Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 6 part 2

message: *I like how the features boxes are done in this version, but the header is very lacking. Zafiroblue05 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft]] (Draft C)

message: *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)
replies: text: throwing my two cents into the fray and casting my vote::  I like DRAFT G - Why?  It appeals to me. JessanDunnOtis 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired)]] (Draft G)

message: 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  and . drumguy8800 - speak? 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Issues to SUPPORT or OPPOSE 

message: ====Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)====
=====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorations

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  --Quinlan Vos 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold and Purple (Drafts C & E)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
# Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit  03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Inspired

message: # Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit  03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  What are the snowflakes doing there?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)====
=====Support=====
#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)
thread_title: Header Styles

message: =====Support=====
#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)
thread_title: Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)

message: #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)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  Repetitive to the search box on the left of the screen.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Small (Drafts A & B)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Small with Blue Border & Purple link box (Draft C)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  Bullets are not lined up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large with Portal Icons (Draft E)

message: #Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Too noisy, lots of wasted white space. Not appropriate for the main focus of a page.   freshgavin TALK    00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
# I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quiet header (Draft F)

message: # I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want.  the one on the left is not obvious enough.  Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP.  Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Search Bar

message: #Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want.  the one on the left is not obvious enough.  Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP.  Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Four (4) features====
=====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Columns

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Four (4) features

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Six (6) features (including featured picture)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose - too much stuff.  violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # I agree some of the above oppose comments, but I don't want to strike down the POTD option for those reasons alone. Perhaps people should check out User:Kmf164/Main page draft. 5 features seem feasable, and the non-updating community section stays as part of the bottom section. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I don't understand what this refers to. Can someone please explain? jnothman talk 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reference Data

message: =====Support=====
#Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Within a Box (Draft C)

message: #Support  drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: =====Support=====
#Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain Text on a Page (Draft A, B, E)

message: #Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose  - Too sloppy and bare. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taking a step back 

message: 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)
thread_title: Functions

message: 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)
replies: text: Calling it "How to edit" would attract those who want to edit, but not those who are asking "What is Wikipedia?". Wikipedia:Introduction is a very nice set of pages, but should be called "Introduction to editing Wikipedia". Some people clicking something labelled introduction will want an overview of the different areas of Wikipedia, rather than to dive straight into a Wikipedia editing tutorial. Some will want to learn more about editing Wikipedia. Some will want to learn more about exploring and browsing Wikipedia (either the content of Wikipedia by the content portals or other content browsing options, or by exploring the Wikipedia community through its portal). I think you need to make the "editor 'how to' introduction" followed by "editor browsing (content and community)" and "reader 'what is this?' introduction" followed by "reader browsing (content)" entry routes into Wikipedia more explicit. Wasn't quite sure where to put these comments. Please move somewhere else if more appropriate. 194.200.237.219 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Browsebar

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)
replies: text: How about rephrasing it the way the French wikipedia does ? "Bienvenue sur Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre, gratuite et multilingue que chacun peut améliorer
228840 articles en français, plus de 3 millions dans 212 langues [link to www.wikipedia.org]". If my French is up to scratch, that says: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, free of charge and multilingual that anyone can edit. 228,840 articles in French, more than 3 million in 212 languages." I would incorporate aspects of this as follows: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are more than 3 million articles in over 200 languages. This is Wikipedia's English language portal, started in 2001, where we are working on 933,872 articles." 194.200.237.219 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Word. Black Carrot 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's pretty much Wikipedia's official slogan, or as close as there is to one.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Technically, to be able to edit Wikipedia, you also have to speak one of the languages it is offered in. At least to edit in any meaningful way. 194.200.237.219 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but if you can't read the language, you can't read that guarantee, can you? So it doesn't much matter. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to imply to me that it is one of several _English_ versions. Also, "version" doesn't sound quite right. There is translation between the different language Wikipedias, but they are not really versions of each other. They are separate entities. How about "This is an English language encyclopedia, started in 2001. We are currently working on...". Breaks it up into two punchy sentences and loses the misleading "versions" bit. The other languages bit is important, but that function can be filled by having a separate, prominent "other languages" link to www.wikipedia.org . 194.200.237.219 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really 'misled' by this? It seems perfectly clear to me. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a good point. I don't think it needs to be there, but it shouldn't be "version" anyway. --24.26.178.224 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I always read this as meaning that there were versions that started before 2001, and that there may be versions started after 2001. That is, I suppose technically correct (Nupedia and future forks spring to mind), but it is not clear that this is what it means, and there is no need for it to imply this. 194.200.237.219 17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The welcome message

message: ;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)
thread_title: Community links section 

message: ;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)
thread_title: Other languages

message: ;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)
thread_title: Sister projects 

message: 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)
thread_title: Layout considerations

message: 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)
replies: text: That's how it is on the current MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because the intro is about editing? Black Carrot 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is the most surprising, and it's a jumping-off point for getting a reader involved. This is a good place to link to the Introduction. Ashibaka tock 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Intro

message: 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)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Banez 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft c is the best 

message: I like the links on the top of the page to allow users to go to specific parts of the site; it's clean and organised and i think it's very clear.
Thanks: Tom
This isn't the voting section.  I've added this vote to Draft E in the voting section above. --Go for it! 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I prefer Draft E 

message: This project has gone insane?  There is no structure to this page or production *at all*.  When does voting stop?  When is a consensus reached?  And if we're going to "vote" or do things according to "community consensus," shouldn't there be some way to access this from the front page, which is what's getting redesigned?  I propose we contact administration, create a very clean voting sheet for drafts, set a 14-day voting period (as is FPC Nominations), and get this thing on and out of here.  I'm not sure how voting would work, per drafts.. as some people might like certian aspects of multiple drafts.  We've advanced far enough though.. if further improvements need to be made, they can be made after the "new" main page is published.  Propose creating Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Voting and establishing the following voting categories (or let people vote on drafts):
*Colors
*Header
*# of Content Sections (6 or 4)
*Picture of the Day
**Integrated in a column
**or Has its own "double-wide" column
I may be completely off base here, this may just be part of the growing process and we might have steps planned after this.. in terms of adding more features / doing something else radically new.  Otherwise, I think we're ready.  drumguy8800 - speak? 05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood the situation.  We aren't voting to determine a new main page.  We're attempting to create a draft that eventually can serve as a candidate for that purpose.  It was stated on Saturday (and remains stated at the top of the page) that this discussion period will continue until January 28th (after which point we'll resume our active collaboration), but feedback will remain welcome throughout the process.  Only when we have a version that generates relatively little opposition (which is even more important than the amount of active support) will we be ready to advance to the final stages.  We appear to be getting very close.  —David Levy 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insane project 

message: I just noticed that the header from draft H contains the same bug that's present in earlier versions (including draft G): a broken book image when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.  Zocky eliminated this problem by introducing a different type of coding (present in drafts A, B and D).  I attempted to adapt the IE-compatible setup (by replacing the portal links with the search box and magnifying glass image), but I was unsuccessful.  Can someone else please do this?  (I've also posted this request on Zocky's talk page.)  —David Levy 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header problem