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

Results from straw polls

For convenience, as we will be accessing these a lot, here are the results from the various straw polls, with links to the drafts they refer to:

Alternative layout if search box gets dropped

Further to my comment above about how the header links divide nicely left/right between information links and browse links, I would like to suggest that if the search box gets dropped, that the two links "Categories" and "Index" get moved across to replace it. Thus the left-hand side of the screen would be the Tagline and Subtitle (two information links), with three further information links below it (Tutorial, Questions, Help), and the right-hand side of the screen becomes the portal links, with two (or three, depending on where the Portal:Browse link ends up) links below it (Categories and A-Z). In fact, I like these layouts so much, I'm going to add them to the page's edit history. I'll add links here to the three layouts I have in mind. Carcharoth 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, but the search box is nice to have. I'll agree that the links do seem to be of two types. I f you, say, have them on different lines, but aligned left, and keep the search box...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I wouldn't know how to turn that single line into two lines... Carcharoth 13:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I attempted (unsuccessfully, due to my poor coding) in the first place. It doesn't take up any additional vertical space, and it enables the insertion of additional links, so let's give it a try. —David Levy 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I really like what is up there at the time of this post: [1]. It should make everyone happy.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Three layouts for the intro/browse area

Here are links to versions in the history of the draft page, for three layouts for the intro/browse area (the header - portals list - browse bar).

1) [2] (a) Search box included. (b) "All portals" link in header. (c) "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset slightly (middot and enspaces) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help).

Oppose strongly. I am against the second search box for many reasons detailed above. --Quiddity

Oppose the inclusion of the search box. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. The current draft seems to be the best way of including the second search box and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. If the community really wants the second search box, then I'm fine with it. Though, my personal preference is for just the one search box, which I think is sufficient. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

2) [3] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link in header. (c) "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.

Support, but with the additional links from the current draft included. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. I think the design is simpler, and tighter without the second search box. Though, in this case, I would center all the browse links as in [4]. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Even better centered. This is my top layout of choice. (except with "all portals" instead of the 9th portal link, as discussed) --Quiddity 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

3) [5] (a) No search box. (b) "All portals" link NOT in header. (c) "Portals", "Categories" and "A-Z" links offset markedly (other side of page) from other three links (Tutorial, Questions, Help). (d) Links in this area now divide neatly left/right between information/browse types.

Oppose, because we shouldn't be adding any new portal links at this juncture. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Adding new portals should be handled separately from the design. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which do people prefer? Carcharoth 12:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4) Sj-draft. a) Search box, longer. b) "All portals" link. c) other links below top header box spaced out a bit more. d) softer border around the header. d) no bullets before the lists of portals.

5)This is my vision of the final draft. I updated Kmf164's draft to include the browsebar links from the current draft. --Quiddity 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Support strongly. --Quiddity

I just created that temporary page for this project, and I'm planning to expand it as soon as possible (hopefully with some help from others). I noticed that we don't have a link to our featured content, and that seems downright silly. —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re-added and updated --Quiddity

there is the box on the right at Wikipedia:Featured articles (et al), which is linked under the featured article box. probably you mean/want something additional though. --Quiddity

I mean that there should be a link to a page that serves as balanced gateway to all of the featured content. Wikipedia:Featured articles contains links to the other featured content that easily could be overlooked. —David Levy 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not a fan of the redundant search box, and I believe that its removal would boost the draft's likelihood of succeeding in the election. —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the search box. I do not like the spacing of the first one, so together that eliminates all of them. I really like [6] though: seperation of links, a good ammount of them, Portals, AND the search box.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or are we going back to multiple drafts?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

These "drafts" serve as means of illustrating potential changes without edit warring with one another. —David Levy 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, alright, it's just after working so hard to unify all the drafts I want to be careful not to go down that road again.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"All portals" vs. "all portals"

I prefer "All portals," which matches the other items on the list. Capitalizing the first letter is an arbitrary style convention, and there's no reason not to follow it consistently. (In other words, there's no linguistic justification; it isn't as though the other terms are proper nouns.) —David Levy 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to differentiate it from the other Titles. Bolding and lower case are to make it distinct and to "catch the eye". It's not a title after all but more a navigational instruction. hydnjo talk 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bold text is sufficient differentiation. To me, the lowercase "a" in "all" seems sloppy. —David Levy 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we certainly wouldn't want a "sloppy" lookin' Main Page.  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "Portals" is technically supposed to be capitalized. "all Portals" looks really bad, so I guess it's "All Portals".--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should the "p" in "portals" be capitalized? It isn't a proper noun. —David Levy 23:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I never suggested all Portals which does indeed look sloppy, confusing and undecided. My suggestion all portals was intended to set it apart without question from a list of Titles and to give special notation (besides bolding) to a bulleted item which although was in the list was not an item of the list. It makes use of editorial license to assure clarification. This technique is used, for example, at the end of the MP's featured article (not to drop names) to differentiate a navigational word from an article word. hydnjo talk 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again for the record we have: All Portals. All portals, all Portals and all portals or with bolding All Portals. All portals, all Portals and all portals, the last of which I prefer in this context. hydnjo talk 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! implemented a solution I rather like: put back Philosophy, and move Portals to be down with Categories.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't be adding any new portal links at this juncture. If we add even one, we'll be swarmed with complaints from people whose favorite portals weren't added. And for the record, the "portals" link was down alongside "categories" in the first place. —David Levy 05:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes it seem that the only portals are those that are listed, anyway that's what I'd think seeing it that way.

