Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive open editing session

Welcome to the open editing session of Round 7 of the Main Page Redesign Project

Many thanks to those who contributed feedback and critiques in the last voting round. We are now in the process of applying those requests and criticisms to designing Draft 7, which will be pitted against the current Main Page for final approval by the general Wikipedian population. Towards that end, the draft is open for anyone to help in this endeavor. Please study the poll results (which are provided for your convenience below), and implement those results in the draft. Get along, have fun, etc....

Here are some guidelines:

• Editing will continue through Saturday, February 18th, inclusive. The final election will start on March 1st and will run for 3 weeks. In between we will have a period to rest, make further refinements,and test out the draft for bugs on different browsers, resolutions, screen sizes, et cetra.
• Look over the poll results and alter the draft with respect to them. The goal is to apply the consensus represented in those results to the draft. A lot of users provided input, and now it's time to make use of it.
• We are currently in discussions on how to manage the upcoming "election" for the Main Page's replacement. Your input is needed.

Refactoring this discussion page

Does anyone want to try and refactor this increasingly long and convoluted discussion page? Several issues have been discussed in different sections, and some discussions probably got lost in the noise... Carcharoth 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate a refactoring/archiving of this page. it is way too long and broken-up.--Quiddity 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty following a thread here. So to avoid speedy revert I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on the welcome section in this draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SeanMack/sandbox ? Maybe each section should be taken in turn to focus the discussion? Cheers SeanMack 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of portal icons is heavily opposed, the "Y" in "you can edit" should be lowercase (although I see no reason to modify the longstanding "anyone can edit" wording), and I'm not sure why you have the book floating in the middle. —David Levy 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All fair comment. My reply is:

The idea behind the changes is an attempt to focus on who the target is for the page. If we say assume that a high proportion of views of the main page will be by newcomers, it is expected by non-technical people to get something that stimulates the eye as well as the brain. So, I can't understand the opposition to icons when they are high quality and there are already icons for sister projects on the page. You can edit! - I wanted to emphasize to newcomers that they themselves could edit the place, as opposed to it sounding like "oh just anybody can edit". The book is in the middle because I found it very distracting behind the text at the top. I would have removed it completely for a cleaner look, but wasn't that bold. Regards SeanMack 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the book will only appear where it does at your screen resolution. At other screen resolutions the layout will change. As for "anyone" vs "you" - that is a fair comment, but I think there is an important distinction between telling people that _they_ can edit (they can write what they want) and that _anyone_ can edit. It prepares people for the fact that their editing will be (to quote the boiler plate edit pages): "edited mercilessly and redistributed by others". Carcharoth 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I checked an 800x600 screen, and the book image in the middle still looks OK. The portal icons take up too much space though, and they start to wrap round and look horrible. I'm going to be bold for you, and move book image to the posiiton you have it in. Carcharoth 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Icons

I think many people were against icons because of the size in which they were presented. I was against icons before but would be for this version. Its a small addition that adds a lot to the page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As Carcharoth noted, at lower resolutions or larger text sizes, the icons cause the lines to wrap in a very ugly fashion.

SeanMack mentioned the sister project icons, but that's a different situation. That section accommodates those images, and they're the official logos of Wikimedia websites (not arbitrarily selected symbols assigned to pages within this site). —David Levy 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's got to be a code fix to stop the wrapping, we've just got to find it. Look how much work the second search box has taken, and I think we've almost satisfied everyone there. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor. The icons in Sean's draft are a pleasant addition. Any problems with wrapping should be fixable. Whilst I'm here, is there any reason why the bottom box isn't rendering at full width?--cj | talk 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I added icons like in Sean's draft, but 18px instead of 20px so that the box doesn't grow.. the history icon is proportioned different from all the others, unfortunately. i also widened the columns of the portals from 11% to 14% each; i don't know if this caused funny wrapping on lower resolutions, but it's nicely balanced as far as i can tell. 131.111.8.98 11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason for the extra column width was an attempt to prevent the wrapping, since the icons take up just a little bit more space than the bullets, it seems.. but i don't know if the extra width is necessary. 131.111.8.98 11:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not bad at all. -- Ec5618 11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do like this icon implementation; nice work. They make dense pages much easier to parse and navigate. +sj + 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that, regardless of what's on the Portal pages themselves, we should strive for consistantcy. Either all Nuvola or all Hebrew Main Page blue, please. That being said, I like this version of icons more than any other because is does not take away space. I will be neutral to it for now, and support it if they are changed to be consistant.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am appreciative of the concerns people have regarding icons. David has raised the very real issue of valid wiki icons for the sister project and HereToHelp mentions my big concern - consistency. With these in mind I have a slightly changed version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SeanMack/sandbox utilising wiki template icons. I feel it tackles both these issues. I've done this on my sandbox to help discussion as I want to avoid continual reversion and tweaking. I do agree that the wrapping issues should be sorted out - whatever code is needed I'm sure can be created if there is agreement with the decision to use icons. Also I think the icons should be clickable in the same way as the sister icons are - this would be internally consistant with the sister project icons and would also be in line with people's expectations of clickable icons throughout the net. My main focus is that after we are all done we can provide an interface that is a sigificant improvment so that it is not classed as purposeless tweaking, as I have seen this opinion already on votes of the drafts, people generally don't like change.... I firmly believe that by improving the aesthetics and the the layout we have something to offer. Although we all do this for nothing the main page should still look professional, and as if someonbe has paid a design company to do a "make-over". Regards to all and respect for all the hard work - I realise I've come to the party late. SeanMack 12:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your icons: great idea with the puzzle pieces, but I dislike the execution. They're way too pixelated. Can you clean them up a bit?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest the execution was never meant to be final - the layout is for discussion only but if we have general agreement either I could look into it or we could get someone onboard who has more experience. My guess is that it's because these images are gifs. We may need to have some sort of vector based icons that will scale without pixellation - I'm open to ideas. FYI these are taken from commons. Regards SeanMack 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Having had a second look - they are probably pixelated because the originals are so small. I would think if they are popular we could redo them - but no point if no-one was interested... SeanMack 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The puzzle piece icons are a really nifty idea. However, at this point, the Nuvola icons are the better option. Are there any advanced graphic designer Wikipedians capable of creating a mixture of the two?--cj | talk 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with the way some (i.e. David Levy) are handling the portal icon situation.. it seems very unconstructive. i understand that a select few are opposed to icons full stop.. and that all previous attempts have been ruled out by consensus.. but this doesn't mean we couldn't get consensus on something different (possibly similar to the version David Levy reverted).. and in the interests of making wikipedia more user-friendly, it seems highly advantageous to try - plus, many people have claimed the opposition to icons exemplifies the elitist atmosphere within wikipedia.

to solve the consistency problem, i'm going to go on a limb an propose an idea (that unfortunately may not be able to be implimented until after the voting..): have a contest for the best portal icon set. "Your icons could be featured on the Main Page!!" - that's pretty good motivation, if you ask me. it's simple enough to give size requirements, and what the icons should represent.. i'm sure there's quite a few people who would be willing to put a good amount of time into designing a nice complete set. and shouldn't it be possible to change the icons after (assuming it is) the new main page is voted in?

The argument that the icons cause wrapping on some browsers, so we shouldn't have them at all, seems negative, unconstructive, and if you ask me unprofessional.. i mean, i know very little about wiki-markup, but surely this is a fixable non-issue. 131.111.8.96 15:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I had tried small icons (I don't necessarily care which icon set), on Draft K, as a way to prominently accomodate both the browse portals and the search box. This solution used the same amount of space in and below the header as both the current draft, and sean's proposal. But, didn't get much response (positive or negative) to Draft K, except for some people outright objecting to icons. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Although Draft K may use the same amount of space, the portal icons and links are much bigger, and seem more in-your-face.. in the layout in sean's version they seem tidy; i still think it's possible to make an acceptable draft with icons.. or am i dreaming? 131.111.8.97 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i should sign in before i post comments.. i've been the 131.111.8.x user. Mlm42 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the icons... they don't jump out at me as "i love them". But I don't hate them either (though I think others do). Another problem is that with icons, the list of portals takes up more space in the header. Whereas, with the bulleted lists, I think there's more room to add portals in the future. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And I think few people have reacted negatively to the bulleted list format. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with the way some (i.e. David Levy) are handling the portal icon situation.. it seems very unconstructive.

How is it constructive to insert styling that defies consensus, and why shouldn't it be removed?

i understand that a select few are opposed to icons full stop..

No, more than "a select few" oppose the inclusion of portal icons.

and that all previous attempts have been ruled out by consensus.. but this doesn't mean we couldn't get consensus on something different (possibly similar to the version David Levy reverted)..

The opposition to portal icons—any portal icons—is strong.

and in the interests of making wikipedia more user-friendly, it seems highly advantageous to try -

There is no consensus that the addition of icons will make Wikipedia "more user-friendly."

plus, many people have claimed the opposition to icons exemplifies the elitist atmosphere within wikipedia.

The people most likely to be adversely affected by the presence of portal icons are those with low display resolutions and/or large text sizes. Are people with old/inexpensive computers and/or poor eyesight society's "elite"?

The argument that the icons cause wrapping on some browsers, so we shouldn't have them at all, seems negative, unconstructive, and if you ask me unprofessional.. i mean, i know very little about wiki-markup, but surely this is a fixable non-issue.

No, it isn't. The inclusion of any images larger than the bullets will increase the likelihood of wrapping. The icons sometimes end up on different lines than the corresponding links, and this looks terrible. —David Levy 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That can easily be fixed. Prodego ^talk 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What can? It probably is possible to force the icons to remain directly adjacent to the corresponding links, but the increased likelihood of wrapping is unavoidable. —David Levy 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the look of the icons, but don't support them. I don't support them because if you click on the icon, you go to the image page, not the portal the icon represents, which will confuse new users. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, that can be fixed via the same template-based hack that's used for the sister project icons. This, however, generates somewhat glitchy results in Firefox. —David Levy 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a non-issue. But I think that if we decide to do icons (which is a big if considering the opposition, and David backing them up), we have two options. Either go with puzzle piece bullets OR hold the competition for different icons as described above. Frankly, I have a good amount of doubt as for getting past that "if".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is a wiki site. Which means anyone can edit a page and over time and many edits the best results will arise. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to limit a persons ideas and thoughts citing concensus to back up the argumant. The "consensus" doesn't exist. There were no official and binding Wikipedia wide votes/elections/polls/whatever where everyone with a username (or without) got a say. Ideas were floated and some people expressed opinions about them. Not all ideas were talked about and there are many (probably even better) ideas still to come. Lets work with an idea before discarding it out of hand. And finally, I don't like the idea some people have that certain users are important than others. Quote: "the opposition, and David backing them up". That sounds like David has the final say. Don't think so. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct in stating that I possess no more authority in this area than anyone else. I'm merely citing the will of the community. There simply isn't sufficient support for the inclusion of portal icons. Don't take my word for it; read the discussion archives.

I don't know what you think the word "consensus" means, but it definately doesn't refer to the result of "official and binding Wikipedia wide votes/elections/polls/whatever where everyone with a username (or without) got a say." —David Levy 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

David, it unfortunately seems that you're getting emotional about this issue.. and possibly transferring your feelings of 'strong opposition to any portal icons' to what you believe is consensus, or the 'will of the community'.. but you may be reading things into what people say that just aren't there. as i said, a select few, like yourself, are opposed to icons full stop.. but as far as i can tell, most people who objected to them had more superficial - fixable, even - complaints. and furthermore, i have read the discussion archives, and it appears to me that consensus suggests the addition of icons would make a more user-friendly wikipedia. surely the idea is worth more consideration than you are giving it. Mlm42 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't strongly oppose the inclusion of any portal icons. In fact, I actually attempted to add some at one point.

