Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Survey

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

The survey has been completed, and a general summary is available. For details on each proposal, please see the relevant section. These should be used as a rough guideline when approaching a new main page design.

Support for a two column view, with some consideration to users with 640x480 resolution and mobile resolutions. Some support for keeping and modifying the welcome banner, along with some mixed support for including an "About Wikipedia" section. Some support for portal icons and color scheme changes, strong opposition to changing default font and font size.

The links should also be overhauled. Support for not including a second searchbox in the page content, and not having a section for language links in addition to the sidebar. General support for keeping Today's Features Article, In The News, On This Day, Did You Know? and Today's Featured Picture the same, or slightly less.

Moving the Main Page to different namespace such as Portal:Wikipedia has discussion ongoing.

General opposition to the following proposals: Two sections: Encyclopedia & project/community, Tabs, Using Show/Hide for sections, Including Today's Featured Portal, Including Featured List, Including Featured Sound, Including Featured Topic, Including Featured Editor, Including Today's Quote or Today's Motto, Including The Signpost, Having a section of undeveloped articles ("You can help!"), Remove left-most standard sidebar from main page, Centering text.

Hopefully this is useful. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is an ongoing proposal to redesign the main page, and your input is needed. A good design requires feedback from the users about features they use and want. This page contains a list of proposed alterations to the Main page. Vote for features you support or oppose by placing your signature with the # symbol in the appropriate section. Include a comment if desired.

Technical[edit]

Supporting 640x480 resolution[edit]

Oppose

  1. Not enough users have such a low resolution. WODUP 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottydude review 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is not worth sacrificing the design for. Gary King (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I know not many people use it, but there is no need to make the site unusable for these people --T-rex 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This will only become more common as mobile internet, palmtops etc become more widespread Modest Genius talk 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Where this does not severely compromise the design of the page, this is quite desirable—it also meshes well with supporting mobile devices which typically have such low screen resolutions. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong The statistics used to demonstrate low usage are flawed, there are other users like those of SDTVs to consider and I have seen no good reason to abandon 640x480 other then it being easier for designers. (See my comment below for more details) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Because grandma still uses an old computer, and will not let me buy her a new one. Also because higher resolutions only enable clutter. Ningauble (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Does support for such a resolution mean sacrificing parts of the design? If so, I oppose.  Asenine  09:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to support this, but first I'd like to make an estimate about how many users could be affected.
    • This site cites an average of 10,000,000 page views per day for the Main Page (based on 26 days in July 2008). The FAQ at that site says presumably "the numbers are rather too high", because it counts hits from "wiki bots, scripts, views of editors/patrollers and probably also web crawlers (spiders) as well as spammers and defective scripts" and "page reloads/refreshes"—but there isn't an estimate of how much too high. Let's take a guess that 10% are real people, so an average of 1,000,000 people see this page per day.
    • The resolution statistics from W3 Schools can't be used accurately, since that information is based on visitors to W3 Schools, a website for web technologies. Presumably people interested in web technologies have slightly better computers than the average Internet/Wikipedia visitor. However, the clear trend is that use of 640x480 is approaching zero. If the average Internet user is assumed to be two years behind W3 Schools visitors, then <1% of average users had 640x480 by January 2007. Following that trend, let's assume that about 0.5% to 0.8% still use 640x480. Out of 1,000,000 people, this is 5,000 – 8,000 who might see something wonky.
  • Should we accommodate 8,000 people and potentially sacrifice visual quality, or should we risk alienating the 8,000 to give the 9,992,000 a better experience? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current mainpage doesn't alienate either group. --T-rex 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So any new page should have the same or similar formatting values as the existing page? --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      At some point we are going to have to alienate the dwindling 640×480 group. At what point does it become preferential? When there are 5,000? 500? 10? 1? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we don't. With well thought out coding, we can support this group forever. my websites mostly support screens half as wide as this, not because I went out of my way to, but because they were designed to scale well. So, yes the idea of requiring tens of thousands of users to deal with a horizontal scroll bar for no reason is a very poor idea. --T-rex 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we really have no way of knowing how far behind the 'average' visitor is. It's resonable to presume there will be a proportion of internet users who are always quite far behind the W3 Schools visitors, e.g. those from developing countries. And the W3 Schools audience in a specific audience, there's no reason to presume the average user is going to behind the W3 Schools visitor group as simply a different group of visitors with different usage profile. And as I've mentioned before, what about those with SDTV, which in the case of NTSC will likely be using a resolution of 720x480 or 720x576 for PAL, or in some cases 640x480 or similar (those using computers sometimes choose this resolution depending on various things). All in all, I don't see any reason to abandon 640x480 yet, particularly since it hasn't been established it's going to harm anything and instead seems to be more something of convience for designers so they don't have to bother to make sure their designs work properly. This is supposed to be wikipedia and we are supposed to be accessible to all users, not simply those who have large resolution screens. And particularly not based on an extremely flawed use of statistics. BTW< for those saying, I don't know many people using 640x480 well nor do I. But I don't know many poor people in China, India or Africa either, do you? P.S. Remember there are also those using 800x600 who don't have a full screen window to consider. Even if you're using 1024x768 it's easily possible your horizontal width is going to be under 800 in some instances Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More interesting stuff. Windows Vista Starter Edition and Windows XP Starter Edition are limited to a maximum resolution of 800x600 [1] & [2]. It seems resonable that some people won't be using 800x600 and then there are those who don't have full screen windows I already mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections: Encyclopedia & project/community[edit]

