Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remaining concerns

Navigation box

name/title/heading options

  • navigation
  • browse
  • contents

Anything else? (add it above, argue it below). --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Link selection

This is the trickiest bit. What to include, and what order to put them. LOTS of possibilities; and ramifications. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Help box

The current draft's version assumes we're trying to duplicate/replace the main page links (see /Archive 03#The link line on the Main Page).

help

If we decide against that rationale, then the links could be reduced to just the original batch:

help

Or other links could be added (any suggestions below). --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


name/title/heading options

  • help (not contextually accurate)
  • other (ambiguous and vague)
  • Interact [version 20]

Some more comments

Rather than respond piecemeal, I've grouped my latest comments here (these are directed at the version on the project page, or any proposed changes to that version):

  • Toolbox link order: "What links here" is a very useful tool. I think it should be put at the top of the toolbox, or at least above "Related changes". The reasoning behind this is that "Related changes" is an editing tool, while the other four above the divider are reader tools (cite, permalink, printable, what links here) and then have "related changes" at the end. To avoid the previously mentioned conflict between having "related changes" and "recent changes" next to each other, I would suggest changing the order below the divider. ie. One of these orders: (1) cite, permalink, printable, what links here, related changes | special, recent changes, upload file; or (2) what links here, cite, permalink, printable, related changes | recent changes, upload file, special.
    The reason I put it right-above the divider, was for visual clarity: If it's in the midst of a list (your option 1) then it is harder to see. I'd suggest it works best at either the beginning or end of the section, and would be happy with either.
    The order of the three links after the divider hasnt really been discussed yet. For visual clarity (based on its importance, and complete change in location) "recent changes" should probably be at the beginning or end. --Quiddity·(talk) 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with David Levy's comments that having too many links is overwhelming. Especially the "Let's assume that the inclusion of any new link is contingent upon the acceptable state of the page in question." comment. Fewer and better is better in this case. Though admittedly we do have more room here vertically than the main page horizontal layout did.
    As I said above, we should remove the "glossaries" link too. I'm just waiting for someone to agree before I do it. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. —David Levy 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like the "Topics (basic)" typography. It is not clear that this is two links rather than one. In fact, I don't like the idea of linking to those pages from the sidebar at all. They should be two clicks away from the sidebar.
    Is already removed from the draft ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The phrasing "Wikipedia help" is still ambigious. It is not clear whether this means "Help provided by Wikipedia" or "Help for using Wikipedia". Even the latter doesn't make clear whether it is help for these editing or reading Wikipedia.
    But it is the standard to call something "x help" in computing. My browser's help menu shows "Camino help", my mail program's help menu shows "Mail help", Photoshop's says "Photoshop help". I think that it is okay, since by now people should know to expect this particular phrasing. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Good point. I retract this quibble. Carcharoth 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Errant says that "issue 2" is not an issue, because the other Wikipedias use different languages. We were told earlier that this was a cross-wiki issue, so can Errant or someone else please clear up the confusion on this matter and explain it to non-developers.
  • Making the Main Page links redundant. Where was this idea discussed. I see no reason to remove these links from the Main Page, simply because they happen to be on a redesigned sidebar. But I'd like to read the previous discussion(s).
    First mentioned here. Then here. I only noticed it at /Archive 03#The link line on the Main Page, until now. Personally, I favour just using the original 4 links, as suggested above (#Help box). I don't know what to title the box though. --Quiddity·(talk) 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Name of the help section. At the moment, the help section contains three links (Community portal, contact us, and donations) that aren't help links. This could be confusing. I would suggest that "help, overview, questions and tutorial" are grouped together, and "community portal, contact us, and donations" are similarly grouped together. Unfortunately I can't think of a name for the setion (or portlet) other than "other", which is a bit weak. This presence of "non-help links" is particularly obvious in Quiddity's stripped down version above. There is a precedent for using the generic term "other" before, as seen on the Main Page "Other areas of Wikipedia" section.
  • Finally, no-one responded to my suggestion to consider putting Wikipedia:News or Wikipedia:Reference Desk or Wikipedia:Help Desk links in the sidebar. If they are not there (or there is no room for them), are they at least easy to find from the other pages? (And check with the desks before putting them on the sidebar, as they already have high amounts of traffic).
    I've added them to #Help box, just above. Also, "News" is linked from the Main Page, and the other two are linked from Wikipedia:Questions and Help:Contents. --Quiddity·(talk) 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to put all the comments here, rather than in response to individual sections. Carcharoth 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, it's much easier for us too, this way. I'll go through these tonight when I get back from work. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Overview / Overview / About - Why not "About Wikipedia"?

Returning to this debate after a whilse, I find that 'Overview' became 'About', which was deemed too vague, and has hence bacame "Wikipedia Overview". However I suggest we call it About wikipedia which is both the implied name of the article (if you rearrange the namespacing), and closer to what people expect to see - generally people look for "about this site" to learn about a website.

