Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Putting the cart before the horse

It seems premature to me to open an RfC regarding content to be added/retained/removed to/from the Main Page without first having some idea of what users -- and not just editors -- want from the Main Page. As I've mentioned at Talk:Main Page, it seems to me that the first step ought to be deciding in a general sense how the Main Page is used, and/or how we intend it to be used. That will lead us to a general sense of how the layout ought to be, and only then is it appropriate to plug in individual items. cmadler (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always unfortunate and disastrous when an RFC is launched prematurely, without consideration to the design of the RFC. That's how we ended up with an 18-member ArbCom composed of editors with low support tallies-- faulty design of the RFC. I suggest that whomever created this should delete it until ample discussion has gone into just what should be in the RFCj-- until then, it's a waste of time and another misguided RFC typical of so many. Without further discussion, we don't even know that the right questions are asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand if you drag out the process too much everyone gets bored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is just to get ideas about what editors want or don't want to see, which will be helpful in the long run. If you want to discuss everything to death, fine by me, but don't blame everyone else when nothing ever changes. People tire of endless discussion and no changes. AD 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is not merely the sum of its parts. It's a careful balance of cross-dependent ingredients compiled with specific objectives in mind. This RfC's format encourages isolated discussion of individual elements without addressing important internal/external factors and considerations. It won't yield useful data or effect change. —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can come in a separate discussion. If we discussed everything on one page, it would be too difficult to follow. All we are seeing is what the community wants to see on the main page. If you don't like it, you may leave at any time. AD 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the same thing, nearly word-for-word, when I warned against the previous main page redesign approach. The endeavor ultimately failed miserably and wasted many people's time.

In fairness, I don't believe that this poll is as ill-advised as the "competition" held last time. —David Levy 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dragging out the process" is precisely what this poll will accomplish. At the end, we'll be left with a big pile of largely useless data; knowing what elements people support/oppose (with little or no consideration of why they are/aren't included and how they depend on each other) won't enable us to do anything constructive. —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all. It doesn't really matter why people want or don't want something. This is a community-run project, so if the community wants certain things on the main page they can say it. AD 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DEMOCRACY.

It matters very much why the community wants or doesn't want something. The main page's content is based not merely on what people enjoy seeing, but on Wikipedia's goals and principles. This poll focuses on the former and largely ignores the latter.

Without consideration of our underlying objectives, the support and opposition is of practically no consequence. —David Levy 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Voting on the main page's individual elements in isolation isn't particularly helpful. We already have people supporting/opposing their inclusion without regard for our underlying objectives and without addressing important internal/external factors and considerations (discussion of which is discouraged and hindered by the fragmented format).

At best, this is a waste of time. At worst, editors will expect a binding outcome and become dejected when we don't abide by what "wins" and "loses." —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disagree. Structuring it element by element gives a much clearer indication than just asking people to throw ideas into the ring. If it's such a waste of time, I'm sure you wouldn't be commenting here telling everybody that. AD 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that last sentence several times, and I haven't managed to make sense of it. —David Levy 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd @ the last sentence (though I don't think it was intended to be funny). Aiken, does the idea that someone is trying to save TheCommunity™ from wasting time seem far-fetched to you? Killiondude (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing we could do is to survey our readers to find out what they find useful, and then design based on that (if needed). Another thing we could do is simply take all the featured content (boldfaced articles for TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, FL, and image for FP) on the Main Page for several days and find out the hit counts to see where people are going. howcheng {chat} 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second part is easy, I did it about a year ago and I checked the numbers now on a small sample and the trend seems similar: from 4.2 M visitors per day to the main page, ca 30K in average (fluctuates widely) go to FA, 20K to FP, 15K to ITN items, 5K to All Portals, 3.5K to the top DYK with picture and 500 to a DYK without picture. That's just based on a small sample of 7 articles each, a survey on a larger sample would be more accurate, but this gives an idea of the general trend. --Elekhh (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That accounts for approximately 76.5k out of 4.2m visitors, or approximately 0.2%. What about the other 99.8% of Main Page visitors? cmadler (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should agree that readers don't care about any of the things we put on the main page. They only use it for search (I'm guessing). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. The figures I mentioned above actually add up to ca. 3% if you do the maths correctly and consider that there are 6 ITNs and 4x7 DYKs every day. That still suggest that the vast majority (95% ?) use the main page for starting a search. --Elekhh (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theoretically possible research task to survey the readership, but it would be expensive, involved, and complex to gain data that would be useful for the redesign. Actually, if the Foundation wants to spend a little money on acquiring data on how its 300 projects are used—who uses them, how, for what purpose, and what their wish lists would be—they should consider doing it on a wider basis than just for the main page of en.WP. Heaven knows, they seem to throw money at schemes I find of marginal benefit.
But do we need detailed and complex data on readers to do a redesign? The current nerdy unattractive mishmash is the camel designed by a gargantuan committee, eons ago with respect to the evolution of the internet, and we didn't seem to worry about data on the readership then. Nor do we worry about readership data when writing articles or creating most of the meta-policies and guidelines for en.WP.
David, I'm unsure why you're referring to the RfC as "data": what the discussions have shown without doubt is the groundswell of opinion that the main page urgently needs major change. Tony (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If 95% of the readership just uses the main page for search why not have a really big search box and nothing else? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Simple Search Box), maybe with some tips from Help:Searching? It's a very radical departure from the status quo, but if the links below the search box were tabs (clicking loads the content below the search box), I might be able to get used to the idea. Rd232 ^talk 08:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? I know its all 2001 Google, but its better than 1990's Yahoo where we are now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think that would be a great starting place for a redesign discussion. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy idea

