Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability‎ | Main Page

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Go for it! (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 23 January 2006 (archived argumentation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Draft 1&2 Talk Archive
Draft 3 Talk Archive
Draft 4 Talk Archive
Draft 5 Talk Archive
Draft 6 Talk Archive
Previous tallies taken (archive)
Wikipedia:PODT column archive -- Please help keep this project's version of the Pic of the day stocked up in advance.
Special Note: To see the draft correctly, clear your browser's cache.

The page title and its subline have been disabled, for effect, but only show up that way if you've cleared your cache. To do this, go to the page, and press Ctrl-F5. If that doesn't work, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. --Go for it! 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Voting Session of Round 6 of the Main Page Redesign Project

Many thanks to those who contributed feedback and critiques in the last voting round. Your ideas, concerns, pleas, and demands have been carefully studied and have contributed to the current drafts. Yes, I said drafts. We made every attempt to incorporate the most requested aspects, elements, and features into a single redesign, and we just couldn't do it.

So this time there's a wider selection.

Please look over the drafts and pick out the one you like best.

Feel free to set these drafts as your home page, or as buttons on your browser's toolbar, to really give them a workout. Please use them as you would the Main Page, and let us know how they stand up in comparison. Then, after putting them through their paces, let us know which one you absolutely love the most. Thank you for your input and your patience. Voting will continue until Saturday, January 28th. Thank you.

--Go for it! 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some guidelines:

  • There are many drafts to choose from (see voting areas below), and a section to jot down features you really like.
  • Use numbering (#) instead of bullets (*), even though bullets are used here.
  • Comments, suggestions, and criticism are all welcome and will be put into draft 7.



Please refrain from altering the drafts until this voting session is over, and the next open-editing session begins. Thank you.

Place your votes and reasons for them in this section:

(See also the poll on individual options, below.)

I like Draft A with the four features

  1. There's too much work involved with redoing the second feature, and we don't even HAVE a sixth feature. The page takes way too long to load and bogs down old machines. Remember the KISS principle. Ultimately, there's no need for those extra features, but everything else is fantastic.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with everything that HereToHelp wrote, and I'll add that we haven't even begun to discuss the logistics of expanding "Did you know..." to the weekends (let alone creating a brand new feature). —David Levy 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner. I like the POTD on the main page, but its too long with 6 features. I'd like to see POTD remain but to shorten the page we would have to remove something. The community section is a great idea as newbies need a lot more help/introduction than they've been getting, so i think the only other option is to remove DYK. Again, too many people are heavily invested in that feature to just chuck it, so I don't know what to do. I think if we want the other features of the new page we'll have to accept the loss of the POTD for now. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's not too different from the current main page, but the improvements it has are good ones.  Run!  19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think it's the best out of the choices presented. I'm not a big fan of the section titles though, slightly misaligned and the bright aqua blue coloring doesn't fit with the rest of the page.   freshgavin TALK    23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to the misalignment of the "Today's featured picture" and "Did you know..." section titles, that's a temporary technical glitch (caused by the manner in which the features are being transcluded). This would be corrected in the final version. —David Levy 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft B with six features

Design elements include:

  • Margins problem in Internet Explorer has been fixed.
    • In IE, the green column's heading bars don't reach the right-hand border, and the blue column's right-hand border is absent. —David Levy 08:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This version is fully operational: all features automatically update
  • The Did you know team has pledged to expand their project's coverage to seven days per week

Thank you for your participation.

  1. Since this has the picture of the day, 7 days a week. I like this one. --Go for it! 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My eyes are glazing over so I'd better choose. Both are excellent and congrats to y'all for your patience diligence. I do prefer Draft B but I'll sleep well with whichever achieves conensus. hydnjo talk 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "sleep with"...riiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhttt.....--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To rephrase, I'll not lose any sleep whichever, A or B, is chosen... arghh nevermind.  ;-) hydnjo talk 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think Draft B is best... not sure if I like all those icons on Draft C, too busy. - JustinWick 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Draft B is good, slightly better than Draft A, but the portals list, frankly, looks terrible. Too boxy, too square, too lined-up-with-the-In-the-News-box-below-it. I would prefer a search box. Is it redundant - sure? But so is the list of portals (there's a portals link right above it), so is the second box in the page you get when you search for anything... Searching (or "go-ing") is the dominant way to access information on the Internet and in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't deny that fact just to conform to the "Browse" and tree-diagram categorizing that may seem standard. Zafiroblue05 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like Draft B best. The layout is definitely more balanced than the current page, and it seems better balanced than A or C. Moreover, the more vertical layout of the "Wikipedia community" box and slightly bluer background is superior. (I am not simply opting for "all columns"— straight text lends itself to such treatment.) I was going to opt for some "eye candy" for it, otherwise. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of the three drafts, I seem to like draft B most. However, I feel that this can be improved and my suggestions for the same are given in the intended section. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like this one because it has both Picture of the Day and DYK, has no formatting issues (at least on IE), and all in all looks pleasant. Dralwik|Have a Chat
  8. Definately my favorite. It's nice to have the Picture of the Day every day. It's also great that there are some community things on the Main Page. Jeff8765 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Community feature was actually meant to fill the space until we thought of a new feature. I expected this draft to flop, but it's really popular. Go figure; I wouldn't have seen it coming. Then again, I would have sworn the Indianapolis Colts were going to the Super Bowl.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This one looks pretty slick. I'm mostly voting based on "look and feel" (so I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Draft A were chosen), but I've felt for a while that POTD deserves Main Page exposure 7 days a week. It's one of my favorite features. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice. --Black Carrot 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I too like draft B. Clean, interesting, and simple. I think that the POTD on the main page is good. Needs a little cleaning up to become more eyecatching, but they all do. Also, the bar at the top is a bit annoying, but that is in most of the designs in one way or another, and the ones that don't have it have other problems. --Reuvenk 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft C with six features and browse icons

To those of you voting here, Draft C has changed? Hopefully it will not have swayed any positive votes thus far negatively.. as I think it is a definite improvement. Improvements:

  • Too much blue buffer space at top shrunk
  • switched out for a less space-consuming header.. but still nice coloration and "completeness"
  • Moved from 4-feature layout to 6, though this could easily be changed back.
  • Added a white box for the reference section at bottom.
  • Added "free" before "articles" per comments about the original "slogan" (welcome to wikipedia! the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) being removed from this style of header

