Talk:Main Page/Layout design

message: ===Should we have a new Front Page NOW or leave current front page and visit the issue later?===
POLL: 
1: We want to design and introduce a new temp page now: 
* so it is ready before the press release goes out. Angela
* procrastination to an unknown future usually means it done later than it could've been. --Menchi
* no harm in designing one now, so it will be ready. -- Wapcaplet
* need a more inviting format for potential new users when the press release goes out. -- Bill
* New one for the new year, it has to be better than the current, just... -- Sverdrup 19:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New Straw poll (non-binding)

message: POLL: 
1: We want to design and introduce a new temp page now: 
* so it is ready before the press release goes out. Angela
* procrastination to an unknown future usually means it done later than it could've been. --Menchi
* no harm in designing one now, so it will be ready. -- Wapcaplet
* need a more inviting format for potential new users when the press release goes out. -- Bill
* New one for the new year, it has to be better than the current, just... -- Sverdrup 19:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we have a new Front Page NOW or leave current front page and visit the issue later?

message: Include:
* colour, less text, image(s), more explanations on anniversaries, dates etc links to secondary main page where people could get detailed info on what wiki is, how to use it, its detailed index, etc. FearÉIREANN 14:43, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: If a new front page at some stage, what should it include/exclude?

message: * Never
* Talk about what you like, when you like, but don't be a bore.
**Martin
**—Eloquence
**Ryan_Cable
* 1 month
* 2 months
**FearÉIREANN 14:43, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: If leave the front page as it is for now, when should the issue be revised?

message: Not sure quite how to vote.  I believe the main page could be improved and would like to see it change, and I support that.  My vote against Temp5 was simply because I did not see it as an improvement.  On the other hand, I do not feel any particular urgency to update the main page, and do not believe that the timing relative to the press release is important.  Generally, I consider it unlikely that the press release will have the degree of impact that is ascribed to it by some Wikipedians.  As a means of proceeding, I would suggest that a decision first be made on what to include, what to remove (Temp5 was too cluttered); design can follow.  Kat 22:18, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I called the vote, as all the votes we have called have been badly worded and negative, what do we want 'x' temp or not? This time it is a positive vote: keep the main page or change it, if change, indicate when, what should go in it and what should be left out. Martin may be happy producing temps every week or two but most of us are bored silly having to constantly vote on them. This way, clear decisions can be taken with a clear outcome, with a design based what people want, not the latest design designed by a small clique and presented as a fait accomplait. FearÉIREANN 22:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: how to vote

message: Votes and comments have been archived at Main Page/Temp5/Votes archive.
There are currently 17 votes for and 28 against. So basically rejected, but you can still express your opinion there if you want.
A summary of the comments follows. This does not include comments which would not help in future redesigns such as "it's better" or "It's abominable". You can add to these if you like.
Temp5's been modified a little since then - these comments apply to older versions.
===Good things===
* It's got a picture (4 positive comments made about this)
* a lot more informative
* the explanations are more human.
* its catchy "Featured Articles" section is likely to appeal much better to a wider audience
* the proposed new format more inviting
* it goes farther than the current main page to make Wikipedia attractive to end-users
===Bad things===
* stuffed/ confusing/ too much detail/ cluttered (12 comments)
* uses tables for layout
* The current main page is much easier to navigate (2 comments)
* uglier and wider
* seems like high maintenance
* the featured articles all blend together
* Too many line breaks in the wrong places on account of the narrow columns
* accomplishes little more than the current design
* the "Featured articles" is very unsightly and difficult to survey. The same goes for "Browse Wikipedia".
* The new one gives more importance to news rather than the encyclopedia- looks like a news website
* not a user-friendly welcoming space
* oversized headers
===Suggestions===
* The current main page needs a larger "welcome newcomers" heading like what 
* The ideal frontpage design would write "Don't Panic" in big, friendly letters. 
* This is an encyclopedia, not a portal, so a list of articles and topics is all that is necessary.  
* we should have a search box visible in the page not above it, to encourage searches
===Timing===
* We should have a layout contest for the Main Page after we are done with with the logo contest. But not too soon afterward - we don't want to overtax the creative among us. --mav
* Let's wait on this.  Paullusmagnus
* echo mav; I would like more options before I put my vote on any. kt2 04:56, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Main Page/Temp5|Temp5]] replace the current [[main page]]? 

