Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 04

message: ===name/title/heading options===
*navigation
*browse
*contents
Anything else? (add it above, argue it below). --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigation box

message: *navigation
*browse
*contents
Anything else? (add it above, argue it below). --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: name/title/heading options

message: This is the trickiest bit. What to include, and what order to put them. LOTS of possibilities; and ramifications. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link selection

message: The current draft's version assumes we're trying to duplicate/replace the main page links (see /Archive 03#The link line on the Main Page).
help
* Wikipedia help
* Community portal
* Wikipedia overview
* Questions
* Editing tutorial
* Contact us
* Donating
If we decide against that rationale, then the links could be reduced to just the original batch:
help
* Wikipedia help
* Community portal
* Contact us
* Donating
Or other links could be added (any suggestions below). --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help box

message: Rather than respond piecemeal, I've grouped my latest comments here (these are directed at the version on the project page, or any proposed changes to that version):
*Toolbox link order: "What links here" is a very useful tool. I think it should be put at the top of the toolbox, or at least above "Related changes". The reasoning behind this is that "Related changes" is an editing tool, while the other four above the divider are reader tools (cite, permalink, printable, what links here) and then have "related changes" at the end. To avoid the previously mentioned conflict between having "related changes" and "recent changes" next to each other, I would suggest changing the order below the divider. ie. One of these orders: (1) cite, permalink, printable, what links here, related changes | special, recent changes, upload file; or (2) what links here, cite, permalink, printable, related changes | recent changes, upload file, special.
*:The reason I put it right-above the divider, was for visual clarity: If it's in the midst of a list (your option 1) then it is harder to see. I'd suggest it works best at either the beginning or end of the section, and would be happy with either.
*:The order of the three links after the divider hasnt really been discussed yet. For visual clarity (based on its importance, and complete change in location) "recent changes" should probably be at the beginning or end. --Quiddity·(talk) 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, it's much easier for us too, this way. I'll go through these tonight when I get back from work. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more comments 

message: In the Cologne Blue skin, the box is labeled "find" (instead of "search"), which is a more logical heading for "go" and "search."  (These are two different methods of finding an article, and it makes little sense for "search" to be sub-function of "search.")  I raised this issue during the main page redesign, and I don't recall any disagreement.  The issue is that this would require a minor modification to the MonoBook code in MediaWiki.  (Currently, the heading can only duplicate the word used for the second button.)  As the proposal already requires code modification, I've gone ahead and made this change.  If anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss.  —David Levy 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed then and now :) --Quiddity·(talk) 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "search" -> "find"

message: navigation
* Main page
* Basic topics
* Categories
* Current events
* Featured content
* Fields of study
* Portals
* Random article
* A-Z index
type=search
buttonlabel=Go
searchlabel=Search
labeltext=Search all  articles:
id=searchInput
searchbuttonlabel=Search
width=17
For reasons mentioned above, I've added Basic topics back in.  To leave that reference page out kind of thwarts the whole reason for putting reference pages on the sidebar in the first place.  I've also alphabetized the links, because they didn't seem to have a logical order before and just looked like a jumble.  Main Page logically goes at the top, while index obviously goes at the bottom.
:I don't care for the alphabetical order, as it separates links that logically belong together.  —David Levy 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll probably want to add Glossaries back in too... --Quiddity·(talk) 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea, but it seems to me that there's been at least as much opposition as support.  —David Levy 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike the idea, and concur. See #Search portlet. --Quiddity·(talk) 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support putting glossaries back in, as that page is very useful when you don't know what you are looking for.  It is very convenient to have the definitions on the same page as the choices.  But it's not nearly as important as Basic topics, which is about as close to a top-level page of Wikipedia's content as you can get.  If it's a choice between the two, I'd go with Basic Topics. --Nexus Seven 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 17 

message: I think that this is a step down from version 23 (along with the new placement of the search bar, but that's a different discussion). The rationale is that the portlet titles explicitly say, for example, "this portlet contains navigational links" or "this portlet contains a toolbox for editors". By linking the titles, one is more or less saying that "navigation" is done via the title link and the links inside the portlet itself are subnavigational items. Which isn't so. Aside from that, it is promoting the portlet titles from informational element to navigational element, which doesn't seem to make sense to me. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus we already discussed it, and came to the conclusion that linking headers is against style guidelines, and done nowhere else on the site, so shouldnt be done here (plus there was wide subjective-disliking). Sorry. --Quiddity·(talk) 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, why do we have Welcome to Wikipedia title on the main page with 2 words as links in it? 24.80.225.50 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, good. :) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Main Page is a special-case, for lots of rules. I'm archiving version 24. --Quiddity 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked portlet titles 

