Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 01

message: : version 3 - feel free to add more versions
Your examples are ambiguous between the "lists" and overviews. The "topics" links only give lists of things, which in my opinion aren't as useful. --gatoatigrado 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third suggestion 

message: I like it this way; these pages aren't particularly useful anymore because there are so many recent changes, and random article isn't that useful. It's farther down, and it's sort of a special page, not article. --gatoatigrado 23:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found random article to be extremely useful.  It helps break mental blocks, and it is a great navigation tool.  You never know what is going to pop up.  I've found some very interesting articles using Random article, even some that were relevant to my interests, that I never thought of looking up directly, as I didn't even know they existed as topics.  But that's just me.  We need to see what the community at large feels about this.  But according to Dragons Flight, above, we can't add anything to the toolbox.  It is dynamically generated, and would take a programming, rather than an editing, fix.  But we can explore this further.  That's why I've invited programmers to this discussion: to find out what is doable and what isn't.  What are your thoughts about the doability of changing the programming of the dynamically generated toolbox menu? --Nexus Seven 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry I moved this to another place; I read your comment above. I have a mediawiki on my site and I'll see if it can be done easily. Otherwise, I guess it's fine as is. --gatoatigrado 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  This discussion may take longer to complete than the one week granted on Village Pump Proposals.  So moving the discussion was a good thing.  --Nexus Seven 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'Recent articles' link is really a toolbox function, and so should be moved there. However I find the 'Radom article' to be wonderfully informative, and a major advantage of wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. Hence I would suggest keeping it in a prominant position, although perhaps not within the main navigation options. Within a new 'Comunity' section? LinaMishima 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  random/recent to toolbox 

message: Why is there do we loose permalink in the mock versions 3 & 4. If it's gonna be that way, I oppose to such a modification. Lincher 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The toolbox remains pretty much the same - we have no way to change it (that I know of), and it is different on different pages because it is dynamically generated.  The proposal above was to add two items to it, while not removing any.  I've added the missing items to the mock-up - leaving them out is just confusing, even though their inclusion is explained above.  --Nexus Seven 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent link 

message: In regards to changing it across all wikis, and because those whom know about such things are reading, I just wanted to mention that the per-page and sitewide links are slightly confusingly organised, and could potentially be better grouped/seperated?
eg. this is what we currently have:
* What links here - per-page
* Related changes - per-page
* Upload file - sitewide
* Special pages - sitewide
* Printable version - per-page
* Permanent link - per-page
I don't have a solution, just wanted to mention it. --Quiddity·(talk) 07:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, this organization is unfortunately carried out in MonoBook.php. There's a lot of organization and formatting, from the fact that the sidebar links are links, to the order of navigation, search, toolbox, that happens with MonoBook.php. I'm not exactly sure how people want to address this. To some extent, I'm getting the idea that this is more of a Mediawiki issue than Wikipedia. --gatoatigrado 11:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  site-wide vs per-page tools 

message: diff at :Image:Sidebar_changes.pdf. I recommend you apply the changes manually to help catch errors. --gatoatigrado 05:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatted diff 

