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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refactoring this discussion page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  anyone can edit 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  African Cup Final 

message: 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)
replies: text: . Or, more precisely,  and .--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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. 
===Technical concerns===
===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)
thread_title:  Current concerns 

message: *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)
thread_title: Style concerns

message: 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)
thread_title: Browsers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of the slogan! 

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

message: Why is the search box taking up so much room vertically? --Go for it! 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm not experiencing this problem.  Can one of you please post a screen capture?  —David Levy 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Search box vertical space 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Top-level box borders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] has been nominated 

message: What do you think about adding sub-portals as list in mouseover in portal-links? Example:
*Art
*Art
→AzaToth 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I like it, but agree with the above points.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouseover info on portals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Icons as bullets 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

message: :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
 articles that anyone can edit	
 Culture
 Geography
 History	
 Mathematics
 People
 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You put it in the wrong place.  I've fixed it now.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still messes up the alignment at 800x600 and introduces a strongly opposed design element.  —David Levy 07:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "ugly wrap" problem solved 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  (information and browse link order changed, midddot, some whitespace).  (no order change; middot replaces hyphen between information and browse links). (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)
thread_title:  Browse links and Information links 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Sure. I really like what is up there at the time of this post: . It should make everyone happy.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative layout if search box gets dropped 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  though: seperation of links, a good ammount of them, Portals, AND the search box.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or are we going back to multiple drafts?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These "drafts" serve as means of illustrating potential changes without edit warring with one another.  —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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:
#Archive everything old.
#Rewrite the intro to explain what's going on here.
#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.
#Update the Community bulletin board, , and Main page talk in a similar fashion.
#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)
thread_title:  Prep for the bug testing period 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Portal:Featured content]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reversions III

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails#Main page redesign.  I defended the project, of course.  —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tossing away all these developments makes no sense

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

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