Thanks all.. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I like the four features on Draft C, as six are overwhelming. Four features were fine, but I'm okay with six features, so long as they work well for others with smaller screens. The colors on Draft A are somewhat too bright, and I would prefer colors more mute like those used on Draft C. These browse icons also work well in this particular context. I liked the browse icons in this context, but am more indifferent to how the header is designed. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I didn't like Draft A for sure. I was just going to write down that I like Draft B but then there came the Draft C. I like the features of Draft B but I like the outline of Draft C at the same time. The spaces between the boxes and the portal icons look nice. The colors, I don't know, don't matter much. Draft C is somehow unfinished but still is the best I think. PS: I never though we could be this far. Conguratulations all! --Quinlan Vos 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like C or E best. A and B seem somehow empty and unfinished at the top; there seems to be some strange white space. I like having the portal icons easily available. Even with them at the bottom that's good, but I like them accessible at the top. Browsing is fun :-) I really don't like the last option, with all the colours and tiny icons.Skittle 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I love this one. --^BuGs^ 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The C is the most beautiful and comprehensive, so, I support this one. It will be even better if the icons (like the featured article icon, and the In the news icon) used in the Draft G were also included. Carioca 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Great colours, most attractive. Functional too, not too cheesy. Harro5 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. C just looks better that the other drafts, and is most useful, but even C still needs a few improvements (if were not past that point), like alot of blank space around POTD, POTD links are also much smaller than others (i.e. archive link). The community box is excellent, other version of it are much too large.Boccobrock 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I voted for B also, but I really like the version of C with six features. Jeff8765 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Looks good, but the community section could use something to make it a bit more attractive; or the descriptions could be shortened.--nixie 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Apparent blank space appears to be more when compared to A or B, still it's the best looking out of the lot. Xedaf 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft D (withdrawn)

I like Draft E (Same as C, but with a slightly different header)

  • i prefer draft E it has a little bit more than C Jakken 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the look of E, including the icons at the top. --P3d0 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft F with four features and browse icons

  1. I like the browse icons to be findable but not obtrusive. Otherwise I would vote for A. Metarhyme 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like the header of drafts A and B. (Also this is my draft :) Ashibaka tock 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like the heading and The Wikipedia Community as a section. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft G (Inspired by the Italian Wikipedia Main Page)

  • I like how the search is more prominent at the top. This should be a feature in all of the new Main Pages.

-Travis 20:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The search idea was deemed redundant in the discussion last week.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this design is classy and not boring, as a couple other drafts tend to be. Aside from a couple of technical mistakes, it is excellent. I especially like the color and font scheme. (Some other drafts are similar.) I wish the spacing would be cleaned up a bit. - ElAmericano | talk 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this design as it is very colorful and plasing to the eye. It also has a very interesting layout. Tarret 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current main page—what we have is fine!

If there are any design elements you particularly like and want to see added to the main page, let us know here (in addition to your vote above):

  • I like them all. But I think there should be a balance between links and content, which all the drafts do quite well. I especially like the various browsing features in the headers of each page, and the expansion of subject areas to choose from in Draft B. --Go for it! 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always. Balance is key here. I think six features is too much content, but the links of Portals are a great way to save real estate and have them at the top, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like draft B, I guess the formt should be in the following suggested way so that it is easier on eyes. FA and In the news adjacent to one another in the first row; POTD and DYK adjacent to each other in the next row; Today in history and WP community in the final row. However, a caveat is that WP community would always be fixed in length. FA and Today in history are also more or less stable in terms of length. DYK follows, with In the News, both varying in length, the latter more. POTD size keeps varying and it needs to be kept in mind. I am not very sure if listing the portals is a good idea, as a new user may get lost in them rather than working on articles; more importantly, given the bad shape some of these portals are in, I would think that it is best not to have them so prominently. Another cause of concern: Why only these portals? Why not Portal:Law or Portal:Pornography? Should it be limited to featured portals? Should it be limited to broad portals? Who determines this? Probly these hv been discussed already, excuse me if I am raising what may have been a closed discussion. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed, but it's not exactly closed. The logic is that we go with the Top 10.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the portal icons, or at least the browsing category portals, being on the main page and obvious. They don't necessarily need to be at the top, but they should be there. Browsing encyclopedias is the best bit :-)and this gives a way in.Skittle 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may have come up already, but what does everyone think of putting the Collaboration of the Week on the Main Page?Jeff8765 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion other than voting

What happened to "the free encyclopedia"?

I really like the current message, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." However, the two current drafts only offer the message "Welcome to Wikipedia, 930,018 articles that anyone can edit." I think that this message is a lot less powerful and says less about the project. The concept of Wikipedia as a true, cohesive encyclopedia is important... removing this makes the statement a lot drier. It seems to imply that Wikipedia, as a whole, is no greater than the sum of its parts--that it's nothing more than a pile of articles.

Also, removing the word "free" gets rid of the free software (copyleft) and free-of-charge connotations which I think are actually quite key to the entire project.

Who decided to change this message, and for what purpose? Also, is there any possibility of changing it back? -Fadookie Talk | contrib 11:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. That was some anons idea and it saved space. It was also decided that "the free encyclopedia" appeares in the monobook skin in the upper left corner under the globe and at the start of each article. We can change that, sure, but if everyone else likes it, I'm afraid it stays.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support "the free encyclopedia" being put back. Black Carrot 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Free Encyclopedia" is in the left bar, right under Wikipedia's puzzle globe logo. It's on every page all the time. Just out of curiosity, why is it that you feel we need it duplicated?--Go for it! 17:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the phrase should be omitted from the welcome message. Not everyone uses the MonoBook skin, but the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." does appear throughout the site (directly below the title bar, which would be directly above the welcome message in question). Therefore, the phrase's presence in the welcome message is redundant for everyone and doubly redundant for most users (including any new visitor, because MonoBook is the default skin). —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come up with a good compromise.. simply adding the modifier 'free' (though it might be arguably redundant) on my proposal, Draft C, is only a one-word addition that will stand out to first-time visitors who look for that kind of thing. When I see "sign up for premium access" on a website, i automatically know that exploring it further is a waste of time. Seeing 'free' in such a genuine way though, is very encouraging. Also, only having at the top is fine for the rest of the pages.. but as it is a major principle of not only wikipedia but wikimedia, I think it is important to have this small addition on the main page. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We actually had this precise wording at one point. I don't actively oppose it, but it does seem redundant. Keep in mind that the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." will appear directly above this message. —David Levy 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"930,018 free articles that anyone can edit" is better. Still, I don't like the idea of Wikipedia being 'just a pile of articles'. Cohesion is an important principle, and it's important to get our principles across to visitors, especially would-be contributors.
If redundancy is such an issue, why say "Welcome to Wikipedia" at all? Visitors can easily deduce that they are on Wikipedia from the logo, the website title, and the URL.
I wouldn't consider redundancy bad in this case. We should be trying to introduce visitors to the site, not just feed them a statistic.
-Fadookie Talk | contrib 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other designs