If you make a list of portals or whatever it is assumed to be complete unless indicated otherwise with whatever prompt. Devoid of the prompt leaves one to believe that the list is complete.

That makes me dislike the proposal as it leaves one to assume that all of the portals are listed which is untrue. I'll leave it alone for now to gather more comments. Thanks to both Gfi! for the idea and to HTH for your comment. hydnjo talk 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

agree with Hydnjo. I'm for "All portals". --Quiddity 04:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but which one (choose from the array above). Thanks, hydnjo talk 05:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All portals, not bold, it seems blurry in bold.--Quiddity

I like that - why not bold? Lets take a look bolded. Looks good to me. hydnjo talk 05:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

the "ll" and "als" get a tiny bit squished. might just be on my monitor though. i'm happy with any of those variations really. --Quiddity

Me too. I don't see your problems with my browser settings. hydnjo talk 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Exdenting:

I think I prefer the bolding without emphasis to bolding with emphasis. hydnjo talk 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it whichever way; one point is that a regular space between the words can cause the line to break and wrap. If a non-breaking space - '& nbsp ;' (without the spaces) - is put in, that will prevent it from looking odd on a narrow screen. Radagast 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternate draft

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Sj -- minimized borders, fewer distracting lines and bullets (no bullets in the header), more spacing between links on the left hand side of the header, longer search-bar.

I really like having a search bar front and center on the main page. And I strongly support moving the search up to the top of the stack in the left hand nav, on other pages. +sj + 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinions:

• As noted above, I oppose the column shading. It's misleading and distracting, and it just doesn't look good to me.

• The search box looks too long, and it would hinder the inclusion of additional links in the future (without introducing text wrap or vertical scrolling at the 800x600 resolution).

• The "Donations" link should not be renamed "Support Wikipedia." The latter is less accurate (because there are non-monetary means of supporting Wikipedia), and this should match the "Donations" link from the sidebar.

• The outer borders are too pale. They barely show up on my screen, and the lovely color-matching is absent. I also think that the title bars look strange without their borders.

• I like the bullets, but I'm not passionate about this issue; the box looks okay without them.

I'm sorry to be so negative. —David Levy 23:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the whole header design. I don't think bullets add anything at all to the page, so why have them? The lighter box border works really well, and it's really annoying when your search terms cannot be seen (I like to verify my spelling before hitting enter and having to scroll makes me tired). I think sj should go ahead and copy his header over here. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The search box looks really long on my screen; I dislike it. The abscense of bullets I somewhat like, however. The pale border colors, however, I do NOT like.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp and +sj: You seem to be the main 2 editors still wanting a second search box on the main page. Could you elaborate your reasons for wanting it? and could you update your opinion in the Decision thread now that i've enlarged the images to show the highlighted sidebar search in context. thanks. --Quiddity 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

just to enumerate the reasons why some of us are against the second search box:

• it is redundant. this will be confusing to new and old users: "does this one do something that one doesnt?"
• if it used by a new user, they will look in the same place the next time they want to search, but on any other page they won't find it in that location. (negative reinforcement) (yes they can just look to the left, but it's a mental hiccup that "Design" is meant to avoid.)
• it takes up space in the header, moving the actual content further down, and weakening the overall symmetrical layout.

It does indeed look like the tide is turning against me on the search box. Except for its abscense, I do like the current draft at the time this post was made. So I will capitulate in that effot on one condition: use the freed up space on the right for the links. Having them together but separated, with some regular and others italicized, looks really bad aesthetically.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I oppose centering the links. It appears very strange at high resolutions, because there are big areas of space on the left and right, and the whole thing looks as though it's about to tip over. It's much better to pool that space in the middle, utilizing it as a means of separating the meta-links from the encyclopedic links. This works very well in resolutions ranging from 800x600 to infinity. (Mine is 1400x1050.) —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Featured content

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

Reversions III

I've reverted Go for it!'s reinsertion of his favored portal link (with the misleading edit summary "efficiency"). Portal:Philosophy is good, but there is no consensus regarding which new portal links should be added. That will have to wait for a future discussion (which should immediately follow the main page redesign project), at which point I fully intend to support the inclusion of this portal link.

Also, we can't refer to the quick index simply as "index," because the categories and portals are indexes too. This is a specific type of index—an alphabetical one. "A–Z index" works, and "A–Z" is the term used on the current main page. —David Levy 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. The portals on the Main Page was just changed twice, without consensus, and you didn't step in there. You are being very selective in your enforcement of your consensus standard. --Go for it! 05:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it was changed once without discussion and rv'd because it made such a mess of things. hydnjo talk 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he's referring to the shift from "Culture" to "Art" on the actual main page. This isn't something that I would have taken it upon myself to do, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone were to revert it. That doesn't mean, however, that I need to "step in." If no one minds the change, so be it. My primary concern is that our list remain in lockstep with the real thing. Otherwise, we risk turning this into a portal list vote. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

