Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 6

• Please unrevert my changes. Otherwise, I will probably vote for keeping the current main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I planned on posting this voting session as a vote for design elements, but Heretohelp and DavidLevy felt they wanted to coordinate this round of voting. I didn't think the drafts were ready for posting, as there is a major formatting glitch in both A and B - which we could probably fix in a few hours, so we should have held off. But they just went forward with it. I also wanted to put all the drafts that came out of the open editing session up for consideration, but they reverted my efforts to do so. I guess that's what Wikipedia is all about. Viva le progress! Wahoooooo! --Go for it! 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I voted for Draft C anyway, as I prefer some redesign than the current page. It's good to hear what people think of the different designs, what they like and don't like. We can then combine the best features of each into an even better Draft #7. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I can't wait! --Go for it! 03:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. You unilaterally decided to announce that we would be entering a one-week period of open editing (basically implying that we didn't have permission to edit the page before), culminating in Draft 6 on Saturday. Then, at the last minute, you unilaterally (and without any prior discussion) decided that our draft wasn't ready, and that we would hold a free-for-all among every personal variation that we'd come up with (excluding the one that you dislike, but including at least one that had been abandoned by its creator). Then you complained when HTH and I had the unmitigated audacity to challenge your authority to dictate the proceedings in the manner suiting your whim of the moment. Does that about cover it? —David Levy 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, you seem to have read a lot into it, and are conveniently leaving out some pertinent facts (such as your unilaterally forking the draft without prior discussion -- discussion you seem to hold in such high regard -- immediately after an almost heated debate over draft versions). It was never specified when on Saturday a draft would be posted, so fixing the IE glitch wouldn't be running past the deadline. I was merely trying to avert the fiasco that occurred last voting session in which a lot of effort was spent by users pointing out obvious flaws, unintendedly presented. And speaking of effort, several users presented really nice Main Page Redesigns, and I thought that they deserved to be included in the consensus building process. So my question is, who are you to deny them that privilege. Every Wikipedian is welcome to join in on the consensus discussions and have their views heard and ideas displayed. I take great offense when I see someone trying to push the efforts of others aside. This voting session should have as many drafts on display as were created for this project. Your act of denying them of the privelege of being posted as Draft C (which has since been corrected), Draft D, Draft E, Draft F, and now a Draft G appears rather domineering, for a Wikipedian. Therefore, I've taken the liberty of adding those draft designations (yet again) to the various drafts as they were originally posted below, so that users may refer to them in the voting above if they so desire. To avoid confusion, I shall do the same for the project page. Sincerely, --Go for it! 08:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see this supposed formatting glitch, but you're welcome to fix it. —David Levy 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The spacing is reduced between the 2 main columns in IE, and the right and left edges of the column boxes run out past the edge of the header. It looks like a margin error. Though everything lines up right in Firefox. --Go for it! 09:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, you seem to have read a lot into it, and are conveniently leaving out some pertinent facts (such as your unilaterally forking the draft without prior discussion -- discussion you seem to hold in such high regard -- immediately after an almost heated debate over draft versions).

1. It was HTH's idea to display both versions. I agreed.

2. I forked the draft into two up-to-date, collaboratively created versions. I did so as a means of illustrating the fact that the new layout was not dependent upon the number of featured sections. You assigned equal status to designs that were created in a manner peripheral to the project (and controlled entirely by their respective authors), thereby falsely implying that they underwent the same sort of community-driven development. Furthermore, these pages are outdated, because we modified/improved various elements after they were created.

3. With whom did you discuss your decision to dictate exactly when we are/aren't permitted to edit the page and when it would become an official draft?

It was never specified when on Saturday a draft would be posted, so fixing the IE glitch wouldn't be running past the deadline.

There still is nothing stopping us from working on this issue.

I was merely trying to avert the fiasco that occurred last voting session in which a lot of effort was spent by users pointing out obvious flaws, unintendedly presented.

Then why did you unilaterally declare a "deadline" in the first place?

And speaking of effort, several users presented really nice Main Page Redesigns, and I thought that they deserved to be included in the consensus building process.

...except, of course, for the one version that you dislike (until I pointed this out).

So my question is, who are you to deny them that privilege. Every Wikipedian is welcome to join in on the consensus discussions and have their views heard and ideas displayed. I take great offense when I see someone trying to push the efforts of others aside.

I never said that these designs should be hidden away. Certainly, it's fine for people to view them and comment. But again, they aren't collaborative drafts. Each had its contents determined by one person, and did not undergo open editing. They're personal drafts, and should be treated as such. That isn't an insult; it's recognition of the fact that they were created in a different manner. Every design should be available, but "Draft 6" is supposed to be the product of our cooperative endeavor — not an assortment of whatever ideas various users came up with. (Again, this is not an insult.) Instead of asking people to pick out their favorite traits of the personal drafts, you set up a competition in which people were encouraged to vote for their favorite version. That isn't what this project is about.

This voting session should have as many drafts on display as were created for this project.

The personal drafts were never taken off display, so I assume that you're referring to a setup in which no distinction is drawn. And why are we doing this all of a sudden? Because you said so, of course, and you've placed yourself in charge.

Your act of denying them of the privelege of being posted as Draft C (which has since been corrected), Draft D, Draft E, Draft F, and now a Draft G appears rather domineering, for a Wikipedian.

...said the person who has attempted to dictate every detail of the process (including this).

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between an up-to-date, collaboratively created draft and a personal draft that was created several days ago and subjected to no outside editing?