I do, however, strongly oppose the decision by some to ignore the community's response. I'm not claiming that the icons are overwhelmingly opposed, but they clearly lack sufficient support.

I also strongly oppose inclusion of code that messes up the page for people with the very common 800x600 display resolution. You can continue to argue that this must be fixable, but you're wrong. —David Levy 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly opposed the icons in their previous incarnation, and imagine other editors feel the same way. This form however is fine by me. Perhaps we could leave the icons in version, which at least deal with your wrapping concern, for a while, to gather input. -- Ec5618 01:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The wrapping had been replaced with horizontal scrolling, which arguably is even worse. There is no way around this. —David Levy 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the use of icons, at least at the top of the page. It looks really good and is inviting. AllPeopleUnite 14:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it causes text wrap or horizontal scrolling.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(repeated from below) I, and many other editors, are Strongly Against any icons, other than those for the wikimedia sister projects. Trying to add them at this point Will be Futile. The only point that could be discussed is whether or not to use bullets. --Quiddity 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversions II

1. The addition of any browsebar link beyond the existing six causes the text to wrap in the 800x600 resolution (at the default text size).

2. The section "Other areas of Wikipedia" refers to areas other than articles. Article navigation links do not belong there.

3. All three of the links added by the anon are confusingly similar to the existing article navigation links. We mustn't overwhelm users with so many redundant paths.

4. Again, the icons are heavily opposed. And again, there's no way to add them without messing up the page for people with the very common 800x600 resolution. I can't stress this enough. Are any of you even bothering to check? No matter how this is coded, something has to give. When the line wrap is suppressed, this results in horizontal scrolling (which is arguably worse). No matter how "cool" one deems the icons, this is absolutely unacceptable. —David Levy 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, i am checking, and i see the lines wrapping.. but what i don't understand is that when i look at the version with the bullets, it isn't hard to visualize little icons instead of bullets.. i mean, maybe it isn't worth the effort to figure out how to do it, since it may be a lot of work; but although David keeps saying the icons are heavily opposed, i don't think they are. and his stubborness with regard to the apparent 'impossibility' of making this work is entirely uninspiring. Mlm42 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mlm42. Perhaps icons are not inherent opposed. Perhaps only the formatting of the icons was opposed. This formatting is entirely different, and doesn't add a big block of icons to the page. -- Ec5618 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it just breaks the page for people with the 800x600 display resolution. —David Levy 02:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm not the one who's being unreasonably stubborn.

At the 800x600 resolution and default text size, the current setup uses practically all of the available horizontal screen real estate. Unless the icons were to take up no more of it than the bullets do (which obviously isn't realistic), it is impossible to solve this problem without compromising something else. Either the lines need to wrap, or the screen needs to scroll horizontally. Otherwise, where is the extra space going to come from? —David Levy 02:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about killing the bullets and just listing the Portals?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The icons IMO are a bit too "cute". They give the impression of trying a little too hard to fit them in. Is there a version of this draft without bullets? Sorry, I haven't been able to be here as much as I would like lately, I'm trying to catch up. hydnjo talk 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the bullets are fine. I was unaware that the icons caused problems under 800x600, so I apologize for re-adding them. However, your other comments raise a wider problem. You've obviously decided which navigation links should be listed on the main page, but what of the others? I agree that they could be deemed to be "redundant paths", but if they're not linked to from the main page, how would anyone know they even exist? Maybe they should be merged, if most think that they are redundant? Or maybe a central Wikpedia:Navigation page could be created for that purpose? --81.104.41.42 11:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. These pages probably should be merged. Failing that, they should be redesigned (for greater clarity and differentiation) and linked from a central page. —David Levy 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What two pages? This one and the current Main Page?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We're referring to the various article navigation pages, such as Wikipedia:Browse by overview, List of glossaries, List of reference tables and List of topic lists. I don't know why three of the four are in the article namespace. —David Levy 20:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I'll agree, those are confusing.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I, and many other editors, are Strongly Against any icons, other than those for the wikimedia sister projects. Trying to add them at this point Will be Futile. The only point that could be discussed is whether or not to use bullets. --Quiddity 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nine more icons is equal to nine more queries in Wikimedia servers at each Main page's pageview, right? If so, I think it would be very bad... (sorry my poor english) Cyb3r 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

anyone can edit

Why advertise on the main page that 'anyone can edit'

Yes, anyone can and anyone does, 'edit', that is. And all of us spend endless wasted time and effort in reverting endless vandalism created by the 'anyone can edit' philosophy and practice. Not only that, we have to read this trash which is worse than the time spent on getting rid of it.

What should be included are more measures to assure responsibility and accountabily by editors.

The 'anyone ccan edit' practice could be introduced through the Community Portal, not on the main page.

Thanks Hmains 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is our philosophy, it is what separates Wikipedia from the countless other internet encyclopedias. Without the open editing, we would just be Pedia. People don't help if they aren't encouraged to, and vandals will vandalise regardless. Prodego ^talk 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

African Cup Final

I tried to add this to the draft but failed. Anyway this is fresh news, like 3 hour old

• Egypt Wins African Nations Cup for the fifth time, after defeating Ivory Coast in Cairo after Kick offs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpster (talk • contribs)

We pull {{In the news}} from the same place the current main page does, so have nothing to do with deciding what news goes there. If you want to suggest something, you can do so at Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates. This particular item has already been suggested, and you can add your opinion there. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A question

How were you able to hide the titlebar and tagline? I have failed to see anything in the code on this. How did this occur in the history, too? I am amazed how this could be possible. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

{{hidden}}. Or, more precisely, {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}}.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

no, the hidden templates are for the "show/hide" section link. i don't know how the page's titlebar is being hidden though. --Quiddity 06:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

JavaScript's being used; see MediaWiki:monobook.js. æle ✆ 04:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Current concerns

This section is for listing any concerns regarding the current revision. If an issue is resolved, strike it or remove it from the list. For technical problems, don't forget to note the affected browser(s) and operating system(s). If a bug does not affect all browsers/operating systems, it would be helpful to include a screen capture.

Style concerns

• find / search box
  • The negative vertical spacing on the label (from MediaWiki:Common.css - #bodySearchMP label { display: block; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: -.2em; }) worries me. This is under Firefox 1.5 using Monobook. Alphax ^τεχ 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• article count

• portal bullets

• language list

Article count

There seems to be an edit war going on right now over whether or not to include the srticle count in the header. The argument thus far seems to be that it might give a false impression to non-english speakers. I for one am neither for nor against this, although I will say that the English Wikipedia specifically targets english speakers, and concerning ourselves with other languages would seem quite superfluous to its scope, especially as most languages have their own Wikipedia. In either case, I though the statistic page explained how articles were counted well enough.

What do you all think? --81.104.41.42 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It had been part of the search box ("search 967,241 articles:"), but with where the search box is now, there's no space there for it. It's logical to put the article count in the heading, with "Welcome to Wikipedia". The article count is on the current main page, and is an important tradition to keep. Especially so, as Wikipedia approaches the 1,000,000 articles milestone. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article count remains on the page (in a context that directly relates to article counts, so it's unlikely to be interpreted as a proclamation that quantity is of the utmost importance). —David Levy 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The language issue relates not to the presence of the article count, but to the figure of speech "6,915,567 articles and counting."

2. The English language Wikipedia is used by many, many people for whom English is not a primary language. (Some of our administrators fit this description.) Many understand English very well, while others have only a basic grasp. Some know practically none at all (and rely upon automated translations). No one said that we should "concern ourselves with other languages," but we should try to keep our usage of English as understandable as possible (especially on the main page).

Regarding the edit war, I contacted The Tom after his most recent insertion of the article count. He agreed that there are legitimate arguments against its inclusion in the header, and indicated that he would not protest its removal —David Levy 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It worked okay with the search box, but I can't think of any better, more elegant way to include the count in the header as we have it now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom has also made it very clear that he dislikes "the free encyclopedia" to be repeated when it is available right below the jigsaw globe. I disagree and think that is our unofficial slogan, and we should keep it. I did try a compromise (pay attention only to the header), but I was reverted.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

At the time, Tom evidently didn't realize that this isn't true in all of the skins. —David Levy 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

without looking, i'd guess the objection was more that it gets repeated THREE times within the top left corner of the screen (third time in the

=Main Page=
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

page title). Unless this is being hidden on the main page with our new draft (as it is currently, the technique behind which is a mystery being discussed 4 threads up in "A Question"). --Quiddity 06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(actually, "the free encyclopedia" gets repeated up to FIVE time in the top-left quadrant of the screen, if we count the browser's titlebar, and the name on the tab in any tabbed-browser.)

I wouldn't count either of those in this context. I especially wouldn't count the tab, as that applies to relatively few people. I use Firefox, but my tab (locked to a specific size via an extension) doesn't get past the word "Wikipedia." —David Levy 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom hasn't mentioned the page title, which I'm hoping would continue to be suppressed in most skins. —David Levy 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, would anyone be opposed to the phrase "Currently working at [x] articles", taken almost directly from the main page? --81.104.41.42 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I proposed something along the lines of this (ignore everything except for the three lines in the top left). Feel free to mess with the wording on the third line; I care about just using that line to convey the stats.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the "Currently working on "6,915,567 articles" wording, because it's a false statement; at any given time, we're "working on" countless articles that have not yet been uploaded. 6,915,567 is merely the number of articles already present in the database.

Regardless, any mention of this statistic outside of a broader context will imply that we value quantity over quality. The line from the "Wikipedia languages" section (which contains wording similar to—but more accurate than—that contained on the current main page) seems like a means of conveying pertinent information (which it is). Conversely, including this as a standalone statement in the header comes across as Wikipedia making a special effort to brag. —David Levy 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I should mention that nearly all other Wikipedias list the number of articles in either their header or first paragraph. Maybe this is something we should consider. --81.104.41.42 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Our difficulties stem from the fancy header that we've implemented, which doesn't accommodate statements in sentence form. Perhaps we should consider returning to a simpler, more conventional setup. It probably would alienate significantly fewer voters. —David Levy 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be worried about voters. The overwhelming majority liked some redesign over what we've got. When we adjust for having one draft, I think we'll find that we get an overwhelming "yes". I like the header. that's only one opinion, though.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the header too, but it's the one element that worries me. Everything other change is an evolutionary improvement, while the header is a radical departure from the current setup. I anticipate three types of complaints:

• 1. It's too fancy! We don't need a giant bar with a book image! Function over fashion! KISS!
• 2. The sentence structure is gone!
• 3. The search box is redundant!

If we were to return to the conventional header layout, no one would be able to oppose the draft on this basis. —David Levy 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. What's wrong with a fancy Main Page? Don't we want to look professional?
• 2. People want to just read a few words, rather than sort through a paragraph. This is KISS.
• 3. Redundancy is good. We can't put the about links above the header (screen readers) so we might as well make use of the space. We could just have a link to Portal:Browse rather than list those nine Portals.