problem w/ all portals

Newcomers dont know what a portal is!--Urthogie 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why we're telling them!  :-) —David Levy 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are we telling them? It just seems to them like they see all these broad topics and then "all portals". Perhaps this would be best with some kind of mini-header that said portals, and linked to Portal:Browse?--Urthogie 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If I see a list of specific items, followed by a bolded link to "all foos," it seems rather obvious that I'm looking at a list of foos. —David Levy 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I really just don't like the aesthetic look of having to tell people what a portal is-- they didn't come here to learn about portals, but to learn about Art or whatever. I'd say its best to just say Browse... to make it reader, instead of editor oriented.--Urthogie 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How would we be doing readers a favor by failing to differentiate between portals and categories (which also are used for browsing)? —David Levy 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't link to individual categories so thats not an issue.--Urthogie 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But how will readers know that this isn't a list of individual categories?! —David Levy 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was a heading, such as "Other Portals"--Urthogie 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how our layout could reasonably accommodate that, nor do I believe that it's necessary. —David Levy 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, a link labeled "Other Portals" suggests that the listed portals wont be there thus "All portals" is more accurate. hydnjo talk 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

agree with david --Quiddity

Search box

I think we need to have a specific vote of some sort on whether or not to include a search box in the header. The second box was recently boldly removed, but the last round of voting had little consensus on the matter, but (to me, at least) it appeared to show that a large segment of editors strongly wanted a search box, while those opposed to it on average felt less strongly about it.

It's a very either-or, for-against question (I personally am *very* strongly for), and as it appears that far fewer people are contributing in this round of editing (thereby making a less-representative result from this round *much* more likely to occur - see genetic drift), I think we need some way to bring a larger segment back in. Basically, there's not much more one can say about the topic, about whether it's redundant or necessary - few people are likely to be convinced from one side to another. We just need to solve the problem once and for all, and then both sides must be willing to accept the result.

I don't think a compromise is really possible. There already was a compromise, a very good one, incorporating both the portals in the top box and the search box below it. But if the issue is simply whether or not the search box should exist, it can't half-exist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opposition to the search box's inclusion (including mine) initially seemed half-hearted, and it was based in large part upon the absence of prominent portal links (which was solved). Subsequently, however, stronger opposition began to emerge (despite the compromise). Some compelling arguments have been presented, including the concern that readers will be confused when the redundant search box fails to appear throughout the rest of the site.

This isn't a situation in which majority voting is appropriate. Even if the search box were to receive more support than opposition (which is doubtful), that wouldn't be sufficient; the search box's addition absolutely would hurt the draft in the upcoming election, but its exclusion realistically wouldn't have a significant impact (because the current main page doesn't contain a search box, so there would be no reason to oppose the new design on that basis). Lacking clear consensus, I don't see how the inclusion of this controversial element can be justified. —David Levy 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! No seriously, the search box is the most important thing on the main page. Put it back where it belog. On the second thought, I will be bold and will do it myself. I find the above excuses pretty lame. The readers are now much more confused having to go through 100's of portals and categories and lists. Renata 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, others disagree with you, and they've provided specific reasoning. Declaring that these opposing viewpoints are "pretty lame" is hardly the best means of countering them.

Your above reply ignores the fact that a search box is featured in a consistent location (the left-hand side by default) on every page throughout the site (including the main page). It's reasonable to argue that a redundant search box might be useful, but please don't imply that no search box has been provided. And again, I'm convinced that the second search box would do far more harm than good (by distracting readers from the regular search box and training them to expect its placement in the wrong location). —David Levy 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of a good way to set-up the voting, but let's think about this...

When the official vote happens, maybe we should let people vote between (1) current main page and (2) new design. If they choose #2, then (1) extra search box or (2) no second search box.

Alternatively, maybe we can use time between now and the official vote to solicit opinion on this single issue through a straw poll and then present either draft (w/search box) or draft (w/o search box) for the vote. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We must not muddy the election waters by advancing more than one version of the draft. If we do, people will begin demanding that all sorts of arbitrary differences be put up for a vote, and they'll oppose the redesign if they aren't.

Either the inclusion of the search box is backed by consensus, or it isn't. I don't believe that it is, but a pre-election straw poll would be perfectly reasonable. Just keep in mind that "consensus" != simple majority.

Also keep in mind that we aren't voting on a design to be used for all of eternity. There's no reason why we can't allow the far less controversial layout to be approved (hopefully), and then propose that a search box be added. This is a wiki, so nothing is etched in stone. —David Levy 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put the box back. Before reverting, pleasse note: I don't know how about you, but I clearly remember the feeling WP gave me when I was a newbie: completely OVERWHELMING. I took me a while to find the search box. I know it is on every page, but it is so small, hidden among another dozen of links that take you to strange places (like special pages...). If you haven't you should try to brownse WP you'll give up in 5 mins. Links are everywhere and they take you in some strange places where are more... links! WP in that sense is a disaster. Please make newbies life easier. They will not get distracted from the regular box because they don't see/find the regular box! My first two months in WP I used Google to search WP. Renata 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ok, it got reverted in 8 mins. Agh... I know that my formatting is horrible and needs fixing and matching to different browsers, screen sizes, skins and all that. I am no expert in coding. But I wanted to (1) put the box back and (2) show that you can put everything in and not to waste space. Renata 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I still use Google to search Wikipedia! It works much better than our own search engine. And incidentally, your edit totally messed up the header (not just in the classic skin). Did you even preview the page before you submitted it? And why did you throw in the icons? Did you figure that you might as well, given the fact that you don't care about other people's "lame" opinions? —David Levy 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Renata screen.jpg