What about moving the featured picture to the top right next to the featured article, then moving ITN and On this Day to the section below next to each other. Then have Did you know going double width below that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The featured picture section requires the full width to prevent layout problems (which frequently arose when the featured picture appeared in one of the columns on weekends). It makes sense to display it below the text-focused dynamic sections because it loads slowly for some users and is inaccessible to others (due to technical limitations or visual impairments). —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every other website manages to have big pictures, especially at the top. The current featured picture takes up 12kb. That's tiny. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't "every other website," and I don't recall establishing consensus to ignore the concerns of dial-up users and visually impaired people. —David Levy 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think moving the content around the main page is going to affect disabled users, and with regards to dial up users the main page already contains 266kb of Javascripts and 90kb of Css (when logged out so TW etc aren't counted), so dial up users are still going to take a minute or so to load the page. FWIW my Facebook main page rocks in at 965kb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You "don't think" that placing an image-based dynamic section above text-based ones would affect visually impaired users? On what do you base this assumption?

2. Thinking back to my dial-up days, I distinctly remember waiting for images to load after the accompanying text already had appeared.

3. As noted above, we originally displayed the featured image in one of the columns, resulting in layout problems (even with non-panoramic images) that were resolved when we relocated it to the full-width box. —David Levy 18:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think that based on the fact that you wouldn't actually be removing any content from the page, and that disabled users don't seem to spend their time complaining about the rest of the internet which uses vastly more images, even websites like the BBC which offer a public service. Besides if we actually wanted to support disabled users more perhaps we could offer a large print version of the main page?

2. The same applies to CSS and Javascript which no-one complains about today - probably back when you did use dialup most websites didn't have lots of CSS and Javascript.

3. I'm sure that can be worked around with some good design. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I regularly complain about Javascript, and I don't consider myself to be "no-one". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Visually impaired users have little choice but to accept the fact that most things aren't designed with them in mind. Wikipedia, however, goes further than most websites in attempting to make its content as accessible as possible for as many users as possible. In this instance, that entails placing the most accessible content at the top of the page.

Your argument amounts to "Others don't care, so why should we?".

"Large print" is attainable simply by increasing a browser's text size.

2. Many elements incrementally increase the page's loading time, which is why we must weigh the pros and cons. You propose that we relocate slower-loading content above faster-loading content, a change in which I see no advantage.

3. It was worked around with some good design, which you now seek to undo. (Full disclosure: I proposed the full-width featured picture box.)

If you know of a way to remove more than half of the section's available width without adversely affecting the image's display, please tell us. —David Levy 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. No it isn't. Try actually doing it. Even increasing the font size to 24 from the standard 16 makes websites like the BBC difficult to read properly. One of the only websites to handle it well is Arstechnica. And they do it by fixing the font size. Wikipedia does an OK job with its 2001 styling, but that means the website looks rubbish to everyone else. It would be much better for there to be a large print version that actually did a good job and styled the elements correctly. If you actually have a large print version with a set size there's a good chance editors might actually test their articles against it - which would provide a much better experience to disabled users.

2. Except for making the website prettier for 99% of users, and if they aren't complaining about the CSS and Javascript they won't complain about much smaller images. The big cost as far as I'm concerned as a web developer is the number of things you download, but if you aren't increasing the number of images and are just making them bigger then it doesn't matter.