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Scottydude review 20:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If people want community, they can go to the village pump Modest Genius talk 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Quiddity 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Most people come to Wikipedia for the encyclopedia. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with Gary King. SpencerT♦C 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I strongly oppose this, partly because I have recently seen criticism of Wikipedia on CCnet which describes it as a "social networking site". We don't want to encourage this impression. --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Davewild (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Prominent link(s), not section. Main page should be a landing pad for readers. Ningauble (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. WODUP 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Personally, I think that it would be desirable to have some indication of the community and how one can get involved with Wikipedia, but a split between "Encyclopedia" and "Project / community" sections isn't desirable. It would be good to indicate more that Wikipedia is simple to help, and how we review things, fix things up, and plenty of the little things we do, but we should keep in mind that for the most part, the Main Page is a content page, and that we don't need to explicitly separate what we do into inward-facing and outward-facing. Ideally, it should be obvious to everyone that Wikipedia is not complete, and that we're trying to improve every single article we have, and that we're open to everyone to join in and help, while simultaneously providing primarily the content that the Main Page is expected to provide based on its historical function. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs[edit]

Examples: Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/RichardF2, Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (tabs), Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Kpalion, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RichardF

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. very useless --T-rex 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Useless, unnecessary, complicated. Scottydude review 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabs are great in software options pages. They're a rubbish piece of obfuscation when it comes to content, and that includes the wikipedia main page Modest Genius talk 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We already have one set of tabs. Remember when Amazon had tabs? Messy. -- Quiddity 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is not a good idea. They are appropriate in some cases, but not for the Main Page which should be a simple portal to the world. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Davewild (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpencerT♦C 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't really think they look good at all - quite the contrary. I think they look quite ugly. I like seeing full page of content instead of tabs. --haha169 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Modest Genius says it best; tabs are undesirable. I would potentially be open to tab-like solutions that did not require subpages or JavaScript, but as is tabs aren't a good idea in my opinion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "KISS" Ningauble (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. A good idea. The main page is too crammed with information right now, and there are not clear visual cues to discern which parts are for content and which are for community. I think Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (tabs) is overtabbed, though, and is divided rather arbitrarily. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't care much for tabs in general, but the examples that had only an encyclopedia tab and a community tab could work. WODUP 04:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Main Page to different namespace such as Portal:Wikipedia[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Proposal: Move main page to a different namespace

Oppose

  1. Don't try to 'fix' something when it isn't broken.  Asenine  09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. This will cause a good deal of trouble for no reason. -Oreo Priest talk 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think this needs to be changed. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think this is necessary or desirable, and it brings with it other annoying technical issues. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. It's about time we fix this --T-rex 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support The main page does not belong in the mainspace. It belongs in the portal space! Scottydude review 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Conceptually, this is a good idea. As long as anyone who types in "en.wikipedia.org" will reach the main page wherever we put it, I support this. --Slashme (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Main Page isn't an article - it's really a portal, so it should be Portal:Wikipedia. Most issues with this proposal have already been addressed over at WP:VP/T. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support as long as what Slashme said happens. --haha169 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per this suggestion by User:Davidgothberg, to have the main page simply be, per web standards, http://en.wikipedia.org/. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This just seems to me like something we'll keep putting off until some jerk author or band releases a work called "Main Page" and forces us to change it ;) Teemu08 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Ain't broke, don't fix, but then you could say that about the entire main page redesign Modest Genius talk 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well, we still haven't decided what space we want to put it in: Wikipedia space, Portal space, etc. so we should decide before doing anything. SpencerT♦C 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauling link jungle (unclear ones & duplicates)[edit]

