Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Final archive

message: ===Support the proposed new design===
#Support Looks awesome. hadiz
#Support bring the article count back tho mdawg89
#Support Why the hell not? Dark Hummingbird 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: #Support Looks awesome. hadiz
#Support bring the article count back tho mdawg89
#Support Why the hell not? Dark Hummingbird 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|proposed new design]]

message: I would support if a page count was added to the top of the new design.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional Support

message: #Oppose. The new resources are great! However the implementation results in a page that scrolls down too far.  Comments on what causes such a long page:
#:Language section (bottom) font size become larger? (too much scrolldown)
#:The blocks are great, but the amount of content is too large.
#:The top block is a good idea, it's now shorter!
#:Featured picture implemented poorly and takes vertical space.
#:"Other Areas" and "Sister Projects" blocks collectively take too much space. Suggestions: font size smaller, remove or reduce logo graphics, remove or reduce explanation text.
#:(I'd hate to give a conditional approval, and have it implemented as-is) Santaduck 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the new design and wish to keep the [[Main Page|current main page]]

message: #Needs the article count. Also, people who vote on this should get to all be admins.--The Cunctator 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral; no preference

message: *Support I like the layout. Only 2 complaints:
1.) The font used for the site logo (Wikipedia)is rather garish.
2.) The colors. When I scrolled down, when the purple hit the screen it actually hurt my eyes to view. If you want to use that color, then at least it should be on the page at load up, not scrolling into view.  Perhaps if you swapped the green and purple for the news and picture of the day.  Though to be honest, I really think the purple needs "softening" no matter what. - 68.13.144.181 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Only registered users may vote. --vortex talk 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous votes

message: On RfAs, it's 70% support, right?  What constitutes consensus here?  Just curious.  Please cite policy and/or precedent.  Thank you.  --Go for it! 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think consensus is usually up to admins. Also: Even if there is consensus, but both sides share some concerns ("too boxy" and "leave the page counts" seem common at a glance), things might wind up at square one regardless. Gspawn 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy.  The "70% support" figure is a merely rough guide.  It doesn't guarantee success, nor does a lower figure automatically spell failure.  It's very important to gauge the quality of the specific arguments presented.  (Votes along the lines of "Support.  It's ugly and harder to use, but you people worked really hard." or "Oppose. It's a big improvement, but it doesn't add an extra search box." carry less weight than logical, well-reasoned comments.)  —David Levy 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While adminship is important, I think this is a bit more significant, as the main page is the face of Wikipedia... what new visitors see.  I would like to see at least 75-80% support for the proposed design.  Anyway, it should probably be up to a bureaucrat to make the decision. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is a discussion, not a numerical vote.  It's more important to carefully analyze the specific comments than it is to tally the votes (some of which are based upon illogical reasoning and incorrect assumptions).  —David Levy 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, given the complaints about no article count, I think we should go ahead and try to add it.  When giving a response above about article counts, I noticed one version of the draft that had it and I thought could work. .  A variation of that could perhaps be something like . --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a required addition, i'd be for the first variation you linked. Maybe in an ever-so-slightly smaller font? --Quiddity 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the second version (which is the best attempt that I've seen).  Another common complaint has been that the design is too cluttered, and placing an em dash on either side provides much-needed demarcation.  With slightly smaller, italicized text, this isn't bad at all.  Let's give it a try.  —David Levy 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried tweaking the formatting of "Welcome to Wikipedia", adjusting the text size, padding, and removing the "Wikipedia" link underline.   If you think this is suitable, go ahead and revert back to this version. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these improvements, and I've reverted accordingly.  —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I've calculated the percentage of votes at least once a day, and it always comes out to be between 70% and 75% support. I'm guessing this will remain relatively constant, as it has been so far. -EdGl 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of it dropping in to the upper 60s, but it by far more support than anything else. There seem to be a few key issues that people keep objecting to; I'm going to compile them in a new section below.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As of now, it's 550 support votes to 175 oppose votes. The number of upport votes divided by the total number of votes times one hundred percent equals the percentage of support votes. 550/(550+175)*100%=75.862% support. --EdGl 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we weight the votes somehow? Do the votes by users with only a single edit count more, or less (part of the aim of the redesign was to appeal to people new to Wikipedia, right?)... I wonder what the numbers would be like had the page not been linked to from digg.com. ~MDD4696 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies as consensus? 