If the header comes under unanimous fire, we'll have to take it out. But it's been there for a couple drafts already.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm playing devil's advocate, of course; I agree with all of your above points. I just hope that most of the voters do too. —David Levy 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Only time will tell.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Language list

That "obsecenely [sic] long list," as Raul654 referred to it, was taken directly from the current main page. At one point, we used CSS code to hide the "over 1,000 articles" portion by default, but this became unnecessary when we moved the section to the bottom of the page. There certainly has to be some arbitrary cutoff point, but I believe that this should be discussed. I'm concerned that people might vote against the draft if it removes languages that presently are listed on the main page. —David Levy 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very much like "throw everything in to avoid upsetting anyone" - which pretty much explains the current draft. Raul654 07:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like "someone obviously wanted that on the main page in the first place, and it's remained there for a while without being removed due to popular demand, so let's discuss the issue and attempt to establish a clear consensus." —David Levy 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You included every language that has over 100 000 articles except Portuguese. Why is that? Please include it. AllPeopleUnite 14:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese is in 10,000+ articles. The language list of this draft is out of dated, just this! Cyb3r 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1000+ section should remain. English is a second language to many and these versions will only grow if people (i.e. native speakers) know about them. --Grocer 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the 1000+ section. It's at the bottom; but more importantly is representational of how open we are. Just because we're the biggest, doesnt mean we can/should ignore the smallest. --Quiddity 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Within this section, i'd like to suggest we move the sentence "Wikipedias are also being written ..." down to its own line. Primarily to remove the effect of the line-wrap at 1024x768. (the most common current size) --Quiddity 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "over 1,000 articles" list should be included, but it generally is best to allow the natural line breaks to remain. Unless the lines are very short, it's impossible to artificially accommodate every resolution. Your suggestion would improve the page's appearance for some users, but it would create an undesirable effect for others.

For example, a Windows/Firefox user with the 800x600 resolution, default taskbar position, full-screen window, and a text size one notch above the default already has a line break before the sentence in question, but the three sentences still fit nicely on two lines. Upon implementing your proposed line break, the final sentence would be pushed to a third line, leaving only the article count on the second line. Here's a visual comparison. —David Levy 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Browsers

Any chance we can have a browser & version in the edit statements? I think it will help anyone who is looking at cross browser comparisons. SeanMack 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the slogan!

Hello to everyone, I have suggested this before and I'm here to do it again. Remove the "the free encyclopedia" slogan. It just takes away from the level of respect people have. By having that people won't think this is a real encyclopedia, it'll sound like a joke. I just don't think we should keep it. Thank you for your time
--(Aytakin) | Talk 16:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how you came to that absurd conclusion, and I doubt many will agree with you. --81.104.41.42 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree on removing the slogan but for other reasons: 1. it is already under the top-left logo 2. Wikipedia has in the meantime become a concept on its own and does not need to be directly called an encyclopedia 3. it distracts from the main contents. --WS 02:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. This is true only in some skins. Not everyone sees that logo. 2. A widespread lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's nature is one of the site's most frequently cited problems. We do need to emphasize the fact that this is an encyclopedia. 3. I disagree. —David Levy 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Centering the Sister Projects

I'm not opposed to Go for it!'s proposal to center the Sister Project links, but it renders with the next header centered as well. There's probably just an HTML tag missing somewhere. Here's a screenshot:

File:Main Page redesign centering Sister Projects.png

I hope we can clear this up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The newest version that David uploaded looks fine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history more closely. The language centering was already in the draft that I stuck the re-aligned wikisisters into. The centering showed up in the edit just prior to mine, ala User:Vir. In that draft the langs are center tagged. --Go for it! 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget about Vir's edits. They have nothing to do with this. Your changes to the code caused the bug depicted above. That's why people kept removing it.

On my end (and presumably HTH's), there was nothing wrong with the alignment before you made your changes. Can you please post a screen capture of the problem that you corrected? —David Levy 08:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And the sisters aren't centered, they are left-aligned. I can't figure out how to center them as a block. Anyone know how to do this? --Go for it! 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Search box centering

Hmmm... The search box looks a little awkward in its position right now, overshadowed by the portals above it and scrunched off to the side. Is there any way to align it so that is perhaps wider and centered under the portals without screwing up the position for those with alternative monitor resolutions? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so.

Setting the 800x600 display resolution issue aside, you didn't actually "center" the box; you pushed it far enough to the left that it appeared centered to you. It didn't to me, nor would it have to most people. Under a different resolution, font size, window size, taskbar orientation, et cetera, the box's relative position varies.

Setting the centering issue aside, any type of edit that significantly increases the search box's size or shifts it significantly further to the left will break the page in some manner for most users with the 800x600 display resolution. —David Levy 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it. :) On thing I don't understand, thouhg - I see how making the box wider would break the page, but how would shifting the box to the left make 800x600 users have to scroll right? zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You shifted the search box to the left by padding the right (thereby forcing the search box over). In the 800x600 resolution, there's practically no horizontal screen real estate to spare, so adding empty space to the right of the search box causes the total width of the page to exceed that of the screen. —David Levy 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal Matrix Wrap vs Overlap

It would be nice if we could get a 4th column in the portal matrix. HereToHelp mentioned that such causes a wrap problem like with the icons. But I saw a different problem (on IE only) when using the largest text size: the matrix overlapped with the Wikipedia text block on the left of the header (the two text blocks come together in the middle - uggggggly). On Firefox, the overlap does not occur, as the browser opts for a scroll bar solution instead.

Can anyone shed some light on this problem? Is there any way to fix the overlap problem in IE? --Go for it! 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, i agree that it would be nice to have the other 3 portals listed. On the other hand, cross-browser layout coding is Very hard once you get started (you've got to count at least 3 iterations of each of the 2-5 main browsers on each of the 3 main OSs in multiple screen resolutions etc) and it's better to KISS. ie I don't think there's a coding solution to this problem; the only way to get 4 columns in the browser bar would be to narrow the "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the left. looking at a screenshot, the available width in a 800x600 resolution display is 600 pixels:

File:Main Page Width.png

avail total width = 600px

so that's what you've got to play with. --Quiddity 07:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or...

...is there something behind FDR's picture today? What's back there? --Go for it!

Do we need the bullets in the header?

I think it looks cleaner without them, busier with them. And we can reduce the room they take up if we remove the bullets. --Go for it! 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the bullets, and we aren't pressed for space in the header. —David Levy 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We are, actually (some want more Portals there; I really dislike what AzaToth did and it messed up the search box for me). I also think they might be good without, but it isn't major, and if the community feels strongly against them, yes, we can remove them.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of how many portals to include is separate; whether we have nine or twelve (and I would prefer nine), there's sufficient space to include the bullets. Therefore, this is a purely aesthetic matter. I personally like the bullets, but I agree that this isn't a big deal. If we end up removing them, it won't bother me very much. —David Levy 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Yeah, they are separate issues, and 9 is superior to 12 (because the one's put up are better, and it doesn't force other stuff down offscreen).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No bullets, please. Avoid bullets whenever possible. If you must, a little differentiation in background shading. +sj + 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Business vs. Economics

Economics is a sub-field of business, is much narrower in scope. For instance, Economics 101 is taught in business school, not the other way around. Also, business is one of the Big 3 occupational areas: Business, Science, and Politics. The matrix just seems a little shy without it. --Go for it! 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, economics courses are taught at business schools, and that's because the concept directly relates to business; it doesn't mean that it's "a sub-field of business."

Economics is "the social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems." Business plays a major role in any economy, but it isn't the broader of the two terms. —David Levy 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nine has worked fine until now; what's wrong with them? 12 makes the header feel too big vertically. It also pushes stuff down. The Portal itself is not very good anyway (dull clors, rarely updated, etc.).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that putting the term "Business" on the main page seems like an invitation for businesses to write vanity articles and add spam. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Economics is more of a scholarly, academic topic and businesses are part of the economy. But, if we can go with just the nine topics, that's fine. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Economics portal can easily be made ready before March 1st, and I would see to it personally if it and the 12 portals are listed in the header. --Go for it! 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do that, go ahead.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are only 12 categories, I object to having Economics or Business as one of the main categories. That would make at least 4 Society categories up top (1/3 of cats) and really it makes 4 social science categories as top level categories: Geography (at least partly so, with Human Geography as a social science), History, Economics, and Politics. I think a better categorization is to have both Society and Social Sciences as top categories. (This is done on the French Wikipedia front page categories and on some main categories on various English Wikipedia index pages.) I actually think more categories is the wrong direction. I think the page should actually go back to 8 main categories with longer titles (ones very similar to the French front page or the main categories on the Portal page, in the vertical list). I think even more room for subcategories would be a very good idea, again, as on the French main page (and Italian and Polish and Portuguese main pages, if I remember correctly). A place for more categories would be under the header. However, If you all succeed in getting Economics up there, I prefer Economy or Economics over Business. I do really encourage going for Social Science first -- it will help with limiting creep up to ever more categories. With this, both society and social science cats would point to both Econ/Business and Politics *along with* other aspects of society and other social sciences. If people are open to that, there needs to be a Social Science portal pronto. Easy to make -- just copy the Society one and edit. I'd be happy to work on that Thurs/Friday. Vir 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that the whole subject category hierarchy needs an overhaul. But that's beyond the scope of this project. If and when the overhaul occurs, no doubt it will affect the current Main Page at that time. No worries. --Go for it! 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the browse-section approach, the English Wikipedia is designed differently. Instead of presenting the Main Page as a "Super Portal" with browse links, we have provided links to fully developed browsing pages like Wikipedia:Browse and Portal:Browse. There's also Wikipedia:Browse by overview which is provided on the Template:browsebar used throughout English Wikipedia. However, there are 2 Main Page alternates with browse sections: Main Page alternate (blue boy) and Main Page alternate (italian-style). --Go for it! 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

re: The development of main categories on the main wikipedia page

Thanks for your response. I've looked at the main page hundreds of times (and the portal page dozens) in the last few years and I've never noticed the link to the alternate layouts. Am I missing something? This should be prominently linked: Main Page alternates]. I think one of the alternates you mention -- blue boy or the Italian format -- would be better for the current front page. Those pages are more helpful and have much better categories.

Not sure where to put this bit of writing now so put it here to save it on this page and in case you wish to comment: I took time to look through the front page history listings -- so, I'll share some thoughts about this. Perhaps should make a new post about this. Wonder if this history of categories is outline in more detail anywhere?

Perhaps many of you know this. However, perhaps will be helpful to people who haven't been with Wikipedia since early 2004: I made a brief review of the history of the main page regarding changes in the main category scheme.

1. Original Categories. The front page had approximately these main categories (with dozens of subcats), for the first 2 years of until February 2004:

• Applied Arts and Sciences
• Culture and Fine Arts
• Mathematical and Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences and Philosophy
• Other Category Schemes

About our category schemes - Alphabetical order by title - By category - By academic discipline - Historical timeline - Themed timelines - Calendar - Reference tables - Biographies - Countries - How-tos Source: a Feb 2004 main page (Note: I alphabetized the above.)

2. Longer Category List With Many Subcategories. Then, in late February 2004, main category multiplication set in with the development of something that looked like the current collection of main heads on the current Portal:Browse page. That was much too much info on a front page -- and seemed to take extra time to load. Also, the main new 8 categories are not quite are OK as main heads (though the above are easier to work with) as some thing get left out of the top level (like social sciences and applied sciences):

• Art and Culture; History; Mathematics; Philosophy and Religion; Science; Society and People; Technology; Geography

one example: late Feb 2004 main page

3. One-Word Categories with No Subcategories. On August 27, 2004, the really huge Portal-like layout got cut from the front page and moved to the portal page. And, the current one line of a handful of one-word links (wrong solution I think) were put at the top. It made the page load more quickly. This was discussed some at the time but perhaps not enough. One comment noted that categorization is a science in and of its own right, here: discussion of dropping categories. This is the first page edited to drop the large group of categories: August 27, 2004 main page

Comments: I believe that Wikipedia editors got main categories right at the start!!!! Or, a lot closer to it than the current scheme...

