Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/bug fixing session archive

message: Further to my comment above about how the header links divide nicely left/right between information links and browse links, I would like to suggest that if the search box gets dropped, that the two links "Categories" and "Index" get moved across to replace it. Thus the left-hand side of the screen would be the Tagline and Subtitle (two information links), with three further information links below it (Tutorial, Questions, Help), and the right-hand side of the screen becomes the portal links, with two (or three, depending on where the Portal:Browse link ends up) links below it (Categories and A-Z). In fact, I like these layouts so much, I'm going to add them to the page's edit history. I'll add links here to the three layouts I have in mind. Carcharoth 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, but the search box is nice to have. I'll agree that the links do seem to be of two types. I f you, say, have them on different lines, but aligned left, and keep the search box...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, but I wouldn't know how to turn that single line into two lines... Carcharoth 13:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I attempted (unsuccessfully, due to my poor coding) in the first place.  It doesn't take up any additional vertical space, and it enables the insertion of additional links, so let's give it a try.  —David Levy 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I really like what is up there at the time of this post: . It should make everyone happy.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative layout if search box gets dropped 

message: I'm not a fan of the redundant search box, and I believe that its removal would boost the draft's likelihood of succeeding in the election.  —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the search box. I do not like the spacing of the first one, so together that eliminates all of them. I really like  though: seperation of links, a good ammount of them, Portals, AND the search box.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or are we going back to multiple drafts?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These "drafts" serve as means of illustrating potential changes without edit warring with one another.  —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, alright, it's just after working so hard to unify all the drafts I want to be careful not to go down that road again.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Thank you, Cherry blossom tree!  I completely overlooked this page's existence (which illustrates the importance of the link), and this is the sort of thing that I intended to set up at Wikipedia:Featured content.  I'd planned to spend hours working on this today, and I'm glad that I didn't waste the time and effort.  —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Featured content]]

message: I've reverted Go for it!'s reinsertion of his favored portal link (with the misleading edit summary "efficiency").  Portal:Philosophy is good, but there is no consensus regarding which new portal links should be added.  That will have to wait for a future discussion (which should immediately follow the main page redesign project), at which point I fully intend to support the inclusion of this portal link.
Also, we can't refer to the quick index simply as "index," because the categories and portals are indexes too.  This is a specific type of index—an alphabetical one.  "A–Z index" works, and "A–Z" is the term used on the current main page.  —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was changed once without discussion and rv'd because it made such a mess of things.  hydnjo talk 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that he's referring to the shift from "Culture" to "Art" on the actual main page.  This isn't something that I would have taken it upon myself to do, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone were to revert it.  That doesn't mean, however, that I need to "step in."  If no one minds the change, so be it.  My primary concern is that our list remain in lockstep with the real thing.  Otherwise, we risk turning this into a portal list vote.  —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions III

message: Such a big fuss was made over the search box during this past round, that it seems absolutely ridiculous to pull it at the last minute.  Someone has the wedding jitters.  If you want some really sound advice, provide a draft with as many bells and whistles as we can provide, and if it is overkill, then specific features can be pulled out later.  The draft is just too good not to win against the current main page - the draft in its myriad of configurations got overwhelming support from those who took a look.  The Main Page got hardly any votes at all.  And it's not like this draft will be completely untouchable once it becomes the official main page - I predict a firestorm of tweaking once it takes center stage.  So we should put our best foot forward, give it everything we've got, rather than be timid and afraid of losing the "election", or of setting irreversible precedents, when in fact the main page doesn't have a snowball's chance in...--Go for it!
Besides, strict voting doesn't count on Wikipedia.  It is possible that some unpredictable consensus will come out of the upcoming "election", for if enough people state they want something specific, we really won't have much choice but to give it to them.  --Go for it!
It wouldn't hurt anything to provide expanded portals and the search box.  Those were 2 of the main developments of the main page draft design project, and now they're both being tossed out the window.  --Go for it!
:Our draft has been openly mocked because of the redundant search box.  Do you realize that?
:Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink is not the way to win approval.  You say that "specific features can be pulled out later," but they can be added later too.  Asking the community to approve X/Y/Z as a package deal, when Y and Z are controversial, is patently illogical.  If Y and Z are backed by consensus, they don't need to ride X's coattails.  This isn't about "setting irreversible precedents"; it's about forcing people to either accept elements that they don't want or stick with the status quo.  And I believe that you might be in for a rude awakening when you see which choice they go with.  —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to ask, where and who "openly mocked" the draft? I looked around, I saw some comments back and forth but nothing as drastic you portray here. Am I missing something? Renata 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails#Main page redesign.  I defended the project, of course.  —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that one man's opinion. And now you have one woman's opinion that search box in the header is the best thing this redesign came up with. Renata 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many opinions, both negative and positive, have been expressed.  At most, roughly half of the respondents support the inclusion of the search box (and I'm not even certain of that).  —David Levy 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tossing away all these developments makes no sense