message: original/current	option1/version 16,17	option2/version 18-21
toolbox
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* [ Printable version]
* [ Permanent link]
* [ Cite this article]	
toolbox
* [ Cite this article]
* [ Permanent link]
* [ Printable version]
* Related changes
* What links here
* Recent changes
* Upload file
* Special pages	
toolbox
* What links here
* Related changes
* [ Permanent link]
* [ Printable version]
* [ Cite this article]
* Recent changes
* Special pages
* Upload file
In the top half, Option1 is better for readers ("cite.." "print.." "permanent.." at top), Option2 is closer to the original and better for editors ("what links here" at top). 
We could even seperate the reader/editor links with another horizontal-rule. (Retracted: too cluttering)
In the bottom half, "Recent changes" should be first or last; the other two can be in any order. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite proposing some of these changes, I actually prefer the original option! :-) Carcharoth 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with either of the new versions, either one of them, since I don't think it will really matter too much where those links are. As long as not another horizontal ruler is added. :) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could use the reader-oriented one as the default, but allow those who are logged in to choose one of the other two in their account preferences (hey, we already have configuration for more complex stuff like the number of days to show on watchlists). OK, so it is less convenient for non-logged in editors, but none of the functions are actually removed, they are just placed in a different order. Cynical 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I favour option 1, as it's better for readers. I think readers would be much less likely to find the "cite this article" link in the middle of the toolbox. The bottom half of option1 should stay the way it is (matching the currently used ordering). --Quiddity 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --Quiddity 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: options

message: My concept with this deals with 'simplicity'. Why not have a hiarchy based drop down menu. An example would be like this:
Wikipedia:-|
           |-Main Page
           |-Featured Articles*
           |-Contact Wikipedia*
           |-Curent Events
           |-Upload File*
           |-Donate
Portals:-|
         |-Communtiny*
         |-(others)*
This Page-|
          |-Edit this Page
          |-Change History (list of changes)*
          |-What Links Here*
(A possible add-on would be a grouping of icon next to Edit this page, such as a padlock for a locked page, and a hand-plam for blocked users)
Help:-|
      |-Techinal
      |-Other (not sure what other help topics there could be)
My Settings:-| (New, not sure what the wording should be)
             |-Prefences
             |-Links:-|*
                      |-Bookmarked
                      |-Most visted page
                      |-Last "   "
                      |-Most Edited page
             |-Admin Tools (if acciplable)
             |-Friends:*
* denotes a possible info box that will appear under the navigation box, for links that don't require a full webpage. There will be an option to open as a webpage in the info box. Hope this idea helps
KB1KOI 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complete overhaul of the entire system, and far far beyond what this proposal is intended to think about. You'll need to start a seperate proposal (otherwise, this one will splinter into too many variables). --Quiddity 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Simply put: No. This is far too radical a change, as I've just noted at your original proposal #hierarchical tree suggestion. I will now move this comment up to become a part of that comment. --Quiddity 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hierarchical tree suggestion

message: Its not bad. Athough I have a few suggestions.
</div>
* Main page
* Featured content
* Current events
* Basic topics
* Fields of study
* Random article
* Portals
* Categories
Page Info
* What Links Here
* Edit history
* Icon status (i.e (user is blocked) 
Personal
*My Settings
*Most ____ article
*Admin Controls (if applies)
*Upload file
KB1KOI 17:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put: No. This is far too radical a change, as I've just noted at your original proposal #hierarchical tree suggestion. I will now move this comment up to become a part of that comment. --Quiddity 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Cents on Changed version (above version)

message: Support - --The Transhumanist 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign#Version 23|Version 23]] 

message: Object per problems below. --DavidHOzAu 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign#Version 20|Version 20]] 