User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft (Draft C)

  • I like how the features boxes are done in this version, but the header is very lacking. Zafiroblue05 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the best looking draft although it lacks some features. I like the icons and spaces between the boxes here. If someone could merge C's outline with B's features, that would be splendid. --Quinlan Vos 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to both of these, I've combined B's features (all six sections) and added the top wikipedia thing that's much less space-consuming. Hope you all like. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also.. removed all the background white space and put the reference section inside a white box.. though that could certainly be improved. Anyone have a suggestion of a way to make it look better (besides leaving it outside formatting)? drumguy8800 - speak? 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's happened to the portal icons? Those looked really nice and separated this draft than others. --Quinlan Vos 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for mentioning that.. I was under the impression that the style I have up was the preference across the board here. I like how little space the current header on this draft takes up, but the portal icons are certainly nice. The bullets could be replaced with very smal versions of the icons.. I hesitate putting it back up the same as Draft E because I fear we will never reach consensus on such a space-consuming thing style. It also only has 10 portals, as opposed to 12 on the current Draft C (and other drafts with the same header). Any suggestions on a middle-point..? drumguy8800 - speak? 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Violetriga/inprogress (Draft E)

User:Ashibaka/Main (Draft F)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired) (Draft G)

  • Sorry, this is an awful version. The colors/graphics used clash horribly.. the bottom-stripes in the right column aren't formatted correctly.. the entire page just feels very uncohesive. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree in disliking the colour scheme, and also the snowflakes, which are distracting and out of place. jnothman talk 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking things up

Wow. You people are messed up.

The reason I came here, though, is that there's something missing from the extremely prominent list of options on the current page and all of your drafts. So that you have a reason to listen to me and implement my suggestion, I'd like to take a moment to explain how I got here: Wikipedia_talk:Where_to_ask_a_question#From the Reference Desk There seems to be general consensus on the reference desks that people are winding up there who have no reason to be there, and after a short discussion it was determined that the problem could be the main page. After talking with the people one level earlier (Where to ask a question), I am more certain of it, and they support my idea for fixing it, not least because it would solve one of their problems too.

My idea is to include Look it up with Ask a question , Index/A-Z and Portals. This should be prominent. Not neccessarily more prominent than anything else, but certainly not less prominent. This is the main function of Wikipedia. You type a word in, it takes you to the article. The search is weak and I've never used a portal, but I can always rely on that. This is also the main function of an encyclopedia, other than the ones based on a tree like Portals and Categories, which for some reason seem to be completely seperate.

I hereby demand flaming criticism, and will not rest until I get it. Should none appear within a week, I will assume that means that everyone agrees. --Black Carrot 17:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like that's going to happen! Okay, I have a flaming criticism for you...  ;)

I have a criticism of you post: you said something was missing, but then you didn't specify what that was. Instead you went straight into your idea or solution. So...

What exactly is missing from the front page and all of these drafts?

By the way, take a look at the browsebar's solution to this:

Portal topics
Activities
Culture
Geography
Health
History
Mathematics
Nature
People
Philosophy
Religion
Society
Technology
Random portal

Notice that "Wikipedia FAQs" and "Ask a question" have been combined into "Questions". Do you think that helps? And if not, why not? We need to understand this issue as well as you do, if we are going to solve it.

--Go for it! 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the link? I think I was pretty clear about it there. What's missing from the front page, as it stands now, is an easy and self-explanatory way for people to look something up, as people are wont to doing in encyclopedias. So, quite a few people do the next best thing and ask at the reference desk. Combining all the places one could ask a question under one Questions heading is a good move, and I admit I hadn't thought to follow it and see the changes, but I think it would still be a good idea to have Look it up seperate. There's also the fact that it doesn't actually involve asking a question. This would, of course, make it harder to fit everything in. Black Carrot 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Look it up page, which is well written, and agree entirely that people should be encouraged to search, rather than ask questions. I have one slight problem with the phrasing: what is the difference between "Look it up" and "Search"? To me "Search" is more intuitively understood, and "Look it up", despite being described as a traditional way to use an encyclopedia, is actually a rather colloquial term. 62.31.128.28 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By 'colloquial', what do you mean? If you mean most English-speaking people don't use it, that could be a problem. I've just put a question about that on the Language reference desk to find out. Also, to me, search isn't just counterintuitive, it's downright inaccurate. The point of the Go function on the search bar is to take you directly to the article you typed in, just like a lot of print books are trying to do when they arrange things alphabetically. The Search function is an actual search. Black Carrot 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the error rate at WP:RD or at WP:HD will be aided by having a "look it up" link on the main page. Having tried to work against these problems of people asking at the wrong places, I've decided that there is only so far that you can explain that people are in the wrong place, and those making the errors are generally just stupid. Another link will sadly not reduce stupidity. jnothman talk 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current course of action?

