Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote

message: I have two problems with the "information" label:
1. The first box directs readers to encyclopedic information.
2. Wikipedia:Contact us and Foundation:Fundraising provide information, but that isn't their primary purpose (from a reader's perspective).  In other words, these links are perceived more as gateways than as sources of "contact information" and "fundraising information."  —David Levy 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "browse" can apply to just about all of the links. Overall, I think you all have done a great job improving the groupings and functionality of the actual links, so I don't care all that much about the unlinked headers. Rfrisbietalk 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, the term "browse" is widely associated with the type of functionality provided by the first box.  (This is true not just on Wikipedia, but also in bookstores and public libraries.)  Until recently, we even had a page entitled Wikipedia:Browse (now a redirect to Wikipedia:Categorical index).  —David Levy 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "information" label"

message: In the four options (even in the orinal design) there has been made a change considering the link to Special pages comparing it with the present sidebar. It should go to Special:Special pages, but it is now to Wikipedia:Special pages. Please restore it to Special:Special pages. Electionworld Talk? 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. How very observant of you! :) JoeSmack Talk 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Special pages

message: I ask that no action be taken. I don't see that anyone has taken the needs of users of other skins into account. Will my sidebar even change? Or not? Or how? Do you know? As a Cologne Blue user -- from necessity -- this issue trumps all others. I do not like the current sidebar but I have learned to work with it. I have no interest in figuring out a new scheme that has been designed with no consideration for other users' needs. Sorry. I want to see more work on this project. John Reid 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MonoBook layout is merely an example.  It isn't feasible to create mockups of every skin's navigation setup until the basic idea is approved.  Rest assured that the necessary work would be done to offer comparable functionality across all of the skins.  —David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just had a quick look at skins via SVN, and I don't think a change to Monobook.php will affect CologneBlue.php --DavidHOzAu 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does Cologne blue even affect Monobook? Does it even have a sidebar? I don't know. Please put this in programming talk. I think the current plan is to create something backwards compatible with the current sidebar. I was thinking (as on that page) it could be possible to have a new sidebar variable, for sidebars parsed the new way (the current way won't allow the things we want to do), that would not eliminate the old sidebar, used on every other language Wikipedia. --gatoatigrado 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other skins

message: I'm severely disappointed that none of the proposals includes the A-Z index link. I saw it in many early proposals and was 
really looking forward to it. It's a very helpful navigation interface for users accustomed to paper encyclopedias. I didn't even know it exists, and I remember searching for something like it when I first came to Wikipedia! For this reason, I'm voting for the original, in the hope that another redesign would be initiated that would include the A-Z index. Trapolator 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For A-Z see our discussions at #A-Z / Prefixindex and at #Special:Prefixindex. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We aren't voting to determine a permanent configuration that shall be etched in stone and never altered again.  Any decision to add that link in the future could be made regardless of which design prevails in this poll.  (We needn't go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.)  A vote for the original design means that you don't like the changes, not that you want more changes.  In fact, you're opposing the creation of the box in which the "A–Z" link would be placed (thereby reducing the likelihood that it will be adopted in the future).  —David Levy 01:21/01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No A-Z? 

message: The link to Current Events should go to Portal:Current Events. --ais523 10:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: XNR to Current Events

message: I think that the work on the "toolbox" has been great.
How about if we only implement that change, and allow for further discussion of the rest?
I think that that has unanimous consent at this point.
And it has the added benefit of being less work for the developers. - jc37 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to programming talk to discuss that. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This was brought up earlier, and the version without the new "interact" box looked worse than the original. This is not a time critical operation. Please recruit a programmer, or if you are one, help. --gatoatigrado 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler proposal

message: Over at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Next_issue_(September_18) it looks like their fishing for someone to write a little article on this for the next Signpost coming out very very soon (11 hours). Anyone game? (I hate fish) JoeSmack Talk 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signpost

message: Is there such a thing as "Option 1-3"? Would combining the two most popular options help? I would go for...
*browse
*search
*information
*toolbox
Two verbs, two nouns, who could ask for anything more?! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, forming a coalition would give us the needed supermajority. --DavidHOzAu 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer this to all of the current choices. Any chance this could be added as another option? Thanks. —dto (talkcontribs) 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be best to let this poll run its course and then look at the results. To me it looks like it will come down to choosing either Browse or Navigation and then Interact or Information. So I think another poll will be in order offering two sets of choices. --Monotonehell 11:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like progress! :-) Rfrisbietalk 13:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1-3 

message: Someone offered an interesting suggestion here.  Please check it out, and offer your thoughts. I think it sounds good : ) - jc37 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Customise