Therefore, I've taken the liberty of adding those draft designations (yet again) to the various drafts as they were originally posted below, so that users may refer to them in the voting above if they so desire. To avoid confusion, I shall do the same for the project page.

Go for it! has spoken.

The spacing is reduced between the 2 main columns in IE, and the right and left edges of the column boxes run out past the edge of the header. It looks like a margin error. Though everything lines up right in Firefox.

I noticed the header issue (which originally was accompanied by a much worse problem) six days ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive 5#IE Display Problems.

I noticed the column issue yesterday, but I've come to assume that both of these are simply minor display differences. Neither is a big deal, IMHO. —David Levy 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I spent a very long time typing the above reply, and I would sincerely appreciate a response. You seem to be disregarding my concerns (and the concerns of others), in favor of plowing ahead with your unilateral plan. —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why have all these variations?

There's no reason to have all these different versions. Personaly, I think 2 is too much. We'll just confuse people. The consensus was agianst icons and against those extra drafts. Please, this is rediculus.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. They're totally missing the point. This is not a competition between our personal drafts. It's an exhibition of our collaborative creation. The fork (which I'm beginning to regret) is merely to illustrate that the six sections aren't tied in to the other changes.

For the most part, these versions were stepping stones along the way. They contain elements that we subsequently improved or abandoned, and serve more as outdated combinations of random elements than anything else. One of them (6D) was completely abandoned by Drumguy! And I noticed that Go for it! happened to exclude the one draft that he dislikes. (I do too, but that's beside the point.) —David Levy 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This way we get to see what design elements users like, and if there is one draft that stands out above all the rest, well we'll learn that too. But after looking at all these cool designs, I just couldn't help letting everyone know about them!!!! --Go for it! 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think three is a good amount. The third is distinct enough in its design elements and colors. Let's just see what people think of the options and incorporate the feedback into Draft #7. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's still a discussion post. Which gives others the opportunity to see what we got to see. --Go for it! 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's start a pool about what will happen first, a: A new Main Page or b: WP's 1,000,000th article.  ;-) hydnjo talk 03:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2,000,000th article.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, an unintended consequence of an overwhelming abundance of talent all focused on the MP! hydnjo talk 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Other designs

There were a lot of cool designs for a front page that came out of this project. Following are the rest of them. Feel free to post your own version here if you have one. The more the merrier. --Go for it! 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My discussion posts keep getting changed. I specifically posted a Draft C, Draft D, Draft E, and Draft F, first above and on the project page, and then here in the discussion. But someone or other edited my post and changed their names and removed one of them (replacing it with another). Aren't we allowed to say what we have to say without being edited or censored? So here they are again:

• Draft 6C
• Draft 6D - intended to display a header by User:Drumguy8800
• Draft 6E
• Draft 6F

These were posted on the project page, but got reverted. Please do not edit the contents of my discussion posts, as I have given you the same courtesy. Thank you. --Go for it! 08:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You need to learn the difference between a personal "discussion post" and a formal project description/announcement. The latter is posted on behalf of the community, and therefore is subject to outside revision (as long as other people's text isn't attributed to you). I realize that you think of yourself as the leader of this endeavor, but you lack the authority to dictate the precise terms under which we operate.

2. Drumguy abandoned the header contained within "Draft 6D," because it's broken and mangles the neighboring text. The fact that you like it anyway doesn't mean that it should qualify as some sort of finalist. It's a failed attempt, and the author acknowledges this. —David Levy 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense or anything but i agree with the above that you are being a control freak. if anything that's David Levy's job, going by that he is an admin and you are not (for the record, neither am I). We can let this round of voting pass and see what feedback we get, but the next election is going to run much cleaner because w are going to use a different method. the one i currently am preposing involves voting on the issues, not the drafts.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, all of us are equals here. The fact that I'm a sysop makes absolutely no difference. If I were to use any of my administrative powers to gain a personal advantage in this dispute, that would be a gross abuse of my position.

Incidentally, I support your proposal that we vote on the issues (instead of the drafts). Turning this into some sort of winner-take-all competition is highly counterproductive. —David Levy 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How we'll vote next time

This is a mess. An absolute mess. I'm going o draw up some rules, submit them for revision by people, and then implement them for Draft 7 (or Draft 6 if we hurry). I propose, knowing that not everyone will agree, the following: Instead of voting on the drafts as packages we vote on the issues. The main project page willg give a draft with all of the ideas in place, overlapping and redundant, and we make sure that everyone knows that this is not a package deal. We can link to other drafts if we like, but we won't formally vote on anything. We'll use consensus, and that means bullets, multiple votes, and informality. We'll have something like this:

==Welcome - guidelines (name and funcion not set in stone)==
Modify what's already here for the content under this header.
A header that says "voting" but isn't technically a header goes here. Like the one currently under the TOC. Then we go into the issues:
==Portals: icons vs. listed in the header==
A line of explanation of the controversy can go here.
===I like the icons===
*Votes and discussion (on top or below the boxes?) go here.
===I like the list===
*
===Other Portal discussion===
*
==Features: four or six?==
===I like the conventional four features===
*
===I like six features===
*
===Other feature discussion===
*Should the Wikipedia Community really be the sixth feature? How do we arrange these?
If new issues arise we can put them here.
==Other discussion==
For anything else. Feel free to create your own sub headings (===text===) for each topic.