message: * We should have a layout contest for the Main Page after we are done with with the logo contest. But not too soon afterward - we don't want to overtax the creative among us. --mav
* Let's wait on this.  Paullusmagnus
* echo mav; I would like more options before I put my vote on any. kt2 04:56, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing

message: move to Talk:Main Page/Temp5
=== "Other languages" section ===
The "Other languages" section is real ugly. I suggest using a colspan 2 cell at the bottom for all the languages and sister projects. Even then I would put smal tags around all of it and give the cell a light gray background. --mav 02:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't look right with colspan 2 as it was then too far down the page (and it got lost in an edit conflict anyway). The current version has the small tags and grey as suggested which I think is an improvement. Angela 21:13, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Small colspan 4 looks good. I put that there. LDan 01:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: That's not colspan 4, that's 4 columns. It is now double-small as the whole thing already had small tags. Vicki and I have both commented on Talk:Main_Page/Temp5 that it is now too small. Please can you explain why you did this (preferably on the temp 5 talk page rather than here). Thanks. Angela 01:28, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I wish I could say yes, but the vote only started on August 4th. I'd say wait a week. Angela 18:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: There should be notice on the main page, or a message to each wikipedian.  How could such an important change be decided by just handful of people? wshun 18:07, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: It is now listed on the recent changes page and on the village pump. Can someone decide what the cut-off date should be and advertise on the English mailing list. Thanks. Angela 22:30, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The "Other languages" section is real ugly. I suggest using a colspan 2 cell at the bottom for all the languages and sister projects. Even then I would put smal tags around all of it and give the cell a light gray background. --mav 02:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't look right with colspan 2 as it was then too far down the page (and it got lost in an edit conflict anyway). The current version has the small tags and grey as suggested which I think is an improvement. Angela 21:13, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Small colspan 4 looks good. I put that there. LDan 01:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: That's not colspan 4, that's 4 columns. It is now double-small as the whole thing already had small tags. Vicki and I have both commented on Talk:Main_Page/Temp5 that it is now too small. Please can you explain why you did this (preferably on the temp 5 talk page rather than here). Thanks. Angela 01:28, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other languages" section 

message: We should have the main page layout decided by when the Wikimedia press release gets out. It looks like the majority of people voted for the new design (7 to 3), so can I please impliment it?
:I wish I could say yes, but the vote only started on August 4th. I'd say wait a week. Angela 18:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be notice on the main page, or a message to each wikipedian.  How could such an important change be decided by just handful of people? wshun 18:07, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: It is now listed on the recent changes page and on the village pump. Can someone decide what the cut-off date should be and advertise on the English mailing list. Thanks. Angela 22:30, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to implement 

message: Let me list my concerns with this vote, and apologies for the length. First, fixed concerns:
# The original wording talked of the vote being a "final decision". Fixed by moving Jtdirl's introductory text out of line
# First question: I didn't like either of the two options here. Fixed by adding additional options.
# Second question: good question, and I will be interested to see the results, but I don't think it's obvious how the votes would be tallied, so it should be, as it is now, an opinion poll, not a vote.
However, I still have some outstanding concerns:
# Voter fatigue: we just had an opinion poll on this subject, which was heavily promoted - and quite rightly, in my view. I feel that we should wait at least a month before starting a new vote. Alternatively, we could set a long polling time (eg, two months) for the vote, and advertise it again a week before close.
# First question: I wonder if this procedural vote is really necessary - I would have preferred to see more discussion of the relative merits of a competition, an evolutionary-style approach, doing nothing, or a committee-like approach, as we've not had much of a discussion on how to go forward.
# First question: the wording of the first option is not ideal: do we mean "temp page" or "front page"? Also, the wording suggests that we're committing ourselves to introducing the new page. I also dislike the "we want to design", since most people don't personally want to spend time designing. It's too late to fix this, probably, but I welcome attempts to try.
# First question: the wording of the second option is unclear: does it refer to changing the layout of the main page, or does it refer to "revising" the issue, as implied in the third question? Further "for now" is misleading: it should be "for some period of time, as determined by the third question".
# First question: no indication of whether this is first past the post or approval. Not Jtdirl's fault, because his proposal had only two options, so it didn't matter when he started the vote, but it is now a problem.
# Second and third questions: conditional on the first one - it would be better to do them seperately. IE, take the first vote, wait for the results, and THEN take the second or third, depending. This could be fixed by temporarilly archiving them until the first vote is concluded.
# Second question: it's all very well to say "we need X, Y, and Z" - but until you see some designs based on that you can't really tell whether X, Y, and Z will be too cluttered, or too sparse, or simply won't fit well together.
# Third question: unclear - is this a vote on how long before changing the layout, or how long before discussing the issue at all? Will I be "allowed" to faff around with toy layouts in the interim? To discuss it with like-minded folks?
# Third question: I gather that this doesn't apply if people don't support the "leave for now" option, but certain of Jtdirl's comments seem a little at odds with that, so 
# Third question: tallying problems - is this approval, first past the post, or a median voting situation?
# Missed question: the statistical question from archive 2 should be revived, along with the old replies: asking why you use the front page for, and whether it's bookmarked, etc. But not until question 1 is decided, of course.
# Missed question: it would be good to ask people to look at the front pages of some of our competitors, and say which they find the most appropriate for Wikipedia, in terms of style, colour, etc. Again, not until question 1 is decided
I don't see that any of these concerns are insurmountable, so if we work together to address them, along with any others that may be raised, then we might end up with the community-setup vote that Mav seeks. Martin 21:58, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin's concerns