Okay what do we do now? do we sail into the storm ill-equiped or do we work out how to vote with more than one draft? And will We have Draft 6b or Draft 7? Please, let's use a rough consensus. I say let's stop and figure this issue out or we're just asking for trouble.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that GFI! requested us to "run a clean election" on my talk page but "nobody wants their votes nullified" (above).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanto to do anything without a general consensus because that is what got us into this mess.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think all this argument is silly, and apologize for anything I might have done to help fuel it. My take on this... It's unlikely that one version will get overwhelming consensus to the extent that we'll be able to replace the main page, at this point. Rather than a competition, I view this as an iterative process. I think we can use more comments on why people are attracted to particular drafts (e.g. they like/dislike the featured picture, colors, icons, etc.), including the ones in the user space. Already, we have many comments from people saying they like the 6 features... that's contrary to what I had expected, and useful to know. Let's keep the voting, but maybe let's phrase it more as a feedback gathering process than a competition. Finally, I think we should archive the comments, relating to this argument. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would not have expected 6 features to be popular. Yes, we'll continue with the poll, but next time, I recommend doing this some other way.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, next time we can organize the voting in some better way. Yesterday, I was just surprised that this went from good discussion (up til the time I left work), to the time I got home (the voting was already set-up, with arguments). It just happened too fast, without discussion on how to go about the voting. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've seen the comments on User talk:Go for it! from the people who maintain DYK. Looks like their enthusiastic and have no problems with running DYK seven days a week. Though, one day of voting and comments, is far short of consensus on it so let's just wait and see what more feedback we get. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So...6 features looks good but isn't guaranteed; the jury is still out on the Portals, and having The Wikipedia Community has been as denounced as much as I though it would be. I'm still going to welcome an new suggestions for that slot, though.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that section of the drafts denounced? I just did a text search of this page, and couldn't find a single criticism of it. So what are you talking about? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called archiving.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one trying to limit the choices, nor am I the one trying to pigeon hole the voting process. Note that I wrote an introduction asking for input on features, and then someone forked the draft and turned this into a draft-selection process (pun intended). Watching the results of that action in the voting section above, I now think it was a good idea. Though I find it ironic that as soon as the draft you favored fell behind in the "polls", you started supporting the original concept of polling for design elements. A careful analysis of the histories of this talk page and the project page will show a difinite pattern: 2 sides trying to outmaneuver each other to get "their" version approved. Well that's why they have elections in the first place, so we wound up in the right venue! But something very interesting has happened: we've learned that people favor many different designs. So rather than force the whole community to choose one design which everyone else gets stuck with, it might be a good idea to explore the possibility of main page configurability and the various ways in which this might be accomplshed. With that in mind, I've started a new discussion below on this topic. --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one trying to limit the choices,
No one has tried to limit the choices. We've been working to stop you from transforming a constructive discussion into a winner-take-all "election."
nor am I the one trying to pigeon hole the voting process.
Again, this is not a competition.
Note that I wrote an introduction asking for input on features, and then someone forked the draft and turned this into a draft-selection process (pun intended).
No. YOU turned this into a draft-selection process. (Fortunately, this has now been largely corrected.)
I forked the page to create two slightly different versions of our draft. I did this as a means of illustrating the fact that our basic layout was not tied to the number of features, thereby allowing users to evaluate these elements separately.
I didn't include any of the personal designs (including mine), because those were not created collaboratively. That doesn't mean that they're invalid or inferior, but it does mean that they did not undergo the same type of open editing through which our draft was created.
I never intended to suppress the personal designs from viewing. I assumed that the evaluation period would operate normally, with readers commenting upon our draft and suggesting methods of improving it (including the integration of elements from the personal designs). Instead, you unilaterally declared that we would hold a competition in which a plurality of voters would select the final design (in its entirety), creating the false appearance that all of these drafts were officially selected finalists of equivalent origin (and that the specific combinations of elements were package deals). Don't you understand why that was confusing and counterproductive?
Though I find it ironic that as soon as the draft you favored fell behind in the "polls", you started supporting the original concept of polling for design elements.
Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. No one has attempted to conceal that the six-feature DESIGN ELEMENT has garnered substantial support.
From the very beginning, the idea has been to work together and propose/discuss design elements (until YOU unilaterally decided to launch the aforementioned competition).
A careful analysis of the histories of this talk page and the project page will show a difinite pattern: 2 sides trying to outmaneuver each other to get "their" version approved.
WP:AGF
Well that's why they have elections in the first place, so we wound up in the right venue!
Again, this is a discussion, not an election. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —David Levy 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forging ahead - What about main page configurability?

During the previous round of discussions (in archive 5), somebody suggested that we make multiple versions of the main page available for users to "set" as their main page - thus allowing everyone to get what they want. His idea was dismissed out of hand as being a complex programming problem, but there must be several approaches by which such a concept could work. The simplest one I can think of is just to have several main pages that users can set as their home page in their browser or as a button on their browser's tool bar. We could then provide a link on the default main page leading to a page which lists all the alternate main pages available to choose from. Another idea is to set up a feature in "my preferences" in which the user can select which page the "Main Page" item in the navigation menu of the left bar leads to. Speaking of menus in the left bar, a whole menu of main page designs could be offered there: then users could select whichever main page they were in the mood for at any time! And last but not least are skins and the user configuration methods available right now -- can't a user configure links available to him in the left bar? Can skins have particular main page links built-in to them? By making multiple main pages available, nobody needs to be disappointed in the above election or by any election in which the design draft they preferred didn't get approved as "the main page". --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not too familar with user-configuration and skins. What can a user do right now with these? Can a user configure the menu the way he wants, to point to a main page of his own choice? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple fully operational main page drafts have been developed by this project. Why let them go to waste? Does anyone object to having a link somewhere near the top of the default main page leading to a page with alternate main page designs for users to choose from? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea but it doesn't quite work. What we need is a Main Page for the anons that looks decent, encourages them to use us and contribute, and like us. We should all come to a compromise for that default Main Page. Also:anyone can put a MP in their userspace and set it to be their Wikipedia homepage, but nobody can have the "Main Page" link (and the icon above it) link to their own MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, users probably could do that with some user style and JavaScript hacking. æle ✆ 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not such a great idea with the main page coded the way it is now. It makes much more sense just to provide the tools to make it easier to create your own main page in your userspace. Saying that an option to automatically redirect would be nice.   freshgavin TALK    02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding forging ahead