message: Now there's a sysadmin who has the right idea.  He just went in and changed the Main Page.  We should be following his example.  That's the fastest way to find out what people want.  If the draft dies in the election, you could be sure we'd have another one ready the following week, and another the week after that, until it wins.  So why be afraid?  Some people are so afraid that consensus hasn't been built, that it has slowed this project to a crawl.  The help page took 4 days to overhaul.  The community portal took 3.  And there was a heckuva lot more material on both of those.  --Go for it! 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you fault people for wishing to exclude unpopular/controversial elements?!  —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't fault him, or anyone.  You are reading way to much into this.  I gave him kudos.  Acclamation.  Applause.  And overall, I give this project kudos, acclamation, applause.  But we could do better.  And why not?  There's no reason to hold back.  Wikipedia is not breakable.  Anything we do can be fixed, so why not go forward full steam ahead.  Why be afraid to be creative?  Why fear not being accepted?  Why not just provide the best design we can without worrying it to death?  The users will tell us what they want.  --Go for it! 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood my question.  Why are you faulting us for being selective?!  Providing the "best design" means honoring consensus—not including everything that you like.  —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't fault you, I simply do not agree with your conservative approach.  I don't think this makes you a bad person, it just slows things down.  Way down.  And for the record, I personally don't care for the search box, and opposed it when it was first suggested for the front page (it is already on the front page and every other page, so why include it again?).  But a large percentage of users like it, and I don't see why we shouldn't ask the others to be nice and let them have it, rather than pitting everyone against each other in a support/oppose poll.  Why not ask, "are you feeling generous toward your fellow Wikipedian's today?  Can they have their beloved search box on the front page please?"  If enough people agreed, wouldn't that also move us toward consensus?  --Go for it! 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You believe that we should simply set aside our opinion that the search box's addition would be detrimental?  We should endorse its inclusion..."to be nice"?  —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos to DavidLevinson

message: I humbly suggest you go back and read the input for Rounds 2 to 5.  You'll get a real feel for the project then.  It was mostly negative until Round 6, when things really took off.  It actually started to feel like we were doing something right, and then fear set in.  But there's nothing major at stake, so the conservative approach is just silly.  The worst thing that could happen is Round 7 (though further rounds are inevitable anyways, whether under this project or a future one).  --Go for it! 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "silly" to exclude elements that are controversial or widely disliked?  —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is for the most part moot.  Now we need to put our differences aside and beta-test the heck out of the final draft (and perhaps the search box version too, in case consensus sways that way).  We have barely a week to find and fix as many glitches as we can.  --Go for it! 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we aren't ready by March 1, we'll just have to postpone the election.  It's far more important to get this right than to get it done (poorly) by an arbitrary date.   —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Letter to David Levy 

message: Again, I suggest a straw poll between now and the official vote, to gauge opinion on this specific matter.  We can mention the straw poll when we put up the advanced notice of the official vote.  I have gone ahead and set this up at Search box poll. 
As with Requests for adminship, minimum of 70% support for the search box is needed for us to include it.  
Please do not edit either draft version, as both need to be identical in every respect, except for inclusion of the search box.  If there is something specific that, with consensus, needs changing on both, please ask me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put notice of the straw poll, at the top of this page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few minutes, I will also archive this talk page, as this open editing session has ended. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Active discussions should not be archived.  I attempted to tell you this in advance, but you beat me by a minute.  —David Levy 07:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about archiving everything above #Alternative layout if search box gets dropped?  It seems that all other issues have reached consensus. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other outstanding issue is #Find / Search box, so we should keep that here. --Aude (talk | contribs) 07:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've archived the discussions accordingly.  :-)  —David Levy 07:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Thanks for correcting me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: For the newcomers (instead of an extra search box):
  hydnjo talk 22:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What wording could we use?  The search box's location varies from skin to skin, so we can't direct their attention to the left (or any specific location).  —David Levy 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, a new user would be using the default skin; but this is still unnecessary if we visually highlight the default search box. --Quiddity 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that a newcomer initially will see the MonoBook layout (unless he/she is using an account set up by someone else), but we can't include text that conveys a false statement to some users (even non-newbies).  Also, I imagine that it's fairly common for people to browse Wikipedia without first logging out of accounts belonging to other residents of their homes (roommates, spouses, parents, siblings, et cetera).  —David Levy 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've left some hint at WP:VP/T (specifically Massive Error Slight Mistake) about our (ok - my) concern as to the obscurity of our search box. I don't expect anything to come from this other than my own personal gratification at not leaving it unsaid. hydnjo talk 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that thing takes up moe space than the additional search box itself! How about a link up there below the header that links to this page. That is, if it doesn't wrap at 600 x 800.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good so long as there is language that the same capability is available on every page.  hydnjo talk 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would take up too much space.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you need some language in the link. I was just thinking that we could be clever about it so that the user is not left with the wrong impression.  hydnjo talk 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait for the poll results.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, just letting my fingers do my thinking.  ;-)  hydnjo talk 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A search box navigational aid

