a subject of porn vandalism...would change it, but I can't. Can someone with the proper access do it? Thanks! Greyman 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

30 years
Where's the in the honnor of 30 years of Star Wars go vote...etc. ???Darth Nospher 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, by now, everyone should know where to find it. Plus, the votes should be closing soon. For future references, it's WP:CtE and WP:LtE, I think. 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not a good argument. Newcomers will probably not know where to find it, or might not even know about its existence at all. The 30 years of Star Wars stuff should be brought back to the front page. KEJ 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been gone for awhile so I have no idea where the 30 years of Star Wars page is. It would really be helpful if they put it in the news or provided a link to it on the front page.  Taktwo (Holonet News)[[Image:Crest2.PNG|20px]] 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the elimination of the direct links
Since I don't have an account, I guess this is the spot to comment on the main page beta.

The problem I have with this beta design for the main page is the elimination of the direct links to the movies and EU topics. I know that one of the purposes for the beta was to streamline the main page and make it appear more similar to other Wikipedia pages. Yet, in doing so, it has limited the ability to casually and easily surf Wookiepedia, and access general information. I found the direct links to the movies and various EU subjects on the main page to be extremely useful to bring up information quickly, as well as to simply browse all around the site. Sure, the News and "On This Day" features can provide interesting tid-bits, but as I've stated, it is eliminating extremely helpful quick links to - what I would imagine - are highly visited pages and topics.

If this beta does become the permanent main page than perhaps the removed direct links could be worked into the navigation bar on the left-hand side of the page. Add links to pages with titles similar to "Episodes I-VI", "Expanded Universe", "Eras". Then on the appropriate pages the information that used to be displayed on main page could be listed.
 * Do you see that big blue button titled "article navigation"? There your direct links are. - Sikon 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we really should reconsider the dropdown box thing, because this isn't an uncommon complaint. -- Ozzel 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Back on the forum for this, when I suggested an "on click" rather than an "on mouseover" for the dropdown box. This was interpreted to have it be an "on click" link to a separate page. However is there any reason it can't go back to being the dropdown box as it originally was, but just have the box be triggered by "on click" rather than "on mouseover"? - JMAS 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a dropdown. You just have to push it. It doesn't go to another page. 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

new page
It looks okay but i think the other version was simpler and better. And it would be easy to vandalise the "in the news" and the "on this day" boxes. The edit for those boxes should only be available to established users and the categorie box should be on the main page like the other version. The "on this day" and "in the news" should be added in to the categorie box with everything else.

P.S. I would appreciate comments on this. 22 February 2007

(user:Jediknight2121) * Yeah I dont mind how it is but looks like somehting thats just full of icons and it is well... almost to much though no? Like I notcied at quote of the day it had the little speaker sign to show it is the quote but some peple might think its a sound or wav bit so they wud "listen" to the quote as if it was that. So maybe that needs to be addressed but all this stuff I dont mind im used to keeping things basic maybe I dont know haha

(user Crazyman93) It looks lame, like a beginner did it, the old one was betterCrazyman93 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The old one was better. It was more simplier. Everything is clumped together.