See comment here for examples

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. At least for the "list of other Wikipedias" being at both the bottom and in the left navbar. How about we don't show any at the bottom, and on the left navbar we only show the top 25 (based on speakers of the language), and at the bottom of those 25, in bold, have a link to the complete list (nicked this idea from the French WP). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, but perhaps a bit differently from the original proposal. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. Duplicate links with different names are nasty. --Slashme (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's a good idea to check for duplication and possible confusions, but where a duplication would probably help an end-user it's desirable. Certainly there are a number of links which should be updated or removed, and other, more-useful ones which could be added. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Not sure what this section is asking about? Especially as the diff relates to a specific proposal, not the current main page Modest Genius talk 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Show/Hide for sections[edit]

Examples: French Wikipedia, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Mangler13

Oppose

  1. I don't see it is too useful. WODUP 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pointless, adds more unnecessary links to the page and relies on JavaScript Modest Genius talk 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Visual clutter, not remembered across sessions (no cookie action), javascript bad. -- Quiddity 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not always user-friendly Gary King (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpencerT♦C 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JavaScript (which is necessary for show/hide links to work) should not be necessary, and the functionality it adds is regardless minimal without a corresponding cookie system to remember the settings. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Show it or link it. Don't spread widgititis. Ningauble (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Bloody great idea.  Asenine  09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Having employed this on a local wiki at one point, it isn't real useful unless [show] and [hide] can be set as cookies. However, adding to the site .js files for all of one page is a little unneeded, and I don't know if cookies would even work, as I don't know if they could be designed to only work for the main page and not every other collapsible table. --Izno (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page sections[edit]

Including or expanding Welcome banner[edit]

Oppose

Less

  1.  Asenine  09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Something like at the French Wikipedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A simpler welcome banner is generally a good thing, though my support is not exclusive of the status quo nor of the possibility of expansion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same

  1. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like how it is now Gary King (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm looking at the French wikipedia page and it looks longer than ours (except for the 2.5 mil articles thing). SpencerT♦C 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1. Replace Overview · Editing · Questions · Help with WP:WELCOME Modest Genius talk 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • An intro like the French Wikipedia would be:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2,503,073 articles in English, and more than 11 million in over 250 languages
Wikipedia for mobile
  • This adds two things ours does not: handles the issue of inter-language wikilinks immediately, and directs mobile phone users to the mobile Wikipedia. It is also centered, not off to the side, and it omits the portal links. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is too nonspecific to assess. Add/delete what content/functions? Ningauble (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including or expanding Today's Features Article[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/CRGreathouse

Oppose

Less

  1. Takes up about half the space horizontally and vertically on my 19" monitor at 1440×900, yet consistently fails to generate interest for me. Seeing a large block of text (one single paragraph!) is not engaging. Summaries should be more terse and precise. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Asenine  09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Same

  1. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems to work pretty well as it is Modest Genius talk 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Quiddity 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's good now. Not too much whitespace, great width, etc. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same, although Twas now (above) makes a good point. --SpencerT♦C 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Twas Now makes a good point, but as one of the primary features of the Main Page, I'd suggest that it should stay, for the most part, in its current state. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like it now. I think the size and prominence is appropriate. Tow or three shorter paragraphs might scan easier. Ningauble (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1. This is the main thing that the main page has to offer --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Including or expanding In The News[edit]

Oppose

Less

  1. I'd say don't try to target a specific news volume, just report a few stories that we have good content on, and that is of near-universal interest. --Slashme (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It always struck me as odd to find a news feed here. Not what I use Wikipedia for. Ningauble (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same