Comments welcome.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's too late to implement a new voting scheme in this voting session, since votes have already been cast and that would be akin to double-jeapordy -- no one wants their votes nullified. A similar argument can be made with changing from draft votes to issue votes and holding another election, because if Draft B wins for instance, which has six features, then pushing for a vote on the number of features "next time" is like recalling the previous vote. So no, the system you outlined will not work. Recurring voting sessions only really work when it is for ratifying a single document, which is basically deciding "Is it ready yet, yes or no?"

Double jeopardy? Vote nullification? Vote recall? No offense, but you really don't understand how Wikipedia operates.

This is not a competition! We're trying to work together to build consensus. Yes, it's fine for all of the various ideas to be considered, but this is simply a straw poll — the purpose of which is to gauge the community's opinions. —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This voting session is basically an election for drafts.

Well, that's what you've decided to make it (because, of course, you've our self-appointed leader). —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whichever draft wins should be the draft we touch up and submit to the users for final approval. We really should respect their desires, which are expressed here by their votes.
--Go for it! 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Insightful comments are more important than vote tallies, and there's no official "winner." Wikipedia is not a democracy. —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the forrest for the trees. We let them vote on the issues, not the drafts.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand...

I don't think mediators will be needed. My idea: shut down the voting and let's civilly discuss how to do this. Forget the time limit. We won't vote until we're ready. Please look at my idea above and see if it will meet our needs.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just leave the formatting for all the entries to be voted on the same. Mucking around with the formatting appears like positioning, and gives if not merely implies giving preferential treatment to one or more candidates over another. Keep the ballots simple, with no arrow pointing to the wrong entries, etc. If some candidate drafts have talk pages redirected to this discussion page, then they all need to have that. It's not rocket science nor brain surgery. (In this case though, it does seem more like "rocket surgery"). And as I mentioned before, no one wants their vote nullified. And we don't have the authority to cancel out their votes. And I'm certainly not retracting mine. --Go for it! 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything to the contrary.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I like HereToHelp's idea. And in rebuttal of Go for it!'s argument: I have currently abstained from voting on the basis that I like certain features, but am not sure I like a particular package. I am sure there are others like me. Similarly, when it comes to those who have supported a particular package, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain which features they actually appreciated and thus what to keep at our next stage of drafting. jnothman ^talk 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Current course of action?

Okay what do we do now? do we sail into the storm ill-equiped or do we work out how to vote with more than one draft? And will We have Draft 6b or Draft 7? Please, let's use a rough consensus. I say let's stop and figure this issue out or we're just asking for trouble.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I will add that GFI! requested us to "run a clean election" on my talk page but "nobody wants their votes nullified" (above).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't wanto to do anything without a general consensus because that is what got us into this mess.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think all this argument is silly, and apologize for anything I might have done to help fuel it. My take on this... It's unlikely that one version will get overwhelming consensus to the extent that we'll be able to replace the main page, at this point. Rather than a competition, I view this as an iterative process. I think we can use more comments on why people are attracted to particular drafts (e.g. they like/dislike the featured picture, colors, icons, etc.), including the ones in the user space. Already, we have many comments from people saying they like the 6 features... that's contrary to what I had expected, and useful to know. Let's keep the voting, but maybe let's phrase it more as a feedback gathering process than a competition. Finally, I think we should archive the comments, relating to this argument. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would not have expected 6 features to be popular. Yes, we'll continue with the poll, but next time, I recommend doing this some other way.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, next time we can organize the voting in some better way. Yesterday, I was just surprised that this went from good discussion (up til the time I left work), to the time I got home (the voting was already set-up, with arguments). It just happened too fast, without discussion on how to go about the voting. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. I've seen the comments on User talk:Go for it! from the people who maintain DYK. Looks like their enthusiastic and have no problems with running DYK seven days a week. Though, one day of voting and comments, is far short of consensus on it so let's just wait and see what more feedback we get. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So...6 features looks good but isn't guaranteed; the jury is still out on the Portals, and having The Wikipedia Community has been as denounced as much as I though it would be. I'm still going to welcome an new suggestions for that slot, though.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where was that section of the drafts denounced? I just did a text search of this page, and couldn't find a single criticism of it. So what are you talking about? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called archiving.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to limit the choices, nor am I the one trying to pigeon hole the voting process. Note that I wrote an introduction asking for input on features, and then someone forked the draft and turned this into a draft-selection process (pun intended). Watching the results of that action in the voting section above, I now think it was a good idea. Though I find it ironic that as soon as the draft you favored fell behind in the "polls", you started supporting the original concept of polling for design elements. A careful analysis of the histories of this talk page and the project page will show a difinite pattern: 2 sides trying to outmaneuver each other to get "their" version approved. Well that's why they have elections in the first place, so we wound up in the right venue! But something very interesting has happened: we've learned that people favor many different designs. So rather than force the whole community to choose one design which everyone else gets stuck with, it might be a good idea to explore the possibility of main page configurability and the various ways in which this might be accomplshed. With that in mind, I've started a new discussion below on this topic. --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to limit the choices,

No one has tried to limit the choices. We've been working to stop you from transforming a constructive discussion into a winner-take-all "election."

nor am I the one trying to pigeon hole the voting process.

Again, this is not a competition.

Note that I wrote an introduction asking for input on features, and then someone forked the draft and turned this into a draft-selection process (pun intended).

No. YOU turned this into a draft-selection process. (Fortunately, this has now been largely corrected.)

I forked the page to create two slightly different versions of our draft. I did this as a means of illustrating the fact that our basic layout was not tied to the number of features, thereby allowing users to evaluate these elements separately.