BRING THE OLD PAGE BACK!!! 71.208.59.54 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Icons
Those icons for each section... suck. Badly. It looks like someone when into the Windows shell and decided those icons would fit well on a Star Wars site, or any site for that matter. The rest is acceptable enough, though I preferred movies/eras/etc being on the front page instead of a click after the front page. Uxviii 01:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC) OK, here's three possibles. Left-right: Featured Article, Improvement Drive, and News. The news one is the icon for TriNebulon News. - JMAS 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone can make "Star Warsy" icons, they will be added. By the way, those are not from the Windows shell - they're from the Tango project, available under the CC-BY-SA license. - Sikon 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can come up with when I get home, if someone doesn't beat me to it. What width and height dimensions? - JMAS 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The current ones are 22*22. I think 20*20 to 24*24 will do. - Sikon 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page does look kind of cool, but yeah, Star Wars icons would help. The current ones make it look like a Yahoo page. HM-005 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any ideas for Star Wars icons that would be good to use, post it here. Thanks. - JMAS 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about crossed lightsaber blades for the little plus icon? At the top of the Featured article section. HM-005 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two look great, but I don't know about the news one. Maybe have a picture of a comlink instead? And for "Did you know", should the question mark be in Aurebesh instead of one from Earth? - 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Click here to see how it looks with those three in place. The only other one I think really needs to be changed is the WotM icon. I'm trying to find something IU that's fitting. Good idea for the Did You Know. Let me give it a go.- JMAS 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I dislike the FA icon. --Eyrezer 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eyrezer, then please give some suggestions for an alternate. I just updated some other icons in my test page. As it is right now: Featured Article is a lightsaber asterisk, made from all the blade colors seen in the films. Did you know is the Great Holocron. Improvement drive is the Death Star II. In the news is a hovercam droid. Wookieepedian of the Month is a flared Rebel Alliance icon. - JMAS 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * JMAS, I think your version looks much better. The icons match their topics perfectly. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jack. =) Hopefully others will like it too and an Admin will put them up on the real thing. - JMAS 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think the current FA symbol is fine. I didn't find it readily apparent as to what the FA icon was composed of. With regards to the other icons, I think the Holocron is great, as is the WOTM - although some might say it was biased to the NR ;) --Eyrezer 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The one I want to see replaced is the QotD one. Even a pair of quotation marks would be better than the speaker icon, which makes me want to click it to listen to the quote.  As for Featured Article, what about a version of our Featured Star? jSarek 05:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think JMAS's icons look good. But can you please reupload them in the PNG format with transparency? They're icons after all. - Sikon 06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with JSarek the quote icon is a bit annoying. And maybe change the "on this day" icon to something like a datapad so that all of the icons are Star Wars related? - 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did the icons as they are as kind of a quick thing to see how they'd look. If any of the ones up there are wanted to be implemented, I'll take the time to redo them with a transparent background in png format. I'm working on one for "On this day" and I was thinking of a comlink for the QotD. - JMAS 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, JSarek's version does look a whole lot better. However, I do have some complaints&mdash;and I supposed there will always be some no matter what&mdash;I could not distinguish what on earth the news icon was until I read it here. My suggestion would be to make it a kind of datapad. The improvement icon as the Death Star II is a good idea, but it is sort of misleading, as it is our logo. Perhaps an astromech head? The featured icon looks, to put it bluntly, like a disco flower-thing. Perhaps a company symbol, such as KDY or the Incom corporation? Having a holocron as the Did you Know? icon is a very good idea, but perhaps not the great Holocron, as I mistook it for an asteroid. The Wookieepedian of the Month icon I'm fine with, and I agree with the idea that the QotD icon should be a comlink. - Solus (Bird of Prey)  20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, got all the current ones I did up on the test page are now in png format with transparent background. - I'll work on the QotD one. - JMAS 04:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it up a bit. I put the "Featured Article" icon as the WotM one instead and put a new on for the Featured article. - JMAS 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's all the icons in a gallery and what they are for. See them in use on the Test page. - JMAS 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I added them to the main page. - Sikon 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, now this page is excellent. The icons are now Star Wars-y (so you users whining about non-SW icons can shut up), and they look good Star Wars-y. Great job! 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The current image for "Official Friends of Wookieepedia" is very similar to the one for "Improvement Drive." How about this new one (last image in the gallery below) instead? You can see how it looks on my Test Page. - JMAS 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More criticism

 * I don't really like the new look. It's not Star Warsy enough... maybe some Star Warsy icons might help... immensely. I also think movies/eras/etc. should be on the front page, but I do see the point with the "Article Navigation"-thingy. It should probably be called somwthing else than just "Article Navigation" though since it's not totally apparent that it lets you browse media, eras etc. that it lets you . The link to "Coolest thing..." should also be brought back even though that's of minor importance right now. I could live with it if the icons were made more Star Warsy though. KEJ 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So the old main page, which was basically a ripoff of Wikipedia's main page, looked "Star Warsy enough"? Or perhaps our first main page looked Star Warsy? - Sikon 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Note that I didn't mention the older versions, so you have no grounds for making that assumption. But since you bring it up, the first version was not Star Warsy at all, I'll give you that. The second version seems more Star Warsy due to the presence of Star Wars symbols like the era-icons and other Star Wars imagery. Anyway, as I said, some Star Warsy icons could do the trick, and they might even make this version more Star Warsy than ever, as the icons will be spread all over the page whereas, on the former version, all the era icons are placed in the same section. The color scheme could possibly also be made more Star Warsy (maybe some yellow/black stuff like the opening crawls, or something else). KEJ 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Categories section is more of an index now and is difficult to navigate. It should be switched to its previous format. Karohalva 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with replacing the icons with more Star Warsy ones, and to be honest, the menu could be reworked somehow so that it doesn't have to be expanded... - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about no. Making the main page more cluttered won't help. Clutter was exactly what was wrong with the previous main page. - Sikon 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, don't like it either. It looks more Wikipedia-like than Wookieepedia. It just doesn't look right. -- Cato Neimoidia 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about "article navigation" box
Hello all.

