Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 06

message: To me it seems obvious to put all links refering to the current page in their own box. – See final decisions
this page
* [ Cite this article]
* [ Permanent link]
* [ Printable version]
* Related changes
* What links here
special pages toolbox
* Recent changes
* Special pages
* Upload file
--83.253.36.136 13:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would make that part of the sidebar look more organised. Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a bad idea, (in fact, I think it is quite good,) but isn't the hierarchy a bit weird? "Special pages/Special pages" is just a restatement of the title.  I'd suggest some else, such as the historical "toolbox" as the second title. --DavidHOzAu 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, rss and atom aren't really pages, so toolbox probably is better anyway, if someone can't come up with something better. --83.253.36.136 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is what I am proposing (this page, not "this article"). The separation with the horizontal divider is an improvement, but I think it is important to really point out the existance of a bunch of page-specific tools, and to make it clear which tools are not page-specific. --83.253.36.136 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I suggest adding a section to the "final, final things to decide" section below, as that is where the changes implemented will be decided. Carcharoth 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really really final decisions/Page-specific toolbox links in separate box
Are there any implementation problems? For example: Are there any instances when the "this page" box would be empty? --83.253.36.136 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, all the Special:Specialpages just have 2 links in the toolbox. --Quiddity 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Smacks my face) – Could the "this page" box be made to disappear in those cases? --83.253.36.136 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. "What links here" could conceivably be useful for Specialpages. Wonder why it is not enabled?  I can guess why "Recentchanges" is not enabled, as the Specialpages are not editable (they are dynamically generated I believe, though there will be some editable something somewhere, but this is getting deep into the technical side of MediaWiki). Actually, I just tried a little experiment. This link would give everything that links to Prefixindex, except that it doesn't. So obviously "What links here" doesn't work for Special Pages, and hence this link is not provided in the sidebar. But does anyone know where the "code" for the Special Pages is kept? Carcharoth 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "this page" 

message: *Help
** simplest, others are unnecessarily wordy. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed opinion to Help contents. --83.253.36.136 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but "(Wikipedia) Help (contents)" is a link for n00bs/editors instead of your average surfer, and should be in the box devoted to similar pages. I think by now we've worked out where it goes; this section is actually about what name to pick. --DavidHOzAu 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that only "n00bs" need to use the help pages. Sometimes even experianced editors need help doing something they haven't done before or don't know much about. Lcarsdata (Talk) 09:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree too, because audience wasn't my point, it was just to get it in context.  My point was that items that don't navigate but help you contribute aren't navigation items -- they are help items. --DavidHOzAu 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording of "help" link

message: *Whether to include the Questions link, or not. (See also /Archive 02#Comments on version 14)
**weak Oppose. I'm still not sure about this link. Both the link wording, which is almost always piped in usage as Where to ask questions; and it's easily confusable with Contact us. (Those pages ought to refer to each other, but I can't figure out concisely how). --Quiddity 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions link

message: *Whether to include Special:Prefixindex in the navigation box or not.
**Strongly support. It is an easy but rather unknown feature that can help to easily find articles. It is similar to a list of content. The link could be names A-Z. Electionworld Talk? 08:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow! Quick, everyone look at Quiddity. This integration of Special:Prefixindex into the search results is the best idea I've seen in a long time! :-) Carcharoth 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more Wow!! Is it possible? Electionworld Talk? 13:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Special:Prefixindex

message: Like this:
this page
* [ Cite this article]
* [ Permanent link]
* [ Printable version]
* Related changes
* What links here
tools
* Recent changes
* Special pages
* Upload file
(See comments above.) --83.253.36.136 14:12, 3 September 2006
*An advantage: no more horizontal line. Horizontal lines are very ugly, I'd say. A disadvantage: there'd be a huge amount of boxes (5) in the sidebar. I think that it isn't worth it; let's just keep the horizontal line. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I think it would be less programming, but anyway. Hopefully the whole thing can get redesigned. --gatoatigrado 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page-specific toolbox links in separate box