message: If anyone wants to test changing the sidebar on a real wiki, a public test wiki is available at: http://wiki.xyrael.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page . Just ask me (or anyone else who is there) to make you a sysop there, and I will. Just remember, that when you are done testing on the sidebar, please revert yourself so others can test too. GeorgeMoney  (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: The reason this is more significant than other peoples' test wikis is that it is public and sysop is handed out free. GeorgeMoney  (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In order to make the changes necessary, the php files have to be edited. --gatoatigrado 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sysop doesn't let you do that. tell me and I can try anything on my wiki. perhaps we can get someone experienced in changing mediawiki. --gatoatigrado 05:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about the toolbox, just testing the MediaWiki:Sidebar . No software changes. GeorgeMoney  (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Ral already did that (just editing MediaWiki:Sidebar) above. --gatoatigrado 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only ral can edit MediaWiki:Sidebar. Here, sysop status is granted freely, so anyone can edit the sidebar. GeorgeMoney  (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we only need to edit it once when we decide on pages. Besides, to be language neutral, the  Messages__.php pages have to be edited and then MediaWiki:Sidebar can be edited. I don't see any reason why we can't decide on the format of links here. --gatoatigrado 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  never mind, many of these things are handled by the MediaWiki:<word> syntax. sorry to criticize too early. Thanks for the idea, and I can set something up on my site as well - I doubt there would be any malicious traffic. --gatoatigrado 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All anyone had to do was ask me, and I'd gladly give you sysop.  Ral315 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: Are you sure they're all on the same codebase? The Farsi wikipedia has different bullets for the first indent but not the second. The german wikipedia already added a second section. german home, german sidebar, farsi home, farsi sidebar. different comment style in farsi.
:Yes.  All of these examples can already be accomplished be editing pages in the Mediawiki: namespace, and without any changes to the PHP.  Dragons flight 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other language wikipedias 

message: I propose considering some of the following options:
1. Change the link in top navbar from Featured Articles to Featured Content. Wikipedia has more featured stuff to offer than articles alone and we should emphasize that; from the featured content page, the featured articles (as well as other featured categories) are easily accessible.
1.1 Following 1, remove redundant Featured Content link from main page, together with the already planned removal of Categories and A-Z index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.225.50 (talk • contribs) 
: I think "categories" is useful. Featured content is okay but featured articles already shows featured content. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a separate help section makes it way too long. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: what line between the header and the body? --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's talking about this line:
Overview ·  Searching · Editing · Questions · Help	
Categories · Featured content · A–Z index
But since the main page has one-click access from everywhere just by clicking on the globe, that gives the links on the above line two-click access, which ain't bad to begin with.  I doubt there's room for them on the sidebar -- we're having enough trouble fitting/placing one extra box of items. --Nexus Seven 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More changes 

message: "basic topic lists" is a much better page. --gatoatigrado 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These two lists go hand-in-hand.  "topic lists" has much more comprehensive coverage and caters to more advanced users, while "basic topic lists" is aimed at beginners (we're all beginners in something, right?)  They are both essential, and the layout on "topic lists" can be improved easily enough.  Since they are brother and sister, is there a way we can put them both tastefully on a single line?  Like this, maybe.  And while we're at it, combine the indices on one line as well:
reference pages
* Basic / Topic lists
* Disciplines
* Glossaries
* Overviews
* Portals
* Tables
* A-Z / Categorical Index
This shortens the box, so it won't push the search box as far down the page. --Nexus Seven 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's nice. Unfortunately the current system is quite non wiki syntax, just a bit of php, probably to ease the server loads. It definitely needs modification to be able to do that. --gatoatigrado 11:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete or combine topic lists / combine indices 

message: the search function obsoletes this. --gatoatigrado 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but some users prefer an index over a search function. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep it.  Browsing and searching are two sides of the same coin.  Removing either defaces the coin.  "A-Z /" takes up just 5 characters, so it could easily be included on the same line as the categorical index.  See my suggestion under the previous heading (directly above). --Nexus Seven 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Categorial index could be named Categories. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 10:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We discussed this above, but I think it's fine as either. --gatoatigrado 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  You will see my suggested changes further down the page. Noticing this post has made me realise that one cannot say keeping this option is 'obvious'. The main reason for keeping the A-Z is for the similarity to a paper encyclopedia it provides, giving users a recognisable starting point. LinaMishima 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete alphabetical index 