Of course, an irony in all of this is that W:About does appear to be more of an overview than an 'about', and is generally an ungly cluttered mess (on quick visual inspection, which is what matters in terms of staying power) :/ LinaMishima 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted above (reflecting discussion that occurred during the main page redesign), "About" links ("About," "About [website name]," "About us," etc.) typically lead to pages containing boring (to most people) legal/corporate information.
As you wrote, Wikipedia:About (which can be cleaned up) is more of an overview than an "about" page. I propose that we rename it Wikipedia:Overview and replace the About Wikipedia link that appears at the bottom of each page with an About the Wikimedia Foundation link (which contains the type of information that people would expect to find). Assuming that MediaWiki allows this, we could also add a Wikipedia overview link (so as not to reduce access to that information). —David Levy 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Good rename/change suggestions. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
ood suggestions, although I'd still argue that the WP:About is not an overview, it's more of a welcome or introduction page, or perhaps a preface. i don't have a paper encycloedia to hand, so could someone who does check what they like to call the opening preamble? As that is very much what the article actually is intending to be (if you pretend it's cleaned up and all that). LinaMishima 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
We have both a welcome page and an introduction page, so I don't think that either is the intended purpose of Wikipedia:About. It's supposed to provide a basic overview of the site, and I feel that this is what we should aim for. "Preface" doesn't fit Wikipedia's non-linear nature. —David Levy 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Introduction is clearly more of an introduction to editing and the wiki way, rather than to the encyclopedia. I propose this article be renamed, and it's existing name be given to the overview. WP:About is in dire need of not being a long block of text, in my opinion (a different matter), and this does not help trying to find a better name for it. Currently it seems to have a number of roles:
  1. How to navigate wikipedia
  2. Important notices (differences between wiki and paper, disclaimers)
  3. Factual information about the project (who writes articles, history, sister projects)
  4. Sales pitch (strengths, weaknesses, article quality)
Classically, you would see an introduction or overview explaining what the encycloedia was, any vital facts, and leading you on to a guide for using it. Some of the above information, especially history, would probaby be sideboxed, so as to not detract from the main introduction, or it would be briefly covered with a pointer to where more information can be found. Navigation would probably get it's own chapter, and that's what the reference pages article doesn't do too well (but does try to do). Sales pitch type stuff is obviously needed for wikipedia, as much of it ties into the disclaimers and helps to explain the differences between wiki and a paper encyclopedia. I've talked a lot here about how a paper encycloedia does things, which is normally a bad thing to use as a guide on wikipedia. However, when it comes to the material classically of most use to new readers, it has to be remembered that firstly, they will probably be used to the formatting conventions of paper (at least with respect to non-encyclopedic content), and secondly that paper encyclopedias have followed similar styles for a long time generally because they seem to work. I guess now that I get to the point, my problem with WP:About's inclusion is not really the name as such, it's also the low accessability of the material within, much like Wikipedia:Reference_pages and the disjoint between the names and the appearance of the articles in question. If I remember, I might take a look at rewriting these or at least aquiring thoughts on a rewrite) later this week LinaMishima 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I favour not including this link on the sidebar, and just using the original 4 links in that box (see #Help box). (It, and the others, can always be added at a later date.) --Quiddity·(talk) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"search" -> "find"

In the Cologne Blue skin, the box is labeled "find" (instead of "search"), which is a more logical heading for "go" and "search." (These are two different methods of finding an article, and it makes little sense for "search" to be sub-function of "search.") I raised this issue during the main page redesign, and I don't recall any disagreement. The issue is that this would require a minor modification to the MonoBook code in MediaWiki. (Currently, the heading can only duplicate the word used for the second button.) As the proposal already requires code modification, I've gone ahead and made this change. If anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. —David Levy 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agreed then and now :) --Quiddity·(talk) 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 17

navigation

For reasons mentioned above, I've added Basic topics back in. To leave that reference page out kind of thwarts the whole reason for putting reference pages on the sidebar in the first place. I've also alphabetized the links, because they didn't seem to have a logical order before and just looked like a jumble. Main Page logically goes at the top, while index obviously goes at the bottom.

I don't care for the alphabetical order, as it separates links that logically belong together. —David Levy 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You'll probably want to add Glossaries back in too... --Quiddity·(talk) 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also added the streamlined search box back in, because there seemed to be a lot of support for it above. After all, the search box is a navigation feature. --Nexus Seven 05:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it seems to me that there's been at least as much opposition as support. —David Levy 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the idea, and concur. See #Search portlet. --Quiddity·(talk) 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made version 19 with slight differences from this version. It reorders some elements that logically belong together and keeps the search box in its own portlet. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I support putting glossaries back in, as that page is very useful when you don't know what you are looking for. It is very convenient to have the definitions on the same page as the choices. But it's not nearly as important as Basic topics, which is about as close to a top-level page of Wikipedia's content as you can get. If it's a choice between the two, I'd go with Basic Topics. --Nexus Seven 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Linked portlet titles

I think that this is a step down from version 23 (along with the new placement of the search bar, but that's a different discussion). The rationale is that the portlet titles explicitly say, for example, "this portlet contains navigational links" or "this portlet contains a toolbox for editors". By linking the titles, one is more or less saying that "navigation" is done via the title link and the links inside the portlet itself are subnavigational items. Which isn't so. Aside from that, it is promoting the portlet titles from informational element to navigational element, which doesn't seem to make sense to me. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus we already discussed it, and came to the conclusion that linking headers is against style guidelines, and done nowhere else on the site, so shouldnt be done here (plus there was wide subjective-disliking). Sorry. --Quiddity·(talk) 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, why do we have Welcome to Wikipedia title on the main page with 2 words as links in it? 24.80.225.50 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, good. :) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The Main Page is a special-case, for lots of rules. I'm archiving version 24. --Quiddity 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Toolbox 2

See Archive 03#Toolbox, for the potential problems.

  • "cite this article" might need to be at the bottom.
  • Changes will affect all monobook-using MediaWiki sites
  • "trackbacklink", "rss atom", and "Block user" links need to be allocated spots. (easily done later. non-urgent)
  • "what links here" should maybe remain at the top.

The proposed ordering and content seems to be agreed upon though. The Developers will end up deciding just how much of this is possible. --Quiddity·(talk) 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that point 2 is not an issue - think about it, the other language wiki's have the toolbox in a different language! They all use different versions of the software.. Changes can be proposed and implemented only on the en-wiki which do not affect the other wiki's --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So fix it, don't mock/tease me. :-| --Quiddity·(talk) 08:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken. There is code for translation, but the ordering and selection of items is currently universal. Dragons flight 20:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Version 15-Definitely move "Cite this article" lower, even all the way to the bottom like so...
  • Related changes
  • What links here
  • Printable version
  • Permanent link
  • Cite this article
 — MrDolomite | Talk 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Let's work on these boxes (toolbox, help, nav) one at a time? There's no rush, and the page grows kinda fast when we keep jumping topics.)

options

original/
current 		option1/
version 16,17 		option2/
version 18-21
toolbox
toolbox
toolbox

In the top half, Option1 is better for readers ("cite.." "print.." "permanent.." at top), Option2 is closer to the original and better for editors ("what links here" at top).