The Star Wars Merchandise Wiki shares the same main page. I made the "Project:Article navigation" page, but instead like it was done here, I made it as one page without any templates. Now that thing is not collapsible! What's the problem? And could somebody help me? Thanks. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The collapsing box is implemented via JavaScript, and I don't see any custom JS on the merchandise wiki. - Sikon 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured that would have been the problem. 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. What have I forgotten? I added Common.js, modified Common.css and Monobook.js. This thing drives me mad! Reminds me why I rather study PHP code than on this. I purged my cache and still nothing, thus telling that something is wrong. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did full copy and paste for all of those three files and finally it works - not. Well, it is collapsed now. It's just impossible to open it by clicking "Click for article navigation". That link takes you to "Project:Article navigation" page. I don't get this thing. Somebody please help me! --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category Catastrophe
Can someone please tell me what happened to the Category page? It has been transformed into a category index! Navigation through Wookieepedia is now terrible! Karohalva 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What category page?! - Sikon 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page you get to from the Main Page which is labeled Categories.
 * This isn't related to the Main Page. Wikia controls the special pages, ask them. - Sikon 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Who'd've thunk it? Karohalva 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New main page format poll
This poll will end on March 9th,two weeks after this polls creation.
 * Lets make this simple.RC 2413 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...And the point is? To see whether or not people like it? - Sikon 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the point is that by the end of the poll we will see the consensus of wookieepedians who like and who dislike. We were told to leave an opinion, and on march ninth, we will have an opinion.RC 2413 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I personnaly think the poll is a brilliant idea 24 February 2007
 * Polls using the MediaWiki poll extension cannot be used to determine consensus. They're extremely vulnerable to vote rigging. This one has already been vote-rigged (45 votes... very funny, whoever did it), so I removed it. But even if it remained, it would never be used for any administrative decision. - Sikon 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to start a new poll, but how do we know that it was rigged, what if people acutally did vote that way. Now, if there is a way for you to know 100% then i apologize, but i do not know for sure. Also, the poll was not for an administrative decision, but simply a poll. It is a not a vote and does not require any admins to go back and change the main page to the old version. Do not hamper anyones ability to express their right of free speech (if any)on how wookieepedia is or should be structured.
 * Is that an order? And since when is "free speech" a Wookieepedia policy? And I think that having even votes for hours and then suddenly one side gaining 45 votes in mere minutes is a perfect example of vote-rigging. - Sikon 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. A request. I am not saying youre decisions are wrong, I just disagree with how its presented. I m not trying to start a fight. As for the votes, like I said i would; I apologize. My local time had me go to sleep so you must have been on wookiee longer than I, I did not see the votes flare up. Its a shame that there are Dikuts (pardom my mandolorian) that would do that, especially when they should know that it was not a vote, just a query on what poeple liked. I dont want to argue over this anymore, and im sorry it got started anyway. However, you might think of wording things a little bit nicer, there is a bad impression.

Safari Problems
As mentioned at the start of the discussion, the featured article column is very thin and a lot longer that the second column. Can someone please fix this if the new page is going to go ahead? - 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's interesting, because I couldn't reproduce this in any of the browsers I have (Firefox, IE, Opera and Konqueror). If someone having Safari could fix the Main Page, I'd be grateful. - Sikon 03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this problem occur now? - Sikon 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * looks good to me...everything is nice and even...thanx - Darth Fett 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately a lot better now. Thanks for fixing it - 21:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvement Drive and Wookieepedian of the Month

 * This may seem stupid and pointless to some, but I liked having the ID and WOTM next to each other. It may just be my browser, but I still think it would be good to keep them together. They do go hand in hand. Darth Fett 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been decided on the Mofference to move the ID box up to make more people participate. - Sikon 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

safari problems
If you have problems with the main page and you use safari try E-Mailing the people at safari to fix the problem.Febuary 24

please leave a comment


 * Please sign your comments.......................... and dont be dumb, thanks The Ravager 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The new page
If this new page is adopted as the official main page of Wookieepedia then lets have the old page avialable to at the same time for those who dont like the new version.