message: Or is this a obviosly blatant double standard? Makes me think that the FLs, FPictures and FPortals aren't "featured". --Howard the Duck 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is simple, if mundane.  Back when I added FA to the sidebar, I had never noticed the existence of FC.  As to the larger point of whether or not there should be a preference for articles, that is something that can be discussed.  Dragons flight 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's the time to change it now since we're redesigning the whole thing. --Howard the Duck 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Featured Content" is the logical choice, because it gives equal weight to all featured content, and Wikipedia:Featured content is a very well-crafted page.  --Nexus Seven 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. Per above. NCurse  work 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Featured content page was fairly new (and had just been moved from Portal space to Wikipedia space) when that link was added, so not surprising that it wasn't used. However, it has become more widely known since it was included on the redesigned Main page. As the primary creator/maintainer I'm obviously not impartial, but this seems like a good idea to me. It makes getting directly to 'Featured pictures' take one extra click, but the WP:FC page was always meant to be a portal to wrap all the featured content together. Putting that on the sidebar would make it easier to access all of this info. --CBD 11:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instead of "[[WP:FA|Featured articles]]" why not "[[WP:FC|featured content]]"? 

message: Whilst supporting the addition of better navigational features to the side bar, the following is potentially a harsh critique of the currently suggested changes. Given the high visability of the changes and their potential to significantly improve the wikipedia experience, it would be wrong to not throughly discuss the options presented. Pleae do not take any offense from this, and you should see from my contribution history that although may be fairly new, I am willing to dig in to help improve things.
I strongly support the idea to add an easier means to navigate wikipedia to the side bar. I do, however, believe there are two major problems with the current proposals. This stems not from the proposals, but from the reference pages list being used as inspiration.
Firstly, the reference page header presents 10 sorting options, and the average number of options on the proposals on the project page (as of 1313 GMT on the 11th August 2006) is 7.9! Versions 1, 6 and 7 deserve respect for trying to either reduce or better format their reference option lists.
Secondly, the above on it's own would not be so bad if all the options presented where obviously symantically different, and a casual reader could quickly select the one which would meet their needs. However I do not believe this is the case.
One of the big problems here is the 'overview' option. The majority of the overviews appear to be the main article on a subject, which are normally quite lengthy and detailed, and are probably not the easiest means to dig deeper for information. Overview is defined as :
# A brief summary, as of a book or a presentation.
: That's why it was changed to overviews in version 2. --gatoatigrado 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, let's use portals to replace some things. --gatoatigrado 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Field of study! Why did I not think of that before! The above has been edited to replace 'Diciplines' with this phrase, and explains the change in the prose. LinaMishima 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Noticing an above post has made me realise that one cannot say keeping this option is 'obvious'. The main reason for keeping the A-Z is for the similarity to a paper encyclopedia it provides, giving users a recognisable starting point. LinaMishima 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  um, topics is a list of topics. It's doesn't link the user to information about the topics themselves. Why don't we just use portals and leave the rest of the junk out of there? It can be from the "reference pages" link. The portals look nice, and they give most information. --gatoatigrado 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the reference pages list 

message: :It can be even shorter. I do not think Fields of study and Glossaries (add these to the portals) is essential, but Categories are. I would suggest:
browse
*Topics
*Portals
*A-Z Index
*Categories
*
::Thank you for your support of my core complaint, even if we suggest different solutions! LinaMishima 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that topic and catagory are too similar to both be in the list, and it is hard to determine if a subject you a looking for would be catagory or a topic. Perhaps replace 'Topics' with 'Fields of study', and keep 'Categories'? This works, because most topics are fields of study, and fields of study inplies a 'by subject', whereas categories implies 'by similarity'. LinaMishima 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the section above, the top of the category sytem is almost impossible to find without a link provided to it. --Nexus Seven 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't viable, as double entries are not allowed by the programming.  We're shifting design focus however, and exploring the redistribution of links from the Main Page, and throughout the Sidebar.  See version 12.  --Nexus Seven 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still too long

message: Mostly I rearranged the list orders. I think "donations" looks a bit more modest when placed last; I prefer the phrase "category index" ; and I arranged the "tools" items in order of priority for someone using WP for research. The top 3 items there are those my high school students would use most, in any online resource. Fwiw - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout #9 