We could even seperate the reader/editor links with another horizontal-rule. (Retracted: too cluttering)

In the bottom half, "Recent changes" should be first or last; the other two can be in any order. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite proposing some of these changes, I actually prefer the original option! :-) Carcharoth 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with either of the new versions, either one of them, since I don't think it will really matter too much where those links are. As long as not another horizontal ruler is added. :) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Or we could use the reader-oriented one as the default, but allow those who are logged in to choose one of the other two in their account preferences (hey, we already have configuration for more complex stuff like the number of days to show on watchlists). OK, so it is less convenient for non-logged in editors, but none of the functions are actually removed, they are just placed in a different order. Cynical 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I favour option 1, as it's better for readers. I think readers would be much less likely to find the "cite this article" link in the middle of the toolbox. The bottom half of option1 should stay the way it is (matching the currently used ordering). --Quiddity 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should fuse the top half of option 1 and the bottom half of option 2. Mac Lover TalkC 20:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hierarchical tree suggestion

My concept with this deals with 'simplicity'. Why not have a hiarchy based drop down menu. An example would be like this:

Wikipedia:-| 

          |-Main Page
          |-Featured Articles*
          |-Contact Wikipedia*
          |-Curent Events
          |-Upload File*
          |-Donate

Portals:-| 

        |-Communtiny*
        |-(others)*

This Page-| 

         |-Edit this Page
         |-Change History (list of changes)*
         |-What Links Here*

(A possible add-on would be a grouping of icon next to Edit this page, such as a padlock for a locked page, and a hand-plam for blocked users)

Help:-| 

     |-Techinal
     |-Other (not sure what other help topics there could be)

My Settings:-| (New, not sure what the wording should be) 

            |-Prefences
            |-Links:-|*
                     |-Bookmarked
                     |-Most visted page
                     |-Last "   "
                     |-Most Edited page
            |-Admin Tools (if acciplable)
            |-Friends:*
  • denotes a possible info box that will appear under the navigation box, for links that don't require a full webpage. There will be an option to open as a webpage in the info box. Hope this idea helps

KB1KOI 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Talk

This is a complete overhaul of the entire system, and far far beyond what this proposal is intended to think about. You'll need to start a seperate proposal (otherwise, this one will splinter into too many variables). --Quiddity 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2 Cents on Changed version (above version)

Its not bad. Athough I have a few suggestions.

* Random article


Page Info
  • What Links Here
  • Edit history
  • Icon status (i.e (user is blocked)
Personal
  • My Settings
  • Most ____ article
  • Admin Controls (if applies)
  • Upload file

KB1KOI 17:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put: No. This is far too radical a change, as I've just noted at your original proposal #hierarchical tree suggestion. I will now move this comment up to become a part of that comment. --Quiddity 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I hate to be abrasive, as I apparently am all the time according to one user, but is there really a massive need for discussion here? it's all good man, they all look the same anyway--I'll bring the food 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why nobody pays you to design user interfaces. ;)
The only thing you need to remember in life, is that everything is more complicated than you imagine it to be at that time. ;) --Quiddity 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The following section is an archived straw poll of the proposed update of the named template. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of discussion: No consensus, poll outdated per new versions and failure to discuss changes. --DavidHOzAu 10:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not been looking into those designs too much but having to decide between 23 designs is a bit tough. I was thus asking myself if there would be a straw poll/vote/consensus-driven initiative/(the word you want) to figure out which design is the best and suits the largest number of WPdians and readers of the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance for the answer. Lincher 03:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The two basic design concepts are shown: version 23 and version 20. We could decide between those, and then begin another round of discussion to refine the consensual design chosen. We're getting close to reaching a consensus, so we should try to wrap this up. --The Transhumanist 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have pulled a vote, just because lincher gave the opening. That's what everyone got mad at you for last time, during the Main Page redesign (and the Community Portal redesign? i forget).
There are only 2 differences between the 2 versions: the extra ref-page links (basic topics, and fields), and the order of the toolbox links. And we were trying to discuss that above. I'm disappointed, and will ignore this thread till the morning, when I hope to find the "poll" gone, and discussion in its place. --Quiddity 06:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice: Please read the discussions below before making a decision. Note that you do not have to vote for any particular version, and can vote for neither of them if you disagree with both. As usual, please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "--~~~~". --DavidHOzAu 00:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 23

Support - --The Transhumanist 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. Having looked over both designs, I support this design for the following reasons:

  • I believe that the top portion of the bar, above the search box, should have more items, because this is what the average user will see first and use most frequently
  • The addition of the "basic topics" and "fields of study" links gives the impression that Wikipedia is both a place for serious study and for casual users who just want the basics.
  • The ordering of the links in the bottom sections of this design puts first the functions (i.e. related changes, what links here, special pages) that I believe are most important for editors.

For these reasons, I lend my support to this design. --Danaman5 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Object per problems below. --DavidHOzAu 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Judgesurreal777 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Support --Mac Lover TalkC 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 20

Object per problems below. --DavidHOzAu 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

David Levy/Transhumanist exchange

I obviously prefer version 20, but I don't believe that we should be voting at this juncture. Instead, we should gauge opinions of the versions' differing elements (such as the extra links that the Transhumanist unilaterally added, a change that I believe lacks consensus). —David Levy 04:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