message: The Wikipedia:PODT_column_archive is misspelled? It should be POTD, not PODT. However its "subpages" are correctly named (eg Wikipedia:POTD column/January 23, 2006.
:It has also run out of images, which is a lot more worrisome.. --Quiddity 03:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old days don't matter. Just have future days ready.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As HTH said, the old days don't matter (so I didn't bother saving all of them).  —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While they "don't matter", does anyone mind if at some point I do go back and generate 'POTD row' formats for all of the old images? The Featured content portal currently updates every 60 second and cycles through a randomized list of the 480 'Picture of the day' format images from 11/01/2004 to 02/23/2006. However, there are additional images starting in May 2004 which are not currently set up with their own pages. The 'POTD row' format can be displayed better on the portal page, but doesn't have the archive of old images built up. Thus it might be worthwhile to put everything in 'POTD row' format so that portal has a full 'library' of past (and future) pictures to rotate through. --CBDunkerson 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  You can use  to help set-up "POTD row" pages, with the consistent formatting. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my departm,ent. Get it to work, that's all that matters.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD archive? 

message: Solipsist seems to be single-handedly running the Pic of the day department.  This means we need to work with him to determine how the new Main Page will be supported.  And since the Main Page alternates also rely on the pic of the day, we might as well cover those at the same time.So I've sent a message to Solipsist to open discussions about the future of Pic of the day department and how to best support the pic's various applications.In order that the discussion does not take place in a vacuum, I'm letting everybody know so that you can monitor and/or join in.  Perhaps you will think of something that escapes us.--Go for it! 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should delegate the task to Solipist. We're just here to make the page work on the high level, we're not POTD experts.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Solipsist wants to handle it, that's fine by me.  Likewise, if Solipsist desires assistance, I'd be happy to help out.  This really isn't a major issue, as it takes roughly two minutes to convert one of the standard picture listings (from the main archive) over to the format that we're using.  —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sent a query to [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] re: Pic of the day 

message: Please restore the versions of the draft reached by consensus (but make sure that the pic is called by the template "POTD row"), and protect the drafts.  Thank you.
:The drafts for demonstration have "Welcome to Wikipedia!" while the one on the main project page has "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think the exclamation looks silly and unprofessional, and the link is a must. Just make sure this doesn't get lost in translation.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should lock the drafts for the vote, but as we correct any problems, I think it should be unprotected so we can fix them. Also, when you said the drafts—those two were meant only as demonstration, and will not be part of the election. However, lock them if you have to for the straw poll, but keep the main one open.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of locking the drafts being used in the straw poll, why not just link to the correct version. Actually, on second thoughts, the problem with that is that someone can still try and edit that version, ignore the warning notice that they are editing an out-of-date version, and lose all changes made since that version. Locking is definitely better while the vote is in progress. Carcharoth 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Quiddity. After you do that, lock the straw poll pages while refining the main project page (the one you can get to by hitting "project page" above).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Open-editing session is over - will a sysop please protect the drafts''' 

message: To standardize with the other POTD subprojects, and for use in potential Main Page alternates (and on userpages, etc.), I've moved the code for the pic to a template, and have transcluded the template into the draft.  Now POTD row and POTD column have the same file structure (template, prestocking/archiving page, pic subpages).  --Go for it! 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have setup  which we can used to generate Wikipedia:POTD row each day.  This is similar to the generate templates currently used to setup Wikipedia:POTD, Wikipedia:Picture of the day, and Wikipedia:Today's second feature.  With this generate template, I also added the title for the POTD, which is used in the Condensed version.  Though, the title can be removed. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks useful.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templatized POTD row 