message: Gatoatigrado proposed version 10, which builds upon my thoughts (see On the reference pages list above), and suggests that 'Topics' are redundant to the more detailed 'Portals'. In principle, I agree with their point, however the current portal page looks a little too cluttered for my liking (whilst inspecting 'topics' revealed lists of things, which I dislike as a first-port-of-call system).
As my own entry was more of an essay, and this is a rather important consideration, I'm creating a new section to discuss the relative merits of topics and portals. Feel free to act as if this is a straw poll. LinaMishima 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, portals is a bit busy, but categories / categorical index is the only shorter thing, and it's not that much better. Yeah, your "topics" is a list of lists. Because there are so many and it's difficult to choose a winner, I think the "More reference pages" is a good idea. --gatoatigrado 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually thinking that portals should simply be tidied up - after all, in theory they could probably be the best option. However to do this may mean some radical changes to the portal page. A 'More reference pages' is probably a good idea, although the current article linked to is not ideal for a first stop when looking for information (again, I'm advocating fixing this) LinaMishima 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we've hit upon the real solution - clean up these pages. But "overviews" should be "subjects" - it's less ambiguous in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 10: portals verses topics 

message: just get rid of all the languages and use some of the extra space.  use images instead of blue text looking things circa 1994.  overhaul it.  it is ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.138.26 (talk • contribs) 
: I don't know, text links are in almost all wikipedia pages. I think being functional is more important than looking nice. I think the list being short is important. --gatoatigrado 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  just 

message: Layout 11 gets the reference page menu down to 5 lines, while keeping all the essential top-level pages.  Some users prefer the lists, while others prefer the portals.  They are two styles of browsing Wikipedia.  To include basic topics and not topics kind of cripples that pair, which were designed to work together - the users graduating from one to the other.  
Layout 11 assumes the pages presented on it will be cleaned up.  --Nexus Seven 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This will requre editing php files, including monobook.php and other skins (which may become tedious). I don't know if the "/" is such a great idea. I think we need to work on wikipedia:reference pages and simplify some of the other things. --gatoatigrado 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That'll expand the reference pages menu to 7 lines, which is okay with me if it is okay with you.  --Nexus Seven 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On second though, I sort of like it compact...7 lines is too long. Do you think it's time for a straw poll, then we can determine if it's actually possible to implement it? Or should we try to contact some administrators who are programmers and ask them if it's possible first? --gatoatigrado 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Programming changes, not programming rights.  Though the latter would be interesting.  A program edited in the same way as a wiki.  Interesting concept.  --Nexus Seven 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  um, I don't know if this is technical jargon or not, but I meant rights as in permissions. I didn't say anything about editing php files in wiki style, thought it would be neat. Very haphazardous as well, and undoubtedly locked to admins only. --69.221.232.135 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 11 - best of both worlds? 

message: reference pages
* Main page
* Topics
* Current events
* Featured content
* Fields of study
* Glossaries
* Portals
* Tables
* A-Z Index
* Category Index
search
type=search
buttonlabel=Go
searchlabel=Search
labeltext=Search all  articles:
id=searchInput
searchbuttonlabel=Search
width=17
community
* Help
* Overview
* Questions
* Tutorial
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donations
tools
* How to cite
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* What links here
* Related changes
* Recent changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Random article
We might want to turn "community" into "community portal" just so users recognize it (it already points there).  Or rename the Community portal to Wikipedia:Community, since it isn't really a portal (it's naming predated the portal system). --Nexus Seven 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Programming changes, not programming rights.  Though the latter would be interesting.  A program edited in the same way as a wiki.  Interesting concept.  --Nexus Seven 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  um, I don't know if this is technical jargon or not, but I meant rights as in permissions. I didn't say anything about editing php files in wiki style, thought it would be neat. Very haphazardous as well, and undoubtedly locked to admins only. --69.221.232.135 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 12 