P.S. I would like comments on this 24 febuary
 * Dear anonymous user (I don't know your name, so I'll call you Mysterious Stranger; it's a better name than 216.211.*.* anyway), please register and learn to sign your comments. Your dynamic IP makes your unsigned comments hard to trace. - Sikon 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean hard to trace:)
 * I have to sign your unsigned comments manually. Please use this: to sign your comments. - Sikon 12:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems For a few hours

 * For a few hours I could not access the new Beta main page but I could get on to the old one no problem although every page I went into was for lack of a better word...Extremely Screwed Up.
 * The search bar was on the bottom of the pages and the external adds were on the bottom to.
 * And at the top of the page were the the article-discussion-edit-history buttoms are supposed to be they were underneath the article. And a lot of things were jumbled around and frankly it was pathetic.
 * The same thing has happend to me on wikipedia before.
 * If this has happend to others please leave a comment on this subject.
 * Febuary 24.
 * Signed The Mysterious Stranger.
 * P.S. What happend to the Poll?
 * I removed the poll, it was pointless and vote-rigged. - Sikon 12:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Sorry to bring this up, but why this hostile reaction towards the critique of the new pages? KEJ 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What hostile reaction? - Sikon 14:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me tell you why, The Direct links (specially category's) are gone, the wording is all cramped to gather like someone trying to fit twelve lines of size 12 font into six lines of size 10 font space, it looks ugly in general, and is hard to navigate even for veteran user's

All in all this looks like a grade six primary student did it for IT class!

In General when ever you want too trail something new Always make sure the Alpha/Original is still accessible, Oh and put this beta page to a vote! - "Awar 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)".
 * Once again: THE DIRECT LINKS ARE NOT GONE. Really. If you can't find them despite a BLOODILY OBVIOUS BLUE BUTTON opening them, it's your problem. Sorry for the uppercase, but these pointless objections really annoy me. (As for a vote: there already was one. No point in making another one.) - Sikon 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (There's one). KEJ 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, The catagory's are in a hidden window that when you open makes the page look ever worse/uglier than it was before! (Since there not openly visable on the page, They are coounted as hidden). Second fix the text size & spacing so it looks readable! Third you asked for an opinion why people don't like the beta page, so don't flame me because you get one! - "Awar 05:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)".
 * I'm not flaming anyone. What do you mean by "looking readable"? Is the current layout unreadable? Why? Give arguments and suggestions for improvement, not just "I don't like it" comments. - Sikon 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the history part needs to provide older items.
Events from just the past few years are too recent. One or two a week from the past 10 years should be suffiecent. 60% should be from when Lucas was still working on the concept up through the time when ROJ was released. The rest should be the remaining years. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when the new Making of Star Wars book comes out, we'll have more exact dates. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuity
The front page could still use some work, but why don't the article pages look similar to it? They don't have the same slick feel as the Main Page. HM-005 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't give ideas. The articles are the only part that still look slick. Inigo Montoya 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean infoboxes? - Sikon 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems
I already posted a thing on this but since no one answered im asking again did anybody have problems accessing Wookieepedia in the early hours of Febuary 24 2007 if you had problems please respond. 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Mysterious Stranger
 * Yeah, I did too! Actually, a few times, even the night before I was having problems.  Strange! supergeeky1 [[Image:BobaFett.jpg|20px]] The Cantina 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New logo
I propose we change the logo for the rest of the year to have something about 30 years of Star Wars in it. Maybe we could change it to the Death Star completed, instead of being built? What do you think? supergeeky1 The Cantina 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In a way, the death star shown is complete. It isn't the one from A New Hope, but the one from Return of the Jedi. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know, to me it makes it more like the wikipedia image-incomplete. It is also a sign that wookiee is always being built upon, that it will never be finished because there is and enless future for starwars. I say keep it. Plus, it looks cool. RC 2413 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if not a new logo for this momentous year, than something. I know we have this whole best thing in star wars vote, but we should do something extra special, like put logo or something like that on the main page. Eh...any other ideas? - Darth Fett 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)