message: This project has been mentioned in the latest Signpost issue here. Carcharoth 12:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost article 

message: His RfA can be seen here.  As he is a participant on this project, I thought you might want to know.  --Go for it! 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI: [[User:Drumguy8800|Drumguy8800]] has requested adminship

message: I didn't know there was a vote on to change Template:MainPageIntro!! I would have voted for keeping the opening paragraph the way it was! It was/is distinctively Wikipedian. Like the logo. This bigger, bolder text looks like a little kid wrote it in HTML class. --Nerd42 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus favors this. Don't worry; this draft still has to pass a final vote starting March 1st.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O I C. Well, I have no issues with any other change ... it's just that people become farmiliar with the flag (as they define it in the newspaper buisiness) --Nerd42 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nooo!!! 

message: 999,999 articles in englishor 999,999 articles about life, the universe, and everything!  Which reminds me of some Wikitrivia...Did you know...
...that the Italian Wikipedia has "Don't Panic" (in italian) as a permanent element on their Main Page?--Go for it! 15:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore article statistic? (and some trivia...) 

message: How do you made the background images in the fisrt bar? Please don't redirect me for other pages, explain this question here. Regards. -- Slade T 17:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: answered on talk page. --Quiddity 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Now that the "Donations" link has made a reappearance, can I suggest that an earlier change be restored? I made the earlier change from the current link of Wikimedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods to Wikimedia:Fundraising (the link used in the appeal to those without an account), on the basis that people randomly clicking on this link will want to read something first about why they are being asked to donate, rather than just a rather rude, IMO, how to donate. It just seems rather presumptuous to me. The text on that Wikimedia fundraising page is arranged that way for a reason, and linking to the donation methods section shortcircuits the layout of that page, designed to lead people through the process. The same argument applies to the "Donations" link currently in place in the Wikipedia boilerplate navigation pane (at left in default view), but I don't know how to change this - I would greatly appreciate it if someone could bring up this line of argument in the correct place to try and get that link improved as well as this one on the Main Page.
The other point is that, in a similar argument to the ones about the search box appearing twice, and the "free encyclopedia" text appearing many times on a web browser's display, I fear that the "Donations" link is appearing too many times. For those who are not logged in (ie. most readers), a donation link appears in the navigation pane, on the Main Page browse bar, AND in the "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" link that displays for unlogged in users only. This is overkill, IMO, and gives an impression of desperately needing money (even if this is true, giving that impression might not be the best strategy). Carcharoth 12:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Kill the link all together, and reduce text wrap while you're at it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the "Donations" link 

message: ...to the Encyclopedia Galactica. --Go for it!
:Well, it could happen...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's beyond the scope of this project.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we should rename Wikipedia... 

message: This section is for listing any concerns regarding the current revision.  If an issue is resolved, strike it or remove it from the list.  For technical problems, don't forget to note the affected browser(s) and operating system(s).  If a bug does not affect all browsers/operating systems, it would be helpful to include a screen capture. 
===Technical concerns===
*Is this possible: Sidebar search-box highlighted on the main page, but normal colour on the rest.? --Quiddity
** I don't think so.  Changes to monobook.css apply across all pages, as each page uses the same monobook.php template.  Maybe there's something more that developers can do, though.  You can always ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where I've seen the developers respond to questions. My honest opinion is that we should treat the search bar the same everywhere.  I'd say 60%+ of traffic to Wikipedia comes in through Google to some page other than the main page.  Thus, it wouldn't be a bad idea to highlight the search bar everywhere, or give it a different border color. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current concerns 

message: *Is this possible: Sidebar search-box highlighted on the main page, but normal colour on the rest.? --Quiddity
** I don't think so.  Changes to monobook.css apply across all pages, as each page uses the same monobook.php template.  Maybe there's something more that developers can do, though.  You can always ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where I've seen the developers respond to questions. My honest opinion is that we should treat the search bar the same everywhere.  I'd say 60%+ of traffic to Wikipedia comes in through Google to some page other than the main page.  Thus, it wouldn't be a bad idea to highlight the search bar everywhere, or give it a different border color. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical concerns

message: *find / search box
** The negative vertical spacing on the label (from MediaWiki:Common.css - #bodySearchMP label { display: block; font-size: 95%; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: -.2em; }) worries me. This is under Firefox 1.5 using Monobook. Alphax τεχ 13:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style concerns