David, you've completely misrepresented the facts here. I didn't touch the original version, I merely proposed another version for consideration (as Nexus Seven), leaving the original version in place. See the very beginning of this proposal's discussion. My proposal wasn't any more "unilateral" than the original proposal, and also initially received the support of the original proposer (whose response was "exactly"). I was the very second person to post to the discussion (the proposer being the first), so my suggestions were in place before the consensus process even got started, and key elements which I suggested have been a part of the discussions ever since. Two major designs have evolved from the discussion and on the project page, and it makes perfect sense to juxtapose these in debate, which can of course include observations and opinions on link selection. Also, I was invited here by the proposer, so I assumed that I was welcomed to make suggestions without being accused of "unilateralness". Your labeling of my participation here is just plain silly. The discussion, and indeed the project, has been version-based from the start, and the project has been open to version submission and revision by anyone as can plainly be seen on the project page and its archive. They weren't even called "versions" initially, but "proposals", that is, different "versions" of the same concept. That's why I changed it to the word "version", but I appear to have created confusion in so doing. For that, I am sorry. But these so-called versions were initially merely suggestions that were presented in the discussion text until someone copied them to the project page. So please refrain from falsely accusing and personally attacking others (a false accusation is a personal attack). Thank you. --The Transhumanist 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You've completely misinterpreted my comment (and spent a great deal of time typing a rebuttal to a nonexistent accusation). I've made plenty of edits that could be described as "unilateral" (which isn't an inherently derogatory term), and I wasn't attacking you by suggesting that you've acted in this manner. I only meant that you added these links en masse without first establishing consensus for their inclusion (which, in my opinion, should be done individually).
As I continually reminded you during the main page redesign process, I don't believe that voting on competing designs (in their entirety) is a good method of gauging consensus. It's okay to provide example versions for users to compare, but asking them to "choose one" (as you renamed this section) and vote for it implies that this is package deal. In actuality, we might end up using elements of multiple versions. —David Levy 06:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
David, you are still twisting words. You are very good at it, but you are totally out of line here. I made a seperate proposal with some additional links in it. Neither my proposal nor the one before it had any consensus building at that point at all. So to say that I "added these links en masse without first establishing consensus for their inclusion" is very misleading, since the initial proposal wasn't in any way ratified to begin with and didn't have consensus for any of its included points either prior to the proposal being posted. Your statements imply there was a draft page involved here and that I edited it without first obtaining consensus for the edits. But that isn't the case, because there was no project page, because this was simply a discussion on the village pump! You don't have to get consensus in order to post a proposal on that page or to express an opinion. And when I posted my proposal, it was immediately adopted by the proposer of the original proposal, and thus became the main proposal in the discussion that was taking place at that time. Unless you can find another interpretation for the word "Exactly", which was the original proposer's response to my post. That discussion was later moved to this page by a 3rd party, who eventually posted all the "versions" from the discussion to the project page at the same time. We've been discussing all those versions and many others ever since. --The Transhumanist 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm disheartened by your refusal to assume good faith (even after I've explained that I'm not alleging malice on your part).
I'm not claiming that you did anything wrong by proposing these changes, nor am I implying that you hijacked a "ratified" draft page. Please top inferring things that I haven't written, as you seem to be inventing increasingly worse scenarios with each attempt.
Some of the other changes were made to various drafts after consensus was established. The links in question, conversely, are backed by no such consensus. The same is true of some elements of version 20 that I unilaterally added, but you're the one who suddenly decided to hold a vote. That's what I object to. —David Levy 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, we are merely choosing a new starting point from which to discuss changes, and this is in no way to be considered the version that will be the new sidebar. There are points to work out, but the differences between these two drafts are so small that this should be an easy matter. --The Transhumanist 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you're attempting to take control of a project. There is no agreement to "[choose] a new starting point." This decision was yours alone. Some of us would prefer to focus on the individual elements and construct a consensus-based design. You made no attempt to discuss how we would proceed before issuing the above proclamations. I'll remind you again, just as I have on numerous occasions, that you aren't in charge. —David Levy 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your quibbling over the control of differences so minor that it shouldn't take us that long to work them out regardless of the discussion format. --The Transhumanist 12:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above differs considerably from what you originally wrote (which I've restored below for the purpose of replying):

Restored copy of the Transhumanist's original response

(with indented replies by David Levy)

With further replies by The Transhumanist indented even further - well, if David gets so much pleasure out of arguing that he wants to argue against a retracted message, then who am I to deny him that pleasure? Here goes nothin'... --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Edits remain in the revision history for everyone to read. You can't write whatever you please, "retract" it, and expect it to vanish without a trace. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The only person who seems to be trying to control anything around here is you. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In what manner have I done this? By arguing that you aren't entitled to dictate how we proceed? —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You're taking it way out of proportion. I set up a straw poll, so what. Did it harm anything? Did it make your arms fall off? Come on, relax. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't set up a straw poll. You attempted to set up a binding vote. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that rather than let people express what they like or dislike in the form of a vote, you just seem to want to argue endlessly and pummel everyone else's point of view into the ground with your arguing ability --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I want to encourage people to express their opinions regarding the individual elements. You want them to "choose one" complete set and vote for it, despite the fact that both proposed versions contain elements unilaterally inserted without prior discussion. When I compiled version 20 (including the aforementioned unilateral elements), my intention was to provide a demonstration of various ideas (thereby soliciting opinions), not to put forward a complete version to be voted on as a package deal. —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As the whole issue is still subject to discussion during and after, the end result is the same. The only thing that differs is part of the discussion format. Straw polls aren't votes on Wikipedia, as no one is held to a direct yes or no answer, and all shades of opinion are expressed in them, each one affecting consensus. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't set up a straw poll. You attempted to set up a binding vote (in which users were instructed to "choose one" set of elements or the other). You could have asked users to comment (or even vote, straw poll-style) on the specific elements individually, but you didn't do that either. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(also who has the time besides me to answer you point for point?). --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? That I should write less? —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Take it as a request. These super long arguments and discussions drive people away. While forums like straw polls actually attract people to make comments. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Consider your request denied. I'm going to continue responding to your messages until you stop posting them (which I'm not asking you to do). —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your MO is to scare or drive people away. And everyone can see by your responses above that you will go to great lengths of articulation to try to turn a description around. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being hurtful. You're actually suggesting not merely that my methods are inappropriate, but that the underlying intent is malicious. The only thing that I've attempted to turn around is your continual misconstruction of my words. As I said, with each attempt to divine hidden meanings, you invent increasingly worse scenarios in your mind. When I politely inform you that you've misunderstood me (and arrived at entirely incorrect interpretations of what I've written), you accuse me of masterminding an even greater deception. —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Like there's anything anyone can say in an argument with you that would actually hurt your feelings. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a robot. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I said "seems". --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
...said the person who just lectured me about denying obvious connotations. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Haven't you noticed that people tend to avoid these super long discussions, but that they flock to the straw poll format? And we want more people to contribute, don't we? So let's just write as much as we possibly can, and people will just stay away! --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't set up a straw poll. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And setting up a subheading is not taking over a project, nor attempting to take over a project. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You changed the section's title from "Choosing one" to "Choose one" (an instruction) and set up a vote, announcing that we are "choosing a new starting point from which to discuss changes." At no point did you ask anyone if they wanted to do this. You simply made an executive decision. —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
But to choose what? A hypothetical proposal still subject to change. Again, you're worring over nothing. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Who/what gave you the authority to dictate that we were "choosing a new starting point"? —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
And the reason I erased this section was because this argument we are in right now is pointless. I tried to avoid it, but you just couldn't let that happen, could you? --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, the post didn't disappear when you removed it from the page. It remained in the revision history for everyone to read, and you're complaining because I didn't allow it to go unchallenged. —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting opinions is a good thing, and just because it isn't YOUR way of doing things, doesn't mean that someone else can't try it. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to suggest that we should proceed in a particular manner (as I've done). That isn't what you did. You declared that we would be proceeding in a particular manner. You announced a vote and its absolute outcome (the selection of "a new starting point"). You never attempted to establish consensus for such a course of action. —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Come on, anyone can ask for anyone else's opinion in whatever format they want. It's just a matter of asking two questions: Who likes this version? Who likes this one? We don't need your permission to ask questions now, do we? --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. That isn't what you did. You attempted to set up a binding vote to determine "a new starting point." —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll is just a form of discussion, and anyone can set one up. They provide an obvious place to posts simple comments, and are ubiquitous on Wikipedia. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll is an informal, non-binding means of gauging opinion(s). That isn't what you set up. Again, you specified a binding outcome (without even asking anyone, let alone waiting for agreement). —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
A non-binding straw poll is exactly what I set up. As the starting point for further discussion, it was totally non-binding. Because everything would still be subject to consensus. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
A straw poll, by definition, has little or no direct effect on the proceedings. You attempted to set up a binding vote to determine "a new starting point." —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I take personal offense at all these accusative terms you keep using. Your words have connotations, they are as plain as day to see, and denying the connotations will do you no good because they're still in print above for anybody to inspect. --The Transhumanist 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You're actually lecturing me about unfair accusations. Wow. —David Levy 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It's about time someone did. --The Transhumanist 14:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What unfair accusations have I made? (I've already cited yours.) —David Levy 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