Wikipedia being an encyclopedia I think the project would want the front page to have a good basic category structure. I think that the correct action in August 2004 would have been to return to the original 4 categories with some major subheads or have 6 or 8 or so categories that are comprehensive -- the current 9 (and even 12) one word cats can't do the job. I think it is the correct action to go back (or forward) to the better scheme -- such as to use more text in 8 categories, as in the [French Wikipedia] front page.

Yup. Those categories on the main page (in the header or wherever) should follow the standard across the encyclopedia -- perhaps voted on once in awhile -- just like there is one programming language for the project. AND: The original Other Category Scheme section above is important too. That way category schemes that don't get top level exposure can continue to be available. Vir 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Two problems

First of all I think that near the bottom where we put the other areas of wikipedia has a lot of white space on the right hand side, I don't know how to fix it but I think it should be fixed. Second of all near the bottom they talk about starting a Wikipedia in another language but I think it should just say Wikipedia. Tell me if I am wrong in that assumption.

The whitespace in the "other areas" bit depends on the amount of text written for each bullet point. At high screen resolutions, the text will end early and there will be lots of whitespace. At low screen resolutions, the lines will start to wrap and the same problems will emerge with other lines. I'd like to fix this too, but am not sure how to do this. The only things I can think of is to use a column or box, like for the feature areas. This "other areas" section needs to be limited to only a few links (I think it is about 6 so far), and it needs to avoid wordy descriptions and explanations. Just a short, simple description, and ONE link for each bullet point. It is only intended as a starting point. It is intended to be simpler than clicking on the Community Portal link in the navigation pane in the surrounding WikiMedia boilerplate - the Community Portal can be very overwhelming. Carcharoth 08:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for "a Wikipedia" vs "Wikipedia" - that is me wanting to make the point that the language Wikipedias are largely different content, though they use the same software. I would say follow the link provided behind "languages", but the Wikipedia page just got badly vandalised and hasn't been cleaned up yet. The most recent non-vandalised diff I could find is here [1], and I quote "Language editions operate independently of one another. Editions are not bound to the content of other language editions, and are only held to global policies such as "neutral point of view". Articles and images are nonetheless shared between Wikipedia editions, the former through pages to request translations organized on many of the larger language editions, and the latter through the Wikimedia Commons repository. Translated articles represent only a small portion of articles in any edition." Anyway, this reasoning is the same for saying "Wikipedias are being written in many other languages", rather than "Wikipedia is being written in many other languages". The former is consistent with different language Wikipedias having mostly different content, the latter can be misunderstood as simply "Wikipedia is available translated into other languages" - which is as about as wrong as you can get. Carcharoth 08:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up (-Ozone-)

Search box vertical space

Why is the search box taking up so much room vertically? --Go for it! 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I shrunk the font so it would look okay on my screen which also helped this, but yeah, it looks odd. Maybe it's the text above it. But I'm opposed to removing it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not experiencing this problem. Can one of you please post a screen capture? —David Levy 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have much, it just looked slightly odd on some revsions. I looks fine now.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Top-level box borders

Can we get rid of the outer borders of most of the boxes? These are the kinds of additional lines that newspapers long ago learned to do without; we can get along quite well with the occasional rule and variations in background color, without the borders. Has there been a draft so far that attempted this? +sj + 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean the title on the colored bars, but the text on white? Interesting. Considering that's something that the current main Page didn't do either, I don't think we've recently or seriously considered it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

--Aude has been nominated

I'm not soliciting votes or anything, but I thought you'd like to know that one of the most active participants here is up for RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmf164. --Go for it! 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mouseover info on portals

What do you think about adding sub-portals as list in mouseover in portal-links? Example:

*[[Portal:Art|<span title="Architecture, Comics, Film, Dance, Literature, Music">Art</span>]]

• Art

_→AzaToth 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It won't make the coding any clearer, and will interfere with Lupin's popups. That said, I see no read issues. Ideally, hover text could be added in some other way. -- Ec5618 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but agree with the above points.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Portals

Quoted from above:

The underlying issue is that the whole subject category hierarchy needs an overhaul. But that's beyond the scope of this project. If and when the overhaul occurs, no doubt it will affect the current Main Page at that time. No worries. --Go for it! 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, once something is added to the main page, it's very hard to remove it. If we add four new portals to the eight that currently are listed, some users will latch onto them, and it likely will be difficult to modify the list in the future (because we'll be stuck with all twelve, and the idea of expanding to fifteen is unrealistic). Therefore, I suggest that we revert to the assortment of nine that we previously used (with "philosophy" as the sole addition). As Go for it! noted, we can revamp the hierarchy at a later point, but that's beyond this project's scope. —David Levy 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Go for it! may still object (being the primary supporter of 12 Portals), even after hearing (well, reading) your logic, so I want to get an okay from him/her (I hate when people don't tell you their gender!) before we go ahead and remove them. The other thing is that removing the Portals willmove the other stuff up on to that first screen that people see (only about 10 pixels, but does help).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the 8 that are currently on the main page, and then work separately on the issue of portals. Though, I know that Go for it!'s done a great job with the Philosophy portal and would consider it as the ninth. I'd prefer people to judge the design, in it's own right, and not be thinking "why isn't my portal there?". Someone above mentioned the issue of "social sciences"... which currently falls under the "society" portal. And the distinction between "society" and "culture" is unclear to me. In usability testing and web design, there is a method of card sorting to get an idea of how people organize and think about topics. I think we can do a bit more to improve the organization of topics and portals, but should keep it separate from the main page design project. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm a guy. The selection of 12 portals is about as close as we are going to get to a top-tier of the overall structure. There are 3 main reasons for this:

1. We are limited by word size. On the browsebar, where one line is about all that will be tolerated by some, we can't use too many long words, like "Social sciences", for instance, so we resort to shorter words like "Society" because it is shorter. In the matrix, where we need to avoid word wrapping and are also limited by horizontal space, compound words are currently out, and word length is still an issue.
2. Partly because of this and partly as a hold-over from Larry Sanger's original "Basic topics", this has resulted in a hybrid of two hierarchies: "Newspaper section headings" and "Scholastic departments". From the newspaper side you have: Culture, Health, People, Politics (usually it's just page 2), Society, and Technology. From the scholastic side you have: Economics, Geography, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Science. The scholarly versions of the newspaper sections (anthropology, health sciences, biographies, political science, social sciences, and applied sciences) are just too long.
3. Going one way or the other, would result in the wrong feel. Too stuffy or too casual. The above selection provides the best of both worlds, and gets pretty close to optimizing access to underlying subject areas. Semantic parent/offspring relationships between the subjects, vs overlap, is irrelevant. The absolutely most important criteria is how easily the user can find what he or she is looking for. With too few subjects, we force them to search longer with more clicks. With too many, we force them to browse a list to hunt for the right area. But a matrix of an even dozen is easy on the eyes, not too many, not too few. And all major categories are covered in about as few words as possible for that many subjects.
   
   --Go for it! 01:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Arts? It's also a key section of the newspaper and a distinct academic area. That would give us thirteen topics, which is too many. Maybe I would get rid of Politics, in favor of Arts. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have a variety of opinions of what should be included, and this is one of the main reasons why it would be best to add as few new portals as possible. All of this can be decided later, and it deserves far more discussion/input than we're capable of providing. I also agree with Kmf164 that we shouldn't complicate the vote in this manner. This truly is a separate question, and it should be treated as such. —David Levy 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the drafts in Round 6 had expanded portal coverage, and this design aspect drew very few complaints. The matrix / search box header is the compromise that the two main camps came up with. Going with less than a dozen (I'd rather have fifteen), would circumvent the main reason for having the matrix in the first place (it's the only feasible way to get more topics up there than the browsebar, which already had 11 topics on it, and has been displayed on pages throughout Wikipedia for months) and would be a backstep by your camp. So if we revisit the notion of reducing or removing the matrix, then we've got to do the same for the search box, which has shaky consensus at best (being entirely redundant as it is). The search box got my support only because a solution was found to include both it and expanded portal coverage. Nine portals isn't enough of an expansion to even warrant the label - we were at 11 before the search box vs portals debate even began. --Go for it! 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The current compromise was my idea, and I don't belong to the search box camp. (I opposed its inclusion and supported Zocky's in-header portal link layout).

2. This project is an attempt to design a new main page. It is not a competition between two factions with equal entitlement to impose their will. Ultimately, we answer to the community, not to each other.

3. You're missing the point. We can expand to 12 portals (though 15 is too many), but we have absolutely no consensus regarding which new ones to add. The proposed design would enable the eventual expansion of the list, which should be handled separately and with the full involvement of the community (after any reorganization occurs). —David Levy 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture and Society overlap almost completely (they are invariably interwined - culture implies society while being an aspect thereof. Meanwhile, all societies have culture and each society throughout history is a culture - Mayan, Aztec, British, French, etc.). The two terms are almost synonymous. And while Art is a subcategory of Culture, my guess is that most users would skip Culture and go straight to Art if given the choice. Culture is the most ambiguous subject currently on the list, and the best candidate for replacement. --Go for it! 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For the issue of portals, I think discussion needs to be raised separately on Wikipedia talk:Portal. Whatever the outcome of discussions on Wikipedia talk:Portal, it will impact the main page. With the matrix of portal links, we have some flexibility on the number of portal links and room for additions, if we start with just 8 or 9 now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked over the drafts from the poll. The minimum number of portals in any of the drafts displayed in Round 6 was ten. So where the heck did nine come from all of a sudden? That's shrinking the number below the minimum! Most of the drafts have 11 or more, and those that use a matix have 12. Nine wasn't even visited and therefore has no consensus in the draft poll at all. Nine is clearly not an issue. --Go for it! 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The current main page has 8 portal links. If we agree to add philosophy, then we have nine. The proposed designs all had somewhat arbitrary selection of portals. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not "a portal" issue, it's the subject hierarchy used throughout Wikipedia, including categories, lists, overview articles, etc. The portal page isn't even as big a venue as this page, and would be limiting participation and visibility. The Main Page discussion page (and by extension, this discussion page) have far more visibility and relevance, since the Main Page itself is the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy. (And it wasn't long ago that the browsebar and the main page sported categories only, not portals.) --Go for it!

Those drafts were created before we realized that the inclusion of four columns was problematic. And frankly, most (if not all) were simply copied from earlier versions, with little or no thought given to the portals included. I always assumed that these were merely proof of concept presentations (with the actual discussion to occur later), and it's likely that others thought the same thing. For quite some time, we've mainly paid attention to keeping the columns even (via whatever portals happened to be thrown in).