message: The 'edit' in 'anyone can edit' in the header is wrapping to the next line for me, no matter how much i resize the window.. Mlm42 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that you have your text size set to "larger."  We can't prevent wrapping completely, but perhaps someone can come up with a simple fix for this setting.  —David Levy 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header wrapping in IE 

message: The proposed layout has now changed multiple times since March 1. How can that be?? What am I actually commenting on/voting for or against, here?? Awolf002 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wiki, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're commenting upon a design that will never change.  It would be inappropriate to make fundamental alterations to the layout, relatively minor adjustments (in response to feedback) are to be expected.  —David Levy 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what is "fundamental"? Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of differences between the current main page and the proposed design are fundamental (which is why we're holding this debate).  The changes that have been made to the draft since March 1 are minor enough that if this were the actual main page, they would require no more advance discussion than what has occurred.  —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Will somebody go and switch left and right boxes 5 minutes before the end of voting and have it supported as that? Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be under the impression that this is a majority vote.  It isn't; it's a discussion.  There would be no reason to sneak in a change, as nothing that we decide now will be etched in stone.  If the design is approved, it will be modified at some point down the line.  That's the nature of a wiki.  If someone believes that his/her support is a vote to permanently adopt this exact configuration without ever making any changes, he/she is mistaken.  —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There has to be some limit, right? For instance, I would think the new placement of the article count was more than a minor adjustment, since many people discussed that as if it was the most important design change compared to the current layout... Just wondering... Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prevailing opinion (including among supporters of the new design) is that the article count should be included in the header.  I disagree, but what's the purpose of holding this discussion if we're going to ignore the will of the community?  —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A "vote" is a formal expression of preference.  The concept of "voting" does not necessarily imply the existence of a majority/plurality vote.  In this case, we're voting via an open discussion.  —David Levy 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this is a wiki.  As such, the design will never be "done."  If you find this objectionable, you were correct to retract your vote.  —David Levy 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a vote, but Wikipedia is not a majority democracy.  There is no definitive percentage of support votes for the proposed design to win.  It's ultimately up to a bureaucrat to interpret the voting, decide what the threshold is, and make the decision. As for the article count, this was one of the most commonly cited objections to the design.  The main page redesign process needs to take into account such feedback and community consensus.  We could have waited until after the voting to stick the article count in, but it's fine in my opinion to do it now in response to the feedback.  I see no other specific element of the design that is drawing such major widespread objections.  If there is something else very major and fixable, then I think we would be obligated to consider accommodating that. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be really bad in explaining myself, sorry! I never said this is about a 'majority'. I just wanted clarification what I support when I say: "I support this". After months of design effort there should be a high level of stability in the proposed design, so I can make up my mind about it. Let's end this discussion and see what happens. Again, sorry for wasting time. Awolf002 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if you thought that you were supporting an exact design (which would never be altered in the slightest), you were mistaken; that isn't how wikis work.  You have to assume that changes will be made to whichever design is selected.  —David Levy 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Awolf is bad at explaining itself, I think there is one vocal defender who refuses to take anyone's point.  Perhaps Wikipedia is not a Democracy, but voting processes are in fact used and one has been initiated here;  but a vote is useless when what's being voted on isn't stable.  Everybody recognizes the wiki-fact that the design will evolve, but we have, in fact, been asked to vote on a new starting point -- and you are making the process more difficult and less meaningful by constantly tweaking it in the middle of the process.  Yes, David, it's hard when people (literally in this case) call your baby ugly, but you might consider backing off a bit.  Jgm 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think David is doing a great job, and don't see a reason for him to 'back off'. And it would be silly to not constantly tweak the design.. i mean, it may statistically change the 'meaningfulness' of the vote in some philosophical sense, but realistically, if there is a strong enough opinion to change something, why wait until after the new main page is implimented? you wouldn't want to put up a design that people haven't already seen and discussed.. so it's better to get the feedback now.. that seems pretty obvious. Mlm42 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I can understand the whole on-going nature of wiki and the need to take "votes" as discussions rather than majorities or pluralities, but Awolf's point of order is legitimate.  First, even if a "vote" is etymologicaly or procedurally consistent with the wikified discussion, it should be recognized that such interpretation might not be immediately apparent to a lot of people.  Secondly, the nature of the procedure is not clearly stipulated; it's not just a matter of consistency in terms of what someone is voting towards, but also a matter of clarity on the procedure.  Why is the nature of the vote only being discussed near the bottom of the discussion page?  This should be included upfront with the rest of the Official voting procedure guidelines at the very top.  It makes administrative sense that a polity be fully aware of the process in which they are engaging.  If nothing else, it's just good manners. Rod ESQ 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Point of order' 

message: Now that it seems that the header contains the article count, should we start including those conditional supports in the pure "Support" category?  Fieari 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to contact those voters, notify them of the change, and ask them to change it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  I've done so for all the ones I saw. Fieari 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Conditional Support" votes 

message: Some of the opponents of this would be happier if both designs were retained, and the choice between them were made into a new set of skins. I suspect there are several ways to do this, including having two pages and a switch in the Main Page link. One talk page would redirect to the other. Septentrionalis 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on that.  The pic of the day archive has been modified to support both the new and current version of the pic, as well as a version for the current Main Page alternates.  So continued support of the classic design shouldn't be a problem, and can be maintained on the Main Page alternates page, where several other designs are also available, including one for PDAs, one for laptops, and several full-featured aesthetic variations. --Go for it! 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: All this discussion, all the prominence and media, and all for a few minor aesthetic changes? And after coming to this agreement, it was deemed a large enough change from the current main page to warrant all the further prominence/media/voting? I was expecting some interesting new changes that actually improve usability, not just visibility; or if such improvements could not be agreed upon or brought to fruition, then just continue discussion or go back to the drawing board. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-10 16:38
: I agree.  What's the big deal here?  Am I missing something? --Foofy 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to recruit more usability gurus to edit in Wikipedia.  Or push to hire a few instead of pushing to tack a inscription in some rail station.  --Perfecto  04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was dissappointed w/the small number of people who participated in voting on the early drafts, and also dissapointed in how small the changes were.   I proposed a number of different box styles, and there were drafts with icons for portals that would sit right beneath the header.  I wanted a more drastic change, myself.  I share the dissapointment voiced.  Kevin Baastalk 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is it?

message: Clearly this is unlikely to be something that could be changed, especially at the voting stage, but here are a few reasons not to have an 'in the news' section:
* This is not a feature of wikipedia.
* It is potentially misleading; people might think news reporting is one of the things wikipedia is about.
* It takes up a large part of the main page (old and new) and is placed prominently, thus taking attention away from wikipedia content.
* If someone visits the main page, it is unlikely to be to read the news.
* The web already offers a great variety of news sources and news quickviews, wikinews among them.
* If it is advertising for wikinews, perhaps we should question whether this is the sort of content we want on the main page.
Dast 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a news bulletin is not a valid feature for Wikipedia; a wiki is a poor model for providing coverage of "breaking news", and I've seen many examples of incorrect information making it onto the main page.  That said, it is a good idea to have main-page access to articles on subjects that are currently in the news since they are likely to drive lots of traffic; such links help reduce search-engine load and make the page more useful.  (I seem to recall that "In the News" actually started as such a list, without attempting to provide actual breaking news information, which should properly be independently corroborated and vetted).  Jgm 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The news section is pretty important in my opinion. It provides news without having to go to another site, and it links with the top news stories for others to add information. It wouldn't be a good idea to remove the box. --FlyingPenguins 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my habit to read the news elsewhere, then come here to get the full story... not on the current news event, but on the background history, the context, and all that other information that newspapers tend to assume you already know. Fieari 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I Think it's fine. Then again, it does tend to have the results from elections of obscure countries, but that's beyond the scope of this project.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that was DYN, giving blurbs from the "newest articles"?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that the newest articles are not necessarily the ones which are in the news, and non-newsworthy interersting articles might not get as much coverage otherwise. -- Mithent 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An end to 'In the news' 

message: Can people who like the main page still have as like an alternate main page? --24.247.126.44 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it will be available not as a skin but as a page. See WP:MPA.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page skin

message: If this page is about a proposed redesign, why is there currently a main page that is neither the main page used in 2005 nor the main page that we're voting on?  Is this indeed a premature version of the redesign, and if so, why did it become the new main page w/o voting?  I am very disappointed that the current main page doesn't have "did you know".  Since the old main page and the one we're voting on have "did you know", I think it was premature to cut it off of the current main page. --M@rēino 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same main page we've had for a while.  The current main page design has "Did you know" five days a week, and "Picture of the Day" two days a week, weekdays and weekends respectively.  It's always been like this so far. Fieari 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature Redesign

message: The text for this at the end of the proposed new Main Page is outdated. It should be replaced with template:WikipediaSister:
(Cannot do this myself since the proposed new Main Page page is protected.) Dovi 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than replacing one with the other, the differences should be noted and the two should be merged. Several changes were made to the wording, so it is not as simple as saying that the current proposed version is outdated. Rather we are looking at two forks that need to be merged back together again. Similar considerations apply to recent edits made to all the other templates used for the Main Page, and indeed the Main Page itself. These changes will be lost unless careful consideration is made as to whether any merging is needed, or whether this should be a straight swap (both for the templates and the pages as a whole). Carcharoth 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the template appearing on the Main Page is continually maintained, and there are no differences of value in the text for the new Main Page, just outdated info. Case in point: Wikisource link and slogan. Simply replace the outdated text with the template. Any differences in wording should be put into the template itself. Dovi 11:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you have missed my point entirely. I think we will need to list the differences. I've looked at a few of the differences and in some cases the text of one seems preferable to the other, but sometimes it is the other way round. I will list the differences. Carcharoth 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's sister projects

message: Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
WiktionaryDictionary and thesaurus
WikibooksFree textbooks and manuals
WikiquoteCollection of quotations
WikisourceFree-content source texts
WikispeciesDirectory of species
WikinewsFree-content news
CommonsShared media repository
Meta-WikiWikimedia project coordination
As can be seen, the differences are: (1) "Free content" vs. "Free-content" in the Wikinews text; (2) Some line-breaking formatting in the Meta-Wiki text; (3) A change in the introductory wording from "...that operates several other multilingual and free-content projects" to "...that also hosts a range of other projects"; (4) A change in the links: the template has a redundant link to the Multilingual co-ordination page (this already appears elsewhere on the page in a more logical place) and a link to the Copyrights page; the proposed redesign has neither of these links, but instead has a link to a Wikimedia page that describes the sister projects and has more links if people want to find out more.
In my opinion, all these differences improve the template, and simply replacing one with the other, as you proposed, would lose these improvements.
The only change that may need to be incorporated into the proposed design is: (5) the change to the Wikisource text from "Free-content source texts" to "The free library" - though I don't know the rationale behind this change in wording. Carcharoth 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale is that Wikisource has adopted this slogan. The link itself is also wrong. Dovi 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. You are right that these two changes need to be made. You could try contacting David Levy or one of the other admins active on this page. Carcharoth 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Template:WikipediaSister will be used on the actual implementation of the main page redesign. I dont know why we arent just transcluding it in the draft already? Therefor any positive changes would be rolled into the template itself, and should be brought up on it's talk page. But as there arent any benefits to the non-template version, we can safely ignore the whole thing :)  --Quiddity 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's sister projects

message: This goes by the honor system: if you worked hard, take it! If not, there's always something else to do...--HereToHelp 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats, everyone—barnstars all around!