Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Election Discussion/Archive 1

message: If we are to run an election, we need to create rules and a schedule.  Here are some questions we need to answer:
:Taking a leaf out of Zocky's book, are we?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

message: If you really want many candidates, you can have multi-vote elections with up to one vote for each candidate. Note. If somebody votes for all of them, that doesn't change anything.
Gogino 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to straw polls with multiple drafts but for the final round, we need only two.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I may not have said so with sufficient clarity above. One candidate vs the current MP.  hydnjo talk 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about a multi-candidate, multi-vote election? 

message: Does 2 weeks seem about right? --Go for it! 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what happened with the ArbCom elections. I'll second a fortnight.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks seems like an appropriate duration.  —David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks is good with me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with two weeks. Geesh, if the rest of the questions go like this one.... ;-)  hydnjo talk 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 weeks is perfect. - JustinWick 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I think it's settled. If only we could agree elsewhere...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i also agree with 2 weeks. Stormscape 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that 2 weeks, is to little. The number of people that use the English Wikipedia is huge and I think that at least 3 weeks to a month (preferable a month) is needed for people to vote and formulate option. A month will allow more than enough time for those not so active users to get in on the discussion and voting. --^BuGs^ 07:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree...there's no reason we can't be patience. -b 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Can't be patience" is no better than "can't be patentience": you fixed your spelling but not your grammar.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need emoticons.  The rolling eyes thing.  That said, my dog wrote that. -b 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How long should the voting in the election run?

message: We could be ready in 2 weeks, put up the preliminary notice then, and have the voting start 2 weeks after that.  So, a month from now? --Go for it! 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is our last straw poll. We advertise while we have our last open editing session, and then we have our final election.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was thinking.  —David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about a specific timeframe yet... especially since this round of discussion/voting has been extended until Feb. 4th. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest we start with a call for proposals, and when proposals(drafts) stop coming, the election starts.  In the mean time, we have discussion instead of elections (and possibly straw polls on details or features) Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, maybe just a week after the close of the current discussion/voting period might be a bit too quick.  Let's decide on a date once this discussion periods ends. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want this to become a free-for-all (instead of the collaboration that it's been for the past three months), what's the point of discussing anything?  —David Levy 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems OK but now I don't understand what the preliminary period is for if not to allow y'all to respond to commentary with minor editing (typos, grammar and the like).  hydnjo talk 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that having a small amount of padding in the election timing is OK because this is hardly an urgent matter, and unexpected things come up.  Be a little conservative, and leave enough time to have everything in place.  That being said, I'd vote for end of February for when the ballot casting should start. - JustinWick 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no rush, let's do this right, but mid Febuary (rather than late) for starting the final vote should be fine. We'll make the switch in early March.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When should the starting date for the voting begin?

message: As a team, we make the winning candidate operational, without changing any features or design elements, and place it on the Main Page?
:As you implied, we have to have an updating version of all the templates. Notice how the Main Page's code is very short. I don't mind putting the data into templates to make stuff simpler, but no, the content should not change (other than the features, of course).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  —David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Something like a note on the signpost and/or village pump, linking to a poll - i'm sure everyone will vote yes, but i think in theory it's an essential (due) process.  Also people could give input then, such as what portals should be there, what sections, etc., and it might result in an additional tweak or two. Kevin Baastalk 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, something like that just to gain ratification.  hydnjo talk 20:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with your first point. A non-functional page is only reason to shoot it down.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the static stuff and the updating stuff should be separate. That's why I support one type of box for the dynamic material (the light box with a darker color for the title) and the static stuff simply surrounded by a grey box. Not templating the stuff creates a larger source code (look at the current MP's source). I think that redirecting or having a notice "please go the the main Main Page talk instead" should be fine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happens after the voting is over?