I'm confused, where does the principal interaction amongst y'all regarding the Main Page design and layout occur - where is your workshop? If I start at WP:USE, its talk page doesn't seem to be it. So, I'll link over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page which gets me redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft where I seem to be invited to review two groups of drafts: (A,B created collaboratively) and (C,E,G,G contributed by individual editors) . The fact that the two groups are described in that fashion seems, intended or not, to somehow favor the collaborative group over the other - a bad start for my brain. Never-mind, I review all six drafts (no easy task as no one has thought to interlink the drafts to each other for easy comparison) and am invited to express my opinion on its talk page. That's here on this page where I'm invited first to vote and comment in a straw poll of sorts and secondly to a "Discussion other than voting". Most of the commentary in the discussion section seem like a contentious discussion between several team members. I really don't know what to make of this, is this the workshop where the principals on the team work things out or is this the place where outsiders or reviewers are supposed to provide input or (I hope not) both. So, back to my question, where does one go to observe or contribute to the goings on? I think that I am speaking not only for myself when I request that future requests for comment be arranged differently by the principals on this project. You folks have put a hell of a lot of talent to work here and things can sometime spin away from the main path but that should happen in "conference" (and I don't mean in secret) and then come forward in a united way with recommendations, options and request for comment. Oh, and configurability should be a side issue and not the main objective - a polished front page that we can be proud of, will make the newcomers feel less dazed/overwhelmed and which will provide interest and navigational aids for all. hydnjo talk 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the team-related issues. Every time I try to put the drafts (and therefore efforts of everyone related to the end goal) on an equal footing, Heretohelp and DavidLevy revert my changes and push "the group" drafts A and B over the others. That doesn't smack of fairness in my mind. One of the drafts I placed up there (Draft D) was summarily "withdrawn" by them. It feels downright alienating. Who put them in charge? They themselves did. --Go for it! 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I try to put the drafts (and therefore efforts of everyone related to the end goal) on an equal footing,
They aren't equal! That doesn't mean that they're inherently better or worse, but they aren't the same. We worked together for a week to create our draft. These other designs are legitimate (and may contain design elements that we should adopt), but they were created by individual users. What was the point of editing collaboratively if we were going to allow this discussion to deteriorate into a winner-take-all contest between competing drafts?
Heretohelp and DavidLevy revert my changes and push "the group" drafts A and B over the others.
Again, THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION! The goal is to combine our efforts and create one collaborative draft that hopefully will garner consensus as a replacement for the current main page.
This is a straw poll, not a formal "election."
One of the drafts I placed up there (Draft D) was summarily "withdrawn" by them.
More rubbish! It was withdrawn by its author (long before this "election" began) because it's broken. How many times must this be explained to you?
What (other than your self-appointed leader status) gave you the right to select a broken, abandoned design for consideration (while omitting the one design that you dislike, which I later added to the list)? You're accusing others of attempting to manipulate the process, but you're the one who elevated your preferred personal designs to a higher status.
Who put them in charge? They themselves did.
Who put YOU in charge? You yourself did. We're merely attempting to repair a chaotic, unproductive situation of your accidental creation. —David Levy 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing just sort of evolved. This talk page began as the work discussion area for a single draft, and worked fine for that until Round 6, in which an argument (coup) broke out over the guidelines and process for voting, which was really an attempt by one faction to push their design concept (4 features) over another (6 features). Coordination had been invisible up until that point. Now coordination is completely transparent (pun intended). --Go for it! 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a personal favor, would you not write 'pun intended' on anything ever again? Black Carrot 19:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page began as the work discussion area for a single draft, and worked fine for that until Round 6, in which an argument (coup) broke out over the guidelines and process for voting, which was really an attempt by one faction to push their design concept (4 features) over another (6 features).
I honestly can't believe that you're making these ridiculous accusations. NO ONE has attempted to suppress or overide public opinion regarding the numer of features. As I explained, my intention was for us to continue discussing our draft (which happened to have been split into two slightly different versions), with comments guiding its continued evolution (including the posisble integration of elements from the personal designs). For some reason, you unilaterally declared that we would disregard a week's worth of collaboration, holding a winner-take-all "election" in which users voted for competing designs as package deals (excluding the attempt that you dislike, but including a broken one that was withdrawn by it author). —David Levy 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to SUPPORT or OPPOSE

Rather than picking apart certain pages, lets get specific here and support or oppose certain elements of a page. Upon a (2/3) majority of votes, we will incorporate those into a community selected draft. Please use Oppose or Support , followed by comments, and of course, ~~~~, your signature.

For those of you familiar with this project! Please add whichever voting sections you see fit. Please place votes between <!-- Votes go here --> and <!-- Votes stop here -->. drumguy8800 - speak? 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorations

Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Black Carrot 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. At least half of the "oppose" votes pertain to the size of the bars/lettering and/or the specific shades of blue and green. I would not object to modifying these aspects accordingly. —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Bkwillwm 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I think these are more comfortable than the alternatives and current. jnothman talk 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - the block of colour is too large. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Incompatible with the core design.   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm not necessarily opposed to green/blue, but these particular colors are a bit too bright on my screen. I also think the feature heading typeface is a little too large, and in the case of Today's featured article, the heading overshadows the actual link to the full featured article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinions, but I'm not sure why you perceive the feature heading typeface as too large. Throughout most of the site, we use the level 2 headings. Those are the smaller level 3 headings (usually reserved for subsections). —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with David on this, though reluctantly. The headline sizes/fonts are a different issue altogether not relating to the main page itself.   freshgavin TALK    04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold and Purple (Drafts C & E)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Carioca 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Jeff8765 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- Not much improvement over G/B but slightly more readable - Xedaf 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Incompatible with the core design. (EDIT: Heading style shows promise though, if it is made to stand out a little bit less.)   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is this supposed to be an assessment of the colors, or are we referring to the style of the feature headings? Some people opposed the green and blue bars on the basis of style, so I suspect that at least some of the above support votes are the same. For the record, I'm voting against the colors. I like the feature heading style. —David Levy 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with David Levy - don't like the colors, like the heading style on this draft. Zafiroblue05 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I REALLY don't like these colors.--Bkwillwm 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gold and purple-- the colors of the borgeoise! :) Ashibaka tock 08:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Inspired

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose What are the snowflakes doing there?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't know but they're very ugly, along with the rest of the design. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Just didn't like it --Quinlan Vos 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - too busy. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why the little icons under each feature? Cheesiness! Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too busy, colors clash, icons are un-professional.   freshgavin TALK    00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't mean to offend the creator, but I dislike virtually everything about this version. —David Levy 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There are some elegant things about the Italian Wikipedia Main Page, but I don't feel this elegance gets across here; the snowflakes still don't make sense and the colours are quite unbearable. jnothman talk 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Header Styles

Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)

Support
  1. Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Repetitive to the search box on the left of the screen.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yellow is simply a wrong color choice.   freshgavin TALK    00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't like the color, and the redundant search box is not a good idea. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Small (Drafts A & B)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Professional and blends smoothly with the core page design.   freshgavin TALK    00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Zocky came up with an ingenious layout, and I believe that my tweaks brought it in line with our overall design objectives. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I find this design very attractive. jnothman talk 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't like having a background image. Ashibaka tock 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Small with Blue Border & Purple link box (Draft C)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bullets are not lined up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a mistake in transfer.. not meant to be part of the final design, apologies. Fixed now. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's OK but the bright aqua blue doesn't belong.   freshgavin TALK    00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Seems needlessly complicated. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. While this design makes the links box stand out, I find the busy colours more detractive than anything. jnothman talk 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large with Portal Icons (Draft E)

Support
  1. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too noisy, lots of wasted white space. Not appropriate for the main focus of a page.   freshgavin TALK    00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't dislike this design, but I prefer the small white layout from drafts A and B. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Far too noisy. And ugly. The Welcome to Wikipeda line is too scrunched up against the top. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet header (Draft F)

Support
  1. I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Columns

Four (4) features

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   freshgavin TALK    00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Six (6) features (including featured picture)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Black Carrot 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Jeff8765 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Zafiroblue05 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - too much stuff. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is no worthwhile 6th and thus this is too much. Overwhelming for basic users. Increases page load time/bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per the above comments. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia Community as a 6th section doesn't make sense, because it is static. The colored sections should be updated daily. Ashibaka tock 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Data

I don't understand what this refers to. Can someone please explain? jnothman talk 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the information at the bottom of the page — "Wikipedia's sister projects" / "Wikipedia in other languages" (and "Wikipedia community," in some versions). —David Levy 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within a Box (Draft C)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Neater. Zafiroblue05 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Pastel box creep. There's no need to distinguish this from something else on the page, if there is nothing else. Ashibaka tock 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Text on a Page (Draft A, B, E)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   freshgavin TALK    00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't need too many pastel boxes. Ashibaka tock 08:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Too sloppy and bare. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we want to re-do the main page, let's make it worthwhile. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing elections?

Why are you creating an election to compete with the first election?

It appears to be an election to force elements into whichever draft the community selects above, even though the people who voted on a particular draft did so because of its elements. You are trying to override one consensus building process with another consensus building process. But that's superfluous, because consensus is whatever most people decide.

And because you've placed the Drafts in parentheses, it is a defacto poll on drafts, and therefore totally redundant with the poll being taken at the top of the page, and much more confusing.

Besides, anyone who likes a particular draft is not going to jeapordize their vote by participating in another poll which would nullify their vote.

You've warped this project beyond recognition, guys.

We should just let the election at the top of the page run its course, which I believe most people are going to do.

--Go for it! 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why are you creating an election to compete with the first election?
There is no election! This is a discussion.
It appears to be an election to force elements into whichever draft the community selects above, even though the people who voted on a particular draft did so because of its elements.
I don't know what gave you the bizarre idea that we should vote for a package deal, but you need to let that go. Respondents have been qualifying their remarks by explaining that while one design is their overall favorite, they actually prefer some elements from other designs. With or without the second set of choices, we would need to carefully parse the original answers to gauge the prevailing opinions. A simple vote tally is patently unacceptable.
But that's superfluous, because consensus is whatever most people decide.
Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a plurality vote. The definition of "consensus" is not "whatever most people decide."
And because you've placed the Drafts in parentheses, it is a defacto poll on drafts, and therefore totally redundant with the poll being taken at the top of the page, and much more confusing.
No. Asking people to vote for their favorite design as a package deal (despite the fact that they're likely to prefer elements of different designs) is confusing. The parenthetical draft citations serve as points of reference. ("Look here to see what we're referring to.")
Besides, anyone who likes a particular draft is not going to jeapordize their vote by participating in another poll which would nullify their vote.
Again, this is NOT a "election." It's a straw poll. We're attempting to gauge public opinion by soliciting comments and suggestions. Participants needn't worry about shifting the official vote tally, because there isn't going to be one.
You've warped this project beyond recognition, guys.
That was you, I'm afraid. Fortunately, we appear to be getting back on track. —David Levy 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 1000% (not a typo) with David Levy. You are making this way too formal. This is nothing but a straw poll. Its intent is fedback(or should be, anyway), not to elect a certain draft. We refine our ideas through 1? 2? 20? 200? more drafts, however long it takes for us to get one draft that we're all proud of. Then, and only then, do we hold an official election. We also advertise a lot more (a message on the Community Portal is a must). But until then, we just get feedback. And so a feedback oriented is best. We're not warping the project, we're just elvolving it to keep up with the times.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that polls are evil and I just want to say that you don't really need to 'advertise' for this as much ... you're probably just making the situation worse. It's noble to think that you're taking the considerations of all the people to heart by listening to all their opinions, but the truth is many/most people have no idea what they're talking about (I'm not counting out myself either) and in the end the choice will be down to one person, who will probably want to have a few words of his own in before any real change is made.   freshgavin TALK    00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a step back

Lest we plunge into another round of voting on matters of taste, let's take a step back and have a discussion about what we want from the main page and what it should contain. Layout and colour schemes are secondary, and far easier to change than the content of the page. They can and should be dealt with later.

I've constructed a framework for a structured discussion below. We may want to stop voting and archive all old comments (including this one) and work on the structured discussion. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structured discussion

The following are identified issues related to the main page. Feel free to comment and add any new suggestions.