3. Maybe we change the layout so it goes full width all the time, maybe for panoramic images you put the text below, there are many solutions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. If it's possible to create a "large print" version providing a superior experience, I agree that we should.

2. I disagree that your proposed layout would be "prettier," and I don't know what gives you the idea that removing more than half of the featured picture's available width would enable us to "[make it] bigger."

3. Again, placement within a column caused problems with non-panoramic images. We weren't even able to display panoramic ones until we switched to the full-width box.

We do place the text below panoramic images, and we nonetheless receive comments that they they should be larger. Removing more than half of the available width would again prevent us from displaying panoramic images at all.

"[Changing] the layout so it goes full width all the time" might be a feasible option, but that isn't what you described above. —David Levy 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@1, its definitely possible, and it would provide a better experience as theres a much better chance it would actually be tested. @2 and 3, fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very possible nowadays to have fluid width images; eg the image will expand to fit whatever container it is placed in (until the image is at "actual size"). This would solve this entire discussion, which shouldn't even be happening yet! I suggest we continue agreeing aims and content before even considering visual design and layout. — Pretzels^Hii! 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And for the record, I've long thought that a fluid-width image, if technically feasible in MediaWiki, would serve the section well. —David Levy 00:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the panicked criticism over asseccibility used here to attempt to shout down Eraserhead1's ideas, I think that the thought about developing a purpose designed accessibility main page has tons of merit. Hanging accessibility concerns around the normal main page design strike me as turning accessibility into an albatross, and I don't see how that serves either the "standard" main page design or accessibility issues well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your characterization of my feedback. At no point have a sought to "shout down" anything. I've expressed honest concerns (only some of which pertain to accessibility) regarding a proposed change to the English Wikipedia's primary gateway page.

I fully support the idea of creating alternative versions addressing disabilities, but that won't eliminate the need to keep the default main page as accessible as we reasonably can. —David Levy 01:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it was meant to be critical commentary. Mission accomplished. You've been openly hostile to this RFC throughout, so I don't see why I should apologize for call you out on it. Get with the program or go away (or go ahead and try to shut the thing down, if you think you can). Otherwise, quit bloviating already. Sheesh!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing disagreement ≠ being hostile.

During the last main page redesign process, I conveyed concerns regarding the methodology employed. I did so not in an attempt to sabotage the endeavor (as some alleged), but in an attempt to prevent it from failing.

I was told to "get with the program or go away" (in words very similar to those). I departed, my warnings were ignored, and the proposal eventually went down in flames (but not before numerous editors' time was wasted).

As I noted elsewhere on this page, I don't believe that this RfC is as ill-advised as the "competition" set up last time, but I (and several others) regard it as highly flawed and believe that a different approach should be taken. I'm sorry that this offends you.

Of course, none of that is particularly relevant to the above thread, which is separate from the poll. Eraserhead1 presented an idea in good faith, and I replied in kind. Are you suggesting that when a user makes a proposal and requests feedback, the only appropriate response is support? —David Levy 03:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, but whatever. It's clear to me at least that you're not here to be helpful, but to shut this process down. you say that's not so, but your statements belie your interest. Anyway, my own interest in this is much more limited than your own, so whatever. I'll leave you to it. Let nothing change; I may not like it, but I can live with with it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you perceive me as a saboteur, just as some did last time. Once again, I'm baffled as to what you (and those who share your view) expect on the part of someone who supports the ultimate goal but disagrees with the methodology employed. It truly seems as though you believe that such an individual cannot exist (i.e. that I'm either with you or against you), which is quite disheartening. —David Levy 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

given david has been happy to give up the fight for dial up users and is prepared to accept a specific page makes me sure his objections are in good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more with the comments from Ohms Law (V I R). David, without the slightest malice, I ask you to consider taking a more open approach to the notion that the main page will inevitably be redesigned, and in three or four years will probably be redesigned again. I see the same old arguments put up about accessibility, dial-up users, democracy, and the like, but these are now unconvincing. I note that you yourself use a rather small screen; perhaps this is playing on your view. Tony (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on elements?

You want people to individually vote on and/or discuss "Main Page" elements such as "Link to site news"? You can't design a horse by committee. Seriously.