  • Comment. I don't like the A-Z index - it doesn't seem very useful, being a very very large list of completely unrelated items. I think the link web is sufficient for browsing and keeps to related topics (if you really want completely unrelated items, random article is good). I also don't like the "basic topics" or "fields of study" links in version 23 - the links on the main page seem to address this well enough. These are things you would visit when you start browsing, and the Main Page is already the obvious "starting point". The rest looks nice. Deco 05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the archived discussions that happened in the week I was away, and at the moment I can't vote for either version. I think we have forgotten that our goal is to redesign the toolbox, not to preserve the mistakes made in the old design.

Problems with version 23

  • Ordering in "navigation" makes no sense. (Why is "random article", a link to an article, in the middle of links to indexes?)
  • Ordering in "toolbox" is backwards and makes no sense to readers. (while it makes sense to editors over readers, all editors are readers.)

Problems with version 20

  • Capitalization of headers draws attention to headers rather than to links.
  • There are very few links under "navigation", even less than what we have at present. (Wasn't the original proposal to add more links?) On the other hand, the order of the remaining links is saner than in version 23.
  • "Donate" sounds like an order; isn't "Donating" better?

We are very close to reaching the perfect layout at the moment, but we still need to do some tweaking. --DavidHOzAu 09:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalization of headers draws attention to headers rather than to links."
I disagree. In my opinion, this simply creates a more consistent/professional appearance. —David Levy 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"There are very few links under 'navigation', even less than what we have at present."
That's because some of the links have been split out to a new section (thereby separating the article navigation links from the meta-content links). This results in a more intuitive interface.
"Wasn't the original proposal to add more links?"
Both version 20 and version 23 contain additional links. In my opinion, version 23 contains too many, resulting in a bloated Navigation section that would confuse and overwhelm users.
"'Donate' sounds like an order; isn't 'Donating' better?"
"Donating" doesn't match the other terms used in version 20. We have "Navigate," "Find," "Interact," "Contact us," "Donate," "Cite this article" and "Upload file." —David Levy 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions by the Transhumanist

(with indented replies)

I have to agree with both Davids that more discussion of design points is needed. Here are my thoughts on specific design features:

  • I agree that the headings should not be capitalized. They're sublimated when in small case.
This is a minor issue. Either way is fine, but I prefer the capitalized headings (which are consistent with the style used throughout the site). —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The A-Z index is pretty pointless. I never use it. I can't even think of any good uses for it. Can you? I sometimes use "All articles" from the special pages menu, to grab titles that start the same (for list-building), but I find it extremely cumbersome for this because of the sheer number of of redirects mixed in with the article listings. If there is an article-only (no redirects) version of "All articles", please tell me about it. In any case, drop the A-Z index. Do you ever use this? Do you know anybody who does?
I don't use the A–Z index. I don't know what other people do, but I wouldn't object to its removal if it proves unpopular. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Random article should not be mixed in with the Reference Pages. Move it to the toolbox.
As noted by DavidHOzAu, that isn't what the toolbox is for. The first box contains more than links to reference pages; its purpose is to direct readers to encyclopedic content. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The main menu doesn't need a heading. We save a line by getting rid of it. It's at the top, and is therefore obviously the main menu.
That would be okay. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Certain pairs of items seem to logically go together in the main menu: Main Page and featured content, featured content and current events, basic topics and fields of study, portals and categories. The Main Page obviously goes first, and that pair dictates the placement of the second pair. Categories is the real index of Wikipedia, and begs to go last, leaving the pair of topics lists in the middle.
Under no circumstance should "Basic topics" and "Fields of study" (which I don't believe warrant inclusion) precede "Portals" and "Categories." —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm flexible on the order. But I'm curious as to why you believe basic topics and fields of study should not be included on the side bar. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Concerning Basic Topics and Fields of study, they are the closest things to tables of contents that Wikipedia has. They are streamlined, without any extraneous material to wade through. (Portals has article text, while a category may often have listings that don't make obvious sense or which are only marginally related.)
If you believe that these pages deserve to be elevated to primary navigational status, you should create a separate proposal. Instead, you're taking the shortcut of tying them into this project. You're piggybacking. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What?! That's baloney. Every link we add to the sidebar is a promotion for that link, since they will have access from every page on Wikipedia. We are trying to design the best sidebar we can, and since the sidebar is primarily links, this whole project is about link selection. If certain links aren't worthy, then the reasons need to be discussed. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither "search" nor "find" do it for me as the heading for the search box. Throughout all of the Wikipedia namespace it is referred to as the "search box", so why not here?
Because we label each item according to its purpose, not its name. Otherwise, we would have Main page link, Featured content link, et cetera. Also, the term "search box" still fails to address the fact that "search" is only one of two functions. "Find" covers both, and this is how the box is labeled in the Cologne Blue skin. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What about "toolbox"? That's its name. But if the search box is presented throughout wikipedia, and we change it to "find", won't it be the "find box" then? Won't it get confusing if it remains "search box" throughout Wikipedia's instructions? So if it is going to be changed, shouldn't we be discussing what to do about the ramifications it will cause so that those can be handled along with the change? --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Interact" is just too general as the heading for the help menu. All the entries in there are help oriented, so "help" fits as its heading. (Donating refers to the user helping Wikipedia rather than the other way around).
The "Community portal" and "Contact us" links do not fall under the heading of "help." —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is some overlap. But you're right, it's not a perfect fit. We should keep searching for a better name for this heading. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I still like "Help" better than "Wikipedia Help". Or we could get cute, and put "HELP ME!" That really stands out.  :-)
That isn't good, IMHO. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I was kidding about the "HELP ME!" :-) It's a small issue, either Help or Wikipedia help work for me. --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that "Donate" sounds like a command, while "Donating" is just an impersonal description. We need to solicit donations, so why not come straight out with the request: "Please donate"
"Please donate" comes across as desperate begging. "Donate" is just a word. —David Levy 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How does it come across as desperate? But more to the point: would it raise more money? Would more people click on it? --The Transhumanist 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


  • In the toolbox, "All articles" should be included as an entry. I click on Special Pages to get to All articles more than for any other tool in there, and I use it more than all the other special pages combined. I find it invaluable for getting subpage listings in the user and wikipedia namespaces.
That's what Special:Prefixindex is for. eg [1] --Quiddity 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above changes would make the sidebar look something like this:

Changed version

navigation
help
toolbox

DavidHOzAu, please show us what you have in mind for the toolbox and fill in the "anything" items above to the right. Any order for the toolbox is fine by me. Lines are fine too, whatever you have in mind.

--The Transhumanist 11:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing what a toolbox does, in particular, the toolbox is not a navigational box. Think of the toolbox in Word or Open Office: it performs a task relevant to the computer (open, research, etc.) or the current location (bold, italic, etc.). A navigational link, on the other hand, is like "My Computer" or "My Documents", which would not be in a toolbox. Indexes, Random article, and links to individual articles should not be in the toolbox. (Main Page is just an article, isn't it?) To be honest, the link order I am thinking of is something closer to version 15's in the talk page archive. --DavidHOzAu 12:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Change I just made:

  • Moved to the right
  • Populated the toolbox again
  • Added "Random article" back to the navigational box. It is now ordered thus: "articles-that-are-indexes" "indexes" "articles-that-are-not-indexes". (Previously we had two subgroups: "find an article" and "find an index"; either option is as good as the other.)
  • Renamed the "Search box" box back so it is a "search" box. ;-)Removed title of search box completely, and moved its portlet up a bit.

--DavidHOzAu 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Quiddity

  • I think removing the "Navigation" header is confusing. It means they have to guess its purpose from its contents, whereas the other boxes are explicitly defined. -- However, I think we should re-title it from "Navigation" to "Browse". Accurate and simple.
  • The search box heading should be either "Search" or "Find". I'm still undecided.
  • The help link: "Help" or "Help contents" makes a little more sense to me than "Wikipedia help"; But I'm still undecided.
  • Everything else in Version 20 is in my opinion complete, and well-considered. --Quiddity 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The key element, behind a minimal set of links, is that they are easiest for everyone (inside and outside this development process) to agree to. The thing to remember, is that links can easily be added to the browse or interact boxes, at any future time, once the target pages are raised to a "featured" level of quality. (which basic topics and "fields" are not. currently.) (another good candidate for addition, later on, might be "tutorial". But not in its current form -- its still very much in development). --Quiddity 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments from DavidHOzAu

My chief gripe with Version 23 was link order; other than tweaking it for that, it was perfect. --DavidHOzAu 23:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could update the project page version 23 with your tweaks; Transhumanist stated above that he is unconcerned about link order, and was in favour of removing-the-header/merging the search box, so I presumme will concur with those updates. --Quiddity 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Basic topic lists

Transhumanist: The only point you've consistently advocated is the inclusion of Lists of basic topics.

You've been working on the lists for a few weeks now, and have essentially created almost 50% of its subcontents. Whilst your method is interesting (search for web glossaries. combine. edit), it's not exactly a professional analysis of each subject. But by including the link in the sidebar, you (and we) would be implicitly stating that these pages are some of our best. I believe this is a serious conflict of interest; you lack impartiality, and should have disclosed your self-interest in this issue earlier.