Functions

The main page currently performs following functions:

Welcoming users
  • Not strictly necessary, but nice and has a long tradition.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to change this. "Welcome to Wikipedia..." has become a tagline for the site. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation links for readers
Invitation for new editors to join.
  • IMO, not explicit enough now. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also super important. The community feature can help improve how the main page does this. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Showcasing quality content
  • It's nice to show off :) Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very important, as motivation for editors to write excellent articles and get them up to featured status. Ditto for featured pictures. Also keeps the main page fresh and interesting. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to articles likely to be popular at the time
  • This helps attract attention to some articles - people are more likely to click a link to something they hear about in the media. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN and OTD do this well. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exposing articles that need work to the public
  • IMO, this is a large part of what makes Wikipedia work. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN also does this, as can the portals (not all portals are equal in quality). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to other Wikimedia projects
  • The English wikipedia is just one of the foundation's project. We obviously need to link to other projects. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essential. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content

This section is organized according to the layout on the current main page. Please add any new ideas at the bottom of the appropriate subsection, under a horizontal line (----).

Browsebar

Browsebar is the top line of text on the current main page, used for quick navigation links to finding information on Wikipedia.

Do we need this and why?
  • This has long been used for links to different ways of getting information on Wikipedia. These seem to come in two flavours - browsing tools (A-Z, categories, lists, portals, etc.) and links to meta information. Browsing tools are obviously essential, but Wikipedia-related information also needs to be readily accessable. We may want to split them into those two groups more explicitely, though. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria
  • I think we should decide on a fairly constant set of links for this. They should be those that a user will both look for and find actually useful. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FAQs
  • A meta-link to a nice page with tons of info for readers. Should stay, IMO, but should be grouped with other meta-links. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Alphabetical index
  • Essential. Should be either the first or the last in the list of browsing tools. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask a question
  • A nice meta-link. Should stay and be grouped with other meta-links. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Portals
  • We seem to like portals and many other browsing tools have been adapted to them. We should probably make them the primary browsing gateway. A prominent link is IMO essential, but this can also be in the portal link section. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Site news
  • I'm not sure this meta-link is necessary here. It could go to the community section that most new proposals include. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Donations
  • Again, I'm not sure that this is the right place for this link. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac
Glossaries
Lists
Overviews
Introduction
  • I think this link should be in the browsebar, but I think it should be made more explicit and obvious, something like How to edit.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to off-screen sections of the main page
  • I think these are very useful and would like to find a way to work them in somewhere.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up

Portal links

Do we need this and why?
  • These are very useful for quick access to portals, and thus articles about a topic. Portals should be regarded as extensions of the main page. They would be much more useful if they followed a clear hierarchy, at least for the first few levels. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria
  • Same as for the browserbar links, I think we should decide on a fairly constant set of links for this. They should be those that a user will both look for and actually find useful. Topical portals linked from here should have soundly defined areas of interest. I also think that Categories, Glossaries, Overviews, Almanac and Lists should be made into portals and made available here, as a separate group. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
  • Essential, but not well defined at the moment. It includes things one would expect under Society. Perhaps should be made a subportal of Society. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, outside Wikipedia the difference between Culture and Society are very well defined. I would be willing to blame 'lack of definition' on individual Wikipedia editors.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
History
  • This can be usefully distinguished from society, and is very useful as a portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics
  • I'm not sure about this one - I would like it to stay, but I'm not sure how I would justify that, apart from the fact that math is really not science, but many people may expect to find it there. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this one is essential. In elementary school, math and science are different subjects. They should be here, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with elementary school, they're seperate throughout grade school, high school and college. They're just basically different, and they each have a wide range of things under them. Black Carrot 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essential, and will be even more in the future.
It does not matter how Mathematics is treated in/by schools, it is a science because it uses the scientific method in its research (that includes a possibility of verifying its findings and also the actual verification - peer review). Its position might look different because:
- it is an exact science,
- it is a service science (it is used by other sciences),
- it is widely used in other areas of life.
On the other hand, Mathematics uses Logic as a service science (or metalanguage), but Logic is not widely used.
It should be also mentioned that a new area of Mathematics emerges - Computer Mathematics - where people test mathematics hypotheses by conducting computer experiments. In this way, this part of Mathematics might one day resemble other natural sciences like Physics.
Gogino 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People
Science
Society
  • Just as culture, this is not really well defined. Society should be made a general portal for everything related to societies and cultures, which should have Culture and Humanities as major subportals. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would disagree. See culture.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technology
  • Essential. Could be grouped into a common parent article with science, but preferably not. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Art
  • This, strictly speaking, is a subportal of Culture, but I can see good sides in its inclusion. Not sure on this one. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As most (or much) of culture IS art I believe they deserve to be keps separate.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Health
  • I'm not sure if this is the right portal for the browsebar, but IMO we need a directly acessable portal with articles about the human animal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy
  • As for maths, I have no good arguments, but I think this shouldn't be here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is the need for a top-leve portal relating to religion, philosophy, etc.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
Humanities
  • We don't have this, or at least I haven't found it, but I think it's an obvious link that readers will look for. It could be great as a top-level portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe 'humanities' is as popular a top-level search as the ones already there.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
  • This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category portal? Do I hear you right? Ashibaka tock 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac
  • This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glossaries
  • This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists
  • This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overviews
  • This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome message

Do we need this and why?
  • We don't really need it, but it's one of our great traditions, plus it's very nice. It should stay. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia...
...the free encyclopedia...
  • This is somewhat redundant (it's in the logo and at the top of every page for most people), but it does complete the message nicely. I'd like it to stay. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Word. Black Carrot 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much Wikipedia's official slogan, or as close as there is to one.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...that anyone can edit.
  • Again, essential, but IMO should be changed to written by its readers. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
written by its readers sounds like it may imply a more inward-facing structure, and though strange I wouldn't be suprised if there's many 'writers' who don't in fact 'read' Wikipedia. anyone can edit is general and easy to understand.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this English version...
  • We need to make it clear that this is only one of the many Wikipedias. If we drop this, we need to provide a replacement to perform the same function. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...started in 2001...
  • It's nice to have this piece of info in the header, but I'm not sure it's essential. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...we are currently working on zillions of articles.
  • The number of articles needs to stay, but it can be worded differently, AFAIC. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Features

"Features" are the boxes that take up the bulk of the main page, and which are mostly changed daily. These are the daily featured article (FA), Did you know (DYK), In the news (ITN) and Selected aniversaries (SA). The main questions are how many to include and how to organize them.