If there's something wrong with the main page, discuss that. Figure out what's wrong with it, articulate that, and then have people discuss and vote on that. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think someone did design a horse by committee, have you seen how fragile their legs are? That was surely an oversight. But point taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its quite interesting to see people's views on the different sections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting? Perhaps. Useful? No. —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MZ: the point is, no one can agree with what is wrong. Most agree that it could do with some change. So here we are. AD 21:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...compiling isolated data derived via a highly flawed methodology and serving little or no real-world purpose. —David Levy 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, fine. But please respect that others think differently and wish to participate here. AD 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero doubt that this is a good-faith effort to improve the main page, and I respect all involved. I simply disagree with the approach. —David Levy 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. This is hardly scratching the surface though; it's an opinion poll if anything. It might even reveal that the main page can be kept much as it is. But it's still useful information nonetheless. AD 21:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To find out whether "the main page can be kept much as it is", it might be an idea to actually ask that as the first question. Find out first how many people want change and ask them to give one or two suggestions as to what they would change (or reasons for not changing anything), and then design further RfCs to follow after that first and basic question is answered. But that would require halting this RfC and starting the RfC again from scratch as a survey. Adding this (obvious) question now at this late stage may not get answers from those who 'voted' early. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carch, only a handful of folks have commented, so they can readily be asked to revisit. I have added a section on Satisfaction with main page at the bottom, split into contents and layout so we can get views on this. This should have possibly been at the top, as it gives the foundation over how to proceed with the next bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation should pay a designer

The Wikipedia process is antithetical to good design. Wikimedia Foundation should get statistics on what people use the front page for, and then pay a designer to create something both functional and beautiful. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely essential that the Wikipedia community play an active, ongoing role in any redesign. An outside contractor, accustomed to working on websites that cater to the majority (at the expense of minorities), is likely to apply the same design philosophy to Wikipedia, thereby contradicting our accessibility principles and impeding our core mission as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Case in point. —David Levy 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the designer did a perfect job, we'll pitch a fit if we feel like it's "imposed from on high" rather than very obviously controlled by us. The Wikipedia community has more than its fair share of control freaks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I see this going

I'm of the crowd that this RFC isn't premature, but I don't think it's going to prove all that useful either. I see some value in putting every detail of the Main Page on trial, and this is a good, organized format for figuring out where people stand on each feature. Of course, we can't take all the polled results together and design a Main Page by committee—that would be a disaster. Further, the poll results might contradict each other, and I know that my personal opinions are contingent on what else is adopted. For instance, I support good articles on the main page on the condition that it would be instead of the current DYK feature, and I support having a separate featured image feature only if we can't find a way to work it into having more big and pretty images on the Main Page in general. Thus this RFC should be viewed as advisory, and designers shouldn't be worried about adhering to the poll numbers so much as they should consider all the different opinions expressed and come up with a good solution that way. I know I would change my mind on some of my votes if someone cobbled together a package that simply worked despite having things I originally disagreed with. hare j 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last part hit the nail on the head for me, I'm less concerned about certain things being on the MP than I am the overall design. And there's no real way for this RFC to gauge that. Having said that, I'm fully supportive of this RFC running it's course. Hot Stop (t) 19:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking back to the previous main page redesign attempt (which failed), my concern is that some participants might have an unrealistic expectation that their votes will directly determine a new main page design (with the "winning" elements included and the "losing" ones omitted). When this doesn't occur, such individuals are likely to feel dejected and be discouraged from participating in future steps of the process. That's essentially what occurred last time. —David Levy 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might we consider an option on this RFC page that reads "It is more important to consider the Main Page as a whole than the individual features"? hare j 20:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the RfC page, "continually tacking on sections as we think of them (in the hope that we'll stumble upon something worthwhile) is a highly impractical approach. Nothing ensures a poll's failure more reliably than rushing to take it live and trying to sort out the kinks on the fly."

Even if the above question were to attract many responses, it wouldn't alleviate the frustration that inevitably will arise among those who answer the other questions (believing, in good faith, that their input will have tangible results). —David Levy 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that the main page's individual elements don't exist in isolation, they also reflect specific goals and principles. Omitting our underlying objectives from the equation (as this poll does) results in data of little value. Something might seem like a good/bad idea to many people, but we don't know whether they've considered the reasons why we do something (or don't do something) a certain way. —David Levy 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "What are the aims of the main page?" section of the RFC more or less addresses that. hare j 20:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As several of us have stressed on the RfC page, it's important to determine our objectives before making decisions dependent upon them. —David Levy 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily add some broad principles along these lines and see where it takes us. I'll post some in a second. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This exercise rocks!