message: (with indented replies by David Levy)
:With further replies by The Transhumanist indented even further - well, if David gets so much pleasure out of arguing that he wants to argue against a retracted message, then who am I to deny him that pleasure?  Here goes nothin'...  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits remain in the revision history for everyone to read.  You can't write whatever you please, "retract" it, and expect it to vanish without a trace.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In what manner have I done this?  By arguing that you aren't entitled to dictate how we proceed?  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're taking it way out of proportion.  I set up a straw poll, so what.  Did it harm anything?  Did it make your arms fall off?  Come on, relax.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't set up a straw poll.  You attempted to set up a binding vote.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I want to encourage people to express their opinions regarding the individual elements.  You want them to "choose one" complete set and vote for it, despite the fact that both proposed versions contain elements unilaterally inserted without prior discussion.  When I compiled version 20 (including the aforementioned unilateral elements), my intention was to provide a demonstration of various ideas (thereby soliciting opinions), not to put forward a complete version to be voted on as a package deal.  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the whole issue is still subject to discussion during and after, the end result is the same.  The only thing that differs is part of the discussion format.  Straw polls aren't votes on Wikipedia, as no one is held to a direct yes or no answer, and all shades of opinion are expressed in them, each one affecting consensus.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't set up a straw poll.  You attempted to set up a binding vote (in which users were instructed to "choose one" set of elements or the other).  You could have asked users to comment (or even vote, straw poll-style) on the specific elements individually, but you didn't do that either.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What's that supposed to mean?  That I should write less?  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it as a request.  These super long arguments and discussions drive people away.  While forums like straw polls actually attract people to make comments.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider your request denied.  I'm going to continue responding to your messages until you stop posting them (which I'm not asking you to do).  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're just being hurtful.  You're actually suggesting not merely that my methods are inappropriate, but that the underlying intent is malicious.  The only thing that I've attempted to turn around is your continual misconstruction of my words.  As I said, with each attempt to divine hidden meanings, you invent increasingly worse scenarios in your mind.  When I politely inform you that you've misunderstood me (and arrived at entirely incorrect interpretations of what I've written), you accuse me of masterminding an even greater deception.  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like there's anything anyone can say in an argument with you that would actually hurt your feelings.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a robot.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I said "seems".  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...said the person who just lectured me about denying obvious connotations.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Haven't you noticed that people tend to avoid these super long discussions, but that they flock to the straw poll format?  And we want more people to contribute, don't we?  So let's just write as much as we possibly can, and people will just stay away!  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't set up a straw poll.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You changed the section's title from "Choosing one" to "Choose one" (an instruction) and set up a vote, announcing that we are "choosing a new starting point from which to discuss changes."  At no point did you ask anyone if they wanted to do this.  You simply made an executive decision.  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to choose what?  A hypothetical proposal still subject to change.  Again, you're worring over nothing.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who/what gave you the authority to dictate that we were "choosing a new starting point"?  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And the reason I erased this section was because this argument we are in right now is pointless.  I tried to avoid it, but you just couldn't let that happen, could you?  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the post didn't disappear when you removed it from the page.  It remained in the revision history for everyone to read, and you're complaining because I didn't allow it to go unchallenged.  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're more than welcome to suggest that we should proceed in a particular manner (as I've done).  That isn't what you did.  You declared that we would be proceeding in a particular manner.  You announced a vote and its absolute outcome (the selection of "a new starting point").  You never attempted to establish consensus for such a course of action.  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, anyone can ask for anyone else's opinion in whatever format they want.  It's just a matter of asking two questions:  Who likes this version?   Who likes this one?  We don't need your permission to ask questions now, do we?  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not.  That isn't what you did.  You attempted to set up a binding vote to determine "a new starting point."  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A straw poll is an informal, non-binding means of gauging opinion(s).  That isn't what you set up.  Again, you specified a binding outcome (without even asking anyone, let alone waiting for agreement).  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-binding straw poll is exactly what I set up.  As the starting point for further discussion, it was totally non-binding.  Because everything would still be subject to consensus.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A straw poll, by definition, has little or no direct effect on the proceedings.  You attempted to set up a binding vote to determine "a new starting point."  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  You're actually lecturing me about unfair accusations.  Wow.  —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about time someone did.  --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What unfair accusations have I made?  (I've already cited yours.)  —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored copy of the Transhumanist's original response