There is no "minimum" number of portals, and your suggestion that we have a quantitative consensus (despite our lack of a qualitative consensus) is deeply flawed. —David Levy 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And nowhere in that "concept" was there less than 10. An expansion of portals on the Main Page has been part of this project for several rounds, since round two. Since then it has not been a "proof of concept" issue, but a central aspect of this project. It's pretty late in the game to be aborting that. --Go for it! 04:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about "aborting" the portal expansion; it's about recognizing that the decision of which portals to add should be made separately and with the full participation of the community. Why do you object to that? —David Levy 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This venue has had full participation. It's not a seperate issue. It's whatever is wanted on the Main Page, inclusive of subject coverage. And since the Main Page is the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy, there is no better place for this to be decided. The issue has been a mainstream aspect of this project since Round 2. It's not a decision being made in a dark silent corner. To move it to the Portal Page would be reducing the venue of this discussion, as the issue pertains to 5 other category schemes, (including categories, in which the scheme could conceivably be placed on 15,000 category pages - a very similar one already sits on the top 3 levels of that system). In the meantime, 11 out of the 12 subjects in question have been used widely around Wikipedia (including at the top of all six category schemes) without generating very many complaints at all. The current Main Page is the odd man out, having fallen behind the standard being used everywhere else on Wikipedia. --Go for it! 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As Kmf164 noted, this venue has hosted very little discussion on the topic, and we certainly haven't arrived at a consensus. I didn't say that this should be resolved at the portal page, but it's clear that it hasn't been resolved here or anyplace else. Meanwhile, there's talk of reorganizing the hierarchy, and that absolutely should be addressed before we add portals that we later need to remove (but aren't realistically able to). —David Levy 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The number of portal links is one thing, while deciding which portal links they should be is another. Discussion of which portal links to include has been very minimal. I think only Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Portal_links touched the issue, but this discussion was buried within all the other discussions at the time. Only a few users weighed in, and even at that, I don't see much consensus. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is a standard already in use all over Wikipedia, and it hasn't gotten much in the way of negative feedback, yet a great many people use it. The browsebar has 11 topics, 10 of those on the matrix. For the sake of continuity, it makes sense for us not to deviate too far from that standard. --Go for it! 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A lack of complaints =! support. The browsebar was implemented with very little discussion, and it's part of a setup that frankly is quite disorganized and neglected. It's likely that most Wikipedians either haven't noticed it or don't care enough to comment. We can change that, but not via an all-or-nothing redesign proposition. —David Levy 05:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally, given the vocal nature of Wikipedians (when they don't like something they complain, LOUDLY -- or they simply change it directly), a lack of complaints (or intervention) indicates acceptance. I've tried changing the browsebar drastically, and whenever I took it in a direction that others did not like, they got on there pronto. Like biz and tech. Abbreviations are definitely out. So yes, a lack of complaints over time is a good indicator. --Go for it! 05:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The browsebar editing has been confined to a group of nine individuals. Only four (HereToHelp, Cyberjunkie, Fropuff and you) have made significant revisions over the past month, and there isn't even a clear consensus among the members this group! The talk page has hosted a mere two discussions (with nine posts between them), and participation has been limited to four people (Cyberjunkie, Fropuff, Fplay and you).

Again, it's unreasonable to interpret a combination of apathy and unawareness as acceptance. I don't hear many negative criticisms about my favorite musical group, They Might Be Giants, but that doesn't mean that they've been embraced by the masses. It means that most people either haven't heard of them or don't care enough about them to comment. —David Levy 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting David: "it's about recognizing that the decision of which portals to add should be made separately and with the full participation of the community." I agree however I do have a suggestion that would keep the portals debate going - in a good way. Why not have a link to the main portals page, additionally have a few rotating selected portals. These portals could be dealt with in a way that would be a combination of featured articles and DYK. It would mean that a mechanism is in place to determine the portals by template which would have it's own evolution separate to this redesign process. New users would be introduced to various portals over time (they seem to be proliferating which to me is a good thing). It's maybe too late for this page but I thought it was a idea worth getting feedback on? Regards all. SeanMack 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Find / Search box

We need a resolution on the 2nd search box question. There seemed to be support for the proposal to highlight the left nav column's Search entry, by making changes to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Is there any opposition to this idea? Are there any alternate color suggestions? And is there anyone who can steward the idea through the villagepump process..?

the proposed change is adding this line:

#searchBody {background-color:#F7F7DF;}

which results in this look:

File:Main Page Redesign Search Highlight.png

sidebar search box highlighted

questions/comments? --Quiddity 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea as an alternative to including the box on the main page. We also should change the label above the box to "find" (as it appears in the Cologne Blue skin). It makes no sense for "search" and "go" to fall under the heading of "search," but it makes perfect sense for them to them to fall under the heading of "find." Does anyone know where this information is stored? It doesn't appear to be included in MediaWiki:Monobook.css, so I don't know how it could be changed. —David Levy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to change it, but you'll need admin status (which I know David already has but I'm not sure of anyone else). I support the idea of relabeling it if you can make it work software-wise. As for making the search box yellow, even if only on the Main Page, might take some community consensus (speaking of consensus, does anyone know what happened to Go for it! ?). Also, we should probably put the other links above the header, aligned right or centered.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the screen-reader issue in mind; centered placement below the header would be best. —David Levy 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right, we want them to hear "Welcome to Wikipedia" not a series of links that don't make sense. Dropping all charges.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with labeling the box, "search". The go button is like Google's "I'm feeling lucky", which I think most people are familiar with. And if no matches come up, go provide a list of search results. However, I'm not entirely opposed to changing "search" to "find" either. It would require a simple change to the mediawiki software, which can be requested via BugZilla. That's how we got the "searchBody" id tag added for the search div box. Given consensus on making this change, I think the request could be granted. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for the yellow background. I have suggested before to do little more than add a subtle yellow glow around the actual searchbox. We can use the same colour that is used above for the selected tab, for consistency. The yellow background rather breaks with the general tone of the page, which is made up of blue and white boxes. -- Ec5618 15:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

that sounds good too. --Quiddity 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal: Moving the sidebar search box to the top of the three boxes (above the "navigation" box). This would make it more visible. Though in its current position it breaks up the text of the "navigation" and "toolbox" boxes quite well. --Quiddity 20:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but we don't want to distract people from links like donations the Main Page and Community Portal.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree moving it to the top would be much better. Focus should be on the most used functions, not on things you want to bring to the users attention. --WS 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision

We need a decision on these 2 items, and someone who can guide them through the village pump process if changed. (do we need a vote here?) --Quiddity 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Referring to the search box in the left side bar)

• Change the title of the search box from "search" to "find". (because it is confusing for the title to be the same as the secondary search function ("go" being the primary))

support strongly --Quiddity

Makes sense. I support. --Go for it! 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Support--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think it's feasible. The software draws the name for both from MediaWiki:Search. If we were to request a change to the software on Bugzilla, the change would impact all other language Wikipedias, and other projects (e.g. Wikinews, ...). However, changes like border or background color can be implemented with changes to monobook. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean regarding wikis in other languages. "Search" is an English word, and each language already uses its own equivalent. Furthermore, the English language version of the Cologne Blue skin already uses the "find" designation. It makes considerably more sense, so why shouldn't all of the other skins incorporate a consistent label? —David Levy 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this might be a little complicated to explain, but I'll try... With monobook.php, all wikis use the same term ($variable) for the search box label and button. This variable is drawn from MediaWiki:Search. In English, we have set this to "search", while in French, they set it to "Rechercher", etc. To make "search" above the box, different from "search" in the button, would require an adding a new variable to MediaWiki software, such as MediaWiki:Searchtitle. The developers would then have to modify the monobook.php file and tell it to use $searchtitle for the title of the search box. Then, we would have to go into MediaWiki:Searchtitle and set it to "find". But, all the other language Wikipedia's would also have to set MediaWiki:Searchtitle to whatever it should be in their language. Though, maybe there is a way for the developers to do this automatically. As for CologneBlue, the CologneBlue.php file hard-codes the term "Find" and "Search" into the skin, rather than using the variable from MediaWiki:Search. I hope this explanation is clear. I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you're suggesting, but this change is a bit more involved than modifying a .css file. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for providing such a thorough explanation. I now understand what you mean, but it seems to me that this could easily be handled by automatically assigning MediaWiki:Search's value to the new variable by default (which I believe you alluded to). Of course, I'm not a developer, but I think that this is worth looking into. —David Levy 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Give the search box a highlighted background color(#F7F7DF), or a highlighted color border (either a hyperlink blue(#0000CD), or the current "selected tab" border color(#FABD23) as Ec5618 suggested).

IMAGES ENLARGED, please re-review.

I support strongly any of these 3 options, no preference. --Quiddity

Highlighted would be nice. Any of these would be fine.  :-) I Support. --Go for it! 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Makes it look like an eyesore on the side of the screen, constantly distracting you, and people see it if anyway they bother looking on the sidebar (as I said above).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. I supported this change, in event we omitted the second search box, and still might if the colors are very subtle. Example #3 is too bold for my tastes. Example number one or two might be okay with me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

the blue is actually very subtle within the whole page. i'll enlarge my screenshots. --Quiddity

Question - if one can move or alter the search box in the sidebar, why not remove it altogether from the main page, and keep the search box somewhere in the header? That removes redundancy and emphasizes the search more. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. Having a search box front and center on the main page would be a good thing. In either case, the search box should be moved to the top of the stack on pages where it appears. +sj + 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This idea is to highlight the actual/usual/normal search box, because we don't want first-time users to become accustomed to a search box in the top right of their screen (negative reinforcement). If accepted we would Remove the second search box, as some/many editors want (changing a site's navigation UI layout is Bad). --Quiddity 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then you wouldn't want to move the search box to the top of the stack either, as that would be negative reinforcement as well. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Icons as bullets

I just saw a note on the Technical Village Pump about using small icons as bullets for the portal list. I really liked the sample given. Has this been discussed? What do people think? --Oldak Quill 11:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been talked about, but icons in general have got a lot of opposition. Plus, we need a set of good icons and what we have isn't quite up to pr, and nobody can agree on them, so we opted out.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All portals?

There's some debate over what to call the ninth link... "All portals", "Other...", "More topics...". I agree with Urthogie that the term "portals" isn't exactly clear to the newbie. In my mind, I think portals = topics. But, all topics don't (yet) have portals. So, think "More" is a better term than "All". That's how I came up with "More topics...", but I'm open to other suggestions. Also, does Portal:Browse really include *all* portals? It might, but I'm not sure. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's important to convey the fact that these are portal links. Our categories system is a parallel grouping of "topics," and we need to note the distinction. The link in question was relocated from below the header box (where it previously was labeled "Portals," which is how it's labeled on the current main page). If someone doesn't know what our "portals" are, they'll learn upon visiting them. And if Portal:Browse doesn't include all of the portals, that's a problem in need of correction. —David Levy 15:55/15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

One point here, which was mentioned in that OpenUsability report on the German Wikipedia, is that people get very confused about what the difference is between Portals and Categories. It isn't really something we can do much about on the Main Page, but when people click through to Portal:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse, there should be something there, on those pages, explaining what those pages are about. At the moment you get _no_ explanation at all on Wikipedia:Browse (though there is a link to one side that takes you to an explanation) and a short explanation on Portal:Browse, but nothing to say how it is _different_ from Wikipedia:Browse. Portals are explained at Wikipedia:Portal and categories are explained at Wikipedia:Category. IMO, a short explanation, excerpted from those pages, should be placed at the top of Portal:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse. Carcharoth 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Regarding the main page itself, my concern is that the word "topics" applies to both portals and categories. In other words, it doesn't adequately convey the nature of the links in question. Even if someone is unfamiliar with the difference between "portals" and "categories," they should be made aware that the distinction exists. This can be accomplished only via the use of consistent terminology. —David Levy 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, beyond the scope of this project... but ideally category topics should be incorporated into the portals, as done with Portal:Australia. In my mind, categories serve the editors more than people browsing Wikipedia. Categories help with maintenance and building topic structures, and include things such as Category:Australia stubs and Category:WikiProject Australia. To the reader, I think that Portals should be presented as the means for browsing topics. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As a reader (both before and after I began editing), I've made far more use of the categories system than I have of the portals. It's a legitimate means of browsing, and I don't believe that it should be relegated to secondary status. I realize that the portals seem more inviting to some users (especially newbies), but they already receive preferential treatment on the main page (via the listing of eight of them, which we've made considerably more prominent). To imply that the portals are the preferred method of topic organization is confusing and misleading.