1. I learned something consulting at a chemical company: debate the substance, not the process. IOW, debate which startup venture should be prioritized first, second, etc. But don't debate how you are going to run the prioritization exercise. Seems simple, but really moves things forwards!TCO (reviews needed) 03:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. What I like about this exercise is it forces us to look at all the parts of the page and really think through things. I found the actual learning AS I VOTED was a benefit...not just what I voted for. And I think how complicated this issue was, we needed an "exercise" to fact-find, rather than a proposal. This isn't a relatively on-off thing like "should we desysop RHE", that EOTR can just do great pre-work for and then people vote yeah or nay. This is a tough nut, where we have to do a lot of learning.

3. People are participating...it's great...way higher content and value than the disorganized bellyaching at the Main Page Talk.

4. Even just LISTING all the parts of the Main Page is good pre-work. Kudos to whoever set this bad boy up!

5. Could we pleeeeze have more sections, though? It is just painful getting lost with answeres and scrolling around stuff with huge bloccks of block text in edit mode windows. (yeah...that is "process"...but not a debate, just a request...I can put them in myself, but not if some Wiki-nazi reverts me.)

TCO (reviews needed) 03:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a tough nut, where we have to do a lot of learning." - might I suggest that the learning start with reading how the main page got designed in 2006? See Wikipedia:Main Page history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page. Some of the lessons learnt there no longer apply, but many do. Re-inventing the wheel is inefficient if people don't learn from previous discussions. I was around when that main page design was being put in place, and so was David Levy. Not sure who else currently participating here was, though. It was a very useful exercise, and the vote that took place to accept or reject the design remains one of the largest-ever votes on the English Wikipedia. It got 943 people participating. Far more than you see here. So you have to think not just of those giving their opinion here, but also the need to satisfy those who will not participate here, but only in some final vote. My advice would be to either be completely radical, or conservative as some will vote against change because they like the status quo. Also, don't forget that people can always have their own customised main page in their userspace that they set up in terms of layout. The goal here is to achieve a purpose with regards to a readership, not satisfying the demands of editors or designers. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, don't forget that people can always have their own customised main page in their userspace that they set up in terms of layout" - how many people do this? This isn't something even most web developers are going to do, let alone ordinary people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives — Pretzels^Hii! 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many people actually use any of those? I picked Ghost at random and it has 199 views a month. The main page has 130 million. We need to get the main page right and not just hope that people will use something else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that any main page design needs to be aimed at the general Wikipedia readership. During the design process, you will encounter people wanting design feature X because they want it, not because it would benefit readers (trust me, you will, it is a form of WP:ILIKEIT). It is those people that you point at the Main Page alternatives and explain to them the concept of self-customisation. Trouble is, in any vote, many editors will vote for what they like, not what they think is best for Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to decide what is "best" for Wikipedia? Many of those alternative pages have features which are superior, or missing from the current main page, so are useful for ideas. AD 23:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who can decide what is best for Wikipedia in terms of Main Page design, but I would hope that people contributing to a design process, and voting on what should be on the Main Page, would do so in terms of getting a design that will benefit the most people, rather than anything relating to personal preferences. That is my point about customisation. The difference is one between preferences that can be set by the individual, and a public-facing page that all visitors to Wikipedia will see by default. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does the basic concept of Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (tabs) (it's a bit clunkily done) have some appeal? Tabs would certainly make it easier to get a "how to contribute" section, which too many people even now seem to think is a bad idea (well who needs to attract new editors anyway?). Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never see such separation of content on main pages of modern websites; they usually just put everything upfront for all and sundry. The closest thing I see is a rotating featured item. The White House is a good example of this. hare j 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see what you're saying but (a) the current design is hardly modern or standard (b) whether you call it "tabs" or a "horizontal navigation bar" (like the White House website, eg), it's not that much difference. The point is that you have an opportunity to quickly jump to related things in a way that really says "click me". The vertical navbar is fine for general use, but on the Main Page, it's not enough of a call to action. Though, I'm suddenly thinking, why doesn't the left vertical navbar have a "contribute to Wikipedia" link, along with "donate to Wikipedia"? It wouldn't be a substitute on the Main Page (not visible enough), but why not? Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tally.