that's how it looks on my screen, and it's not even full screen size, please excuse my jpg format, Renata 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The header looks just fine on my computer. Want to see a screen shot? I want to see yours. Can you upload it? I put the icons just for fun 'cause I knew it's getting reverted. It always does. And I completely don't care what's going to happen to portals. Thay can be there with icons, without, they can get deleted, I really don't care. You do with them whatever you like and want. Just please leave the box :) and article number. That's two things I care about. Renata 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WP specific Google and WikiWax are wonderful. How did we get there? I rv'd Renata3's edit for the reason stated in my edit summary. That was my first problem and so it got to the edit summary. The extra searchbox, the icons and the tossing out of what I thought represented a sure and steady migration towards a consensus draft being summarily tossed doesn't seem the way things should be introduced. hydnjo talk 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Renata: This is how your header displayed in Firefox. You did check the page in browsers other than your usual one (IE?), didn't you? —David Levy 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty close to how it looked using Safari. hydnjo talk 04:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agh, what a drama :) You just need to find the right combination of divs and tables and it would work perfectly. But it dos not matter, I am not defending my edit (I completely agree some stuff there was going against compromises), I am defending the box. I suggest we go back to the basics, that is, what we do about the darn box? Have a pool? When? How? Not have a pool? Then what? I would suggest to have voting here and now before going to introduce the draft for voting. DL suggested we put the box after the draft is approved. But then it will mean another giant vote and another 2 months of discussions. Let's do it in one sitting. Renata 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting what I believe to be the best shot of getting the search box in (despite the fact that I oppose it). Presently, the consensus simply isn't there. Majority support is insufficient, and I don't believe that it even has that at this point. If you can be patient, you'll be able to advance a more persuasive argument when there isn't so much else at stake. (We don't want to see the entire redesign go down in flames because of this thing.) When the discussion is just about the search box (with no other variables), you might be able to draw more people over to your camp. It wouldn't require two months of discussions, and it might not even require a formal vote. —David Levy 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seem so afraid that the draft won't be approved? I see no reasons for that. I see nice improvements. But there is nothing really major different from the current page. We have different color scheme, we have a place for POD, we have a new box for a couple for community links, and new header that is just shifting the same info around (imho current draft version looks ugly; I have seen better even without the search box; but it is still better that current main page). And that's about it (besides some minor stuff there and there)... for n months of tons of discussions. I see no reasons to vote against. Even without the box the draft looks good :) So why are you afraid? Renata 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not afraid; I'm concerned. Many people strongly dislike the redundant search box, and they won't support a draft that includes it. It's that simple.

Why must this be a package deal? Are you "afraid" that the search box wouldn't make it in on its own, so you want to force people to choose between accepting it or sticking with the old main page? —David Levy 05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO an extra searchbox on only the Mainpage is a confusing crutch. One click later and the crutch is gone. Wha! Hey what happened to the search box? I see no advantage to that. hydnjo talk 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Readers should be encouraged to use the regular search box from the start, not distracted by one that immediately vanishes. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The complete draft would get overwhelming support because it had a little bit of everything on there. People aren't going to shoot it down as long as their favorite things are on there -- it won't matter to them if there's one or two things mixed in that they don't care for. As long as the draft is a general improvement over the current Main Page, it will win. Therefore we should be BOLD and provide the absolutely most functionally packed page we can. Not some scared-to-stick-its-head-out-of-the-hole-rabbit version. --Go for it! 05:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between boldness and brazenness. Adding elements that are strongly opposed, simply because we can, is not a logical strategy. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the argument concerning bugs. That's irrelevant at this time. We've got the rest of the months to debug whatever format we come up with. Whether that be with search box, or not. Whatever we decide to go with, it's pretty certain we can make it work. And even if we can't, we'll learn that soon enough. But this timid "we're not going to win the election if we put such and such in" doesn't even sound Wikipedian to me. Heck, we should put Wikipedia's main slogan Be Bold front top and center, so nobody forgets it. --05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Lets throw everything in", worthy or not, is burying our collective heads in the sand. And being bold is quite different from being brash. hydnjo talk 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Have you actually read WP:BOLD, Go for it!? If so, did you notice the "don't be reckless" part? —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tossing away all these developments makes no sense

Such a big fuss was made over the search box during this past round, that it seems absolutely ridiculous to pull it at the last minute. Someone has the wedding jitters. If you want some really sound advice, provide a draft with as many bells and whistles as we can provide, and if it is overkill, then specific features can be pulled out later. The draft is just too good not to win against the current main page - the draft in its myriad of configurations got overwhelming support from those who took a look. The Main Page got hardly any votes at all. And it's not like this draft will be completely untouchable once it becomes the official main page - I predict a firestorm of tweaking once it takes center stage. So we should put our best foot forward, give it everything we've got, rather than be timid and afraid of losing the "election", or of setting irreversible precedents, when in fact the main page doesn't have a snowball's chance in...
--Go for it!

Besides, strict voting doesn't count on Wikipedia. It is possible that some unpredictable consensus will come out of the upcoming "election", for if enough people state they want something specific, we really won't have much choice but to give it to them. --Go for it!

It wouldn't hurt anything to provide expanded portals and the search box. Those were 2 of the main developments of the main page draft design project, and now they're both being tossed out the window. --Go for it!

Our draft has been openly mocked because of the redundant search box. Do you realize that?

Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink is not the way to win approval. You say that "specific features can be pulled out later," but they can be added later too. Asking the community to approve X/Y/Z as a package deal, when Y and Z are controversial, is patently illogical. If Y and Z are backed by consensus, they don't need to ride X's coattails. This isn't about "setting irreversible precedents"; it's about forcing people to either accept elements that they don't want or stick with the status quo. And I believe that you might be in for a rude awakening when you see which choice they go with. —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, where and who "openly mocked" the draft? I looked around, I saw some comments back and forth but nothing as drastic you portray here. Am I missing something? Renata 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails#Main page redesign. I defended the project, of course. —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that one man's opinion. And now you have one woman's opinion that search box in the header is the best thing this redesign came up with. Renata 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many opinions, both negative and positive, have been expressed. At most, roughly half of the respondents support the inclusion of the search box (and I'm not even certain of that). —David Levy 06:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to DavidLevinson

Now there's a sysadmin who has the right idea. He just went in and changed the Main Page. We should be following his example. That's the fastest way to find out what people want. If the draft dies in the election, you could be sure we'd have another one ready the following week, and another the week after that, until it wins. So why be afraid? Some people are so afraid that consensus hasn't been built, that it has slowed this project to a crawl. The help page took 4 days to overhaul. The community portal took 3. And there was a heckuva lot more material on both of those. --Go for it! 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you fault people for wishing to exclude unpopular/controversial elements?! —David Levy 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't fault him, or anyone. You are reading way to much into this. I gave him kudos. Acclamation. Applause. And overall, I give this project kudos, acclamation, applause. But we could do better. And why not? There's no reason to hold back. Wikipedia is not breakable. Anything we do can be fixed, so why not go forward full steam ahead. Why be afraid to be creative? Why fear not being accepted? Why not just provide the best design we can without worrying it to death? The users will tell us what they want. --Go for it! 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my question. Why are you faulting us for being selective?! Providing the "best design" means honoring consensus—not including everything that you like. —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't fault you, I simply do not agree with your conservative approach. I don't think this makes you a bad person, it just slows things down. Way down. And for the record, I personally don't care for the search box, and opposed it when it was first suggested for the front page (it is already on the front page and every other page, so why include it again?). But a large percentage of users like it, and I don't see why we shouldn't ask the others to be nice and let them have it, rather than pitting everyone against each other in a support/oppose poll. Why not ask, "are you feeling generous toward your fellow Wikipedian's today? Can they have their beloved search box on the front page please?" If enough people agreed, wouldn't that also move us toward consensus? --Go for it! 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You believe that we should simply set aside our opinion that the search box's addition would be detrimental? We should endorse its inclusion..."to be nice"? —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter to David Levy

I humbly suggest you go back and read the input for Rounds 2 to 5. You'll get a real feel for the project then. It was mostly negative until Round 6, when things really took off. It actually started to feel like we were doing something right, and then fear set in. But there's nothing major at stake, so the conservative approach is just silly. The worst thing that could happen is Round 7 (though further rounds are inevitable anyways, whether under this project or a future one). --Go for it! 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's "silly" to exclude elements that are controversial or widely disliked? —David Levy 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is for the most part moot. Now we need to put our differences aside and beta-test the heck out of the final draft (and perhaps the search box version too, in case consensus sways that way). We have barely a week to find and fix as many glitches as we can. --Go for it! 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If we aren't ready by March 1, we'll just have to postpone the election. It's far more important to get this right than to get it done (poorly) by an arbitrary date. —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Again, I suggest a straw poll between now and the official vote, to gauge opinion on this specific matter. We can mention the straw poll when we put up the advanced notice of the official vote. I have gone ahead and set this up at Search box poll.

As with Requests for adminship, minimum of 70% support for the search box is needed for us to include it.

Please do not edit either draft version, as both need to be identical in every respect, except for inclusion of the search box. If there is something specific that, with consensus, needs changing on both, please ask me. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I will put notice of the straw poll, at the top of this page. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In a few minutes, I will also archive this talk page, as this open editing session has ended. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Active discussions should not be archived. I attempted to tell you this in advance, but you beat me by a minute. —David Levy 07:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about archiving everything above #Alternative layout if search box gets dropped? It seems that all other issues have reached consensus. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The other outstanding issue is #Find / Search box, so we should keep that here. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've archived the discussions accordingly.  :-) —David Levy 07:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for correcting me. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A search box navigational aid

For the newcomers (instead of an extra search box):

hydnjo talk 22:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What wording could we use? The search box's location varies from skin to skin, so we can't direct their attention to the left (or any specific location). —David Levy 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, a new user would be using the default skin; but this is still unnecessary if we visually highlight the default search box. --Quiddity 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true that a newcomer initially will see the MonoBook layout (unless he/she is using an account set up by someone else), but we can't include text that conveys a false statement to some users (even non-newbies). Also, I imagine that it's fairly common for people to browse Wikipedia without first logging out of accounts belonging to other residents of their homes (roommates, spouses, parents, siblings, et cetera). —David Levy 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I've left some hint at WP:VP/T (specifically Massive Error Slight Mistake) about our (ok - my) concern as to the obscurity of our search box. I don't expect anything to come from this other than my own personal gratification at not leaving it unsaid. hydnjo talk 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that thing takes up moe space than the additional search box itself! How about a link up there below the header that links to this page. That is, if it doesn't wrap at 600 x 800.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good so long as there is language that the same capability is available on every page. hydnjo talk 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That would take up too much space.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you need some language in the link. I was just thinking that we could be clever about it so that the user is not left with the wrong impression. hydnjo talk 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for the poll results.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just letting my fingers do my thinking.  ;-) hydnjo talk 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Book image

From Trevor macinnis' edit summary: {{sofixit}}. And what settings might those be? Why, in probably more than 10,000 edits hasn't it been decided upon before now? I thought there was a header poll that asked for this?