message: What should happen to this project/project page once the election is completely over? --Go for it! 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We update all our messages to users, Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ, and Wikipedia:Editing the main page. Then, we archive this and give ourselves a well earned pat on the back and perhaps a small Wikibreak.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can hardly wait!  Based upon the above feedback, I have a good feeling about this. :-)  —David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  --Go for it! 05:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On to portal design semi-standardization!  Add some design integration - don't have to restrict the creative freedom of each portal group, but with their input we can make wikipedia look morfe seamless and professional. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Kevin... we need more consistency across portals, (e.g. categories generally in the same place on the pages). --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of this for all!  hydnjo talk 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of these!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a small request for when this is all over: would it be possible to have a page listing all (or as many as can be found) of the various drafts? That would let people look back at other design features and ideas that didn't make it into any final design. They could then borrow ideas to tweak their own designs. I tried to find drafts before draft 6, but failed. I looked at the archived talk pages starting here Draft 1&2 Talk Archive, but they made no sense as you can't see the draft that was discussed. Did anyone keep copies of Drafts 1-5? Carcharoth 14:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They were simply on the project page. I'll go back and find them.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, they got lost in a page move. I'm sure they're there.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're located within draft B's history.  When this round of discussion is complete, we can move this back to the main project page.  —David Levy 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Even though I think all the feedback from multiple drafts is great, we still can, should, and will make them into one draft. Can someone help me find those drafts in the history? I'm looking, but it's harder than I thought it would be.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh great, Draft B's hisotry only goes back to a long series of edits by Tom. Where are the rest of them? (Shouldn't we have thought of this earlier?)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And once the new Main Page is in place?

message: Does anyone have a good idea for attracting more votes on the redesign?  I don't think that many people even know that we have been voting on this, and honestly do not think that ~20 votes is a stasticically significant representation of the hundreds of thousands of users of Wikipedia - especially considering many votes are narrowly divided!  We need more voters and more input.  
Personally I think this is more important than ArbCom elections - the average reader doesn't see what ArbCom does or doesn't do, but everyone sees the main page at one time or another.  The Wikipedia Main Page is the face of Wikipedia and should reflect the interests of the users.  I understand that people do not want to clutter the main page with useless junk that "no one" is interested in, however I would argue that the main page, due to its ubiquitous presence in the browsing stream of individuals is something that interests everyone.  Not only that, but Wikipedia is primarily about the collaborative process.  Individuals who do not wish to be bothered by messages about collaboration can get the same content on answers.com.  
It is hard to expect people to participate in these elections if they do not even know they are going on.  Any ideas? - JustinWick 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we will be putting notices about the final vote, on everyone's watchlist page (like we do with the ArcCom elections), the community portal, definitely on the Main page talk, and perhaps on the Main page, itself.  The only other, more prominent way to notify users would be notices on all pages, as done during the last fundraising campaign.  But, in my opinion, that might be overdoing it and should be reserved for fundraising. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. There's been opposition to having a message on the MP itslef, but the watchlists, CP, and MP talk are all fine, and suffiicent to get publicity.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the (my) perspective of someone showing up here for the first time via any route, I'd be so confused and intimidated that I'd just go away. That having been gotten of my chest I think that WP:SIGN is a good venue for exposure, assuming we can present a "clean slate" if you will.  hydnjo talk 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Signpost: not a bad idea, actually. Why didn't someone think of that sooner?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! I read The Signpost. I was wondering why there hadn't been anything there (at least not recently) about this project... There is also this area here Wikipedia:News, from where I found WP:GO. There's also the news page on the Village Pump Village Pump (news), all of which can be added to places listed above such as Community Portal and Main Page talk page. Would the watchlist one be the final step up in publicity coverage for the actual vote on replacing the Main Page? Carcharoth 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attracting more voters 

message: It's official, we have gotten into the open editing session. Rather than start a free for all like this draft was, I will lay out a course of action, wait for consensus, and then implement it. This is an urgent matter and I'd like to have it resolved in 24 hours. So, I gather that we should:
#Use ONE draft. We'll put it up against the current Main Page later. We make this draft out of the best parts of the others, and put it where our draft disambiguation is: on the project page corresponding to the main redesign talk.
#Advertise. More specifically, on the MP talk, the Community Portal, the watchlists (like ArbCom), and the Signpost.
#Be open minded. There are so many good ideas out there. I like taking the snowflakes from the Italian inspired one and making them into the stub icons, perhaps with new colors.
#Get into open editing mode quickly. We said the election closes today; it better close.
#Have fun and make a great page.
Does anyone disagree?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be in the discussion page for the draft, and not here in the Election discussion bit? Maybe the discussion page should also be cleaned up and some of the points summarised before the open editing session begins properly? Also, I'm not clear when exactly this straw poll closes and when the editing starts. I thought it was voting up to and including today? Carcharoth 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, continue to comment on the various drafts (even beyond today).  —David Levy 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Well, I guess we're starting an open editing session. I'll clarify that for next time.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's February fourth: let's get moving, crew!