Both the current main page and our draft present links to both the categories and the portals, and it's important that the distinction be made as clear as possible. Referring to one as "topics" fails to accomplish this. —David Levy 17:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But portals are a more recent creation, while there have always been categories. In fact, the browse links currently on the main page linked had pointed to categories, until December 21, 2005. But, many portals are still in development stage (e.g. Portal:Health), and don't yet include categories. I'm fine with either "All portals" or "More topics", and the issues of portals and topics can be handled separately. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To someone new to Wikipedia, the fact that categories predate portals is irrelevant. Both are valid organizations of topics, so it's confusing and impractical to identify one via that term. —David Levy 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW The use of More causes problems at 800x600. SeanMack 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The term and format (more...) is the most common in general use to mean "more of this stuff. We even use that terminology and format in the MP featured article. The bolding parens I think are unnecessary leaving more.... hydnjo talk 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More of what? If we don't tell people what "this stuff" is, how are they supposed to know? Even is someone doesn't know what our "portals" are, it's self-evident that they're distinct from "categories," but only if we label them accordingly. (We could call them "Kerfaffles" and "Glapoffles," and it still would be better than saying "categories" and "more... [of this stuff]" —David Levy 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with All portals. hydnjo talk 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of thoroughness could you take a look at all portals (lc all). hydnjo talk 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to an even dozen

You're the only person pushing for this, Go for it!, and your refusal to address some of our concerns (such as the obvious lack of consensus regarding which new portal links should be included) is quite troubling. —David Levy 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? These same links were included in many of the drafts from Round 6. Well over one hundred users voted in that round, and only a few picked the one draft with fewer than 10 portals (the current Main Page). You've reverted the entire selection back to the current Main Page, which makes no sense. Of the users who picked the pages with expanded portals, none complained about the number of portals, and many mentioned they liked the overall improvements, which included the expanded portal selection. Going back to 8 portals goes against the grain and general direction of the entire project, as it was one of the key elements presented throughout. --Go for it! 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who, other than you, is arguing in favor of including additional portal links at this juncture?

Again, you're insisting that we have a consensus regarding the number of portal links to list, despite the fact that we have none regarding which ones to include. You've yet to explain how we should arrive at such a decision (aside from trusting your judgement). Meanwhile, you've written about the need to reorganize the hierarchy—a task that certainly should be undertaken before we assign main page status to portals that might be rendered obsolete or less important in the near future. —David Levy 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Eight portals with an offset bolded more... strikes a good balance IMO. hydnjo talk 20:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. That sets us back at the Top 8, which is a nice number. Let's use those 8, whith the possible exception of Art over Culture (see next topic).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the art portal is worthy of inclusion, but we should get the new main page design approved first, and then attempt to revamp the portal list. Otherwise, people who disapprove of our selections will oppose the entire redesign on that basis. —David Levy 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture vs. Art

Ok, I understood that discussion about Portals is independent and must evolve further, but i don't understand why Culture and not Art. Just now, the second is much more developed and interesting! Cyb3r 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree: the Art Portal is simply better than the Culture one.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, art portal is better than culture portal. --Quiddity 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Art Portal is more developed, it just feels a bit awkward as my brain perceives Art as a subset of Culture. hydnjo talk 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the same to me! But with Society + Art we have probabily all about Culture! So, it's is a razonable change (please, sorry possible english language mistakes!). Cyb3r 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And much stuff about culture is yet in Society portal. Cyb3r 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. The entire setup is in need of reorganization, but this obviously falls outside the scope of the main page redesign project. —David Levy 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Let's go with Art until we can get someone o overhaul all of this into one Portal.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If we do that, it will appear to voters as though we're asking them to ratify a new permanent portal list. ("I think that portal "X" should be included instead of portal "Y," so I oppose this redesign.") If we just leave the list alone for now (and worry about modifying it later), this won't be an issue. —David Levy 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From HereToHelp's edit summary: "Consensus seems to be shifting towards Art over Culture"

I'd say that consensus favors reorganizing and improving the portals, but this is based upon a mere handful of comments.

Adding new portals to the list is risky, and it's even more dangerous to remove any of the original eight. It opens up a whole new can of worms (as noted above), and it will cost us votes. —David Levy 22:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reorganization is best. But is it best to direct someone to an inferior Portal of similar subject matter because it is in the Top 8?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, but this is a matter that should be addressed separately. Otherwise, we'll be turning this into a combination main page redesign/top level portal list vote.

As has been noted, "art" is a subset of "culture," so many people will dislike the idea of replacing a broad subject with one that's considerably narrower (despite the art portal's present superiority). At the same time, people will wonder why their favorite portals (whatever they may be) haven't been added. They'll perceive a vote in favor of the draft as a vote for this precise assortment of portals, so they'll oppose the entire redesign on this basis. By leaving the portal list unaltered, we would remove this issue from the equation. —David Levy 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on that front. I'll go ahead and fix it in the draft, an we'll have to get someone to improve Culture.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you David! I didn't thinked about the consequences of the replacement. You are right. Cyb3r 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that seals the matter, then. Just so you know: I'm going to be out over the weekend so you'll have to take care of switching to the trial phase without me.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In The News

Wikipedia is not a news site, so I'm wondering what the purpose of this part of the main page is. I can see some utility in pointing people to encyclopedic background information on "current news stories" , for some given value of "news", but am wondering just how much of the front page should be devoted to this and how much should happen on an ancillary page. It seems that there is a very limited about of front page space. I've no answers, but am wondering if putting news headlines on the front page that are nothing but links to another page with more story detail that contains links to the actual articles would not better serve the purpose of the front page news section. (Again, the first step is some succinct statement of the purpose of the news section on the front page. Apologies in advance for not devoting any real energy to rooting out such a statement.) --kop 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note -- Wikipedia is absolutely a site for breaking news coverage in an encyclopedic context. Which for some people is the most important aspect of major news stories. Not a few major stories have 'broken' on Wikipedia before being picked up by the mainstream media. +sj + 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very difficult to remove something from the Main Page: everything, including ITN, has a small but loyal following that will protest its removal.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it may be more than a small following. --Go for it! 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

ITN, in previous disussions of main page structure, was discovered to be one of the most popular parts of the main page, especially for anons who were new to the site. Now if you want to start designing a number of different 'main' portals that different users can set as their main page... +sj + 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've often looked for expanded coverage of the news items, to be frustrated by linking to unrelated articles. But the place to get that changed would be the Main Page talk page, or the In the news department itself. In this project, we just reworked the main page design, without getting into the inner workings of the departments whose data is piped in to it. --Go for it! 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"ugly wrap" problem solved

from the village pump:

We were considering going with icons as bullets, but the browsers treat them as words and wraps when text size is increased in the browser...

Welcome to Wikipedia 6,915,567 articles that anyone can edit

Culture Geography History

Mathematics People File:Socrates blue.png Philosophy

Science Society Technology

Is there a way to turn the text wrap feature off for just the matrix above? --Go for it! 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Also, science looks a bit lower. What's causing that? --Go for it! 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You could replace the space between the image and the text with   (doesn't seem to work) or you could use white-space: nowrap. I'm not sure why Science was appearing lower, but specifying vertical-align: baseline; seems to fix the alignment issue. ~MDD4696 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work (try increasing text size now, and watch the above matrix wrap). --Go for it!

You put it in the wrong place. I've fixed it now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This still messes up the alignment at 800x600 and introduces a strongly opposed design element. —David Levy 07:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many editors dont/will not like what we see as "cutesy" icons. Specifically:

• The icons are too small (i can barely discern what the history icon is)
• the history and philosphy icons are the only 2 not 15px², which is throwing your alignments out of square.
• the icons are redundant as well as ambiguous (the history and society icons could both be architecture), violating at least 2 GUI design rules.
• any icon designs are going to be aesthetically highly subjectively dis/pleasing individually.

This is a text-heavy encyclopedia, not an AOL forum, and I and others will be turned-off by taking its design in that direction. Maybe, after this re-design is done, make another Wikipedia:Main Page alternates instead? --Quiddity 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Between the wrap at 800x600 and many people disliking icons, I'll opt out.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than icons, which I agree would be too small to be useful here, how about light shading differences for the three columns? +sj + 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, that would imply that each of the columns has some sort of special significance that justifies separation. In fact, the order is purely alphabetical (excepting the "All portals" link). —David Levy 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Browse links and Information links

Just stepped back and had a look at the top of the draft, and I have a comment about the positioning of the links. There are two types of links in the header and the area below it: browse links that take you to browsing pages; and information links that take you to pages that explain stuff about Wikipedia. At the moment the right-hand side is all browse links or search options, apart from the Special:Statistics link in the search bar. The left-hand side is mainly information links, except the Categories link and the A-Z link. I feel it would make more sense for these two browse links to be separated from the informational links, or at least for something to make clear that they are different from the three information links (Tutorial, Questions, Help).

I also prefer the wording "More portals", which doesn't seem to take up more space (even if it does, use of a slightly smaller font to offset it, instead of bolding it, might help, or maybe italicize it?). Carcharoth 09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tried out my ideas about browse bar layout (separating the information links from the browse links). I know the mark-up is really ugly (using "&ensp" characters) and that the positioning should be done another way. But this is just to illustrate what I am getting at. In case they get reverted, the various layouts can be seen here [2] (information and browse link order changed, midddot, some whitespace). [3] (no order change; middot replaces hyphen between information and browse links).[4] (information and browse link order changed; lots of white space to give large separation between information and browse links). Carcharoth 09:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative layout if search box gets dropped

Further to my comment above about how the header links divide nicely left/right between information links and browse links, I would like to suggest that if the search box gets dropped, that the two links "Categories" and "Index" get moved across to replace it. Thus the left-hand side of the screen would be the Tagline and Subtitle (two information links), with three further information links below it (Tutorial, Questions, Help), and the right-hand side of the screen becomes the portal links, with two (or three, depending on where the Portal:Browse link ends up) links below it (Categories and A-Z). In fact, I like these layouts so much, I'm going to add them to the page's edit history. I'll add links here to the three layouts I have in mind. Carcharoth 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, but the search box is nice to have. I'll agree that the links do seem to be of two types. I f you, say, have them on different lines, but aligned left, and keep the search box...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I wouldn't know how to turn that single line into two lines... Carcharoth 13:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I attempted (unsuccessfully, due to my poor coding) in the first place. It doesn't take up any additional vertical space, and it enables the insertion of additional links, so let's give it a try. —David Levy 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I really like what is up there at the time of this post: [5]. It should make everyone happy.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Three layouts for the intro/browse area

Here are links to versions in the history of the draft page, for three layouts for the intro/browse area (the header - portals list - browse bar).

1) [6] (a) Search box included. (b) "All portals" link in header. (c) "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset slightly (middot and enspaces) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help).

Oppose strongly. I am against the second search box for many reasons detailed above. --Quiddity

Oppose the inclusion of the search box. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. The current draft seems to be the best way of including the second search box and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. If the community really wants the second search box, then I'm fine with it. Though, my personal preference is for just the one search box, which I think is sufficient. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

2) [7] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link in header. (c) "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.