1. I did fix it (by removing the problematic image). Beyond that, nothing can be done, because the flaw is caused by the header box's inconsistent height (which sometimes exceeds that of the book, but sometimes doesn't). I increased the image's size by 25% (which is about as much as the low-end box height permits), but it wasn't enough.

2. Not everything can be determined via voting. When it's discovered that a type of coding causes problems for some users, it doesn't matter how popular it is among the unaffected users. (Of course, I don't recall visiting the option of having a clean header, which actually looks rather good.) —David Levy 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree here on these two items. I think that the box has been in since the beginning (or as much as matters) and should as such remain in the redesign. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the current book image (which I assume you're referring to above) from a photograph, and it looks good on my screen. Does it not concern you, however, that it might appear in an incorrect fashion for some people?

Increasing the image's size by 25% significantly improved the situation, but it didn't eliminate the aforementioned problem completely. Also, I noticed yesterday that the picture is unrecognizable on some monitors (including most of the LCD screens at my college). It appears as nothing more than a gray blotch (which is quite ugly, and renders the superimposed text less legible). Conversely, removing the image results in a clean, appealing design that displays properly under every circumstance that I've encountered. Shouldn't the main page look nice for as many people as possible? —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

3. What gave you the idea that the shaded columns are backed by consensus? —David Levy 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Remove that if you want. Its a separate issue. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've violated the 3RR by reverting five times in under 21 hours (along with the anon, who reverted four times), would you care to respond to the above? —David Levy 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I count only 3 reverts. The first two I think you are counting [7] returned the code accidentally (I hope) removed when Hohohob readded the searchbar here, and [8] when I returned the shading code (which as I stated above, I believe is a separate issue.) removed by Mr 64.48.XXX.XXX (and while I am trying to to keep in mind WP:AGF with him, his constantly changing IP and seeming lack of edits outside this project raise certain suspicions). - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the first two reversions count? The motives of the anon are irrelevant. (He/she violated the 3RR too, though it's possible that this is a newbie who doesn't know any better.) And yes, we should assume good faith, as there really isn't anything suspicious about a dynamic IP address (though you're correct in stating that it's a good reason to register an account).

But of course, I haven't reported any of the 3RR violations that have occurred within this project, as I don't believe that the usual standards should be enforced in this context (which is not the same as article editing). My goal in mentioning this was to encourage discussion. —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

POTD archive?

The Wikipedia:PODT_column_archive is misspelled? It should be POTD, not PODT. However its "subpages" are correctly named (eg Wikipedia:POTD column/January 23, 2006.

It has also run out of images, which is a lot more worrisome.. --Quiddity 03:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a redirect. --Go for it! 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The version of the pic of the day used for the Draft is Wikipedia:POTD row. I've corrected the link above. But some of the pics seem to be missing. Were those days skipped? --Go for it! 06:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Old days don't matter. Just have future days ready.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As HTH said, the old days don't matter (so I didn't bother saving all of them). —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While they "don't matter", does anyone mind if at some point I do go back and generate 'POTD row' formats for all of the old images? The Featured content portal currently updates every 60 second and cycles through a randomized list of the 480 'Picture of the day' format images from 11/01/2004 to 02/23/2006. However, there are additional images starting in May 2004 which are not currently set up with their own pages. The 'POTD row' format can be displayed better on the portal page, but doesn't have the archive of old images built up. Thus it might be worthwhile to put everything in 'POTD row' format so that portal has a full 'library' of past (and future) pictures to rotate through. --CBDunkerson 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. You can use {{Template:Generate POTD R}} to help set-up "POTD row" pages, with the consistent formatting. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not my departm,ent. Get it to work, that's all that matters.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sent a query to Solipsist re: Pic of the day

Solipsist seems to be single-handedly running the Pic of the day department. This means we need to work with him to determine how the new Main Page will be supported. And since the Main Page alternates also rely on the pic of the day, we might as well cover those at the same time.

So I've sent a message to Solipsist to open discussions about the future of Pic of the day department and how to best support the pic's various applications.

In order that the discussion does not take place in a vacuum, I'm letting everybody know so that you can monitor and/or join in. Perhaps you will think of something that escapes us.
--Go for it! 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should delegate the task to Solipist. We're just here to make the page work on the high level, we're not POTD experts.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If Solipsist wants to handle it, that's fine by me. Likewise, if Solipsist desires assistance, I'd be happy to help out. This really isn't a major issue, as it takes roughly two minutes to convert one of the standard picture listings (from the main archive) over to the format that we're using. —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some editing still going on

What is the story with some editing still going on? What is the difference between an open editing session and this one? I disagree with some of the changes being made, but don't want to make any changes as that could lead to things spiralling out of control again. Now that the open editing session has ended, should all changes be discussed on the talk page, or what? Carcharoth 09:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, the addition of that "Searching" link (which isn't a bad idea - though such links can be found behind the "Questions" and "Help" links), messes up the display at 800x600 resolution. On my browser you now have to scroll horizontally to see the whole page. Is it possible to put something in the notice saying that NO changes should now be made without discussing it on the talk page, and that any non-obvious changes will be reverted? Or is that too much? Carcharoth 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The versions linked to from the straw poll are also being edited. In some cases to keep uniformity with the changes made. In other cases making things look worse and maybe affecting the way people are voting!! Something needs to be done to stop this getting out of control. Carcharoth 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki; we don't need special permission to edit most pages. It always is a good idea to discuss controversial changes, and the "open editing session" was simply to encourage editing during a specific time frame. We shouldn't be making major design changes at this juncture, but minor tweaks and bug fixes are perfectly acceptable.