message: (with indented replies)
I have to agree with both Davids that more discussion of design points is needed.  Here are my thoughts on specific design features:
* I agree that the headings should not be capitalized.  They're sublimated when in small case.
::This is a minor issue.  Either way is fine, but I prefer the capitalized headings (which are consistent with the style used throughout the site).  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't use the A–Z index.  I don't know what other people do, but I wouldn't object to its removal if it proves unpopular.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted by DavidHOzAu, that isn't what the toolbox is for.  The first box contains more than links to reference pages; its purpose is to direct readers to encyclopedic content.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be okay.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Under no circumstance should "Basic topics" and "Fields of study" (which I don't believe warrant inclusion) precede "Portals" and "Categories."  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm flexible on the order.  But I'm curious as to why you believe basic topics and fields of study should not be included on the side bar. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you believe that these pages deserve to be elevated to primary navigational status, you should create a separate proposal.  Instead, you're taking the shortcut of tying them into this project.  You're piggybacking.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! That's baloney. Every link we add to the sidebar is a promotion for that link, since they will have access from every page on Wikipedia.  We are trying to design the best sidebar we can, and since the sidebar is primarily links, this whole project is about link selection.  If certain links aren't worthy, then the reasons need to be discussed. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because we label each item according to its purpose, not its name.  Otherwise, we would have Main page link, Featured content link, et cetera.  Also, the term "search box" still fails to address the fact that "search" is only one of two functions.  "Find" covers both, and this is how the box is labeled in the Cologne Blue skin.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "toolbox"?  That's its name.  But if the search box is presented throughout wikipedia, and we change it to "find", won't it be the "find box" then?  Won't it get confusing if it remains "search box" throughout Wikipedia's instructions?  So if it is going to be changed, shouldn't we be discussing what to do about the ramifications it will cause so that those can be handled along with the change? --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Community portal" and "Contact us" links do not fall under the heading of "help."  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is some overlap.  But you're right, it's not a perfect fit. We should keep searching for a better name for this heading.  --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That isn't good, IMHO.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kidding about the "HELP ME!" :-)  It's a small issue, either Help or Wikipedia help work for me.  --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Please donate" comes across as desperate begging.  "Donate" is just a word.  —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it come across as desperate? But more to the point: would it raise more money? Would more people click on it?  --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what Special:Prefixindex is for. eg  --Quiddity 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions by the Transhumanist

message: navigation
* Main page
* Featured content
* Current events
* Basic topics
* Fields of study
* Portals
* Categories
* Random article
type=search
buttonlabel=Go
searchlabel=Search
labeltext=Search all  articles:
id=searchInput
searchbuttonlabel=Search
width=17
help
* Help contents
* Community portal
* Questions
* Contact us
* Please donate
toolbox
* [/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=&oldid= Cite this article]
* [/w/index.php?title=&oldid= Permanent link]
* [/w/index.php?title=&printable=yes Printable version]
* Related changes
* What links here
* Recent changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
DavidHOzAu, please show us what you have in mind for the toolbox and fill in the "anything" items above to the right.  Any order for the toolbox is fine by me.  Lines are fine too, whatever you have in mind.
--The Transhumanist 11:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed version

message: *I think removing the "Navigation" header is confusing. It means they have to guess its purpose from its contents, whereas the other boxes are explicitly defined. -- However, I think we should re-title it from "Navigation" to "Browse". Accurate and simple.
*The search box heading should be either "Search" or "Find". I'm still undecided.
*The help link: "Help" or "Help contents" makes a little more sense to me than "Wikipedia help"; But I'm still undecided.
*Everything else in Version 20 is in my opinion complete, and well-considered. --Quiddity 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Quiddity

message: My chief gripe with Version 23 was link order; other than tweaking it for that, it was perfect. --DavidHOzAu 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could update the project page version 23 with your tweaks; Transhumanist stated above that he is unconcerned about link order, and was in favour of removing-the-header/merging the search box, so I presumme will concur with those updates. --Quiddity 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from DavidHOzAu 