message: this title seems to make more sense. --gatoatigrado 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the words "Subjects" and "Topics" entirely synonomous?  And won't this create confusion?  As discussed above, the Overview articles page is completely redundant. --Nexus Seven 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  maybe, maybe "topics" should be "subtopics". I think names to differentiate "art / history / mathematics..." from the things within them. --gatoatigrado 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the "overviews" (whatever you want to call it) page was sort of nice, but I guess portals is one more click. I like version 11. --gatoatigrado 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  overviews to subjects 

message: This would take forever ; it took me about an hour and I'm not even finished with the "arts" section. opinions welcome. It uses a template so it should be extensible. --gatoatigrado 00:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree that linked bullets would be confusing. By building that page with a template, you can customize how things act - if you don't want the "article" link and you want the bold name linked, you only have to adjust the template. I don't think you're getting the point of the page - it's not about the minimization but combining things. I agree that Lists of topics has a lot of redundant information. Many of the items aren't lists at all, but say something like "List of ArticleName", where the article doesn't even contain a list. Part of the point of not using a fast search and merge thing is to delete unnecessary information. --gatoatigrado 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pages redesign 

message: I made a mock screenshot a while ago with a little "History" box on the sidebar. Simply put, if you're going to take any real meaning from a Wikipedia article you should also briefly review the history to make sure it wasn't just vandalized. Furthermore if you are editing a Wikipedia article it's very important to make sure it wasn't just vandalized and that you're not building on vandalism. Therefore I wish it were possible to, without leaving the article's page, observe whether the page has been edited recently. If it just got a few edits from an anon, or what looks like a suspicious username (or generally any username you are unfamiliar with), you could click on the diffs to make sure the edits are legitimate.
An important part of all wikis (and particular this one) is that the page's history is just as much of a part of the article as the current incarnation. This box would emphasize that.
I'd like for this to at least be an option, if not included by default. — GT 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would not only make the sidebar too cluttered (visually), but add a lot of confusing information for new visitors to have to deal with. It would also help perpetuate a myth that the 'correct' article is always the one 3 edits ago (ie, that wikipedia is regularly reduced in quality by it's editors and hence you always need to look at the history). I'll agree to the idea of having it as a preferences option (defaultly off), however (as it never hurts to give choice). LinaMishima 01:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed, lina. it would be a pain to program and not worth it in my opinion. nothing personal. --gatoatigrado 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Better to "confuse" than misinform visitors, in my opinion. But I appreciate both of your input. — GT 06:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusion can drive people away.  The KISS principle applies better here.  The history tab is at the top of every page, which makes it sufficiently accessible, in my opinion.  Though the one line of explanation that is displayed with the history after you click on the history tab could be improved -- it should briefly explain to the user what he is looking at.  --Nexus Seven 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This would add significantly to server load. I don't know how significant, but my guess is that it would not be trivial. –RHolton≡– 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History box! 

message: Dragon said above that it's all the same codebase, so there's probably not going to be any topic links or "link1" / "link2". I don't think it's a big loss, and all the more reason for people to help me with topics redesign - hopefully to replace all of the "list of topics" and "overviews". --gatoatigrado 02:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no combining links 

message: Would it be possible to program the Random article feature to not bring up deleted pages that have been blocked so that they do not get recreated? Skapur 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be difficult, but with a few flags it may well be possible. There's many other good changes that could be done to the random article feature, too, but these would be best discussed elsewhere. LinaMishima 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random article

message: It would be nice to have a reader specific list at the side which tells him/her which were the topics he visited last. Maybe giving a list of 5 topics and a tab that says [more]. In addition to this could we also add text links to other wiki projects at the side. Mithunk
: watchlist already provides some of the functionality. There's some performance concern as well. It's not a bad idea. --69.221.232.135 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Simple Suggestion

message: If redesignng the sidebar, then move the search control from the sidebar!  
The main page should be search centric.
It works for Google!
: uh, no, wikipedia is content based. moving the search bar would make the user go to the main page any time they wanted to search. Google users are taken to external links, so there's no way they could have a navigation bar. actually they do have plugins for firefox and internet explorer. --69.214.15.136 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the search bar!