  1. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trying to do more is starting to result in too many lame stories --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Again, seems to be working quite well now. Of course it could be better, but I think that's something for ITN not the main page itself to handle Modest Genius talk 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Quiddity 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Again, already good how it is now Gary King (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scottydude review 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keep it how it is (i.e. upper right corner). Moving it any farther down would reduce the possibility of people seeing it. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't strongly oppose having less, but I strongly oppose having more; Wikipedia is not for breaking news and we should not encourage that, though Wikipedia can certainly have articles on subjects as the news breaks via other sources. It would also be desirable to point to Wikinews more strongly than we do currently. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1.  Asenine  09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • As I mention above, I think that we should mention Wikinews a little more strongly; also regardless of whether the amount of content is increased, decreased, or maintained as is, we should be more clear that we are merely documenting current events (id est, events "in the news") rather than providing a news service ourselves. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of revamping the Main Page, ITN was somewhat revamped based on proposals at WP:ITN2 (and especially the talk page). That link may be of interest. SpencerT♦C 01:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including or expanding On This Day[edit]

Oppose

Less

  1.  Asenine  09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Same

  1. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Whilst the specific topics could be improved, particularly in terms of breadth and date coverage, the space allocated is good Modest Genius talk 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Quiddity 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Again... Gary King (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SpencerT♦C 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same or even a little more. Good browsing for notable topics. Ningauble (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1. Allows us to showcase a range of different topics --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Including or expanding Did You Know?[edit]

Oppose

Less

  1. Currently the least useful of the 'content' sections. We've reached the stage where the majority of new articles aren't interesting for the casual reader, so showcasing them on the main page (at least at the current rate/general interest threshold) isn't exciting anybody Modest Genius talk 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I just had a look at today's "did you know"s and I was left pretty cold. But I think today was a bad one, I've sometimes been quite impressed by them. I think concentrating on quality rather than quantity might be a good idea here. Take a look at de.wikipedia.org for how it should be done. --Slashme (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tighten up inclusion criteria, and update less frequently than every 6 hours (perhaps every 8 or every 12). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same

  1.  Asenine  09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks good now Gary King (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1. I think recently promoted GAs should be added. -Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a really good idea Modest Genius talk 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a good idea. Perhaps splitting DYK with newly created articles and newly promoted articles? --haha169 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add my support to this idea, without increasing the overall length of the section. SpencerT♦C 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Best idea yet in the survey. Ningauble (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this idea is very good, though it shouldn't necessarily mean that we need to split the section or increase its size. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including or expanding Today's Featured Picture[edit]

Oppose

Less

  1. Should be smaller width, as there is a lot of whitespace, especially when the picture stretches the box a lot vertically and there is not a lot of text. Gary King (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same

  1.  Asenine  09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Don't see how you can reduce it and still retain the ability to use landscape images. And given the standard of captions, you probably don't want any more Modest Genius talk 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Quiddity 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scottydude review 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (avoid using video) Ningauble (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  1. While it might be nice to make this take up less space, it would be troublesome for things like panoramas, for which low-width thumbnails are particularly useless. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The consensus seems to be that we can't place this higher on the page because then it will load ahead of text, and for users with slow connections this is a problem. I agree with this. Is there some sort of code we can put in that determines what should be loaded first? Some websites I have visited in the past load the text first, then load the images (unless I am imagining this). Also, Wikipedia itself loads all content first, then loads the user information at the top last (for logged in users). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Today's Featured Portal[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Polishname, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Kpalion

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to note that even some of the portals in the top banners welcome banner aren't maintained well. Let's try to improve those before putting other portals up. SpencerT♦C 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We don't have that many portals that are all that great --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per T-rex. -Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pointless, and we'd soon go through all the decent, well maintained portals, unless we had each one up for weeks Modest Genius talk 01:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Quiddity 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Same as above Gary King (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There's not enough of them. It's not necessary. Scottydude review 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There are not 365 featurable portals. Ningauble (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. How about cycling through the featured portals, one each week? It's not as if most people read the Main Page like a newspaper and would get bored. --Slashme (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Including Featured List[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RichardF2, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Hereford (2)

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. lists are kindof lame --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Include as a TFA on occasion Modest Genius talk 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Technically complicated (afaik), less general interest topics. -- Quiddity 01:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. They are not too content-oriented, at least not as much as FAs. Gary King (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpencerT♦C 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Scottydude review 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I like Modest Genius' idea to include them occasionally as TFA. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While it's a nice idea, the reality is that most people don't care about lists. Lists are merely reference material that may be useful and usually aren't interesting in and of themselves. While admittedly I am occasionally fascinated by esoteric references like for example my copy of Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, for most intents and purposes it's just a reference and wouldn't be good for light, curious reading which is the function usually filled by Today's Featured Article and similar sections. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ningauble (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments

Including Featured Sound[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RichardF2

Oppose

  1. Once again I don't think we really have that many great sounds. Furthermore many are fair use clips of copyrighted works --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Include as a featured picture on occasion Modest Genius talk 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Insufficient number. -- Quiddity 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Just not enough to justify this Gary King (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpencerT♦C 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Scottydude review 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ningauble (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • It occurs to me that this type of content would be more suitable to be featured on the Main Page of Wikimedia Commons. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This survey tells us nothing about whether we should include featured sounds as part of the current TFP, perhaps with a rename, which appears to be what featured sound supporters are suggesting since they agree we don't have enough featured sounds Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Featured Topic[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RichardF2

Oppose

  1. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scottydude review 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not enough of these at present, and they can be highlighted by featuring the individual articles anyway Modest Genius talk 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Quiddity 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Way too few Gary King (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As just seemingly links to most people, there would need to be wording for the topics, and then would take up quite a lot of space. SpencerT♦C 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. per Modest Genius Ningauble (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. how is this different from featured article? --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Featured topics are 'series' of Featured/Good articles all on one area. For example, Solar System is a featured topic, which contains several FAs and GAs on the individual planets, Sun etc. Modest Genius talk 01:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Featured Editor[edit]

Examples: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/EricV89

Oppose

  1. I can pat my own back. Most of you probably can, too. Editors have never had a problem with their edits going unnoticed outside of the community, and within the community we can congratulate users "behind the scenes" with barnstars and their ilk. Maybe we should start encouraging the use of barnstars more often? I also think that having a "featured editor" might generate some unwanted types of behavior. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WODUP 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Asenine  09:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. not a good idea --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I strongly oppose this idea! Scottydude review 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongly oppose. Maybe in the Signpost, certainly not on the main page Modest Genius talk 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We don't need an actual spotlight to shine on individual editors Gary King (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very bad idea, partly for the reasons given, but also related to my comment above about the perception of WP as a social networking site. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bad idea, but like Modest Genius said, maybe there could be a section in the Signpost. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. And what happens if our "featured editor" is uncivil to people coming by his/her talkpage? Or what if people don't want to be featured editors because of the awful harassment they receive? Bad idea for many reasons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Bad idea for so many reasons - most of which have been listed above. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Grant Kennedy (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wikipedia is collaborative. I think that giving Featured Editor "status" or some equivalent publicly probably isn't fair, especially considering the sheer number of editors we have. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose. Ningauble (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Exceptional, unpresedented support I'm just glad I thought of it. Maybe you might support it in the Community section then? --eric (mailbox) 06:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Including Today's Quote or Today's Motto[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Five Fifteen

Oppose

  1. Not sure that Wikipedia is the right project for a main page quote of the day. WODUP 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Asenine  09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Quotes are usually silly, empty soundbites, given validity only because a famous person said them. The Spanish Wikipedia has them, and it detracts a bit from the experience. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Unnecessary, Wikipedia is not the place. Scottydude review 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is something for Wikiquote Modest Genius talk 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Quiddity 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Completely unnecessary. Probably more appropriate for Wikiquotes. Gary King (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There is already a link to Wikiquote. Ningauble (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I actually kind of like it --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could this proposal include Wikipedia:Motto of the day? Or does it just have to be famous quotes (e.g. like the Plato one on the second example)? By the way, the first example didn't appear to have a quote. Deamon138 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we could come up with enough mottos (and even if we could, I think it would be cheesy). Using quotations could be a clever way to link people to Wikiquote. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations seem a little more encyclopedic, and lots of well known phrases/mottos are lifted straight out of major works of literature. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including The Signpost[edit]

Oppose

  1. No way, that's for internal consumption. It's like patients reading the notice board a hospital. Oh, doctors have to park in lot B for the next week, kittens to a good home, the asbestos inspectors will be here on Tuesday. No good can come of it. 66.57.189.230 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree completely with the guy above.  Asenine  09:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. SpencerT♦C 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is to editor centric --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lol! Per first edit. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Perfect explanation above... Scottydude review 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Couldn't have put it better than anon above Modest Genius talk 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Community portal is where it is and belongs. -- Quiddity 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mostly insider stuff Gary King (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not necessary. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not needed, just like the first comment says. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tacky to put it on the front page. Ningauble (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments

Including an intro/explanation of Wikipedia[edit]

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose. A wikilink to our article on Wikipedia suffices Modest Genius talk 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think that Wikipedia is popular enough for people to have an idea of what it is, although for this particular question, I am willing to change my stance. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SpencerT♦C 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose unless it is seven words or less within the masthead. Ningauble (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. The excerpt of WP:ABOUT is clever. It gives a "Wikipedia-like" explanation of itself. (Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Scottydude). Scottydude review 20:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An "About Wikipedia" paragraph, like ..redesign proposal/RyRy uses. -- Quiddity 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Many people coming to Wikipedia still don't understand what it is (and therefore how to use it). We should be encouraging a bit of media literacy among our readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Calliopejen1 above says it pretty well, though I think that we should avoid a long, cluttering explanation if possible, and it isn't specifically our place to "encourage […] media literacy" directly, though we can certainly point users that way through explanation. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. It's already there on the banner. Anything more would clutter the page. -Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including a second searchbox in the page content[edit]

Oppose

  1.  Asenine  09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Simplicity is better --T-rex 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oreo Priest talk 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Quiddity 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Don't need to duplicate it Gary King (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's already in the sidebar. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Needlessly redundant. Ningauble (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments

  • I'm not sure if the search bar would be as cluttering as said in discussions but I could go either way. (1, 2). Scottydude review 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the search box out of the sidebar and into the page, but not having two of them Modest Genius talk 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would require two sidebars - one for the Main Page and one for everything else. That's not the best result -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a section for language links in addition to the sidebar[edit]

Examples: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Polishname, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Zrs 12

Oppose

  1. We should remove it and cut down how many we have in the sidebar, as I suggested above. Perhaps the 25 most-used languages. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cut it out entirely. If someone wanted another language, they would have selected it on wikipedia.org Modest Genius talk 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As said above, they would have already gone to that language if they really wanted it. Gary King (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Twas Now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Modest Genius. --Izno (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Needless redundancy. Ningauble (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • In response to Modest Genius and Gary King: The existence of other Wikipedias does not imply there is an awareness of those other Wikipedias. There is some chance that people are unaware of a Wikipedia in their native language; more likely is that they don't know the ISO 639 code for the language they want, so a link to the complete list is absolutely necessary. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A link to the full list of languages is fair enough; a good idea even. But listing various 'top' languages isn't. Modest Genius talk 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a section of undeveloped articles ("You can help!")[edit]

Oppose

  1. As mentioned elsewhere in this survey, the main page is for readers not editors. Modest Genius talk 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Use a link, not a section. Ningauble (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments

  1. This has been suggested on both this talk page and the talk page for the main page itself (as of 2008-08-12). I'm currently neutral about this but think it should get a wider airing, considering several people have recommended this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics[edit]

Two or three column view[edit]

Examples: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pretzels, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 2, User:Kollision/2008 main page redesign proposal, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Gnangarra, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/88wolfmaster

Two

  1.  Asenine  09:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. WODUP's comment below sums it up. SpencerT♦C 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Three is too cramped. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Three looks awful, particularly if you don't have a maximised browser on a widescreen monitor Modest Genius talk 01:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Quiddity 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fits nicely on most screens Gary King (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fits nicely, and any more would be cramped. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Two is sufficient. Counting the sidebar there are actually three. Any more is cramped and cluttered. Ningauble (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three

Comments

  • Two columns work well, but three look a bit cramped even at 1280x800. WODUP 05:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using portal icons[edit]

Examples: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pro bug catcher, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Nat/Gamma, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Blackhole77, Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/AMK152

Oppose

  1. Looks too busy --T-rex 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the main page should mirror the natural appearance of the rest of Wikipedia (the articles). The portal icons are too busy. Scottydude review 00:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doesn't look consistent, and we should be using less space on portals, not more Modest Genius talk 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Quiddity 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't think portals are useful to many readers, and they certainly aren't catchy like our little facts. I think their presence on the main page should be minimized as much as possible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does not aid navigation. Resist the temptation to use all the crayons in the box. Ningauble (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. The small ones are fine, but Nat/Gamma's take up too much space. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I kind of like them, but I think more clearer and obvious icons should be used. Gary King (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this may attract more attention to the portals if we do this. SpencerT♦C 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. I like the icons on Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pro bug catcher (i.e. in the section headers), but the others are too busy. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update portal section to attract traffic[edit]