message: Transhumanist: The only point you've consistently advocated is the inclusion of Lists of basic topics. 
You've been working on the lists for a few weeks now, and have essentially created almost 50% of its subcontents. Whilst your method is interesting (search for web glossaries. combine. edit), it's not exactly a professional analysis of each subject. But by including the link in the sidebar, you (and we) would be implicitly stating that these pages are some of our best. I believe this is a serious conflict of interest; you lack impartiality, and should have disclosed your self-interest in this issue earlier.
: No, for a professional analysis, you would need to go in and read the material, and adjust the link content based on the way Wikipedia covers each subject.  I've done this for a few of the lists, but the rest will take time.  Gathering of topics is just an initial step to familiarize one with the subject and to test Wikipedia's coverage of the topic via redlinks.  A varied enough list of compiled terms gives a very good picture of what Wikipedia has on the subject.  Picking apart textbooks on the subject would also help, but Wikipedia has plenty of coverage on these subjects to be able to build a basic taxonomy.  As for inclusion of the links on the sidebar, this has always been contingent upon the pages being ready.  At the rate the redesign is going, I'm pretty sure that can be accomplished.  If they aren't ready when the sidebar is, then by all means, do not include the links.  The pages, when done, will easily be better than the categories for the same subjects.  But for a link to be included on the sidebar, that link would have to have consensus, and since that means complete agreement or close to it, it doesn't look likely to be achieved for these links regardless of how hard the link's supporters argue for them.  The key to consensus is no opposition, which is not the case for the links in question.
: As for impartiality, I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia, like everyone else here.  If the lists of basic topics are ready by the time the sidebar is, then inclusion of a link is an option.  I've been working hard on them to get them ready, whether they appear on the sidebar or not.  I support having a link, yes, but not in a mindless fashion.  --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But "this problem" isn't the one you mentioned in that message.  And as you said, it was a suggestion, not a command.  Good faith has nothing to do with whether or not I do your bidding.  I'm not as paranoid as you with respect to the vandalism potential of the content of the new lists.  It is a danger you perceive, not I.  If you are concerned about vandalism, you need to organize a forum on the matter, rather than pressure somebody else to do it.  --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "it's not exactly a professional analysis of each subject" - well, any contributions are welcome. --gatoatigrado 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And the categories aren't done any better, as far as I can tell.  Those lists which are fairly complete are much better than the categories for the same subjects.  Also, Quiddity, in case no one mentioned this to you, this is an amateur encyclopedia. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your suggestions seem much more like commands in view of this threat.  This is the same design "overhaul" which you have been involved with throughout much of the process.  I worked closely with you on that, and if you had a serious objection to the graphical changes, you should have made it much earlier.  The creation of sublists was not covered by that guideline, nor was the addition of list links to a list of lists page - placing links to new lists once they are created is standard operating procedure - and most of the changes I made were with links.  The guideline covers high-traffic pages.  But based on the edit histories, it isn't clear how high-traffic these pages are. And it's a guideline, not a mandate.  I didn't step on any toes, nor did I revert anyone in the process.  On the contrary, I invited you to participate.  But you are just getting political here, and nobody likes being ordered around, least of all me.  Suggestions that are enforced are not suggestions, but ultimatums.  This type of thing does not sit well with me, and will only invoke resistance. Therefore, I refuse to do your bidding on the vandalism research issue.  It was your idea, and a good one, but I believe you should have the initiative to follow through on it, rather than force me to do it. I created some lists of basic topics which you believe are in danger of being vandalized, and for which you believe measures should be taken to prevent such vandalism.  I revert vandalism where I encounter it, but I'm not interested in getting involved further in that aspect of Wikipedia's operations.  You should be happy I was willing to create some articles for Wikipedia.  An editor shouldn't be forced to contribute more than he is willing to contribute, and vandalism fighting isn't my thing.  Consider those pages my gift to Wikipedia.  If you think they are not worthy, then nominate them for deletion. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic topic lists

message: Some of the discussion is becoming a little bit heated. I think we should aim to wrap things up soon, if that is OK with everyone. I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for some minor points. I'd like to second Quiddity's proposal to go for a more stripped down version (I would support the "Version 20" linked above). Then we go about getting that version accepted by the wider community, and then people continue to work on the other pages that are in various states of readiness, and we can revisit this at a later date and consider asking for more links to be added to the sidebar (I know I've seen the links on the sidebar change without a huge discussion and endless debate!). Also, I think a carfeully written proposal explaining the reasons behind each and every change will help, as this was something that wasn't done for the Main Page redesign. Carcharoth 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good summation. (but i'm not volunteering to write the explanations ;) --Quiddity 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mutter mutter grumble.  Well, its done. If anyone cares to improve the eloquence of the rationale, you're welcome to. --Quiddity 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's wrap this up 