I didn't include any of the personal designs (including mine), because those were not created collaboratively. That doesn't mean that they're invalid or inferior, but it does mean that they did not undergo the same type of open editing through which our draft was created.

I never intended to suppress the personal designs from viewing. I assumed that the evaluation period would operate normally, with readers commenting upon our draft and suggesting methods of improving it (including the integration of elements from the personal designs). Instead, you unilaterally declared that we would hold a competition in which a plurality of voters would select the final design (in its entirety), creating the false appearance that all of these drafts were officially selected finalists of equivalent origin (and that the specific combinations of elements were package deals). Don't you understand why that was confusing and counterproductive?

Though I find it ironic that as soon as the draft you favored fell behind in the "polls", you started supporting the original concept of polling for design elements.

Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish. No one has attempted to conceal that the six-feature DESIGN ELEMENT has garnered substantial support.

From the very beginning, the idea has been to work together and propose/discuss design elements (until YOU unilaterally decided to launch the aforementioned competition).

A careful analysis of the histories of this talk page and the project page will show a difinite pattern: 2 sides trying to outmaneuver each other to get "their" version approved.

WP:AGF

Well that's why they have elections in the first place, so we wound up in the right venue!

Again, this is a discussion, not an election. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —David Levy 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Forging ahead - What about main page configurability?

During the previous round of discussions (in archive 5), somebody suggested that we make multiple versions of the main page available for users to "set" as their main page - thus allowing everyone to get what they want. His idea was dismissed out of hand as being a complex programming problem, but there must be several approaches by which such a concept could work. The simplest one I can think of is just to have several main pages that users can set as their home page in their browser or as a button on their browser's tool bar. We could then provide a link on the default main page leading to a page which lists all the alternate main pages available to choose from. Another idea is to set up a feature in "my preferences" in which the user can select which page the "Main Page" item in the navigation menu of the left bar leads to. Speaking of menus in the left bar, a whole menu of main page designs could be offered there: then users could select whichever main page they were in the mood for at any time! And last but not least are skins and the user configuration methods available right now -- can't a user configure links available to him in the left bar? Can skins have particular main page links built-in to them? By making multiple main pages available, nobody needs to be disappointed in the above election or by any election in which the design draft they preferred didn't get approved as "the main page". --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too familar with user-configuration and skins. What can a user do right now with these? Can a user configure the menu the way he wants, to point to a main page of his own choice? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple fully operational main page drafts have been developed by this project. Why let them go to waste? Does anyone object to having a link somewhere near the top of the default main page leading to a page with alternate main page designs for users to choose from? --Go for it! 23:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea but it doesn't quite work. What we need is a Main Page for the anons that looks decent, encourages them to use us and contribute, and like us. We should all come to a compromise for that default Main Page. Also:anyone can put a MP in their userspace and set it to be their Wikipedia homepage, but nobody can have the "Main Page" link (and the icon above it) link to their own MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, users probably could do that with some user style and JavaScript hacking. æle ✆ 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not such a great idea with the main page coded the way it is now. It makes much more sense just to provide the tools to make it easier to create your own main page in your userspace. Saying that an option to automatically redirect would be nice.   freshgavin TALK    02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding forging ahead

I'm confused, where does the principal interaction amongst y'all regarding the Main Page design and layout occur - where is your workshop? If I start at WP:USE, its talk page doesn't seem to be it. So, I'll link over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page which gets me redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft where I seem to be invited to review two groups of drafts: (A,B created collaboratively) and (C,E,G,G contributed by individual editors) . The fact that the two groups are described in that fashion seems, intended or not, to somehow favor the collaborative group over the other - a bad start for my brain. Never-mind, I review all six drafts (no easy task as no one has thought to interlink the drafts to each other for easy comparison) and am invited to express my opinion on its talk page. That's here on this page where I'm invited first to vote and comment in a straw poll of sorts and secondly to a "Discussion other than voting". Most of the commentary in the discussion section seem like a contentious discussion between several team members. I really don't know what to make of this, is this the workshop where the principals on the team work things out or is this the place where outsiders or reviewers are supposed to provide input or (I hope not) both. So, back to my question, where does one go to observe or contribute to the goings on? I think that I am speaking not only for myself when I request that future requests for comment be arranged differently by the principals on this project. You folks have put a hell of a lot of talent to work here and things can sometime spin away from the main path but that should happen in "conference" (and I don't mean in secret) and then come forward in a united way with recommendations, options and request for comment. Oh, and configurability should be a side issue and not the main objective - a polished front page that we can be proud of, will make the newcomers feel less dazed/overwhelmed and which will provide interest and navigational aids for all. hydnjo talk 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the team-related issues. Every time I try to put the drafts (and therefore efforts of everyone related to the end goal) on an equal footing, Heretohelp and DavidLevy revert my changes and push "the group" drafts A and B over the others. That doesn't smack of fairness in my mind. One of the drafts I placed up there (Draft D) was summarily "withdrawn" by them. It feels downright alienating. Who put them in charge? They themselves did. --Go for it! 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Every time I try to put the drafts (and therefore efforts of everyone related to the end goal) on an equal footing,

They aren't equal! That doesn't mean that they're inherently better or worse, but they aren't the same. We worked together for a week to create our draft. These other designs are legitimate (and may contain design elements that we should adopt), but they were created by individual users. What was the point of editing collaboratively if we were going to allow this discussion to deteriorate into a winner-take-all contest between competing drafts?