No, for a professional analysis, you would need to go in and read the material, and adjust the link content based on the way Wikipedia covers each subject. I've done this for a few of the lists, but the rest will take time. Gathering of topics is just an initial step to familiarize one with the subject and to test Wikipedia's coverage of the topic via redlinks. A varied enough list of compiled terms gives a very good picture of what Wikipedia has on the subject. Picking apart textbooks on the subject would also help, but Wikipedia has plenty of coverage on these subjects to be able to build a basic taxonomy. As for inclusion of the links on the sidebar, this has always been contingent upon the pages being ready. At the rate the redesign is going, I'm pretty sure that can be accomplished. If they aren't ready when the sidebar is, then by all means, do not include the links. The pages, when done, will easily be better than the categories for the same subjects. But for a link to be included on the sidebar, that link would have to have consensus, and since that means complete agreement or close to it, it doesn't look likely to be achieved for these links regardless of how hard the link's supporters argue for them. The key to consensus is no opposition, which is not the case for the links in question.
As for impartiality, I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia, like everyone else here. If the lists of basic topics are ready by the time the sidebar is, then inclusion of a link is an option. I've been working hard on them to get them ready, whether they appear on the sidebar or not. I support having a link, yes, but not in a mindless fashion. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting for you to respond to my suggestion that it's time to get external input on this problem. The longer you take, the harder it becomes for me to assume good faith.

But "this problem" isn't the one you mentioned in that message. And as you said, it was a suggestion, not a command. Good faith has nothing to do with whether or not I do your bidding. I'm not as paranoid as you with respect to the vandalism potential of the content of the new lists. It is a danger you perceive, not I. If you are concerned about vandalism, you need to organize a forum on the matter, rather than pressure somebody else to do it. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't answer these objections satisfactorily, I'll be forced to raise Which makes me more inclined to question your complete design overhaul of All the reference pages, which we made a guideline (WP:DISCUSS) for the last time you did it. --Quiddity 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"it's not exactly a professional analysis of each subject" - well, any contributions are welcome. --gatoatigrado 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And the categories aren't done any better, as far as I can tell. Those lists which are fairly complete are much better than the categories for the same subjects. Also, Quiddity, in case no one mentioned this to you, this is an amateur encyclopedia. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity's original posted version of the above paragraph:
If you don't answer these objections satisfactorily, I'll be forced to raise the issue of your complete design overhaul of All the reference pages, which we made a guideline (WP:DISCUSS) for the last time you did it. --Quiddity 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem much more like commands in view of this threat. This is the same design "overhaul" which you have been involved with throughout much of the process. I worked closely with you on that, and if you had a serious objection to the graphical changes, you should have made it much earlier. The creation of sublists was not covered by that guideline, nor was the addition of list links to a list of lists page - placing links to new lists once they are created is standard operating procedure - and most of the changes I made were with links. The guideline covers high-traffic pages. But based on the edit histories, it isn't clear how high-traffic these pages are. And it's a guideline, not a mandate. I didn't step on any toes, nor did I revert anyone in the process. On the contrary, I invited you to participate. But you are just getting political here, and nobody likes being ordered around, least of all me. Suggestions that are enforced are not suggestions, but ultimatums. This type of thing does not sit well with me, and will only invoke resistance. Therefore, I refuse to do your bidding on the vandalism research issue. It was your idea, and a good one, but I believe you should have the initiative to follow through on it, rather than force me to do it. I created some lists of basic topics which you believe are in danger of being vandalized, and for which you believe measures should be taken to prevent such vandalism. I revert vandalism where I encounter it, but I'm not interested in getting involved further in that aspect of Wikipedia's operations. You should be happy I was willing to create some articles for Wikipedia. An editor shouldn't be forced to contribute more than he is willing to contribute, and vandalism fighting isn't my thing. Consider those pages my gift to Wikipedia. If you think they are not worthy, then nominate them for deletion. --The Transhumanist 05:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

Some of the discussion is becoming a little bit heated. I think we should aim to wrap things up soon, if that is OK with everyone. I think we are actually mostly in agreement, except for some minor points. I'd like to second Quiddity's proposal to go for a more stripped down version (I would support the "Version 20" linked above). Then we go about getting that version accepted by the wider community, and then people continue to work on the other pages that are in various states of readiness, and we can revisit this at a later date and consider asking for more links to be added to the sidebar (I know I've seen the links on the sidebar change without a huge discussion and endless debate!). Also, I think a carfeully written proposal explaining the reasons behind each and every change will help, as this was something that wasn't done for the Main Page redesign. Carcharoth 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good summation. (but i'm not volunteering to write the explanations ;) --Quiddity 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
mutter mutter grumble. Well, its done. If anyone cares to improve the eloquence of the rationale, you're welcome to. --Quiddity 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

very nice changes

i've been gone for a bit, and it looks much nicer. another minor change. --gatoatigrado 05:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need another horizontal line? Those are so ugly. It doesn't actually add too much. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Because they organize items and impart structure to lists. (ask yourself why Word has a divider between Save and Print.) Besides, what's so ugly about a horizontal line? As you said, it doesn't add too much, and yet it just feels so... organized! ;-) --DavidHOzAu 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
how about using spaces instead of lines? --gatoatigrado 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • list0
  • space after this one using html and style="margin-bottom:6px;"
  • list1
  • list3
navigation


navigation
search
community
toolbox

Why do I have to make a package choice

1. I like the toolbox order of version 20 over version 23. Citing and Permalink are important to all readers, and therefore should be above related changes and what links here which are only important to editors.

2. I like "donating" of 23 more than "donate" of version 20. Donate sounds like an order or at least like any other site "feature", and not like a plea which it should sound like. Donating is much better, even if it breaks verb style of rest of links, because, well, it IS different from other links.

3. I'm equally balanced for v23 or v20 in terms more or less links in navigation box. The 2 items in stake are of average importance and arguments for inclusion are as balanced as arguments for exclusion IMO.

However, regardless of whether you accept my points or not as to why I like certain items, I want to ask why can't we discuss each part separately rather than being forced to accept a package deal where we may like some elements of one version and other elements of another version? Elvarg 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. The Transhumanist's attempt to force people to vote for a complete design was inappropriate. Feel free to express your opinions regarding the individual elements. —David Levy 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I have lost count of the amount of times someone has said that the toolbox order in version 23 is borked, I'm going to change the order and call it version 24. I will also add it as another version on the project page, like we used to do when development was faster. Development of progressively-better versions has stalled for some time now, and if this were a software development team someone would've been shot by now. We should start churning out more deliverables. --DavidHOzAu 09:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh... it looks like my desire to move the project along got out of hand... ;-) --DavidHOzAu 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See?!