Support, but with the additional links from the current draft included. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. I think the design is simpler, and tighter without the second search box. Though, in this case, I would center all the browse links as in [8]. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Even better centered. This is my top layout of choice. (except with "all portals" instead of the 9th portal link, as discussed) --Quiddity 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

3) [9] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link NOT in header. (c) "Portals", "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.

Oppose, because we shouldn't be adding any new portal links at this juncture. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Adding new portals should be handled separately from the design. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which do people prefer? Carcharoth 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4) Sj-draft. a) Search box, longer. b) "All portals" link. c) other links below top header box spaced out a bit more. d) softer border around the header. d) no bullets before the lists of portals.

5)This is my vision of the final draft. I updated Kmf164's draft to include the browsebar links from the current draft. --Quiddity 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Support strongly. --Quiddity

I just created that temporary page for this project, and I'm planning to expand it as soon as possible (hopefully with some help from others). I noticed that we don't have a link to our featured content, and that seems downright silly. —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re-added and updated --Quiddity

there is the box on the right at Wikipedia:Featured articles (et al), which is linked under the featured article box. probably you mean/want something additional though. --Quiddity

I mean that there should be a link to a page that serves as balanced gateway to all of the featured content. Wikipedia:Featured articles contains links to the other featured content that easily could be overlooked. —David Levy 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not a fan of the redundant search box, and I believe that its removal would boost the draft's likelihood of succeeding in the election. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the search box. I do not like the spacing of the first one, so together that eliminates all of them. I really like [10] though: seperation of links, a good ammount of them, Portals, AND the search box.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or are we going back to multiple drafts?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

These "drafts" serve as means of illustrating potential changes without edit warring with one another. —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, alright, it's just after working so hard to unify all the drafts I want to be careful not to go down that road again.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"All portals" vs. "all portals"

I prefer "All portals," which matches the other items on the list. Capitalizing the first letter is an arbitrary style convention, and there's no reason not to follow it consistently. (In other words, there's no linguistic justification; it isn't as though the other terms are proper nouns.) —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to differentiate it from the other Titles. Bolding and lower case are to make it distinct and to "catch the eye". It's not a title after all but more a navigational instruction. hydnjo talk 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bold text is sufficient differentiation. To me, the lowercase "a" in "all" seems sloppy. —David Levy 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we certainly wouldn't want a "sloppy" lookin' Main Page.  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "Portals" is technically supposed to be capitalized. "all Portals" looks really bad, so I guess it's "All Portals".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should the "p" in "portals" be capitalized? It isn't a proper noun. —David Levy 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I never suggested all Portals which does indeed look sloppy, confusing and undecided. My suggestion all portals was intended to set it apart without question from a list of Titles and to give special notation (besides bolding) to a bulleted item which although was in the list was not an item of the list. It makes use of editorial license to assure clarification. This technique is used, for example, at the end of the MP's featured article (not to drop names) to differentiate a navigational word from an article word. hydnjo talk 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again for the record we have: All Portals. All portals, all Portals and all portals or with bolding All Portals. All portals, all Portals and all portals, the last of which I prefer in this context. hydnjo talk 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! implemented a solution I rather like: put back Philosophy, and move Portals to be down with Categories.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't be adding any new portal links at this juncture. If we add even one, we'll be swarmed with complaints from people whose favorite portals weren't added. And for the record, the "portals" link was down alongside "categories" in the first place. —David Levy 05:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes it seem that the only portals are those that are listed, anyway that's what I'd think seeing it that way.

If you make a list of portals or whatever it is assumed to be complete unless indicated otherwise with whatever prompt. Devoid of the prompt leaves one to believe that the list is complete.

That makes me dislike the proposal as it leaves one to assume that all of the portals are listed which is untrue. I'll leave it alone for now to gather more comments. Thanks to both Gfi! for the idea and to HTH for your comment. hydnjo talk 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

agree with Hydnjo. I'm for "All portals". --Quiddity 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but which one (choose from the array above). Thanks, hydnjo talk 05:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All portals, not bold, it seems blurry in bold.--Quiddity

I like that - why not bold? Lets take a look bolded. Looks good to me. hydnjo talk 05:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

the "ll" and "als" get a tiny bit squished. might just be on my monitor though. i'm happy with any of those variations really. --Quiddity

Me too. I don't see your problems with my browser settings. hydnjo talk 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Exdenting:

I think I prefer the bolding without emphasis to bolding with emphasis. hydnjo talk 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternate draft

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Sj -- minimized borders, fewer distracting lines and bullets (no bullets in the header), more spacing between links on the left hand side of the header, longer search-bar.

I really like having a search bar front and center on the main page. And I strongly support moving the search up to the top of the stack in the left hand nav, on other pages. +sj + 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinions:

• As noted above, I oppose the column shading. It's misleading and distracting, and it just doesn't look good to me.

• The search box looks too long, and it would hinder the inclusion of additional links in the future (without introducing text wrap or vertical scrolling at the 800x600 resolution).

• The "Donations" link should not be renamed "Support Wikipedia." The latter is less accurate (because there are non-monetary means of supporting Wikipedia), and this should match the "Donations" link from the sidebar.

• The outer borders are too pale. They barely show up on my screen, and the lovely color-matching is absent. I also think that the title bars look strange without their borders.

• I like the bullets, but I'm not passionate about this issue; the box looks okay without them.

I'm sorry to be so negative. —David Levy 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the whole header design. I don't think bullets add anything at all to the page, so why have them? The lighter box border works really well, and it's really annoying when your search terms cannot be seen (I like to verify my spelling before hitting enter and having to scroll makes me tired). I think sj should go ahead and copy his header over here. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The search box looks really long on my screen; I dislike it. The abscense of bullets I somewhat like, however. The pale border colors, however, I do NOT like.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp and +sj: You seem to be the main 2 editors still wanting a second search box on the main page. Could you elaborate your reasons for wanting it? and could you update your opinion in the Decision thread now that i've enlarged the images to show the highlighted sidebar search in context. thanks. --Quiddity 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

just to enumerate the reasons why some of us are against the second search box:

• it is redundant. this will be confusing to new and old users: "does this one do something that one doesnt?"
• if it used by a new user, they will look in the same place the next time they want to search, but on any other page they won't find it in that location. (negative reinforcement) (yes they can just look to the left, but it's a mental hiccup that "Design" is meant to avoid.)
• it takes up space in the header, moving the actual content further down, and weakening the overall symmetrical layout.

It does indeed look like the tide is turning against me on the search box. Except for its abscense, I do like the current draft at the time this post was made. So I will capitulate in that effot on one condition: use the freed up space on the right for the links. Having them together but separated, with some regular and others italicized, looks really bad aesthetically.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I oppose centering the links. It appears very strange at high resolutions, because there are big areas of space on the left and right, and the whole thing looks as though it's about to tip over. It's much better to pool that space in the middle, utilizing it as a means of separating the meta-links from the encyclopedic links. This works very well in resolutions ranging from 800x600 to infinity. (Mine is 1400x1050.) —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Prep for the bug testing period

Starting at the beginning of the nineteenth, we enter a period between this open editing session and the final vote that is basically a chance to find bugs with the program, get everything operational, and test with different resolutions/browsers/OSs. As taken Go for it!'s talk page, GFI! says:

I thought a time buffer would be good to handle anything unexpected that comes up, and for specific preparations. For instance, you need to talk to David about getting a team of admins together to oversee the election -- vandalism would be particularly tragic, and we also need the admins on-hand in case someone reverts the election notice off of the main page. We also need time to properly prepare and submit the announcement to Signpost. I tried submitting one before, and didn't even get a reply, let alone posted. It's better to have more time than you need than not enough. Then there's the coordination with the Main Page subdepartments, getting the draft fully operational, testing it, fixing bugs, and so on. We also need to test the finished draft on every skin, and the various browsers. And who knows what else. Also, a bit of rest might be nice, before the storm.

I'm not adverse to that at all, but we need to figure out some way to reorganize the talk page for that. So:

1. Archive everything old.
2. Rewrite the intro to explain what's going on here.
3. Update the hidden section on the draft itself explaining what's going on, and that just about everything below the header has been worked out and is going to be hard to change, while the header still changes.
4. Update the Community bulletin board, {{Main page draft interlinks}}, and Main page talk in a similar fashion.
5. Violate the manual of style a little: use title headers (=text=) to outline major topics on this page like "Report a bug", "Bug talk", and "Style talk". We're not really be going to do any more extensive developing stylewise now, but it's nice to have a section to talk about it. "Report a bug" would be the urgent stuff, and the __TOC__ would be after that.

The reason I'm telling you this is because I'm going to out of town over the long weekend and unable to get on. So, I'm doing my best to ensure that this happens smoothly. Comments, like always, are welcome.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Featured content

Thank you, Cherry blossom tree! I completely overlooked this page's existence (which illustrates the importance of the link), and this is the sort of thing that I intended to set up at Wikipedia:Featured content. I'd planned to spend hours working on this today, and I'm glad that I didn't waste the time and effort. —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversions III

I've reverted Go for it!'s reinsertion of his favored portal link (with the misleading edit summary "efficiency"). Portal:Philosophy is good, but there is no consensus regarding which new portal links should be added. That will have to wait for a future discussion (which should immediately follow the main page redesign project), at which point I fully intend to support the inclusion of this portal link.

Also, we can't refer to the quick index simply as "index," because the categories and portals are indexes too. This is a specific type of index—an alphabetical one. "A–Z index" works, and "A–Z" is the term used on the current main page. —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. The portals on the Main Page was just changed twice, without consensus, and you didn't step in there. You are being very selective in your enforcement of your consensus standard. --Go for it! 05:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it was changed once without discussion and rv'd because it made such a mess of things. hydnjo talk 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he's referring to the shift from "Culture" to "Art" on the actual main page. This isn't something that I would have taken it upon myself to do, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone were to revert it. That doesn't mean, however, that I need to "step in." If no one minds the change, so be it. My primary concern is that our list remain in lockstep with the real thing. Otherwise, we risk turning this into a portal list vote. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

problem w/ all portals

Newcomers dont know what a portal is!--Urthogie 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why we're telling them!  :-) —David Levy 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are we telling them? It just seems to them like they see all these broad topics and then "all portals". Perhaps this would be best with some kind of mini-header that said portals, and linked to Portal:Browse?--Urthogie 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If I see a list of specific items, followed by a bolded link to "all foos," it seems rather obvious that I'm looking at a list of foos. —David Levy 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I really just don't like the aesthetic look of having to tell people what a portal is-- they didn't come here to learn about portals, but to learn about Art or whatever. I'd say its best to just say Browse... to make it reader, instead of editor oriented.--Urthogie 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How would we be doing readers a favor by failing to differentiate between portals and categories (which also are used for browsing)? —David Levy 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't link to individual categories so thats not an issue.--Urthogie 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But how will readers know that this isn't a list of individual categories?! —David Levy 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was a heading, such as "Other Portals"--Urthogie 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how our layout could reasonably accommodate that, nor do I believe that it's necessary. —David Levy 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, a link labeled "Other Portals" suggests that the listed portals wont be there thus "All portals" is more accurate. hydnjo talk 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

agree with david --Quiddity

Search box

I think we need to have a specific vote of some sort on whether or not to include a search box in the header. The second box was recently boldly removed, but the last round of voting had little consensus on the matter, but (to me, at least) it appeared to show that a large segment of editors strongly wanted a search box, while those opposed to it on average felt less strongly about it.

It's a very either-or, for-against question (I personally am *very* strongly for), and as it appears that far fewer people are contributing in this round of editing (thereby making a less-representative result from this round *much* more likely to occur - see genetic drift), I think we need some way to bring a larger segment back in. Basically, there's not much more one can say about the topic, about whether it's redundant or necessary - few people are likely to be convinced from one side to another. We just need to solve the problem once and for all, and then both sides must be willing to accept the result.