Oppose

  1. It should stay small. -Oreo Priest talk 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gary King (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  1. This will not have any effect on traffic --T-rex 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What does this suggestion even mean? Modest Genius talk 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a link traffic study done, and the results indicated that certain areas of the page perform better for clicks than others. So the question is supposed to be something like: Do we want to funnel readers through portals by making them more appealing to click on? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I think portal icons could do (above). SpencerT♦C 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the color scheme[edit]

Oppose

  1. Works well at the moment, and we need to be extremely careful about using too many colours. Any designer will tell you 3 or 4 is the ideal. Furthermore, we don't want to distract from the content Modest Genius talk 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No change, or eliminate altogether per the gray that ..redesign proposal/MZMcBride uses. -- Quiddity 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At least, I would not like to see any major color changes. Gary King (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Only minor changes. Why are TFA/DYK the same green, ITN/OTD the same blue-ish, and TFP lavender? Either have a different color for each, or they should all be the same. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I say keep colors to a minimum (sounds grave I know). Wikipedia has a natural scheme (for those who use monobook) and I think we should stick to that. Scottydude review 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could not care less

  1. --T-rex 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The current colours fall nicely into a general palette of slightly subdued shades of whatever colour one wants; I'd suggest that this doesn't need to be changed as it fits with our general style, but there's little reason to either specifically change it or not change it. If a Main Page design looks good on most screens, it probably works well enough. The only suggestion I have is that it should be ensured that colour setups do not specifically disadvantage either the colour-blind (any variety) or people using greyscale monitors. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change it to what? Resist the temptation to use all the crayons in the box. Ningauble (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change font or font size[edit]

Oppose

  1. Don't fix what isn't broken --T-rex 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's fine the way it is. Scottydude review 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The font size is about the same as most websites. Anyone who finds it too small or too big will probably have the same problem everywhere else, and can change their browser settings. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leave it up to the browser. Web standards people! Modest Genius talk 01:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Quiddity 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Works great as it is Gary King (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Leave it as is. Stick with standards - they exist for a reason. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's fine. If people want larger text, they should modify their browser. SpencerT♦C 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It is good. Please don't break it. Ningauble (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1.  Asenine  09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Remove left-most standard sidebar from main page[edit]

Oppose

  1. keeping the layout consistant is more friendly for new users --T-rex 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In addition to T-rex's point, note that the www.wikipedia.org portal includes many different wikis with different layouts (such as for right-to-left languages like Arabic or Hebrew) and can thus justify having a special layout where a local Main Page cannot use the same justification. It's also an unnecessary technical challenge as the sidebar is heavily integrated into the MediaWiki skin and would practically require developer intervention to remove, especially for one page only. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This skin element that frames all wikipedia pages should be consistant on the landing page. Ningauble (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. The left-most bar is not terribly intuitive in its organization or friendly for new users. If we eliminated this, we could have more width to design the main page, as well as being able to highlight the search box more effectively. Note that the main wikipedia.org page has a design that is radically different from normal article pages, and it hasn't confused anyone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Centering text[edit]

Example: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Lights

Oppose

  1. Wreaks havoc with my eyes. SpencerT♦C 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose. Banner: yes. Section heads: tolerable. Body text and lists: No, no, no. It seriously impedes reading to have to re-anchor on each line.. Ningauble (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Fully center the intro banner (see comment below), rather than center it, but place it off to the side. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. The given example looks fine (well besides the green text) --T-rex 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about the text alignment inside the boxes. SpencerT♦C 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed intro:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2,507,478 articles in English, and more than 11 million in over 250 languages
Wikipedia for mobile users
(Based on the French Wikipedia.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments[edit]

Add any general comments you have regarding this survey (but unrelated to the above sections) here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Too late[edit]

I missed the survey, I'm sorry to say. I'd just like to add that I support all the proposals except:

  • Including Featured Editor
  • Including The Signpost
  • Having a section of undeveloped articles ("You can help!")
  • Remove left-most standard sidebar from main page

SharkD (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Survey&oldid=1146652075"