I'll respond to some of the above discussions when I have more time, but I'd just like to point out that we've now had two users vote to support a design (per the Transhumanist's instructions) without explaining which elements they preferred (and why) or providing any useful input whatsoever. Then another user, who preferred neither version in its entirety (and wished to comment upon the individual elements), was led to believe that he/she had no choice but to vote for one as a package deal (and expressed frustration with the situation).

Now, Transhumanist, do you see why this was a bad idea? —David Levy 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I just closed the above straw poll. --DavidHOzAu 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Easy vs. Hard

moved to sidebar programming talk; please don't move back. There is a note at the top of the page. --gatoatigrado 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's come to a conclusion !!!

It is very nice to see a community discussing a sidebar. Now we even have version 23. I think we should come to a conclusion. I propose to make a choice per section between version 20 and 23 and forget all other versions:

I would suggest;

  • Navigation: version 23, is more inclusive (the purpose was improving the navigation)
  • Find or searche: are identical (except for title of section), neutral
  • Interact of help: identical, but like donating (version 23) more.
  • Toolbox: version 20: Citing and Permalink are important to all readers, and therefore should be above related changes and what links here which are only important to editors.

So please start voting. Electionworld Talk? 06:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Choose per section either 20, 23 or neutral (titles of sections after the vote should be in one style (not Navigate and help, but e.g. navigate and help or navigate and interact). (vote started by ~~)

  • Navigate or navigation
    • 23 Electionworld Talk? 06:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • same here, they should be nouns although "search box" is too wordy. --gatoatigrado 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Find or search
  • Interact or help
    • 23 but with title interact Electionworld Talk? 06:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "community" is better. please read comments before you post another thing


No offense, but can we please stop "voting" for now (and focus on more productive forms of discussion)? I realize that you've divided the poll by section, but it still lumps together the individual elements contained therein (some of which are controversial) as package deals. Can't we simply invite people to express their personal opinions (whatever they may be)? —David Levy 07:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's too early to vote as of yet. Some issues are still undecided, unpolished or undiscussed. We've got plenty of time to finish this yet. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, can everyone here please read WP:NOVOTE, WP:DISCUSS, and m:polls are evil?? In fact, I'll put a notice at the top of the talk page if no one objects. --DavidHOzAu 09:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, I see, you don't want a vote. But we now have 23 versions and we seem not to be able to take a decision. In some weeks/days we have 38 versions. Please inform what is the decision procedure. Electionworld Talk? 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's called iterative development. --DavidHOzAu 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, please read Wikipedia:Voting is not evil. The procedure I suggested is not violating WP:DISCUSS, since we allready had a long discussion. If we can reach consensus, please, that would be nice. But a decision has to be taken. Electionworld Talk? 11:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think voting will be only appropriate when we pitch what we came up with against the original (current) sidebar. Then it's not evil, because all advantages and disadvantages of the version we ended up with have already been discussed (that's how we reached our point), and we just need to ensure a wider support. When voting gets in the way of discussions and consensus, and wraps up arguments, opinions, and compromise into a yes/no answer, then it is evil.
A "straw poll" (what many use as an euphemism word for voting) is not appropriate here either, because we want to see arguments, not numbers of people. I suggest we turn this discussion into an argument-based system, where each part of the design separately can be discussed, maybe even broken down to pro/contra, but where every single opinion must be backed up by a reason, and a simple yes/no would carry no weight at all. And we should try to reach compromise with each other, not outvote each other by numbers. A result which 90% of people have a moderate support for is much better than a result which 50% strongly support and 40% strongly oppose. Elvarg

I give up

I give up and stop having input in this discussion. I am not optimistic about any result in a short time (seeing 7 versions of version 24), but hope it will result in a sidebar which includes the items under navigation in version 23. I will remove this page from my watchlist. If you want my opinion about this, please post it at my talk page. Electionworld Talk? 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld, you don't have to participate at the moment if you don't want to. --DavidHOzAu 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I felt engagement with the proposal and I want to participate. But the way the decision process is going now, makes me pessimistic, and that was the reason to post this message. It is not about me (since that is not important) but it is about the process. Your 7 new versions made this clear to me. Sorry. Electionworld Talk? 12:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I/we thought that you were trying to vote on this. In hindsight I see you were just trying to suggest what makes sense to you; I actually do not disagree with any of the points you made. It is just that sensible link ordering and an intuitive box-model layout are far more important to me, and I try to leave the rest to people who know what they are doing. Actually, we really could have voted on the points you proposed, but with what happened last time I'd say we were afraid that the need to vote on everything would soon get out of control. --DavidHOzAu 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Version 24

I am sure that ten versions in just a week is setting a record somewhere. With that in mind, now that we may (or may not) have the link ordering sorted out, I'd like to see if we can pin down the search/find/whateveritis box. On the project page you will find several versions labelled 24.0.x, containing all the ideas we have had for search boxes to date. I'd appreciate some input on what is up there. What, in your opinion, is the best layout, and why? --DavidHOzAu 10:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not setting a record. I like 24.0.1; thanks for reading my comment and adding it. line breaks with html instead of using hr might look better. --gatoatigrado 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that a call for discussion on version 24 does imply that we are discussing any other part of the layout. You may, of course, bring up something you feel needs correction. If in a reasonable amount of time nobody has objected to your proposal (or there is general agreement), please feel free to update version 24 on the project page, or to create a new version if the incremental change is significant. --DavidHOzAu 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, however, that we will end up ignoring version 24 entirely. Somewhere above someone said it would be good if we could place all the different proposals that change the find/search box in one place. Even if no one is interested, (as now seems the case,) I hope the comparison was useful to someone. --DavidHOzAu 12:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the search box in the same pane as navigation. I condensed your versions, please don't revert it without justification. it is so much easier to read looking at only the differences. --gatoatigrado 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought the az index was dead, but I don't care either way. let's come to a consensus on that. --gatoatigrado 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Sidebar_redesign/Archive_04&oldid=1047290201"