I don't think a compromise is really possible. There already was a compromise, a very good one, incorporating both the portals in the top box and the search box below it. But if the issue is simply whether or not the search box should exist, it can't half-exist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opposition to the search box's inclusion (including mine) initially seemed half-hearted, and it was based in large part upon the absence of prominent portal links (which was solved). Subsequently, however, stronger opposition began to emerge (despite the compromise). Some compelling arguments have been presented, including the concern that readers will be confused when the redundant search box fails to appear throughout the rest of the site.

This isn't a situation in which majority voting is appropriate. Even if the search box were to receive more support than opposition (which is doubtful), that wouldn't be sufficient; the search box's addition absolutely would hurt the draft in the upcoming election, but its exclusion realistically wouldn't have a significant impact (because the current main page doesn't contain a search box, so there would be no reason to oppose the new design on that basis). Lacking clear consensus, I don't see how the inclusion of this controversial element can be justified. —David Levy 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! No seriously, the search box is the most important thing on the main page. Put it back where it belog. On the second thought, I will be bold and will do it myself. I find the above excuses pretty lame. The readers are now much more confused having to go through 100's of portals and categories and lists. Renata 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, others disagree with you, and they've provided specific reasoning. Declaring that these opposing viewpoints are "pretty lame" is hardly the best means of countering them.

Your above reply ignores the fact that a search box is featured in a consistent location (the left-hand side by default) on every page throughout the site (including the main page). It's reasonable to argue that a redundant search box might be useful, but please don't imply that no search box has been provided. And again, I'm convinced that the second search box would do far more harm than good (by distracting readers from the regular search box and training them to expect its placement in the wrong location). —David Levy 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of a good way to set-up the voting, but let's think about this...

When the official vote happens, maybe we should let people vote between (1) current main page and (2) new design. If they choose #2, then (1) extra search box or (2) no second search box.

Alternatively, maybe we can use time between now and the official vote to solicit opinion on this single issue through a straw poll and then present either draft (w/search box) or draft (w/o search box) for the vote. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We must not muddy the election waters by advancing more than one version of the draft. If we do, people will begin demanding that all sorts of arbitrary differences be put up for a vote, and they'll oppose the redesign if they aren't.

Either the inclusion of the search box is backed by consensus, or it isn't. I don't believe that it is, but a pre-election straw poll would be perfectly reasonable. Just keep in mind that "consensus" != simple majority.

Also keep in mind that we aren't voting on a design to be used for all of eternity. There's no reason why we can't allow the far less controversial layout to be approved (hopefully), and then propose that a search box be added. This is a wiki, so nothing is etched in stone. —David Levy 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put the box back. Before reverting, pleasse note: I don't know how about you, but I clearly remember the feeling WP gave me when I was a newbie: completely OVERWHELMING. I took me a while to find the search box. I know it is on every page, but it is so small, hidden among another dozen of links that take you to strange places (like special pages...). If you haven't you should try to brownse WP you'll give up in 5 mins. Links are everywhere and they take you in some strange places where are more... links! WP in that sense is a disaster. Please make newbies life easier. They will not get distracted from the regular box because they don't see/find the regular box! My first two months in WP I used Google to search WP. Renata 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ok, it got reverted in 8 mins. Agh... I know that my formatting is horrible and needs fixing and matching to different browsers, screen sizes, skins and all that. I am no expert in coding. But I wanted to (1) put the box back and (2) show that you can put everything in and not to waste space. Renata 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I still use Google to search Wikipedia! It works much better than our own search engine. And incidentally, your edit totally messed up the header (not just in the classic skin). Did you even preview the page before you submitted it? And why did you throw in the icons? Did you figure that you might as well, given the fact that you don't care about other people's "lame" opinions? —David Levy 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Renata screen.jpg

that's how it looks on my screen, and it's not even full screen size, please excuse my jpg format, Renata 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The header looks just fine on my computer. Want to see a screen shot? I want to see yours. Can you upload it? I put the icons just for fun 'cause I knew it's getting reverted. It always does. And I completely don't care what's going to happen to portals. Thay can be there with icons, without, they can get deleted, I really don't care. You do with them whatever you like and want. Just please leave the box :) and article number. That's two things I care about. Renata 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP specific Google and WikiWax are wonderful. How did we get there? I rv'd Renata3's edit for the reason stated in my edit summary. That was my first problem and so it got to the edit summary. The extra searchbox, the icons and the tossing out of what I thought represented a sure and steady migration towards a consensus draft being summarily tossed doesn't seem the way things should be introduced. hydnjo talk 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Renata: This is how your header displayed in Firefox. You did check the page in browsers other than your usual one (IE?), didn't you? —David Levy 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty close to how it looked using Safari. hydnjo talk 04:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agh, what a drama :) You just need to find the right combination of divs and tables and it would work perfectly. But it dos not matter, I am not defending my edit (I completely agree some stuff there was going against compromises), I am defending the box. I suggest we go back to the basics, that is, what we do about the darn box? Have a pool? When? How? Not have a pool? Then what? I would suggest to have voting here and now before going to introduce the draft for voting. DL suggested we put the box after the draft is approved. But then it will mean another giant vote and another 2 months of discussions. Let's do it in one sitting. Renata 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting what I believe to be the best shot of getting the search box in (despite the fact that I oppose it). Presently, the consensus simply isn't there. Majority support is insufficient, and I don't believe that it even has that at this point. If you can be patient, you'll be able to advance a more persuasive argument when there isn't so much else at stake. (We don't want to see the entire redesign go down in flames because of this thing.) When the discussion is just about the search box (with no other variables), you might be able to draw more people over to your camp. It wouldn't require two months of discussions, and it might not even require a formal vote. —David Levy 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seem so afraid that the draft won't be approved? I see no reasons for that. I see nice improvements. But there is nothing really major different from the current page. We have different color scheme, we have a place for POD, we have a new box for a couple for community links, and new header that is just shifting the same info around (imho current draft version looks ugly; I have seen better even without the search box; but it is still better that current main page). And that's about it (besides some minor stuff there and there)... for n months of tons of discussions. I see no reasons to vote against. Even without the box the draft looks good :) So why are you afraid? Renata 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not afraid; I'm concerned. Many people strongly dislike the redundant search box, and they won't support a draft that includes it. It's that simple.

Why must this be a package deal? Are you "afraid" that the search box wouldn't make it in on its own, so you want to force people to choose between accepting it or sticking with the old main page? —David Levy 05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO an extra searchbox on only the Mainpage is a confusing crutch. One click later and the crutch is gone. Wha! Hey what happened to the search box? I see no advantage to that. hydnjo talk 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Readers should be encouraged to use the regular search box from the start, not distracted by one that immediately vanishes. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The complete draft would get overwhelming support because it had a little bit of everything on there. People aren't going to shoot it down as long as their favorite things are on there -- it won't matter to them if there's one or two things mixed in that they don't care for. As long as the draft is a general improvement over the current Main Page, it will win. Therefore we should be BOLD and provide the absolutely most functionally packed page we can. Not some scared-to-stick-its-head-out-of-the-hole-rabbit version. --Go for it! 05:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between boldness and brazenness. Adding elements that are strongly opposed, simply because we can, is not a logical strategy. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the argument concerning bugs. That's irrelevant at this time. We've got the rest of the months to debug whatever format we come up with. Whether that be with search box, or not. Whatever we decide to go with, it's pretty certain we can make it work. And even if we can't, we'll learn that soon enough. But this timid "we're not going to win the election if we put such and such in" doesn't even sound Wikipedian to me. Heck, we should put Wikipedia's main slogan Be Bold front top and center, so nobody forgets it. --05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Lets throw everything in", worthy or not, is burying our collective heads in the sand. And being bold is quite different from being brash. hydnjo talk 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Have you actually read WP:BOLD, Go for it!? If so, did you notice the "don't be reckless" part? —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tossing away all these developments makes no sense

Such a big fuss was made over the search box during this past round, that it seems absolutely ridiculous to pull it at the last minute. Someone has the wedding jitters. If you want some really sound advice, provide a draft with as many bells and whistles as we can provide, and if it is overkill, then specific features can be pulled out later. The draft is just too good not to win against the current main page - the draft in its myriad of configurations got overwhelming support from those who took a look. The Main Page got hardly any votes at all. And it's not like this draft will be completely untouchable once it becomes the official main page - I predict a firestorm of tweaking once it takes center stage. So we should put our best foot forward, give it everything we've got, rather than be timid and afraid of losing the "election", or of setting irreversible precedents, when in fact the main page doesn't have a snowball's chance in...
--Go for it!

Besides, strict voting doesn't count on Wikipedia. It is possible that some unpredictable consensus will come out of the upcoming "election", for if enough people state they want something specific, we really won't have much choice but to give it to them. --Go for it!

It wouldn't hurt anything to provide expanded portals and the search box. Those were 2 of the main developments of the main page draft design project, and now they're both being tossed out the window. --Go for it!

Our draft has been openly mocked because of the redundant search box. Do you realize that?

Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink is not the way to win approval. You say that "specific features can be pulled out later," but they can be added later too. Asking the community to approve X/Y/Z as a package deal, when Y and Z are controversial, is patently illogical. If Y and Z are backed by consensus, they don't need to ride X's coattails. This isn't about "setting irreversible precedents"; it's about forcing people to either accept elements that they don't want or stick with the status quo. And I believe that you might be in for a rude awakening when you see which choice they go with. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, where and who "openly mocked" the draft? I looked around, I saw some comments back and forth but nothing as drastic you portray here. Am I missing something? Renata 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails#Main page redesign. I defended the project, of course. —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that one man's opinion. And now you have one woman's opinion that search box in the header is the best thing this redesign came up with. Renata 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many opinions, both negative and positive, have been expressed. At most, roughly half of the respondents support the inclusion of the search box (and I'm not even certain of that). —David Levy 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to DavidLevinson

Now there's a sysadmin who has the right idea. He just went in and changed the Main Page. We should be following his example. That's the fastest way to find out what people want. If the draft dies in the election, you could be sure we'd have another one ready the following week, and another the week after that, until it wins. So why be afraid? Some people are so afraid that consensus hasn't been built, that it has slowed this project to a crawl. The help page took 4 days to overhaul. The community portal took 3. And there was a heckuva lot more material on both of those. --Go for it! 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you fault people for wishing to exclude unpopular/controversial elements?! —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't fault him, or anyone. You are reading way to much into this. I gave him kudos. Acclamation. Applause. And overall, I give this project kudos, acclamation, applause. But we could do better. And why not? There's no reason to hold back. Wikipedia is not breakable. Anything we do can be fixed, so why not go forward full steam ahead. Why be afraid to be creative? Why fear not being accepted? Why not just provide the best design we can without worrying it to death? The users will tell us what they want. --Go for it! 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my question. Why are you faulting us for being selective?! Providing the "best design" means honoring consensus—not including everything that you like. —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter to David Levy

I humbly suggest you go back and read the input for Rounds 2 to 5. You'll get a real feel for the project then. It was mostly negative until Round 6, when things really took off. It actually started to feel like we were doing something right, and then fear set in. But there's nothing major at stake, so the conservative approach is just silly. The worst thing that could happen is Round 7 (though further rounds are inevitable anyways, whether under this project or a future one). --Go for it! 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's "silly" to exclude elements that are controversial or widely disliked? —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)