Heretohelp and DavidLevy revert my changes and push "the group" drafts A and B over the others.

Again, THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION! The goal is to combine our efforts and create one collaborative draft that hopefully will garner consensus as a replacement for the current main page.

This is a straw poll, not a formal "election."

One of the drafts I placed up there (Draft D) was summarily "withdrawn" by them.

More rubbish! It was withdrawn by its author (long before this "election" began) because it's broken. How many times must this be explained to you?

What (other than your self-appointed leader status) gave you the right to select a broken, abandoned design for consideration (while omitting the one design that you dislike, which I later added to the list)? You're accusing others of attempting to manipulate the process, but you're the one who elevated your preferred personal designs to a higher status.

Who put them in charge? They themselves did.

Who put YOU in charge? You yourself did. We're merely attempting to repair a chaotic, unproductive situation of your accidental creation. —David Levy 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing just sort of evolved. This talk page began as the work discussion area for a single draft, and worked fine for that until Round 6, in which an argument (coup) broke out over the guidelines and process for voting, which was really an attempt by one faction to push their design concept (4 features) over another (6 features). Coordination had been invisible up until that point. Now coordination is completely transparent (pun intended). --Go for it! 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As a personal favor, would you not write 'pun intended' on anything ever again? Black Carrot 19:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This talk page began as the work discussion area for a single draft, and worked fine for that until Round 6, in which an argument (coup) broke out over the guidelines and process for voting, which was really an attempt by one faction to push their design concept (4 features) over another (6 features).

I honestly can't believe that you're making these ridiculous accusations. NO ONE has attempted to suppress or overide public opinion regarding the numer of features. As I explained, my intention was for us to continue discussing our draft (which happened to have been split into two slightly different versions), with comments guiding its continued evolution (including the posisble integration of elements from the personal designs). For some reason, you unilaterally declared that we would disregard a week's worth of collaboration, holding a winner-take-all "election" in which users voted for competing designs as package deals (excluding the attempt that you dislike, but including a broken one that was withdrawn by it author). —David Levy 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposing elections?

Why are you creating an election to compete with the first election?

It appears to be an election to force elements into whichever draft the community selects above, even though the people who voted on a particular draft did so because of its elements. You are trying to override one consensus building process with another consensus building process. But that's superfluous, because consensus is whatever most people decide.

And because you've placed the Drafts in parentheses, it is a defacto poll on drafts, and therefore totally redundant with the poll being taken at the top of the page, and much more confusing.

Besides, anyone who likes a particular draft is not going to jeapordize their vote by participating in another poll which would nullify their vote.

You've warped this project beyond recognition, guys.

We should just let the election at the top of the page run its course, which I believe most people are going to do.

--Go for it! 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you creating an election to compete with the first election?

There is no election! This is a discussion.

It appears to be an election to force elements into whichever draft the community selects above, even though the people who voted on a particular draft did so because of its elements.

I don't know what gave you the bizarre idea that we should vote for a package deal, but you need to let that go. Respondents have been qualifying their remarks by explaining that while one design is their overall favorite, they actually prefer some elements from other designs. With or without the second set of choices, we would need to carefully parse the original answers to gauge the prevailing opinions. A simple vote tally is patently unacceptable.

But that's superfluous, because consensus is whatever most people decide.

Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a plurality vote. The definition of "consensus" is not "whatever most people decide."

And because you've placed the Drafts in parentheses, it is a defacto poll on drafts, and therefore totally redundant with the poll being taken at the top of the page, and much more confusing.

No. Asking people to vote for their favorite design as a package deal (despite the fact that they're likely to prefer elements of different designs) is confusing. The parenthetical draft citations serve as points of reference. ("Look here to see what we're referring to.")

Besides, anyone who likes a particular draft is not going to jeapordize their vote by participating in another poll which would nullify their vote.

Again, this is NOT a "election." It's a straw poll. We're attempting to gauge public opinion by soliciting comments and suggestions. Participants needn't worry about shifting the official vote tally, because there isn't going to be one.

You've warped this project beyond recognition, guys.

That was you, I'm afraid. Fortunately, we appear to be getting back on track. —David Levy 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 1000% (not a typo) with David Levy. You are making this way too formal. This is nothing but a straw poll. Its intent is fedback(or should be, anyway), not to elect a certain draft. We refine our ideas through 1? 2? 20? 200? more drafts, however long it takes for us to get one draft that we're all proud of. Then, and only then, do we hold an official election. We also advertise a lot more (a message on the Community Portal is a must). But until then, we just get feedback. And so a feedback oriented is best. We're not warping the project, we're just elvolving it to keep up with the times.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that polls are evil and I just want to say that you don't really need to 'advertise' for this as much ... you're probably just making the situation worse. It's noble to think that you're taking the considerations of all the people to heart by listening to all their opinions, but the truth is many/most people have no idea what they're talking about (I'm not counting out myself either) and in the end the choice will be down to one person, who will probably want to have a few words of his own in before any real change is made.   freshgavin TALK    00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Special Note: To see the drafts correctly, clear your browser's cache.

The page's subline has been disabled, for effect, but only shows up that way if you've cleared your cache. To do this, go to the page, and press Ctrl-F5. If that doesn't work, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

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

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

So this time there's a wider selection.