14:38, 24 July 2011

Satisfaction with main page
	Content of main page
		0	Content with it exactly the way it is
		14 (48%)	Satisfied in general, but willing to consider some minor changes of content
		11 (38%)	Feel it is in need of a comprehensive review of all contents
		4 (14%)	Satisfied in general, but major changes in content needed
	Number of items of main page
		3 (38%)	Too many items on main page
		5 (62%)	Number of items on main page about right
		0	Too few items on main page
	Layout of main page
		0	Satisifed with layout and design exactly the way it is
		7 (32%)	Satisfied in general, but willing to consider some minor changes of design
		15 (68%)	Feel it is in need of a comprehensive review
	Layout (on first appearance)
		1 (33%)	Needs to be simpler
		2 (67%)	Can remain at similar level of complexity and detail in number of elements
		0	Complexity and detail can be increased
What are the aims of the main page?
		79% (11 S, 3 O)	To showcase Wikipedia's best content
		89% (8 S, 1 O)	Entice readers to become editors
		83% (10 S, 2 O)	Help readers find specific articles
		80% (12 S, 3 O)	Showcase timely and newsworthy content
		40% (2 S, 3 O)	Promote the breadth of Wikimedia projects
		40% (2 S, 3 O)	Motivate editors to create new content
What should be featured on the main page?
	Currently on the main page
		45% (10 S, 12 O)	April Fool's day Main Page
		77% (10 S, 3 O)	Link to the introduction
		62% (16 S, 10 O)	Site statistics
		47% (9 S, 10 O)	Links to portals
		97% (33 S, 1 O)	Today's featured article
		71% (22 S, 9 O)	In the news
		62% (25 S, 15 O)	Did you know
		50% (15 S, 15 O)	On this day
		73% (22 S, 8 O)	Today's featured picture
		70% (23 S, 10 O)	Today's featured list
		46% (6 S, 7 O)	Link to the community portal (in addition to link on left menu)
		100% (13 S, 0 O)	Link to the help desk
		7% (1 S, 14 O)	Link to the local embassy
		50% (8 S, 8 O)	Link to the reference desk
		12% (2 S, 14 O)	Link to site news
		12% (2 S, 14 O)	Link to village pump
		82% (14 S, 3 O)	Links to sister projects
		38% (10 S, 16 O)	Wikipedia in other languages (in addition to "Languages" section at left)
	Currently not on the main page
		49% (17 S, 18 O)	Good articles (in some form)
		0% (0 S, 23 O)	Good articles (as separate section)
		78% (7 S, 2 O)	Good articles (as part of DYK)
		100% (2 S, 0 O)	Good articles (instead of new article DYK)
		18% (4 S, 18 O)	Featured portals
		77% (20 S, 6 O)	Prominent links to joining
		80% (20 S, 5 O)	More pictures, less text
		23% (6 S, 20 O)	Link to the Signpost
		43% (6 S, 8 O)	More about Wikipedia itself
		29% (7 S, 17 O)	Most viewed article list
		25% (5 S, 15 O)	Links to policies
		31% (4 S, 9 O)	Full-size graphic for special events
		43 % (3 S, 7 O)	Today's/This week's/This month's featured sound
		83% (5 S, 1 O)	This week's/This month's featured topic
		75% (3 S, 1 O)	Spotlight on....
Discuss before RFC
		46% (11 S, 13 O)

Didn't check accounts, so some may be ineligible. -- Jeandré, 2011-07-19t12:45z [updated by ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Whatever happened to WP:NOT#DEM? While I like the idea of a ‘preliminary’ brainstorming on individual bits so people will consider things they might otherwise take for granted, all the issues are not independent from one another, so a tally like that makes little sense, and I'd rather proposals for the design of the main page as a whole were taken in account after this. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an idea for consensus that should have been obvious in the first place....

(1) List all current elements of the mainpage, and the other suggestions of material not on.

(2) Get everyone to rank from highest priority to lowest priority to go on page

(3) at the same time, get everyone to give a number of the items they think should be on the mainpage.

(4) If someone can tally number of elements currently that'd be great

(5)Let it run for six weeks

(6) Gather consensus at end - highest to lowest with cut off around the consensus number of elements

(7) a this point, design away

How's that. I'd start this myself but I have some RL chores to attend to and I am lousy with layout Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense.