4 features
  • The currently used format with DYK and POTD switching on weekends/weekdays. I find this acceptable. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four features, with DYK and POTD alternating is acceptable to me, given the formatting problems with trying to have 5 features and should six features be overwhelming for people with smaller screens or using mobile devices. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 features
  • This has repeatedly proven to be too difficult to lay out. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Zocky. We haven't figured out a good way to layout five features. Though, if someone comes up with a brilliant solution for five features, I'd entertain the idea. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 features
  • We don't really have 6 features at this moment. Unless we have a useful 6th feature, this shouldn't be done. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. It feels nice on the page. Also, it gives a place for something we can't fit in the header (like the community links, maybe), and when we do get a sixth feature, it won't be hard to integrate. Black Carrot
I think it should be dealt with when there is a real need for expansion of features. Right now it's just wasted bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with 6 features, so long as it works adequately well on small screens and mobile devices. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article
  • Essential, should stay right where it is. My only concern is that blurbs tend to be rather long, which makes the FA box too bulky. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the most viewed and most important feature, thus its prominent position and large (but acceptable) size.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Zocky. This is essential, though if the blurb can be slightly shorter, I think that would help make six features fit better on the main page. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe a possible solution was on the original first draft, though that seems to have disappeared slightly. Keep the first paragraph (doesn't have to be a whole paragraph - any amount that works) the regular font size and make the rest of the blurb a smaller font size - so about half of the blurb is in each font size. It gets more text in the same space, and can look better as well. Zafiroblue05 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the news
  • Brilliant for getting editor attention on currently interesting stories. Should stay where it is. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is important to demonstrate a key advantage of Wikipedia over Britannica (that Wikipedia is up-to-date and quickly updated). Plus, it keeps the main page fresh and interesting. ITN is updated more than once a day, as news breaks. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know...
  • Great for getting attention to new articles. Most new proposals group it with FA, which is how it should be. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This encourages people to participate in Wikipedia, with the "start a new article" link. Though, as Wikipedia nears 1,000,000 articles, the "new" articles may be on increasingly obscure topics and the DYK facts also quite obscure. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selected anniversaries...
  • Should be renamed to "On this day". Essential, but often lack geographical and topical dispersion. Most new proposals group them with ITN, which is the natural place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the selected anniversaries wording is used because of the lack of accurate dates for some historical events. It gives the impression that 'this date has been chosen' rather than 'it actually, really happened on this day'.   freshgavin TALK    23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this feature, always interesting. "On this day" might be a better name for it, but "selected anniversaries..." is okay. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of the day
  • Nice, but not really essential. IMO, it shouldn't be one of our priority concerns. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really would like this to be included, as this adds more visual appeal to the main page. It also encourages people to contribute great images (photos, diagrams...). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Community feature
  • For a long time there was a community box on the main page, which took up the whole right column in the table. It was much like a condensed modern community portal. This had many good sides, so I wouldn't mind getting it back. It can be made quite prominent as far as I'm concerned. But, this will make sense only if it's regularly updated and genuinely useful. If we're just looking for a place to provide useful links, we should do that in a separate section, or provide a prominent link to the community portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Wikipedia has a "Participate in Wikipedia" feature. I think this is essential, and the community feature can fit this need. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community links section

Do we need this and why?
  • If we don't go for a full community feature, we should use this. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is good for now to fill the sixth feature and provide needed links to encourage participation in Wikipedia. Though, we can always improve this feature. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria

---

The Community Portal
  • Yes, this is the essential place that encourages participation. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Help Desk
The Reference Desk
The Village Pump
The Signpost
  • This is good to include, though "The Signpost" ... maybe another more obvious title such as "Wikipedia News". -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Donations
  • This doesn't belong here, but rather in the side navigation bar and top header. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

Do we need this and why?
  • These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria
  • We need to strike a balance between the number of links displayed and the need to provide links to sister projects. I think that we should aim to display about 20-30 other languages and provide a link to a page with others. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think how other languages are presented on the current page is okay, with all the languages rather than show/hide for languages with over 1000 articles. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other concerns
  • The languages need to be alphabetized consistently and logically. I would prefer ordering them by their English names. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separated by "over 100,000", "over 10,000", and "over 1,000", then alphabetized (as done on the current main page). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects

Do we need this and why?
  • These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we need these links. How they are done on the current page, and in all the drafts is fine. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout considerations

This is the section for general discussion of issues that should be considered in the main page layout. Specific graphic solutions will be dealt with later.

Small screens
  • IMO, everything needs to look acceptable on anything down to 800x600. This limits the size of various elements, like the browser bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Zocky about the small screen issue. Also what about mobile devices? I'm okay with six featured items, so long as the formatting works well with smaller screens. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming the reader
  • My main concern is with the quantity of text in features. They should be made shorter so that other links don't lose on their prominence. Brevity is golden, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POTD could have just a title (maybe a brief caption), and photo credit. DYK could be slightly shorter, and ITN could also be slightly shorter (with items rotated through more frequently). -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Intro

Why is the intro linked to via the anyone can edit? It's too unclear. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is on the current MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because the intro is about editing? Black Carrot 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New draft

Based upon the above comments, I've compiled a new draft that incorporates elements from the other drafts:

User:David Levy/Main2

  • Color scheme: green/blue (like drafts A, B and F) + purple (similar to drafts C and E)
  • Header: small, white (like drafts A and B)
  • Number of features: 4 (like drafts A, E, F, and G) 5 (including featured picture)
  • Feature heading style: small, self-contained (like drafts C and E)
  • Reference data: within a box (like draft C)

Please let me know what you think. —David Levy 03:41/03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like this design. jnothman talk 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. I like it and think we're reaching a consensus. The main outstanding issue is the 5th (or 6th) feature, POTD. I have just made an attempt at adding POTD as a 5th feature (User:Kmf164/Main page draft), by:
  1. Shrinking POTD
  2. Swapping DYK and OTD (this could be switched back)
  3. We might want to make DYK slightly smaller (one fewer item, but updated more often)
  4. Today's featured article could show some more text to balance the left column (and/or list one more OTD item)
Do you think this might work, or any thoughts on how this looks. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I've been working on a five-feature version of my own (without having read the above). I saved it in the same location: User:David Levy/Main2 —David Levy 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having the picture of the day below the text columns is very smart. Good work with that. Ashibaka tock 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft c is the best

Draft c is the best, it has a little bit of everything, it even has picture of the day, and it just looks more neater than everything else.--WikiJake 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=36339839"