The "Searching" link seems like a good addition, and it can be accommodated by removing the "Donations" link (which I included because there was extra space).

I wouldn't worry about the straw poll. The important thing is that the two versions be consistent with one another (aside from the search box). —David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Open-editing session is over - will a sysop please protect the drafts

Please restore the versions of the draft reached by consensus (but make sure that the pic is called by the template "POTD row"), and protect the drafts. Thank you.

The drafts for demonstration have "Welcome to Wikipedia!" while the one on the main project page has "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think the exclamation looks silly and unprofessional, and the link is a must. Just make sure this doesn't get lost in translation.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should lock the drafts for the vote, but as we correct any problems, I think it should be unprotected so we can fix them. Also, when you said the drafts—those two were meant only as demonstration, and will not be part of the election. However, lock them if you have to for the straw poll, but keep the main one open.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of locking the drafts being used in the straw poll, why not just link to the correct version. Actually, on second thoughts, the problem with that is that someone can still try and edit that version, ignore the warning notice that they are editing an out-of-date version, and lose all changes made since that version. Locking is definitely better while the vote is in progress. Carcharoth 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, something needs to be done. The "Wikipedia!" needs to be reverted, and the "Searching" link removed (that was never discussed by anyone, just added by User:Trödel last night). --Quiddity 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Quiddity. After you do that, lock the straw poll pages while refining the main project page (the one you can get to by hitting "project page" above).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Templatized POTD row

To standardize with the other POTD subprojects, and for use in potential Main Page alternates (and on userpages, etc.), I've moved the code for the pic to a template, and have transcluded the template into the draft. Now POTD row and POTD column have the same file structure (template, prestocking/archiving page, pic subpages). --Go for it! 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have setup {{Template:Generate POTD R}} which we can used to generate Wikipedia:POTD row each day. This is similar to the generate templates currently used to setup Wikipedia:POTD, Wikipedia:Picture of the day, and Wikipedia:Today's second feature. With this generate template, I also added the title for the POTD, which is used in the Condensed version. Though, the title can be removed. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks useful.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost article

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

Edits

• As agreed to by Trevor, I removed the column shading.
• I also removed the book image (in favor of the pale gray background), and I strongly urge everyone to consider the page's appearance for other people (for whom the picture displays improperly, and even makes the superimposed text less legible) before restoring this purely decorative element.
• I removed the "Donations" link, which I previously added because there was extra space at 800x600. (With the addition of the "Searching" link, this no longer is the case.) This is the "sore thumb" link of the bunch, and it's expendable; it already appears on every page. Additionally, users who aren't logged in see a second donation request on every page.
• I changed the tutorial link from "How to edit" to "Editing" (to match the "Searching" link).
• I restored a non-typo in the header.

—David Levy 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with one comment ;) - most websites do not put "about us" first, but rather first put the things the visitors would wnat to do - thus I think Searching, Editing, Questions, Help, About, Donating - would fit - and maybe even on a 800x600 screen. Trödel•talk 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to switch the two lines around.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true that "about us" links often receive less prominent placement, but that's because they generally provide information that most site visitors don't care about or need to know (such as corporate background and stock history). Conversely, Wikipedia:About contains an informative, helpful overview of the site.

Trödel's idea to shorten the name of the "About Wikipedia" link is excellent. Instead of abbreviating it to "About," I've used the more descriptive "Overview" (which hopefully will prevent it from being mistaken for the type of link that I referenced above). With the "How to edit" link already changed to "Editing," this allows the "Donations" link to safely be restored. At 800x600, just enough space remains between the left and right rows of links.  :) —David Levy 03:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent change - I think it looks good and follows logically. Trödel•talk 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clear, crisp and clean.  :-) hydnjo talk 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I prefer the look without the book image to be honest, regardless of the compatibility issues.

I changed the straw poll pages back to their preferred state. I also removed the "searching" link, which had only been added to the "no extra search" draft, as it hadnt been discussed (plus the straw poll drafts arent for open editing.). I believe the intro on the "searching" page should be improved (mostly aesthetically) before it gets such prominent linking; then i would support.--Quiddity 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - will help searching page after work Trödel•talk 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Drumguy8800 has requested adminship

His RfA can be seen here. As he is a participant on this project, I thought you might want to know. --Go for it! 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No article count?

We should figure out a way to put that back in. That's a major point of curiosity and pride for Wikipedians. It'll be sorely missed, and therefore will be readded by someone after the election if not before. So, if we do it now, at least we can make sure it integrates well without a big editing battle on the live main page. --Go for it! 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article count should be included in the header. This isn't my personal preference, but it's a common request in the search box straw poll.

As someone pointed out a while back, the phrase "7,025,405 articles and counting" is likely to confuse people (particularly those for whom English is not a native language). It also seems a bit unprofessional, and it doesn't integrate well with the welcome message. (The appearance is cluttered, and there's no obvious demarcation.) Therefore, I've restored the wording "7,025,405 articles that anyone can edit." We can't include everything, and the redundant "free encyclopedia" slogan is the most expendable element. —David Levy 09:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll agreee with that.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nooo!!!