message: i've been gone for a bit, and it looks much nicer. another minor change. --gatoatigrado 05:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need another horizontal line? Those are so ugly. It doesn't actually add too much. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they organize items and impart structure to lists. (ask yourself why Word has a divider between Save and Print.) Besides, what's so ugly about a horizontal line? As you said, it doesn't add too much, and yet it just feels so... organized! ;-) --DavidHOzAu 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  how about using spaces instead of lines? --gatoatigrado 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very nice changes 

message: 1. I like the toolbox order of version 20 over version 23. Citing and Permalink are important to all readers, and therefore should be above related changes and what links here which are only important to editors.
2. I like "donating" of 23 more than "donate" of version 20. Donate sounds like an order or at least like any other site "feature", and not like a plea which it should sound like. Donating is much better, even if it breaks verb style of rest of links, because, well, it IS different from other links.
3. I'm equally balanced for v23 or v20 in terms more or less links in navigation box. The 2 items in stake are of average importance and arguments for inclusion are as balanced as arguments for exclusion IMO.
However, regardless of whether you accept my points or not as to why I like certain items, I want to ask why can't we discuss each part separately rather than being forced to accept a package deal where we may like some elements of one version and other elements of another version? Elvarg 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, of course.  The Transhumanist's attempt to force people to vote for a complete design was inappropriate.  Feel free to express your opinions regarding the individual elements.  —David Levy 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since I have lost count of the amount of times someone has said that the toolbox order in version 23 is borked, I'm going to change the order and call it version 24.  I will also add it as another version on the project page, like we used to do when development was faster.  Development of progressively-better versions has stalled for some time now, and if this were a software development team someone would've been shot by now.  We should start churning out more deliverables. --DavidHOzAu 09:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... it looks like my desire to move the project along got out of hand... ;-) --DavidHOzAu 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do I have to make a package choice 

message: I'll respond to some of the above discussions when I have more time, but I'd just like to point out that we've now had two users vote to support a design (per the Transhumanist's instructions) without explaining which elements they preferred (and why) or providing any useful input whatsoever.  Then another user, who preferred neither version in its entirety (and wished to comment upon the individual elements), was led to believe that he/she had no choice but to vote for one as a package deal (and expressed frustration with the situation).
Now, Transhumanist, do you see why this was a bad idea?  —David Levy 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See?!

message: :moved to sidebar programming talk; please don't move back. There is a note at the top of the page. --gatoatigrado 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy vs. Hard 

message: It is very nice to see a community discussing a sidebar. Now we even have version 23. I think we should come to a conclusion. I propose to make a choice per section between version 20 and 23 and forget all other versions:
I would suggest;
* Navigation: version 23, is more inclusive (the purpose was improving the navigation)
* Find or searche: are identical (except for title of section), neutral
* Interact of help: identical, but like donating (version 23) more.
* Toolbox: version 20: Citing and Permalink are important to all readers, and therefore should be above related changes and what links here which are only important to editors.
So please start voting. Electionworld Talk? 06:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's come to a conclusion !!! 

message: I give up and stop having input in this discussion. I am not optimistic about any result in a short time (seeing 7 versions of version 24), but hope it will result in a sidebar which includes the items under navigation in version 23. I will remove this page from my watchlist. If you want my opinion about this, please post it at my talk page. Electionworld Talk? 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but I felt engagement with the proposal and I want to participate. But the way the decision process is going now, makes me pessimistic, and that was the reason to post this message. It is not about me (since that is not important) but it is about the process. Your 7 new versions made this clear to me. Sorry. Electionworld Talk? 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I give up

message: I am sure that ten versions in just a week is setting a record somewhere.  With that in mind, now that we may (or may not) have the link ordering sorted out, I'd like to see if we can pin down the search/find/whateveritis box.  On the project page you will find several versions labelled 24.0.x, containing all the ideas we have had for search boxes to date.  I'd appreciate some input on what is up there.  What, in your opinion, is the best layout, and why? --DavidHOzAu 10:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's not setting a record. I like 24.0.1; thanks for reading my comment and adding it. line breaks with html instead of using hr might look better. --gatoatigrado 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the search box in the same pane as navigation. I condensed your versions, please don't revert it without justification. it is so much easier to read looking at only the differences. --gatoatigrado 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the az index was dead, but I don't care either way. let's come to a consensus on that. --gatoatigrado 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 24