Main page elements aren't independent building blocks that can be stacked together to amass an arbitrary quantity, nor is it reasonable to gauge their importance via a numerical tally of people's personal preferences (which might not reflect Wikipedia's core principles and the needs of its readers). Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. That's why this RfC, as implemented, is largely unhelpful. —David Levy 22:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is useless per TCO above, but it should be seen as a first step, and the best use for the tallies is to play lotto with them. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "useless." I went with "largely unhelpful," given the data's limited value and the misconception that it's appropriate to simply count the votes and design the main page accordingly. —David Levy 03:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, these are all building blocks and all information would be useful, as would some independent research on readers and their expectations of what should be on the front page. Furthermore, although this isn't a simple exercise, neither is it rocket science. I think we need to quantify how folks rate the importance of elements, and a ranking gives this better than the quasi-binary RfC template. We need to get some sort of aggregate idea of priorities here. So I disagree with "largely unhelpful" as much as I disagree with the facile notion that we ignore head counting in increasingly large discussions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to imply that the number of persons favoring x or y is irrelevant. But it's only one part of the equation, the rest of which has been largely ignored. The resultant data isn't meaningless, but it's incomplete.

The poll's initiator stated above that "it doesn't really matter why people want or don't want something," which directly contradicts the principles of consensus-based decision-making employed at Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me that some 3MB wall of text with many thousands of words but lots of 'discussion' and no formatting will get us anywhere. That page won't help us here. We need numbers. The page is directly undermining its validity with statements such as "Too many cooks" in it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not claiming that the quantity of editors favoring a particular element is irrelevant. I'm saying that "numbers" alone aren't sufficient. If you believe otherwise, I suggest that you head over to Wikipedia talk:Consensus, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and propose that Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making model be modified. —David Levy 06:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are fine for small discussions. This isn't a small discussion. It doesn't scale up well. How you are going about this is unhelpful. We've got some sort of discussion happening so a better way of proceeding is look at what pieces are missing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...the principles described at Wikipedia:Consensus should be set aside whenever a discussion is large?

What's "missing" is context. In theory, the main page is a balanced compilation of components intended to complement each other by serving various functions for the site's readers, not a pile of stuff voted most popular by editors.

It's illogical to evaluate the main page's individual elements in isolation (instead of focusing on the big picture), just as it's illogical to rank people's favorite cake ingredients (thereby potentially ending up with three flavors of icing and no flour).

I wrote "in theory" above because I'm not implying that the main page is perfect and cannot be improved. We should identify goals for the page as a whole and act on those. —David Levy 14:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But “a number of the items they think should be on the mainpage” is not the way to go. Did you know takes two orders of magnitude more room than the number of articles, so why should they both be counted as 1 in such a process? ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 10:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the (S − O) should be replaced by S/(S + O) × 100%, which is less ridiculous (four supports and one oppose is more likely to be taken as consensus than fifteen supports and eleven opposes). Secondly, the red and green should be removed from cells where the majority is not overwhelming (hell, in some cases it's not even statistically significant). ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTH...

Done. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INVALID, per David Levy. We don't design the mainpage around a few editors that show up on RFC, and we don't do things based on "tallies" of "votes". Futher, there are massive issues at DYK, including almost a dozen different RFCs, that need to be discussed more broadly and resolved before anything can be done about the mainpage, since DYK has a huge chunk of territory from which to display plagiarism, copyvio, and policy violations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating it... ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A strong foundation for both short- and medium-term planning

Even though the RfC is a relatively small sample, the impressive majorities for some issues give strong indications of how we should proceed. Here are the big numbers for the big picture:

Content: people want change

0% are content with the status quo.
100% want changes, of whom 56% (15 of 27 editors) want major changes.

Layout: people want change

0% are satisfied with the status quo.
100% want changes, of whom 71% (15 of 21 editors) want major changes.

These results are a sign that a larger RfC would be highly likely to produce in-principle consensus for redesigning the main page: no one is happy with content or layout as they are, although just how the page should be rethought will be more difficult to nail down. We need professionally produced alternatives for the community to consider: otherwise we're whistling in the wind as we did last time with a set of well-meaning attempts. And we have clear indications that five years after the last design was set in cement, we want at least two things:

More pictures, less text: 86% (19 of 22 !votes)
Showcasing content is uppermost: the aim of showcasing our best, timely, newsworthy content, and our breadth of content, scored a total of "16", outstripping the other categories of drawing in new editors ("6") and navigational function ("4").

Medium-term plan for a fresh design

I believe there's enough evidence here to prompt the development of a timeframe for a redesign over the next 6–12 months, consisting of further community input and, somehow, the engagement of web-design specialists. This will involve the bouncing of ideas and actual sample designs back and forth between us, the community, and them, the web-page specialists. We have expertise in the project, they have expertise in the design and the technology, and both sides have partly different and complementary expertise on the readership—with considerable overlap. Many developers would kill to be able to boast they'd won the race to provide a swish new public face for the English WP; this is, let us remember, the flagship for the fifth- or sixth-most viewed site in the world (15,000 hits a second).