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

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

Here are some guidelines:

• Voting will continue through Saturday, February 4th.
• Keep in mind that this is just a straw poll. We are currently in discussions on how to run an official election for the Main Page's replacement. Your input is needed.
• There are many drafts to choose from (see voting areas below), and a section to jot down features you really like.
  • Use numbering (#) instead of bullets (*), even though bullets are used here.
• Comments, suggestions, and criticism are all welcome and will form the basis of the final draft's design. (Draft 7). See these sections:
  • Structured discussion on design elements
  • What portals to include
  • What browse bar items should be included

Many thanks from the Main Page Redesign Team:

Ashibaka, David Levy, Drumguy8800, Go for it!, HereToHelp, Hydnjo, Kevin baas, --Aude, Trevor macinnis, Violetriga, Zafiroblue05

And a special word of thanks to the founder of the project, Tom-, without whose initiative we wouldn't even be here today. Thanks Tom.

Enjoy...

Place your votes and reasons for them in this section:

Click on the links below to go to the appropriate voting place. Links have also been provided to the drafts themselves, for your convenience. Keep in mind that this is just a straw poll, and that the official election is still to come.

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

Vote for any other design elements you like or dislike here

• I like them all. But I think there should be a balance between links and content, which all the drafts do quite well. I especially like the various browsing features in the headers of each page, and the expansion of subject areas to choose from in Draft B. --Go for it! 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As always. Balance is key here. I think six features is too much content, but the links of Portals are a great way to save real estate and have them at the top, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I like draft B, I guess the formt should be in the following suggested way so that it is easier on eyes. FA and In the news adjacent to one another in the first row; POTD and DYK adjacent to each other in the next row; Today in history and WP community in the final row. However, a caveat is that WP community would always be fixed in length. FA and Today in history are also more or less stable in terms of length. DYK follows, with In the News, both varying in length, the latter more. POTD size keeps varying and it needs to be kept in mind. I am not very sure if listing the portals is a good idea, as a new user may get lost in them rather than working on articles; more importantly, given the bad shape some of these portals are in, I would think that it is best not to have them so prominently. Another cause of concern: Why only these portals? Why not Portal:Law or Portal:Pornography? Should it be limited to featured portals? Should it be limited to broad portals? Who determines this? Probly these hv been discussed already, excuse me if I am raising what may have been a closed discussion. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed, but it's not exactly closed. The logic is that we go with the Top 10.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I would like to see more portals listed as per J2. Other than that, they are all good. --LeftyG 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I like the portal icons, or at least the browsing category portals, being on the main page and obvious. They don't necessarily need to be at the top, but they should be there. Browsing encyclopedias is the best bit :-)and this gives a way in.Skittle 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• This may have come up already, but what does everyone think of putting the Collaboration of the Week on the Main Page?Jeff8765 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't like any of the Italian Inspired version, except the title bar:
  ---
  

Search 6,818,682 articles: 

Welcome to Wikipedia

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

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

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

Me does not care that much about colors & other details. I WANT TO SEE SEARCH BAR way on top. I support any version with it. (sorry for caps & bold, but that is really important for me) Renata 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! The SEARCH BAR is BY FAR the most important fetaure. It is the most used, most practical, and best. It outweighs all other features put toghther. I am admazed to see that only 2 versions have it! What's with that? Tobyk777 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer the look of Draft G with the different main page elements as ordered in Draft B so both DYK and POTD get equal billing. Currently, the colors in B are too dull. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You can't stick that up there. Notice how the current main page has Mathematics as its link to that category? There are reasons they didn't go with math. 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I like the portal pictures, and especially the picture of the day. I also like most of the colour designs, as I think the current main page is a bit too bleak. --NorkNork 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Search Bar should be prominent, to help new visitors jump straight to an article they're interested in. This is the most important feature. I've seen too many first-time visitors, wanting info about, say, Van Gogh, get frustrated trying to drill down through Portal:Art. --Krubo 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Prominent search bar == good. Broken S 22:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Discussion

---

• I really like the welcome in 6F: "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on n articles", and I also like having the icons lower on the page, but ... I really, really like having a search box up there near the top, in the middle - and having it longer, like Krubo said, because when I type in something long (like somebody's name, or a phrase), I like to see as much as possible of what I've entered. I would say "the longer the better" except that there are limits on what is reasonable. My idea of what is maximum reasonable size? the width of from the beginning of "my watchlist" to the end of "log out" across the top of the page. Other than that, I think I like 6H best. --Tygerbryght 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to "the free encyclopedia"?

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

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

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

Certainly. That was some anons idea and it saved space. It was also decided that "the free encyclopedia" appeares in the monobook skin in the upper left corner under the globe and at the start of each article. We can change that, sure, but if everyone else likes it, I'm afraid it stays.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I support "the free encyclopedia" being put back. Black Carrot 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Free Encyclopedia" is in the left bar, right under Wikipedia's puzzle globe logo. It's on every page all the time. Just out of curiosity, why is it that you feel we need it duplicated?--Go for it! 17:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase should be omitted from the welcome message. Not everyone uses the MonoBook skin, but the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." does appear throughout the site (directly below the title bar, which would be directly above the welcome message in question). Therefore, the phrase's presence in the welcome message is redundant for everyone and doubly redundant for most users (including any new visitor, because MonoBook is the default skin). —David Levy 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've come up with a good compromise.. simply adding the modifier 'free' (though it might be arguably redundant) on my proposal, Draft C, is only a one-word addition that will stand out to first-time visitors who look for that kind of thing. When I see "sign up for premium access" on a website, i automatically know that exploring it further is a waste of time. Seeing 'free' in such a genuine way though, is very encouraging. Also, only having at the top is fine for the rest of the pages.. but as it is a major principle of not only wikipedia but wikimedia, I think it is important to have this small addition on the main page. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We actually had this precise wording at one point. I don't actively oppose it, but it does seem redundant. Keep in mind that the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." will appear directly above this message. —David Levy 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"930,018 free articles that anyone can edit" is better. Still, I don't like the idea of Wikipedia being 'just a pile of articles'. Cohesion is an important principle, and it's important to get our principles across to visitors, especially would-be contributors.

