Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 02

message: First, I like this version very much. I have been clicking the links to see whether they take me somewhere that I'd expect, based on the name of the link, and also seeing what my first impression of the pages are. Some links weren't working (Recentchanges and Random were the two links I've corrected). The Wikipedia:Reference pages link takes you to a page that is a bit overwhelming. The other pages have a cleaner layout. Also, the "Category Index" link takes you to :Category:Categories, when I prefer the look of Wikipedia:Categorical index. Can the latter be used instead of the former? Or even Wikipedia:Quick cat index?
In the community section, a lot of people will be looking for "Community Portal", which is how the link is named on the current sidebar. Moving the link to the header and dropping the word 'portal' may cause some confusion. Also, it is not clear what the difference is between "Help" and "Questions". Many people will think these mean the same things, and will have to click to find out the difference. I suggest that "Questions" be renamed "Ask a question". These two links need to distinguish between pages that people can read to find their own answer, and services where we offer to answer questions (Help Desk and Reference Desk).
Finally, looking at the Main Page 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section, would there be room in the community section of the sidebar for something like Wikipedia:News (there called "Site news")? I'd exclude the Village Pump, as the sidebar might be too high profile for that. Ditto for the "Help Desk" and "Reference Desk" links, as those probably get enough traffic already. You could ask the regulars at the Reference Desk and Help Desk if they want to be on the sidebar. I remember a link directly to the Wikipedia Signpost being dropped in the Main Page redesign as that would make the Signpost appear too "official", but that might have changed over the last few months. Something to think about, anyway.
Finally, about the "Random article" link - I think this is more a browsing link, rather than a tool, and would fit better in the first box. Maybe even in the "search" section (imagine having the option to either click search or random article).
Hope all this helps, and good luck in getting this proposal approved and implemented. Carcharoth 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, as part of this project (or in support of it) several of us are scrambling to prepare pages for presentability on the sidebar.  Some of the links simply haven't been updated yet (I'll update the reference page links though, momentarily).  And we still haven't created a decent page for "search" or "tools", but they're on the list.  --Nexus Seven 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on version 14 

message: It is slightly worrying that many of the versions had incorrect links (now corrected) to "Recent changes" (Special:Recent changes does not work, the correct link is Special:Recentchanges) and "Random article" (Special:Random article does not work, the correct link is Special:Random). Although this would have probably been spotted at some stage, it kind of suggests that no-one was actually checking and following the links - one of the first rules to follow when doing a redesign like this. Can I urge anyone putting any new versions up on the page to thoroughly check their links first. (Incidentially, for any developers watching the page, why do incorrect "Special" links appear blue and not red? Is that a "feature"?) Carcharoth 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bug, and there's a ticket on it somewhere. 86.134.116.228 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, are the 4 design features presented in the summary above doable?  Will you be able to implement all four of them? --Nexus Seven 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct linking 

message: I haven't been reading the Wikipedia Signpost recently, so apologies if this has already been suggested. One way to get more eyes reading this discussion would be to try and get this proposal mentioned in Wikipedia:Signpost. The Main Page redesign got a mention, so I would guess this would as well. Carcharoth 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should contact Signpost when it's time to present the design to the community for final approval. Until then, the notices on the CBB, the Main Page talk page, and WikiProject Usability should suffice.  --Nexus Seven 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Nexus Seven- when you are about finished with the redesign, I'll give it a mention; perhaps even a short mention now.  Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More publicity 

message: A link to Wikipedia:Tutorial might be helpful for newcomers.--70.253.195.61 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutorial link 

message: Since we seem to have a consensus on basic design, the first 14 designs just detract.  I'm moving them to an archive, with a link at the top of the project page.  --Nexus Seven 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving the versions