Short-term changes quite possible

In the meantime, we now have clear signs of what people don't think belongs on the main page any more, five years after the last design was set in cement; and of two links people do want to be incorporated. There's absolutely no reason these results can't be moved forward with another RfC very soon, since they will no doubt be incorporated into the new main-page design in the longer term. Here are the impressive numbers.

Clear support for removal from the page

April Fool's Day (12 !votes of 16, i.e. 75%)
Link to local embassy (12 of 13 !votes cast in that category, i.e. 92%)
Link to site news (12 of 14, i.e. 86%)
Link to VP (12 of 13, i.e. 92%)
WP in other languages, listed in addition to the side-bar list and the single link in Sister projects (14 of 23, i.e. 61%)—not a landslide, but approaching a supermajority, and the section takes a large amount of text when editors say they want less.

Clear support for adding to the page

Prominent link(s) to joining [the editorial community] (17 of 23, i.e. 74%).

Summary recommendations

Hold an RfC soon to determine wider community support for early changes to the current page (see just above), which would probably be carried forward into the new design.
Develop a strategic plan for the next 6–12 months to get the community and one or more web-page developers interacting, to move towards a new-look main page that expresses en.WP's aims and astonishing success with panache.

I welcome editors' comments on these interpretations. Tony (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a more accurate representation for those who chose “Satisfied in general, but willing to consider some minor changes of [content/layout]” than want change would be wouldn't mind change; also, how did you calculate the “scores” in “Showcasing content is uppermost”? Anyway, I agree with this medium-term plan. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 14:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(If you just summed the supports minus the opposes for “To showcase Wikipedia's best content”, “Showcase timely and newsworthy content” and “Promote the breadth of Wikimedia projects”, that's pretty lame, as one editor by supporting each of them would get that three points, where it would be impossible for one editor to get three points to one of the un-pooled sections. Averaging them would make more sense, and would yield a score of 51⁄3, against the 6 for drawing in new editors. In any way, editors weren't told ask to rank the goals, only to comment on each individually, and there is a ≥2⁄3 majority for all of them. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No, I counted supports as a percentage of total !votes for those categories, and gave the raw numbers too. Tony (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the sentence starting with “Showcasing content is uppermost”; where did you take the "14", "6" and "4" from? ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone's gone and changed all the stats on the table above, so it's hard to go back. But you meant "16", "6" and "4", I guess. Through simple addition (the first was of three categories). Tony (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what I had guessed. Since people could support or oppose as many things as they wanted, summing doesn't make as much sense as averaging. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide mainpage content based on "votes", and I'm not sure we are in a position to launch a more comprehensive RFC until the massive issues at DYK are resolved before a wider audience, since they have such a huge chunk of mainpage territory and the issues there are systemic and, so far, unexamined and unresolved by the broader community. Nor has this alleged "clear support" for removing the April Fools TFA been demonstrated-- there are many voices missing there, and TFA is not going to be penalized by DYK's excesses (not to mention that the vote tally, even recognizing that we don't do things based on "voting", on April Fools listed above is wrong-- there is no consensus, period, to remove April Fools TFA, although it is evident that DYK has issues). There are many issues with the conclusions here, and we don't design the mainpge this way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, April Fool's Day makes us all look like fools. It's cultural-centric and silly, I think. So do other people. Consensus is produced by voting, no matter how much one might try to cover it up. It's just not the democratic type (50% + 1 voting wins). Tony (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could go and say that the massive issues at ITN need to be resolved before a wider audience first. This is something that can continue placing a hold on progress indefinitely.

While generally I push WP:NOTVOTE quite hard a straw poll its the only way to go for something like this. I'd exclude the languages for now, as they are a little more controversial* and some people may vote against because something they like will be removed. However I think the consensus on the rest of the stuff is high enough to take to a combined poll with a 60% majority required to enact it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that I !voted in favour of keeping languages, and I'm still slightly in that direction, so take me as bias with regards to this - I'm content to vote in favour of the proposal regardless. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, in addition to the side-bar list? How many lists of them do we need? Tony (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does much harm right at the bottom <shrug>. I don't really care particularly strongly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any RFC about changes to the main page, can the wording of any announcement please be discussed first. There is far too much potential here for various people invested in this process to 'spin' things to get the conclusion they are looking for. I would also hope to see a large degree of participation and the same notification used as was used to attract 943 people to the discussion in 2006. That would be more impressive than the figures of (in one case) 13 people commenting here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]