If redundancy is such an issue, why say "Welcome to Wikipedia" at all? Visitors can easily deduce that they are on Wikipedia from the logo, the website title, and the URL.

I wouldn't consider redundancy bad in this case. We should be trying to introduce visitors to the site, not just feed them a statistic.

-Fadookie ^{Talk | contrib} 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this concern. I have yet to see any acceptable one-line solution. I think the above yellow bar is a good compromise - combine the article count with the search phrase. BigBlueFish 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who altered it. On the last draft before my alteration [1], the single line of text is not looking too good up there. In my view, the name "Wikipedia" makes it clear enough that it's an encyclopedia. On another draft, we actually had "Welcome to wikipedia, 900,000 free encyclopedia articles that anyone can edit" [2]. This is not a very catchy phrase (and is redundent) and it doesn't look as good with the overall design. As others have said, the phrase "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is already prominent on all pages in two places. Personally, I favor changing it to "900,000 free articles that anyone can edit", as is in this draft: [3]. It has a nice ring to it and reaffirms the free information scope of the project. --24.26.178.224 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We could leave the Page Title Subline "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" off the page, as is done for the drafts, and then stick it "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" back in to the Draft's header. I've just done this for Draft B. Let me know what you think. --Go for it! 13:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Drumguy8800/Main page draft (Draft C)

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

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

• Sorry, this is an awful version. The colors/graphics used clash horribly.. the bottom-stripes in the right column aren't formatted correctly.. the entire page just feels very uncohesive. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I quite agree in disliking the colour scheme, and also the snowflakes, which are distracting and out of place. jnothman ^talk 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't even look at the entire page because the yellow-orange behind the blue text almost hurt to look at.--Bee 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • (sigh). That is only one part of the page. It can (and will) be changed easily. Why do people think that each version is unchangable and if voted for will put it directly on the main page without editing? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking things up

Wow. You people are messed up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you follow the link? I think I was pretty clear about it there. What's missing from the front page, as it stands now, is an easy and self-explanatory way for people to look something up, as people are wont to doing in encyclopedias. So, quite a few people do the next best thing and ask at the reference desk. Combining all the places one could ask a question under one Questions heading is a good move, and I admit I hadn't thought to follow it and see the changes, but I think it would still be a good idea to have Look it up seperate. There's also the fact that it doesn't actually involve asking a question. This would, of course, make it harder to fit everything in. Black Carrot 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the Look it up page, which is well written, and agree entirely that people should be encouraged to search, rather than ask questions. I have one slight problem with the phrasing: what is the difference between "Look it up" and "Search"? To me "Search" is more intuitively understood, and "Look it up", despite being described as a traditional way to use an encyclopedia, is actually a rather colloquial term. 62.31.128.28 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By 'colloquial', what do you mean? If you mean most English-speaking people don't use it, that could be a problem. I've just put a question about that on the Language reference desk to find out. Also, to me, search isn't just counterintuitive, it's downright inaccurate. The point of the Go function on the search bar is to take you directly to the article you typed in, just like a lot of print books are trying to do when they arrange things alphabetically. The Search function is an actual search. Black Carrot 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the error rate at WP:RD or at WP:HD will be aided by having a "look it up" link on the main page. Having tried to work against these problems of people asking at the wrong places, I've decided that there is only so far that you can explain that people are in the wrong place, and those making the errors are generally just stupid. Another link will sadly not reduce stupidity. jnothman ^talk 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to reduce stupidity, and I'm not trying to tell people they're in the wrong place. I'm trying to prevent them from ever getting there, and I'm trying to do so by taking advantage of their laziness and lack of interest in anything not immediately obvious. I think this would help, and if it wouldn't help enough, I'm open to suggestions on tweaking. I'm also open to a trial period.

What, exactly, have you been doing? Black Carrot 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've decided it would be better to not have this on the main page, and have removed it from voting. Black Carrot 22:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues to SUPPORT or OPPOSE

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

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

Colorations

Green and Blue (Drafts A & B)

Support

1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Black Carrot 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. At least half of the "oppose" votes pertain to the size of the bars/lettering and/or the specific shades of blue and green. I would not object to modifying these aspects accordingly. —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support--Bkwillwm 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I think these are more comfortable than the alternatives and current. jnothman ^talk 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Certainly the best out of the current options. BigBlueFish 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Kevin Baas^talk 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support--Tone 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support--User:Jenmoa 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support--Go for it! 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support--JustPhil 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Though it looks a lot better in draft D, with the borders and small margins around the dark section header bars.--ragesoss 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Blue is a much better color for wikipedia than gold. Purple goes well with blue, however, and the green is just OK. - JustinWick 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - the block of colour is too large. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Incompatible with the core design.   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm not necessarily opposed to green/blue, but these particular colors are a bit too bright on my screen. I also think the feature heading typeface is a little too large, and in the case of Today's featured article, the heading overshadows the actual link to the full featured article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