message: Today's sidebar stays at the top of the page. With long pages, it should smoothly slide down :
* Is it easy : plenty of sites offer that feature ?
* Is it possible in the same redesign ? (the logo could stay at the top). Thank you. -- DLL   .. T 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your advices. I personally think that help pages are somewhat contorted (?), but it is really better to deliver a simple, non costly toolbar AND to let people find out where those side tricks are hidden. -- DLL   .. T 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it's not too late : slidin' sidebar 

message: I came here to learn just what will be happening to Recent changes; now that I see that it survives, might I ask that the interact piece of the sidebar act like a #interact link? That way the page could move "up" when someone clicks interact, and I could then see Recent changes without scrolling. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a potential problem indeed. Perhaps we should consider moving Recent changes up into the "interact" box? My 2 arguments for: 1) its a useful link to promote understanding of how Wikipedia works, and to promote vandalfighting. 2) its the only link in the redesign that is moving into the toolbox, where some people might not think to look (especially as it's so low down now). My argument against: That'd put "What links here" below-the-fold for me at 1024x768 (actually it fits) --Quiddity 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So make your font smaller! ;) --DavidHOzAu 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesnt help anyone running 800x600, or even anyone running 1024x768 with an extra browser GUI toolbar or 2. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  pin it to your toolbar...this isn't a critical discussion. --gatoatigrado 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I don't care if it gets accepted or not; I like the current version just fine with or without this change.  However, this change does make it seem like "Special pages" should be moved up to the interaction box with it too... I'm not sure about "Upload file". However, if that goes, there very little reason to put a rule there, because separating the box in two seems too much with just one or two items in the second half. My official opinion is that while there is nothing wrong with this change, taking it to its logical extension is going too far. --DavidHOzAu 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: sounds good to me, lets not drag this out any more than necessary. JoeSmack Talk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quiddity, thank you for the Recent changes above the fold. --Ancheta Wis 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move that thread to just above. It's still only a suggestion, until more people agree. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think anything that needs to change or any other change that could possibly be discussed. However, if it is not too much work, I think we will need a more comprehensive list of Reasons behind the changes (linking to the corresponding discussions where decisions were made) so that people don't object for the wrong reasons. --DavidHOzAu 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll be away for a bit soon, so good luck (though I fully expect to see the discussion still dragging out when I get back!) :-) Carcharoth 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone would like to help write a more comprehensive list of "Reasons behind the changes", I'd be most grateful. I'm spread kinda thin right now too... --Quiddity 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: interact or recent changes

message: It's too quiet, so I thought I'd be bold and update with potential improvements. 
There seems to be a bit of consensus for linking help as Help contents. It's the page's title, so makes logical sense; and it keeps the keyword at the beginning, so is good usability-wise.
With the "interact" box there seems to be no agreement at all. But Fredrik Johansson's suggestion above, that 'interaction' would make a better match with 'navigation' made sense, so I updated accordingly.
As for a final wrapup, can I impose an arbitrary "1-week from now" (Sept. 12) deadline for committing to a draft to present to the wider community? --Quiddity 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good to me, lets not drag this out any more than necessary. JoeSmack Talk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quiddity, thank you for the Recent changes above the fold. --Ancheta Wis 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move that thread to just above. It's still only a suggestion, until more people agree. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think anything that needs to change or any other change that could possibly be discussed. However, if it is not too much work, I think we will need a more comprehensive list of Reasons behind the changes (linking to the corresponding discussions where decisions were made) so that people don't object for the wrong reasons. --DavidHOzAu 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll be away for a bit soon, so good luck (though I fully expect to see the discussion still dragging out when I get back!) :-) Carcharoth 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone would like to help write a more comprehensive list of "Reasons behind the changes", I'd be most grateful. I'm spread kinda thin right now too... --Quiddity 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interaction and help contents update