message: * Change the title of the search box from "search" to "find". (because it is confusing for the title to be the same as the secondary search function ("go" being the primary))
:support strongly --Quiddity
:Makes sense.  I support.  --Go for it! 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I don't think it's feasible.  The software draws the name for both from MediaWiki:Search.  If we were to request a change to the software on Bugzilla, the change would impact all other language Wikipedias, and other projects (e.g. Wikinews, ...).  However, changes like border or background color can be implemented with changes to monobook. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean regarding wikis in other languages.  "Search" is an English word, and each language already uses its own equivalent.  Furthermore, the English language version of the Cologne Blue skin already uses the "find" designation.  It makes considerably more sense, so why shouldn't all of the other skins incorporate a consistent label?  —David Levy 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this might be a little complicated to explain, but I'll try... With monobook.php, all wikis use the same term ($variable) for the search box label and button.  This variable is drawn from MediaWiki:Search.  In English, we have set this to "search", while in French, they set it to "Rechercher", etc. To make "search" above the box, different from "search" in the button, would require an adding a new variable to MediaWiki software, such as MediaWiki:Searchtitle.  The developers would then have to modify the monobook.php file and tell it to use $searchtitle for the title of the search box.  Then, we would have to go into MediaWiki:Searchtitle and set it to "find".  But, all the other language Wikipedia's would also have to set MediaWiki:Searchtitle to whatever it should be in their language.  Though, maybe there is a way for the developers to do this automatically.  As for CologneBlue, the CologneBlue.php file hard-codes the term "Find" and "Search" into the skin, rather than using the variable from MediaWiki:Search.  I hope this explanation is clear.  I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you're suggesting, but this change is a bit more involved than modifying a .css file. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for providing such a thorough explanation.  I now understand what you mean, but it seems to me that this could easily be handled by automatically assigning MediaWiki:Search's value to the new variable by default (which I believe you alluded to).  Of course, I'm not a developer, but I think that this is worth looking into.  —David Levy 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change box title from "search" to "find"

message: Starting at the beginning of the nineteenth, we enter a period between this open editing session and the final vote that is basically a chance to find bugs with the program, get everything operational, and test with different resolutions/browsers/OSs. As taken Go for it!'s talk page, GFI! says:
:I thought a time buffer would be good to handle anything unexpected that comes up, and for specific preparations. For instance, you need to talk to David about getting a team of admins together to oversee the election -- vandalism would be particularly tragic, and we also need the admins on-hand in case someone reverts the election notice off of the main page. We also need time to properly prepare and submit the announcement to Signpost. I tried submitting one before, and didn't even get a reply, let alone posted. It's better to have more time than you need than not enough. Then there's the coordination with the Main Page subdepartments, getting the draft fully operational, testing it, fixing bugs, and so on. We also need to test the finished draft on every skin, and the various browsers. And who knows what else. Also, a bit of rest might be nice, before the storm.
I'm not adverse to that at all, but we need to figure out some way to reorganize the talk page for that. So:
#Archive everything old.
#Rewrite the intro to explain what's going on here.
#Update the hidden section on the draft itself explaining what's going on, and that just about everything below the header has been worked out and is going to be hard to change, while the header still changes.
#Update the Community bulletin board, , and Main page talk in a similar fashion.
#Violate the manual of style a little: use title headers (=text=) to outline major topics on this page like "Report a bug", "Bug talk", and "Style talk". We're not really be going to do any more extensive developing stylewise now, but it's nice to have a section to talk about it. "Report a bug" would be the urgent stuff, and the __TOC__ would be after that.
The reason I'm telling you this is because I'm going to out of town over the long weekend and unable to get on. So, I'm doing my best to ensure that this happens smoothly. Comments, like always, are welcome.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prep for the bug testing period 

message: *Cologne Blue
**800x600 problem with text overlap in header, browse bar links (too wide).  see screenshot --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Explorer

message: *Cologne Blue
**800x600--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox

message: * Is 800x640 an actual resolution, or is this a typo for 800x600?
* Under what combination of circumstances (browser, skin, etc.) was this edit beneficial?  —David Levy 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: :Humourous interlude: beaten to the punch :)  --Quiddity 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's priceless!  :-)  —David Levy 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is! Okay, now who's the double agent that told them about this???--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humourous interlude

message: The section bar for "On this Day" isn't aligned with "Did you know"'s section bar. If they both were aligned, it would be great, but that's the only thing really bothering me about this. --Revolución hablar ver 22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment