Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives
Special Note: To see the draft correctly, clear your browser's cache.

The page title and its subline have been disabled, for effect, but only show up that way if you've cleared your cache. To do this, go to the page, and press Ctrl-F5. If that doesn't work, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. --Go for it! 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Voting Session of Round 6 of the Main Page Redesign Project

Many thanks to those who contributed feedback and critiques in the last voting round. Your ideas, concerns, pleas, and demands have been carefully studied and have contributed to the current drafts. Yes, I said drafts. We made every attempt to incorporate the most requested aspects, elements, and features into a single redesign, and we just couldn't do it.

So this time there's a wider selection.

Please look over the drafts and pick out the one you like best.

Feel free to set these drafts as your home page, or as buttons on your browser's toolbar, to really give them a workout. Please use them as you would the Main Page, and let us know how they stand up in comparison. Then, after putting them through their paces, let us know which one you absolutely love the most. Thank you for your input and your patience. Voting will continue until Saturday, January 28th. Thank you.

--Go for it! 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some guidelines:

  • There are many drafts to choose from (see voting areas below), and a section to jot down features you really like.
  • Use numbering (#) instead of bullets (*), even though bullets are used here.
  • Comments, suggestions, and criticism are all welcome and will be put into draft 7.



Please refrain from altering the drafts until this voting session is over, and the next open-editing session begins. Thank you.

Place your votes and reasons for them in this section:

(See also the poll on individual options, below.)

I like Draft A with the four features

  1. There's too much work involved with redoing the second feature, and we don't even HAVE a sixth feature. The page takes way too long to load and bogs down old machines. Remember the KISS principle. Ultimately, there's no need for those extra features, but everything else is fantastic.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with everything that HereToHelp wrote, and I'll add that we haven't even begun to discuss the logistics of expanding "Did you know..." to the weekends (let alone creating a brand new feature). —David Levy 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner. I like the POTD on the main page, but its too long with 6 features. I'd like to see POTD remain but to shorten the page we would have to remove something. The community section is a great idea as newbies need a lot more help/introduction than they've been getting, so i think the only other option is to remove DYK. Again, too many people are heavily invested in that feature to just chuck it, so I don't know what to do. I think if we want the other features of the new page we'll have to accept the loss of the POTD for now. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's not too different from the current main page, but the improvements it has are good ones.  Run!  19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think it's the best out of the choices presented. I'm not a big fan of the section titles though, slightly misaligned and the bright aqua blue coloring doesn't fit with the rest of the page.   freshgavin TALK    23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to the misalignment of the "Today's featured picture" and "Did you know..." section titles, that's a temporary technical glitch (caused by the manner in which the features are being transcluded). This would be corrected in the final version. —David Levy 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Run!, plus this version wastes the least space. --James S. 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Picture of the day would be a nice addition. -- Rohit 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft B with six features

Design elements include:

  • Margins problem in Internet Explorer has been fixed.
  • This version is fully operational: all features automatically update
  • It can be used right away as your main page, by setting it as
    • your browser's home page
    • a button on your browser's tool bar
    • or by transcluding it onto your user page, or a subpage of it (ask for help below if you need assistance with this)
  • The Did you know team has pledged to expand their project's coverage to seven days per week

Thank you for your participation.

  1. Since this has the picture of the day, 7 days a week. I like this one. --Go for it! 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I've changed my vote to the new entry, Draft D, below. --Go for it! 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My eyes are glazing over so I'd better choose. Both are excellent and congrats to y'all for your patience diligence. I do prefer Draft B but I'll sleep well with whichever achieves conensus. hydnjo talk 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "sleep with"...riiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhttt.....--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To rephrase, I'll not lose any sleep whichever, A or B, is chosen... arghh nevermind.  ;-) hydnjo talk 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think Draft B is best... not sure if I like all those icons on Draft C, too busy. - JustinWick 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Draft B is good, slightly better than Draft A, but the portals list, frankly, looks terrible. Too boxy, too square, too lined-up-with-the-In-the-News-box-below-it. I would prefer a search box. Is it redundant - sure? But so is the list of portals (there's a portals link right above it), so is the second box in the page you get when you search for anything... Searching (or "go-ing") is the dominant way to access information on the Internet and in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't deny that fact just to conform to the "Browse" and tree-diagram categorizing that may seem standard. Zafiroblue05 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like Draft B best. The layout is definitely more balanced than the current page, and it seems better balanced than A or C. Moreover, the more vertical layout of the "Wikipedia community" box and slightly bluer background is superior. (I am not simply opting for "all columns"— straight text lends itself to such treatment.) I was going to opt for some "eye candy" for it, otherwise. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of the three drafts, I seem to like draft B most. However, I feel that this can be improved and my suggestions for the same are given in the intended section. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like this one because it has both Picture of the Day and DYK, has no formatting issues (at least on IE), and all in all looks pleasant. Dralwik|Have a Chat
  8. Definately my favorite. It's nice to have the Picture of the Day every day. It's also great that there are some community things on the Main Page. Jeff8765 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Community feature was actually meant to fill the space until we thought of a new feature. I expected this draft to flop, but it's really popular. Go figure; I wouldn't have seen it coming. Then again, I would have sworn the Indianapolis Colts were going to the Super Bowl.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This one looks pretty slick. I'm mostly voting based on "look and feel" (so I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Draft A were chosen), but I've felt for a while that POTD deserves Main Page exposure 7 days a week. It's one of my favorite features. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice. --Black Carrot 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I too like draft B. Clean, interesting, and simple. I think that the POTD on the main page is good. Needs a little cleaning up to become more eyecatching, but they all do. Also, the bar at the top is a bit annoying, but that is in most of the designs in one way or another, and the ones that don't have it have other problems. --Reuvenk 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I vote for "Draft B", but the message "the free encyclopedia" should be brought back. JP Godfrey 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. (What's a wiki vote without bolded terms?) I like having POTD and DYK every day, and I like the colors of this one better than those of Draft C. — BrianSmithson 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I love the seven-day featured picture and in general its the most visually pleasing. - Cuivienen 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Great eye appeal! --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, though I think "the free encyclopedia" should be back, and I think that DYK should be moved up above TFP. C has too many boxes within boxes, and I hate the portal pics. The Italian portal is just plain scary. Ral315 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I like it :) Bart v M 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support... looks good and includes Pic of the Day as well as DYK without nasty gaps. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft C with six features and browse icons

To those of you voting here, Draft C has changed? Hopefully it will not have swayed any positive votes thus far negatively.. as I think it is a definite improvement. Improvements:

  • Fully operational, with automatic updates of Featured Picture, In the news, Did you know, etc. So it's ready to be set it as your home page or placed on your browser's tool bar.
  • Excessive blue buffer space at top has been reduced
  • switched out for a less space-consuming header.. but still nice coloration and "completeness"
  • Moved from 4-feature layout to 6, though this could easily be changed back.
  • Added a white box for the reference section at bottom.
  • Added "free" before "articles" per comments about the original "slogan" (welcome to wikipedia! the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) being removed from this style of header

Thanks all.. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I like the four features on Draft C, as six are overwhelming. Four features were fine, but I'm okay with six features, so long as they work well for others with smaller screens. The colors on Draft A are somewhat too bright, and I would prefer colors more mute like those used on Draft C. These browse icons also work well in this particular context. I liked the browse icons in this context, but am more indifferent to how the header is designed. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I didn't like Draft A for sure. I was just going to write down that I like Draft B but then there came the Draft C. I like the features of Draft B but I like the outline of Draft C at the same time. The spaces between the boxes and the portal icons look nice. The colors, I don't know, don't matter much. Draft C is somehow unfinished but still is the best I think. PS: I never though we could be this far. Conguratulations all! --Quinlan Vos 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like C or E best. A and B seem somehow empty and unfinished at the top; there seems to be some strange white space. I like having the portal icons easily available. Even with them at the bottom that's good, but I like them accessible at the top. Browsing is fun :-) I really don't like the last option, with all the colours and tiny icons.Skittle 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I love this one. --^BuGs^ 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The C is the most beautiful and comprehensive, so, I support this one. It will be even better if the icons (like the featured article icon, and the In the news icon) used in the Draft G were also included. Carioca 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Great colours, most attractive. Functional too, not too cheesy. Harro5 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. C just looks better that the other drafts, and is most useful, but even C still needs a few improvements (if were not past that point), like alot of blank space around POTD, POTD links are also much smaller than others (i.e. archive link). The community box is excellent, other version of it are much too large.Boccobrock 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I voted for B also, but I really like the version of C with six features. Jeff8765 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Looks good, but the community section could use something to make it a bit more attractive; or the descriptions could be shortened.--nixie 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Apparent blank space appears to be more when compared to A or B, still it's the best looking out of the lot. Xedaf 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like C best. In my opinion, functional and most attractive. John C PI 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I didn't initialy like 6 boxes, but this version shows that while the page is long, it's not too long. I also like the header. Oh, and I prefer the orange over the green box. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Draft c is the best, it has a little bit of everything, it even has picture of the day, and it just looks more neater than everything else.--WikiJake 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I tend to agree. Banez 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft D (new entry)

  1. I've changed my vote to this one (from B above). I like this one equally with draft B and C, but since this draft is a compromise with the supporters of the 4-box version, yet has all the same content as the "six feature" drafts (5-colored boxes are used, and the community material is placed with the boilerplate in the bottom section), I'm choosing this one. It's not fully operational yet (and has mock content for In the news and Did you know), but that can be fixed easily enough when the time comes. --Go for it! 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. dab (ᛏ) 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft E (Same as C, but with a slightly different header)

  1. i prefer draft E it has a little bit more than C Jakken 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like the look of E, including the icons at the top. --P3d0 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I prefer Draft E == I like the links on the top of the page to allow users to go to specific parts of the site; it's clean and organised and i think it's very clear. Thanks: Tom

I like Draft F with four features and browse icons

  1. I like the browse icons to be findable but not obtrusive. Otherwise I would vote for A. Metarhyme 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like the header of drafts A and B. (Also this is my draft :) Ashibaka tock 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like the heading and The Wikipedia Community as a section. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Draft G (Inspired by the Italian Wikipedia Main Page)

  1. I like how the search is more prominent at the top. This should be a feature in all of the new Main Pages. -Travis 20:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The search idea was deemed redundant in the discussion last week.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. (i suggested back in november [1] that) it would be nice if we could highlight the sidebar searchbox with yellow, on just the main page. --Quiddity 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this design is classy and not boring, as a couple other drafts tend to be. Aside from a couple of technical mistakes, it is excellent. I especially like the color and font scheme. (Some other drafts are similar.) I wish the spacing would be cleaned up a bit. - ElAmericano | talk 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I like this design as it is very colorful and plasing to the eye. It also has a very interesting layout. Tarret 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I also would prefer the draft.... G, because i like the colors and that """new""" fresh desgin--Topfklao 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like draft G because the colors are very bright, and the home page has an appealing look to it. --WriterFromAfar755 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is by far the best of the drafts. Just becuase a few people said the redundant searchbar is bad doesn't mean it's so. The most used feature on wikipedia is the search. On the main page, it isn't that obvious on the side. It is the best and fastest way to find what you need. Just becuase 2 or 3 people don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of people who use wikipedia should have a harder time finding the info they need. Also, this draft is the most atractive visualy by far, and looks the most sofisticated. It is very neat and organized too. Tobyk777 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No doubt in my mind that this is the best draft by far. --8shq8 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beautiful and functional. —Nightstallion (?) 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Easily the best draft for the home page i have ever seen! You have to be crazy not to vote for this one! It is stunning, and meets the eye beautifully. If i had to describe this in one word, it would be... Grand. Simply class. M cappeluti 10:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This version makes the best first impression on newcomers to this Wikipedia. This one gets my positive vote. --Infobacker 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft H (new entry)

  1. Support my own design (well, not really my own, based entirely off others). Zafiroblue05 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I guess I can get behind this. Ashibaka tock 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 02:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like this one too.--nixie 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OK by me. POTD below and clear c&lc portal links. Metarhyme 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I like this one, too. Solves the problem of having to fill the sixth area by eliminating it entirely. Plus, adds the search box up top, which will save the folks at the Reference Desk a lot of grief. — BrianSmithson 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good except for the colors. - ElAmericano | talk 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current main page—what we have is fine!

I have to admit that those attempting to load Wikipedia over dialup would highly prefer a minimal start page. Between the high latency of the last mile, to the well-loaded Wikipedia servers, less is probably more.

Would it be a better idea to create a set of links that would go to each feature or section? I understand that the "navigation" pane is intended to be generic for any wiki using Wikimedia software, but some customization there - possibly by the addition of a Wikipedia features menu - might solve the whole debate.

Then again, one could cookie the user's browser to let them choose the sections and features they want to see at startup. That shouldn't take too much bandwidth up, though I am no expert. Thanks for listening this long! 12.202.229.218 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any design elements you particularly like and want to see added to the main page, let us know here (in addition to your vote above):

  • I like them all. But I think there should be a balance between links and content, which all the drafts do quite well. I especially like the various browsing features in the headers of each page, and the expansion of subject areas to choose from in Draft B. --Go for it! 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always. Balance is key here. I think six features is too much content, but the links of Portals are a great way to save real estate and have them at the top, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like draft B, I guess the formt should be in the following suggested way so that it is easier on eyes. FA and In the news adjacent to one another in the first row; POTD and DYK adjacent to each other in the next row; Today in history and WP community in the final row. However, a caveat is that WP community would always be fixed in length. FA and Today in history are also more or less stable in terms of length. DYK follows, with In the News, both varying in length, the latter more. POTD size keeps varying and it needs to be kept in mind. I am not very sure if listing the portals is a good idea, as a new user may get lost in them rather than working on articles; more importantly, given the bad shape some of these portals are in, I would think that it is best not to have them so prominently. Another cause of concern: Why only these portals? Why not Portal:Law or Portal:Pornography? Should it be limited to featured portals? Should it be limited to broad portals? Who determines this? Probly these hv been discussed already, excuse me if I am raising what may have been a closed discussion. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed, but it's not exactly closed. The logic is that we go with the Top 10.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the portal icons, or at least the browsing category portals, being on the main page and obvious. They don't necessarily need to be at the top, but they should be there. Browsing encyclopedias is the best bit :-)and this gives a way in.Skittle 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may have come up already, but what does everyone think of putting the Collaboration of the Week on the Main Page?Jeff8765 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like any of the Italian Inspired version, except the title bar:
    ---
 

Welcome to Wikipedia

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit


---
Just stick that on the top of Draft A and I'll be happy. Some of the colours from the Italian version would be useful too, but I prefer the Draft A box arrangement. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That is the best header yet. --mav

Discussion other than voting

What happened to "the free encyclopedia"?

I really like the current message, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." However, the two current drafts only offer the message "Welcome to Wikipedia, 930,018 articles that anyone can edit." I think that this message is a lot less powerful and says less about the project. The concept of Wikipedia as a true, cohesive encyclopedia is important... removing this makes the statement a lot drier. It seems to imply that Wikipedia, as a whole, is no greater than the sum of its parts--that it's nothing more than a pile of articles.

Also, removing the word "free" gets rid of the free software (copyleft) and free-of-charge connotations which I think are actually quite key to the entire project.

Who decided to change this message, and for what purpose? Also, is there any possibility of changing it back? -Fadookie Talk | contrib 11:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. That was some anons idea and it saved space. It was also decided that "the free encyclopedia" appeares in the monobook skin in the upper left corner under the globe and at the start of each article. We can change that, sure, but if everyone else likes it, I'm afraid it stays.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support "the free encyclopedia" being put back. Black Carrot 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Free Encyclopedia" is in the left bar, right under Wikipedia's puzzle globe logo. It's on every page all the time. Just out of curiosity, why is it that you feel we need it duplicated?--Go for it! 17:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the phrase should be omitted from the welcome message. Not everyone uses the MonoBook skin, but the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." does appear throughout the site (directly below the title bar, which would be directly above the welcome message in question). Therefore, the phrase's presence in the welcome message is redundant for everyone and doubly redundant for most users (including any new visitor, because MonoBook is the default skin). —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come up with a good compromise.. simply adding the modifier 'free' (though it might be arguably redundant) on my proposal, Draft C, is only a one-word addition that will stand out to first-time visitors who look for that kind of thing. When I see "sign up for premium access" on a website, i automatically know that exploring it further is a waste of time. Seeing 'free' in such a genuine way though, is very encouraging. Also, only having at the top is fine for the rest of the pages.. but as it is a major principle of not only wikipedia but wikimedia, I think it is important to have this small addition on the main page. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We actually had this precise wording at one point. I don't actively oppose it, but it does seem redundant. Keep in mind that the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." will appear directly above this message. —David Levy 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"930,018 free articles that anyone can edit" is better. Still, I don't like the idea of Wikipedia being 'just a pile of articles'. Cohesion is an important principle, and it's important to get our principles across to visitors, especially would-be contributors.
If redundancy is such an issue, why say "Welcome to Wikipedia" at all? Visitors can easily deduce that they are on Wikipedia from the logo, the website title, and the URL.
I wouldn't consider redundancy bad in this case. We should be trying to introduce visitors to the site, not just feed them a statistic.
-Fadookie Talk | contrib 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this concern. I have yet to see any acceptable one-line solution. I think the above yellow bar is a good compromise - combine the article count with the search phrase. BigBlueFish 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who altered it. On the last draft before my alteration [2], the single line of text is not looking too good up there. In my view, the name "Wikipedia" makes it clear enough that it's an encyclopedia. On another draft, we actually had "Welcome to wikipedia, 900,000 free encyclopedia articles that anyone can edit" [3]. This is not a very catchy phrase (and is redundent) and it doesn't look as good with the overall design. As others have said, the phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is already prominent on all pages in two places. Personally, I favor changing it to "900,000 free articles that anyone can edit", as is in this draft: [4]. It has a nice ring to it and reaffirms the free information scope of the project. --24.26.178.224 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other designs

User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft (Draft C)

  • I like how the features boxes are done in this version, but the header is very lacking. Zafiroblue05 05:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the best looking draft although it lacks some features. I like the icons and spaces between the boxes here. If someone could merge C's outline with B's features, that would be splendid. --Quinlan Vos 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to both of these, I've combined B's features (all six sections) and added the top wikipedia thing that's much less space-consuming. Hope you all like. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also.. removed all the background white space and put the reference section inside a white box.. though that could certainly be improved. Anyone have a suggestion of a way to make it look better (besides leaving it outside formatting)? drumguy8800 - speak? 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's happened to the portal icons? Those looked really nice and separated this draft than others. --Quinlan Vos 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for mentioning that.. I was under the impression that the style I have up was the preference across the board here. I like how little space the current header on this draft takes up, but the portal icons are certainly nice. The bullets could be replaced with very smal versions of the icons.. I hesitate putting it back up the same as Draft E because I fear we will never reach consensus on such a space-consuming thing style. It also only has 10 portals, as opposed to 12 on the current Draft C (and other drafts with the same header). Any suggestions on a middle-point..? drumguy8800 - speak? 15:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purple background for the browsebar beneath the header is un-necessary and distracting.--cj | talk 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Violetriga/inprogress (Draft E)

User:Ashibaka/Main (Draft F)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft (Italian Inspired) (Draft G)

Looking things up

Wow. You people are messed up.

The reason I came here, though, is that there's something missing from the extremely prominent list of options on the current page and all of your drafts. So that you have a reason to listen to me and implement my suggestion, I'd like to take a moment to explain how I got here: Wikipedia_talk:Where_to_ask_a_question#From the Reference Desk There seems to be general consensus on the reference desks that people are winding up there who have no reason to be there, and after a short discussion it was determined that the problem could be the main page. After talking with the people one level earlier (Where to ask a question), I am more certain of it, and they support my idea for fixing it, not least because it would solve one of their problems too.

My idea is to include Look it up with Ask a question , Index/A-Z and Portals. This should be prominent. Not neccessarily more prominent than anything else, but certainly not less prominent. This is the main function of Wikipedia. You type a word in, it takes you to the article. The search is weak and I've never used a portal, but I can always rely on that. This is also the main function of an encyclopedia, other than the ones based on a tree like Portals and Categories, which for some reason seem to be completely seperate.

I hereby demand flaming criticism, and will not rest until I get it. Should none appear within a week, I will assume that means that everyone agrees. --Black Carrot 17:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like that's going to happen! Okay, I have a flaming criticism for you...  ;)

I have a criticism of you post: you said something was missing, but then you didn't specify what that was. Instead you went straight into your idea or solution. So...

What exactly is missing from the front page and all of these drafts?

By the way, take a look at the browsebar's solution to this:

Portal topics - (Random portal)

Activities
Culture
Geography
Health
History
Mathematics
Nature
People
Philosophy
Religion
Society
Technology

Notice that "Wikipedia FAQs" and "Ask a question" have been combined into "Questions". Do you think that helps? And if not, why not? We need to understand this issue as well as you do, if we are going to solve it.

--Go for it! 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the link? I think I was pretty clear about it there. What's missing from the front page, as it stands now, is an easy and self-explanatory way for people to look something up, as people are wont to doing in encyclopedias. So, quite a few people do the next best thing and ask at the reference desk. Combining all the places one could ask a question under one Questions heading is a good move, and I admit I hadn't thought to follow it and see the changes, but I think it would still be a good idea to have Look it up seperate. There's also the fact that it doesn't actually involve asking a question. This would, of course, make it harder to fit everything in. Black Carrot 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Look it up page, which is well written, and agree entirely that people should be encouraged to search, rather than ask questions. I have one slight problem with the phrasing: what is the difference between "Look it up" and "Search"? To me "Search" is more intuitively understood, and "Look it up", despite being described as a traditional way to use an encyclopedia, is actually a rather colloquial term. 62.31.128.28 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By 'colloquial', what do you mean? If you mean most English-speaking people don't use it, that could be a problem. I've just put a question about that on the Language reference desk to find out. Also, to me, search isn't just counterintuitive, it's downright inaccurate. The point of the Go function on the search bar is to take you directly to the article you typed in, just like a lot of print books are trying to do when they arrange things alphabetically. The Search function is an actual search. Black Carrot 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the error rate at WP:RD or at WP:HD will be aided by having a "look it up" link on the main page. Having tried to work against these problems of people asking at the wrong places, I've decided that there is only so far that you can explain that people are in the wrong place, and those making the errors are generally just stupid. Another link will sadly not reduce stupidity. jnothman talk 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to reduce stupidity, and I'm not trying to tell people they're in the wrong place. I'm trying to prevent them from ever getting there, and I'm trying to do so by taking advantage of their laziness and lack of interest in anything not immediately obvious. I think this would help, and if it wouldn't help enough, I'm open to suggestions on tweaking. I'm also open to a trial period.
What, exactly, have you been doing? Black Carrot 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to SUPPORT or OPPOSE

Rather than picking apart certain pages, lets get specific here and support or oppose certain elements of a page. Upon a (2/3) majority of votes, we will incorporate those into a community selected draft. Please use Oppose or Support , followed by comments, and of course, ~~~~, your signature.

For those of you familiar with this project! Please add whichever voting sections you see fit. Please place votes between <!-- Votes go here --> and <!-- Votes stop here -->. drumguy8800 - speak? 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorations

Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Black Carrot 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. At least half of the "oppose" votes pertain to the size of the bars/lettering and/or the specific shades of blue and green. I would not object to modifying these aspects accordingly. —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Bkwillwm 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I think these are more comfortable than the alternatives and current. jnothman talk 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Certainly the best out of the current options. BigBlueFish 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - the block of colour is too large. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Incompatible with the core design.   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm not necessarily opposed to green/blue, but these particular colors are a bit too bright on my screen. I also think the feature heading typeface is a little too large, and in the case of Today's featured article, the heading overshadows the actual link to the full featured article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinions, but I'm not sure why you perceive the feature heading typeface as too large. Throughout most of the site, we use the level 2 headings. Those are the smaller level 3 headings (usually reserved for subsections). —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with David on this, though reluctantly. The headline sizes/fonts are a different issue altogether not relating to the main page itself.   freshgavin TALK    04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. We've broken numerous rules for the MP, not the least of which are Title Case Capitalization and colorful boxes. To me, it is more of a webpage. Since when has the way we format articles dictated our MP design? - ElAmericano | talk 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose--cj | talk 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. This is really the one thing I oppose about drafts A, B, C, D, F, and H. The scheme is boring to no end. It doesn't give a good impression of Wikipedia. And it's not even blue I oppose – I use blue on my userpage and am fine with it. Rather, it's the boring teal-like colors we've chosen. I don't see how they are appealing or engaging. - ElAmericano | talk 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold and Purple (Drafts C & E)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Carioca 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Jeff8765 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -- Not much improvement over G/B but slightly more readable - Xedaf 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--cj | talk 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Incompatible with the core design. (EDIT: Heading style shows promise though, if it is made to stand out a little bit less.)   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is this supposed to be an assessment of the colors, or are we referring to the style of the feature headings? Some people opposed the green and blue bars on the basis of style, so I suspect that at least some of the above support votes are the same. For the record, I'm voting against the colors. I like the feature heading style. —David Levy 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with David Levy - don't like the colors, like the heading style on this draft. Zafiroblue05 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I REALLY don't like these colors.--Bkwillwm 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gold and purple-- the colors of the borgeoise! :) Ashibaka tock 08:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Inspired

Support
  1. Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose What are the snowflakes doing there?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't know but they're very ugly, along with the rest of the design. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Just didn't like it --Quinlan Vos 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - too busy. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why the little icons under each feature? Cheesiness! Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too busy, colors clash, icons are un-professional.   freshgavin TALK    00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't mean to offend the creator, but I dislike virtually everything about this version. —David Levy 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There are some elegant things about the Italian Wikipedia Main Page, but I don't feel this elegance gets across here; the snowflakes still don't make sense and the colours are quite unbearable. jnothman talk 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per jnothman.--cj | talk 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Header Styles

Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)

Support
  1. Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Make it white if you like, but I strongly prefer the layout. I don't think the search bar can be emphasised enough. People don't realise at first that they can usually find the exact article they want by typing the subject into the search bar; most people visiting Wikipedia for the first time are used to the paper method of looking up through an alphabetic index. Searchability is an important feature of using Wikipedia that should be emphasised. BigBlueFish 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Repetitive to the search box on the left of the screen.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yellow is simply a wrong color choice.   freshgavin TALK    00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't like the color, and the redundant search box is not a good idea. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Small (Drafts A & B)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Professional and blends smoothly with the core page design.   freshgavin TALK    00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Zocky came up with an ingenious layout, and I believe that my tweaks brought it in line with our overall design objectives. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I find this design very attractive. jnothman talk 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't like having a background image. Ashibaka tock 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - A&B's version is fine, but having the links above the header make them seem to be a tacked on extra that doesn't belong. This version make the whole page more cohesive. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bullets are not lined up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a mistake in transfer.. not meant to be part of the final design, apologies. Fixed now. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's OK but the bright aqua blue doesn't belong.   freshgavin TALK    00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Seems needlessly complicated. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. While this design makes the links box stand out, I find the busy colours more detractive than anything. jnothman talk 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large with Portal Icons (Draft E)

Support
  1. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Weak support. Images too big but good idea. WriterFromAfar755 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, but we should use the icons in Portal:Browse rather than these bad looking purple ones. Tobyk777 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too noisy, lots of wasted white space. Not appropriate for the main focus of a page.   freshgavin TALK    00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't dislike this design, but I prefer the small white layout from drafts A and B. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Far too noisy. And ugly. The Welcome to Wikipeda line is too scrunched up against the top. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet header (Draft F)

Support
  1. I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Support

  1. Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want. the one on the left is not obvious enough. Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP. Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Columns

Four (4) features

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   freshgavin TALK    00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Srong support --BigBlueFish 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Black Carrot 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Jeff8765 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Zafiroblue05 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Partial Support see comment below - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- Rohit 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - too much stuff. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is no worthwhile 6th and thus this is too much. Overwhelming for basic users. Increases page load time/bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per the above comments. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia Community as a 6th section doesn't make sense, because it is static. The colored sections should be updated daily. Ashibaka tock 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. I agree some of the above oppose comments, but I don't want to strike down the POTD option for those reasons alone. Perhaps people should check out User:Kmf164/Main page draft. 5 features seem feasable, and the non-updating community section stays as part of the bottom section. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Data

I don't understand what this refers to. Can someone please explain? jnothman talk 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the information at the bottom of the page — "Wikipedia's sister projects" / "Wikipedia in other languages" (and "Wikipedia community," in some versions). —David Levy 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within a Box (Draft C)

Support
  1. Support drumguy8800 - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Neater. Zafiroblue05 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Pastel box creep. There's no need to distinguish this from something else on the page, if there is nothing else. Ashibaka tock 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Ashibaka

Plain Text on a Page (Draft A, B, E)

Support
  1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   freshgavin TALK    00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't need too many pastel boxes. Ashibaka tock 08:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Too sloppy and bare. drumguy8800 - speak? 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we want to re-do the main page, let's make it worthwhile. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per drumguy.--cj | talk 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a step back

Lest we plunge into another round of voting on matters of taste, let's take a step back and have a discussion about what we want from the main page and what it should contain. Layout and colour schemes are secondary, and far easier to change than the content of the page. They can and should be dealt with later.

I've constructed a framework for a structured discussion below. We may want to stop voting and archive all old comments (including this one) and work on the structured discussion. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structured discussion

The following are identified issues related to the main page. Feel free to comment and add any new suggestions.

Functions

The main page currently performs following functions:

Welcoming users
Navigation links for readers
Invitation for new editors to join.
Showcasing quality content
Linking to articles likely to be popular at the time
Exposing articles that need work to the public
Links to other Wikimedia projects

Content

This section is organized according to the layout on the current main page. Please add any new ideas at the bottom of the appropriate subsection, under a horizontal line (----).

Browsebar

Browsebar is the top line of text on the current main page, used for quick navigation links to finding information on Wikipedia.

Do we need this and why?
  • This has long been used for links to different ways of getting information on Wikipedia. These seem to come in two flavours - browsing tools (A-Z, categories, lists, portals, etc.) and links to meta information. Browsing tools are obviously essential, but Wikipedia-related information also needs to be readily accessable. We may want to split them into those two groups more explicitely, though. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should put it there if we are willing to rehaul the actual contents of that bar. (Categories are unmanageable and overwhelming; portals have information for editors, which shouldn't really be there if the portals are meant for user browing; etc.) - ElAmericano | talk 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria
FAQs
Categories
Alphabetical index
Ask a question
Portals
  • We seem to like portals and many other browsing tools have been adapted to them. We should probably make them the primary browsing gateway. A prominent link is IMO essential, but this can also be in the portal link section. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Site news
Donations
Almanac
Glossaries
Lists
Overviews
Introduction
Calling it "How to edit" would attract those who want to edit, but not those who are asking "What is Wikipedia?". Wikipedia:Introduction is a very nice set of pages, but should be called "Introduction to editing Wikipedia". Some people clicking something labelled introduction will want an overview of the different areas of Wikipedia, rather than to dive straight into a Wikipedia editing tutorial. Some will want to learn more about editing Wikipedia. Some will want to learn more about exploring and browsing Wikipedia (either the content of Wikipedia by the content portals or other content browsing options, or by exploring the Wikipedia community through its portal). I think you need to make the "editor 'how to' introduction" followed by "editor browsing (content and community)" and "reader 'what is this?' introduction" followed by "reader browsing (content)" entry routes into Wikipedia more explicit. Wasn't quite sure where to put these comments. Please move somewhere else if more appropriate. 194.200.237.219 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 194.200.237.219 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to off-screen sections of the main page
Look it up
Do we need this and why?
  • These are very useful for quick access to portals, and thus articles about a topic. Portals should be regarded as extensions of the main page. They would be much more useful if they followed a clear hierarchy, at least for the first few levels. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Portals are regarded already as Main Pages for various topic areas. They are also loosely (although imperfectly) structured by hierarchy.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria
  • Same as for the browserbar links, I think we should decide on a fairly constant set of links for this. They should be those that a user will both look for and actually find useful. Topical portals linked from here should have soundly defined areas of interest. I also think that Categories, Glossaries, Overviews, Almanac and Lists should be made into portals and made available here, as a separate group. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Categories, Alamanac etc. should be made into portals nor should they be featured on Portal:Browse. As mentioned, portals are intended as Main Pages for various topic areas.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
Geography
History
Mathematics
No, this one is essential. In elementary school, math and science are different subjects. They should be here, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with elementary school, they're seperate throughout grade school, high school and college. They're just basically different, and they each have a wide range of things under them. Black Carrot 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essential, and will be even more in the future.
It does not matter how Mathematics is treated in/by schools, it is a science because it uses the scientific method in its research (that includes a possibility of verifying its findings and also the actual verification - peer review). Its position might look different because:
- it is an exact science,
- it is a service science (it is used by other sciences),
- it is widely used in other areas of life.
On the other hand, Mathematics uses Logic as a service science (or metalanguage), but Logic is not widely used.
It should be also mentioned that a new area of Mathematics emerges - Computer Mathematics - where people test mathematics hypotheses by conducting computer experiments. In this way, this part of Mathematics might one day resemble other natural sciences like Physics.
Gogino 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People
Science
Society
  • Just as culture, this is not really well defined. Society should be made a general portal for everything related to societies and cultures, which should have Culture and Humanities as major subportals. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would disagree. See culture.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technology
Art
As most (or much) of culture IS art I believe they deserve to be keps separate.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Health
Philosophy
I believe there is the need for a top-leve portal relating to religion, philosophy, etc.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
Humanities
I don't believe 'humanities' is as popular a top-level search as the ones already there.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Why do we have so many separate trees in the first place? Is it just that people couldn't agree on one organization system? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almanac
Glossaries
Why not? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists
Why not? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overviews

The welcome message

Do we need this and why?
How about rephrasing it the way the French wikipedia does [5]? "Bienvenue sur Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre, gratuite et multilingue que chacun peut améliorer

228840 articles en français, plus de 3 millions dans 212 langues [link to www.wikipedia.org]". If my French is up to scratch, that says: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, free of charge and multilingual that anyone can edit. 228,840 articles in French, more than 3 million in 212 languages." I would incorporate aspects of this as follows: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are more than 3 million articles in over 200 languages. This is Wikipedia's English language portal, started in 2001, where we are working on 933,872 articles." 194.200.237.219 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Black Carrot 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much Wikipedia's official slogan, or as close as there is to one.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...that anyone can edit.
written by its readers sounds like it may imply a more inward-facing structure, and though strange I wouldn't be suprised if there's many 'writers' who don't in fact 'read' Wikipedia. anyone can edit is general and easy to understand.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, to be able to edit Wikipedia, you also have to speak one of the languages it is offered in. At least to edit in any meaningful way. 194.200.237.219 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if you can't read the language, you can't read that guarantee, can you? So it doesn't much matter. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this English version...
Seems to imply to me that it is one of several _English_ versions. Also, "version" doesn't sound quite right. There is translation between the different language Wikipedias, but they are not really versions of each other. They are separate entities. How about "This is an English language encyclopedia, started in 2001. We are currently working on...". Breaks it up into two punchy sentences and loses the misleading "versions" bit. The other languages bit is important, but that function can be filled by having a separate, prominent "other languages" link to www.wikipedia.org [6]. 194.200.237.219 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really 'misled' by this? It seems perfectly clear to me. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point. I don't think it needs to be there, but it shouldn't be "version" anyway. --24.26.178.224 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...started in 2001...
I always read this as meaning that there were versions that started before 2001, and that there may be versions started after 2001. That is, I suppose technically correct (Nupedia and future forks spring to mind), but it is not clear that this is what it means, and there is no need for it to imply this. 194.200.237.219 17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Useless trivia. This information is not hard to look up. Someone may find it interesting, but everyone else has to sift through this answer to a question they never asked to delve into Wikipedia. And what exactly does "since 2001" convey? To the new-user, I'd argue it makes the project seem like an infant. It shouldn't be there just for pride reasons. --24.26.178.224 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...we are currently working on zillions of articles.

Features

"Features" are the boxes that take up the bulk of the main page, and which are mostly changed daily. These are the daily featured article (FA), Did you know (DYK), In the news (ITN) and Selected aniversaries (SA). The main questions are how many to include and how to organize them.

4 features
5 features
6 features
I like it. It feels nice on the page. Also, it gives a place for something we can't fit in the header (like the community links, maybe), and when we do get a sixth feature, it won't be hard to integrate. Black Carrot
I think it should be dealt with when there is a real need for expansion of features. Right now it's just wasted bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article
I believe it's the most viewed and most important feature, thus its prominent position and large (but acceptable) size.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Zocky. This is essential, though if the blurb can be slightly shorter, I think that would help make six features fit better on the main page. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe a possible solution was on the original first draft, though that seems to have disappeared slightly. Keep the first paragraph (doesn't have to be a whole paragraph - any amount that works) the regular font size and make the rest of the blurb a smaller font size - so about half of the blurb is in each font size. It gets more text in the same space, and can look better as well. Zafiroblue05 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the news
Did you know...
Selected anniversaries...
I think the selected anniversaries wording is used because of the lack of accurate dates for some historical events. It gives the impression that 'this date has been chosen' rather than 'it actually, really happened on this day'.   freshgavin TALK    23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of the day
Community feature
  • For a long time there was a community box on the main page, which took up the whole right column in the table. It was much like a condensed modern community portal. This had many good sides, so I wouldn't mind getting it back. It can be made quite prominent as far as I'm concerned. But, this will make sense only if it's regularly updated and genuinely useful. If we're just looking for a place to provide useful links, we should do that in a separate section, or provide a prominent link to the community portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Wikipedia has a "Participate in Wikipedia" feature. I think this is essential, and the community feature can fit this need. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need this and why?
  • If we don't go for a full community feature, we should use this. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is good for now to fill the sixth feature and provide needed links to encourage participation in Wikipedia. Though, we can always improve this feature. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no no no no no no no no. The community section on all the drafts that have one is wrong! I have a feeling this is going to be a tough one to persuade to the community to which it refers, but it gives far too much emphasis to the community. Jimbo has repeatedly stressed that the community is a means to the ends of writing an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not the community. The introductory sentence is just too distracting from the primary purpose of the encyclopedia. As for the links, at first I was all for keeping them in a condensed form, but looking at them, I think they are almost all redundant as per my comments below... --BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria

---

The Community Portal
The Help Desk
The Reference Desk
The Village Pump
The Signpost
Donations

Other languages

Do we need this and why?
Inclusion criteria
Other concerns

Sister projects

Do we need this and why?

Layout considerations

This is the section for general discussion of issues that should be considered in the main page layout. Specific graphic solutions will be dealt with later.

Small screens
Overwhelming the reader

Wikipedia Intro

Why is the intro linked to via the anyone can edit? It's too unclear. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is on the current MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because the intro is about editing? Black Carrot 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is the most surprising, and it's a jumping-off point for getting a reader involved. This is a good place to link to the Introduction. Ashibaka tock 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New draft (Draft D)

Based upon the above comments, I've compiled a new draft that incorporates elements from the other drafts:

User:David Levy/Main2

  • Color scheme: green/blue (like drafts A, B and F) + purple (similar to drafts C and E)
  • Header: small, white (like drafts A and B)
  • Number of features: 4 (like drafts A, E, F, and G) 5 (including featured picture)
  • Feature heading style: small, self-contained (like drafts C and E)
  • Reference data: within a box (like draft C)

Please let me know what you think. —David Levy 03:41/03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like this design. jnothman talk 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. I like it and think we're reaching a consensus. The main outstanding issue is the 5th (or 6th) feature, POTD. I have just made an attempt at adding POTD as a 5th feature (User:Kmf164/Main page draft), by:
  1. Shrinking POTD
  2. Swapping DYK and OTD (this could be switched back)
  3. We might want to make DYK slightly smaller (one fewer item, but updated more often)
  4. Today's featured article could show some more text to balance the left column (and/or list one more OTD item)
Do you think this might work, or any thoughts on how this looks. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I've been working on a five-feature version of my own (without having read the above). I saved it in the same location: User:David Levy/Main2 —David Levy 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having the picture of the day below the text columns is very smart. Good work with that. Ashibaka tock 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Kmf's 5-feature attempt: I was impressed, but I think that's about as much featured article text as anyone has the attention span for (it also seems to intentionally fit the heading of OTD onto common screen sizes), so we are left with the whitespace below OTD. I think that David's solution is quite brilliant, the only problem being that it pushes the Reference stuff further down and because the ref stuff has white background, makes that seem less significant. jnothman talk 10:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Despite the inclusion of an additional box and considerably more text, my version actually pushes the reference section down less. Here's a side-by-side comparison:
I took the screen captures in Firefox ("normal" text size, full screen) in the 1280x1024 resolution. With different settings, the difference can be much greater than that.
2. All of the drafts (except for the unpopular draft G) use a white background for the reference section. The idea is to use colored backgrounds only for the featured content (not the static information). —David Levy 12:04/12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your integration of the design concepts and your inclusion of all the features. I like this draft as much as Draft B and C above. Plus it puts the static (community) information back down at the bottom of the page where it belongs. However, you might want to go through the talk archives of previous rounds (and the tallies), as I think we got negative feedback on this configuration. And I remember a number of requests for placing the picture higher up on the page, and there was lots of criticism on "too many colors". But this draft looks much better than previous attempts at the 5-feature configuration (which had 5 colors). Just a thought, but one thing we could do is get feedback on this cool design right away: since Draft D was withdrawn above, this draft could be inserted as a "new entry" in Draft D's slot, to see what kind of feedback it gets. Good job, David. --Go for it! 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your praise. I obviously wish to solicit feedback, and I wouldn't mind placing my draft alongside the others (provided that its late listing is kept in mind). Perhaps a fresh letter assignment (H) would be better. —David Levy 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've heard back from the project leaders at Did you know, and they are ready and willing to extend its coverage to weekends. I was waiting to see if their spiritual leader (and driving force) "nixie" supported the idea before reporting here, and she does. So the path has been cleared on that front. --Go for it! 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main point here is that 5 features are feasible. Your solution for five features looks very nice and I'm impressed. With mine, it would take adjusting the amount of text in the other features, to balance the two columns. If that's what people want, we can work on it. I don't really have a preference, either way. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one best. When can we vote on it? :) Her Pegship 15:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote on it right now. I've added it as a new entry above (it's now Draft D), and have changed my vote to it as well. --Go for it! 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one doesn't update automatically. Not any reason to oppose it (I like its cousin, below, better, which also doesn't update) but this of course needs to be fixed sooner or later.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft c is the best

Draft c is the best, it has a little bit of everything, it even has picture of the day, and it just looks more neater than everything else.--WikiJake 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Banez 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the voting section. I've added these votes to Draft C in the voting section above. --Go for it! 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Draft E

I like the links on the top of the page to allow users to go to specific parts of the site; it's clean and organised and i think it's very clear.

Thanks: Tom

This isn't the voting section. I've added this vote to Draft E in the voting section above. --Go for it! 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another new draft (Draft H)

User:Zafiroblue05/Draft

Basically, I've taken everything from User:David Levy's very nice draft, except for the header, which comes from the Italian version, modified slightly (no more garish yellow).

  • Color scheme: blue/green as in A/B
  • Features box style: as in C/E
  • Header: as in Italian (G), but removal of yellow
  • Reference data: within a box (as in C)
  • Five features, as in User:David Levy/Main2 (though it could easily be changed to 4 or 6)

This would probably be my ideal choice for a main page, though it'd be nice to have a real quality 6th feature... As to the search box in the header - I think it's absolutely essential to have in the header, regardless of the minor redundancy. Searching is the best and easiest way to access information on WP, and a search box needs to be prominent. As to the Portals, I think this layout - a straight line - is much more aesthetic than the boxy setup of Drafts A and B. Zafiroblue05 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzy. Of all the ones I've seen so far, I'd say this is my top choice. Black Carrot 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporates all the aspects we've wanted. I went ahead and tweaked it a little but now my only concern is the search box. The "Go" button overlaps the grey line, even when I fiddle with my window size. Is this the style? Without the portals on the bar there, we can easily nudge it inwards...if I knew how. Over all, I love it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other small knit pick: We had a magnifiying glass in header background, like the book, just on the left. With the search box back in place, I think it's appropriate to put that in and balance it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the Browse bar below the WP heading (I think it looks more balanced), so on my draft I'm going to keep it like that for now. If this draft goes beyond just my userspace, obviously a consensus on whether to put it below or above the main header is needed. As to the magnifying glass, one can see what it looks like here. Basically, it looks fine with the yellow background, but when you switch it to white, it stays gray-ish and looks a little ugly. If anyone knows how to change it too look like the book (where the book itself is grayish, but what's behind it is white), please go ahead and fix it. For now, though, the draft looks cleaner without it. Finally, the Go button does not overlap the grey line for me, and I agree it would look rather ugly. I don't know why it overlaps for you, and am concerned it does the same for others. Like you, I'm rather inept with the code (I only made the magnifying glass disappear with adding "background-position: 0% 20%;" to its code, and don't know why that works). I can figure out how to nudge the stuff on the left in or out, and I know how to make the search box itself wider or smaller, but I don't know how to move the whole thing. Any help from someone actually knowledgeable would be much appreciated. Zafiroblue05 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix that. Point me to the image (I'm very inept at the markup code).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem - it's not a regular image tag. The magnifying glass image is called "EnWpMpSearch2." Switching the code to "EnWpMpSearch" makes it yellow instead of grey. But as to how to access the image itself - I don't know. Zafiroblue05
Putting "Image:" before it doesn't work...well, it was worth a try...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The code for the background images is found at MediaWiki:Common.css. User:Tom- put it there for his initial redesign. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this in more detail on the Help Desk. jnothman talk 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The magnifying glass image with the gray background was left over from one of my previous attempts. I created an appropriate version and added it to the draft. —David Levy 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer the header look in David Levy's latest draft, but will deal with it either way. jnothman talk 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the voting section above, as Draft H. --Go for it! 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insane project

This project has gone insane? There is no structure to this page or production *at all*. When does voting stop? When is a consensus reached? And if we're going to "vote" or do things according to "community consensus," shouldn't there be some way to access this from the front page, which is what's getting redesigned? I propose we contact administration, create a very clean voting sheet for drafts, set a 14-day voting period (as is FPC Nominations), and get this thing on and out of here. I'm not sure how voting would work, per drafts.. as some people might like certian aspects of multiple drafts. We've advanced far enough though.. if further improvements need to be made, they can be made after the "new" main page is published. Propose creating Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Voting and establishing the following voting categories (or let people vote on drafts):

  • Colors
  • Header
  • # of Content Sections (6 or 4)
  • Picture of the Day
    • Integrated in a column
    • or Has its own "double-wide" column

I may be completely off base here, this may just be part of the growing process and we might have steps planned after this.. in terms of adding more features / doing something else radically new. Otherwise, I think we're ready. drumguy8800 - speak? 05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood the situation. We aren't voting to determine a new main page. We're attempting to create a draft that eventually can serve as a candidate for that purpose. It was stated on Saturday (and remains stated at the top of the page) that this discussion period will continue until January 28th (after which point we'll resume our active collaboration), but feedback will remain welcome throughout the process. Only when we have a version that generates relatively little opposition (which is even more important than the amount of active support) will we be ready to advance to the final stages. We appear to be getting very close. —David Levy 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=36515232"