I didn't know there was a vote on to change Template:MainPageIntro!! I would have voted for keeping the opening paragraph the way it was! It was/is distinctively Wikipedian. Like the logo. This bigger, bolder text looks like a little kid wrote it in HTML class. --Nerd42 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus favors this. Don't worry; this draft still has to pass a final vote starting March 1st.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

O I C. Well, I have no issues with any other change ... it's just that people become farmiliar with the flag (as they define it in the newspaper buisiness) --Nerd42 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the slogan from the header

It really gives a false impression to those to whom English is not a first language, and even to those for whom it is. Looking at it from the point of view of someone who has never previously visited Wikipedia, th first think I would notice would be the header, not the logo. The header as it was before my edit would immediatelfy give me the impression that you valued your article count above the very principle of Wikipedia, that it is a free encyclopedia. --81.104.41.42 13:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue regarding non-native English readers was that the wording "7,025,405 articles and counting" would be confusing if interpreted literally. ("The site contains articles and counting?")

Secondly, I agree that article count should not be included in the header, but respondents to the current straw poll disagree.

Thirdly, the book image was removed because it was discovered that it displayed improperly for some users. —David Levy 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that many people even mentioned the article count this in the straw poll. I suggest we should try to reach a consensus on whether or not the article count should replace the slogan, and if not, where it should go (preferably at the bottom of the page). As for the book picture, I've tested it in 4 browsers (IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera) at 3 different resolutions (800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024), and for all of those, the book picture came up fine. That's 95% and 92% of all Internet users, respectively - more than most websites can claim. --81.104.41.42 17:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you test it under the "Simple" skin with a large text size? Did you test it on a low-end LCD monitor, such as the ones used throughout my college campus? Had you bothered to read the "Book image" discussion, you could have saved yourself a great deal of time and effort. —David Levy 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that the missing article count got lots of negative comments. "I like the draft but where's the count?". hydnjo talk 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an accurate summary. I don't agree with this stance, but I respect consensus. —David Levy 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there's going to be a search bar, we can simply put the article count next to that, but as it is, I'm sure people would rather see the slogan in the header (regardless of where else it is), simply because it gives a good first impression. I've tried a compromise, but I'm sure someone will find some reason to revert it... Maybe we ahould have a poll about this. --81.104.41.42 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. There probably isn't going to be a search box.

2. The wording "7,025,405 articles and growing" is worse than "7,025,405 articles and counting." The former is no less confusing than the latter, nor is it even a common expression in the English language. —David Levy 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've changed "growing" to "counting." If I gave you the impression that the latter is acceptable, that wasn't my intention. Both are confusing. —David Levy 19:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's work out the phrasing here and THEN add it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the slogan over the article count. Less ambiguous implications, more aestheticaly pleasing. I'd suggest that either option will have just as many adherents/opponents, as with the search bar, so a poll wont solve anything. Therefore, ummm, i dunno. --Quiddity 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the article count at this point in time because a suitable way of saying has not been thought of. If we could find a good way to phrase it, I'd support it. Even if we lose the search box (which we may indeed), the article count should not become collateral damage.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Quiddity and HereToHelp. The opinions expressed in the search box straw poll should be considered, but we haven't found a method of tacking on the article count that doesn't mess something else up in the process. I believe that "7,025,405 articles that anyone can edit" was the least objectionable attempt, but we don't know how the community would respond to the removal of the slogan. Also, it's possible that some respondents simply overlooked the article count in the "Wikipedia languages" section (which, in my opinion, is sufficient). —David Levy 20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. I'll take whatever form that comes out of this, because it is 98% agreed upon and done.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"992,675 articles that anyone can edit" would be my preference if the article count stands. hydnjo talk 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore article statistic? (and some trivia...)

999,999 articles in english

or 999,999 articles about life, the universe, and everything! Which reminds me of some Wikitrivia...

Did you know...

...that the Italian Wikipedia has "Don't Panic" (in italian) as a permanent element on their Main Page?

--Go for it! 15:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Background

How do you made the background images in the fisrt bar? Please don't redirect me for other pages, explain this question here. Regards. -- Slade _T 17:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

answered on talk page. --Quiddity 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Improving the "Donations" link

Now that the "Donations" link has made a reappearance, can I suggest that an earlier change be restored? I made the earlier change from the current link of Wikimedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods to Wikimedia:Fundraising (the link used in the appeal to those without an account), on the basis that people randomly clicking on this link will want to read something first about why they are being asked to donate, rather than just a rather rude, IMO, how to donate. It just seems rather presumptuous to me. The text on that Wikimedia fundraising page is arranged that way for a reason, and linking to the donation methods section shortcircuits the layout of that page, designed to lead people through the process. The same argument applies to the "Donations" link currently in place in the Wikipedia boilerplate navigation pane (at left in default view), but I don't know how to change this - I would greatly appreciate it if someone could bring up this line of argument in the correct place to try and get that link improved as well as this one on the Main Page.

The other point is that, in a similar argument to the ones about the search box appearing twice, and the "free encyclopedia" text appearing many times on a web browser's display, I fear that the "Donations" link is appearing too many times. For those who are not logged in (ie. most readers), a donation link appears in the navigation pane, on the Main Page browse bar, AND in the "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" link that displays for unlogged in users only. This is overkill, IMO, and gives an impression of desperately needing money (even if this is true, giving that impression might not be the best strategy). Carcharoth 12:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Kill the link all together, and reduce text wrap while you're at it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should rename Wikipedia...

...to the Encyclopedia Galactica. --Go for it!

Well, it could happen...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But it's beyond the scope of this project.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)