   I respect your opinions, but I'm not sure why you perceive the feature heading typeface as too large. Throughout most of the site, we use the level 2 headings. Those are the smaller level 3 headings (usually reserved for subsections). —David Levy 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

   I concur with David on this, though reluctantly. The headline sizes/fonts are a different issue altogether not relating to the main page itself.   freshgavin TALK    04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree. We've broken numerous rules for the MP, not the least of which are Title Case Capitalization and colorful boxes. To me, it is more of a webpage. Since when has the way we format articles dictated our MP design? - ElAmericano | talk 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

   The Main Page should be formatted in a manner that is not directly contradictory to article pages - it should be similar wherever possible, but not at the expense of aestetics or usability. Diverging from common wikipedia practice should be done with careful consideration and clear goals. - JustinWick 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose--cj | talk 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. This is really the one thing I oppose about drafts A, B, C, D, F, and H. The scheme is boring to no end. It doesn't give a good impression of Wikipedia. And it's not even blue I oppose – I use blue on my userpage and am fine with it. Rather, it's the boring teal-like colors we've chosen. I don't see how they are appealing or engaging. - ElAmericano | talk 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Green and blue are both cold colours -- we need a warm colour to break up the unfriendly impression they give out (to me atleast). Aris Katsaris 13:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Especially the green color gives to litte contrast. I agree with Aris Katsaris... they are also very cold and unfriendly.Cyc 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose I would like to fully agree with ElAmericano - he is dead on. All these designs are drab and boring. The colors are ridiculous - are we at the circus or is it easter?? Wikipedia needs an ACCESSIBLE front page with a tight design that reflects its forward thinking nature. All we have here are readjustments of the existing page - no redesigns. Staypuftman 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Boring colors. Equalpants 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Agree with the points above. Shadow demon 07:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I don't mind a little green splash, but please not an entire column. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gold and Purple (Drafts C & E)

Support

1. Support drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Carioca 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Jeff8765 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support -- Not much improvement over G/B but slightly more readable - Xedaf 07:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support--cj | talk 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. David | Talk 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Her Pegship 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Much better to read and give a warm feeling. Cyc 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I like this color scheme too. --Go for it! 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, kind of. I like these a lot more than green/blue, but I like the existing colors just as much as these. Equalpants 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Agree that it gives a warmer, friendlier feeling. Shadow demon 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Incompatible with the core design. (EDIT: Heading style shows promise though, if it is made to stand out a little bit less.)   freshgavin TALK    00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Is this supposed to be an assessment of the colors, or are we referring to the style of the feature headings? Some people opposed the green and blue bars on the basis of style, so I suspect that at least some of the above support votes are the same. For the record, I'm voting against the colors. I like the feature heading style. —David Levy 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Agreed with David Levy - don't like the colors, like the heading style on this draft. Zafiroblue05 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I REALLY don't like these colors.--Bkwillwm 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Gold and purple-- the colors of the borgeoise! :) Ashibaka tock 08:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - They seem to clash with one another, and I especially dislike the gold. --User:Jenmoa 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree with above: keep the style, ditch the colors.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - the yellow (gold) hurts the eyes after a while. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Yellow is not a good color for this type of thing, but the purple is excellent. Blue/purple could be nice. Small header is the best thing about these drafts. - JustinWick 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian Inspired

Support

1. Support I dont know what the fuss is about! I thought the page was real good. -- Rohit 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support This looks like another front-runner. I took the liberty of sprucing it up a bit (added Wikipedia community, fixed some glitches, etc.), and its vote count shot up. It's not the same draft it was. --Go for it! 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose What are the snowflakes doing there?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't know but they're very ugly, along with the rest of the design. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Just didn't like it --Quinlan Vos 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - too busy. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Why the little icons under each feature? Cheesiness! Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Too busy, colors clash, icons are un-professional.   freshgavin TALK    00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I don't mean to offend the creator, but I dislike virtually everything about this version. —David Levy 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
8. There are some elegant things about the Italian Wikipedia Main Page, but I don't feel this elegance gets across here; the snowflakes still don't make sense and the colours are quite unbearable. jnothman ^talk 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
9. As above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per jnothman.--cj | talk 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I dislike this one. :( --User:Jenmoa 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Too busy, text too small, wasted space, ugly colors. Equalpants 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, too busy, look amateurish. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Shadow demon 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Too radical, too ugly. - JustinWick 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Header Styles

Yellow Small (Italian Inspired)

Support

1. Support - particularly the search box. Searching should be the most prominent part of the page, regardless of redundancy. Better to remove the search box on the left sidebar than to leave it out of the header. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Make it white if you like, but I strongly prefer the layout. I don't think the search bar can be emphasised enough. People don't realise at first that they can usually find the exact article they want by typing the subject into the search bar; most people visiting Wikipedia for the first time are used to the paper method of looking up through an alphabetic index. Searchability is an important feature of using Wikipedia that should be emphasised. BigBlueFish 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The yellow looks awful.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Yellow is simply a wrong color choice.   freshgavin TALK    00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I don't like the color, and the redundant search box is not a good idea. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I don't mind the color, but I object to the redundant search box. If we keep the search box in the header, we should eliminate the one in the left panel. See my change of heart under Extra Search Box, below. Her Pegship 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too bright. -- Mwalcoff 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I dislike the color, but I do like the search box. --User:Jenmoa 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Color's not that great, and redundant search box is bad. Equalpants 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. All the headers lack something. We need something really special. Something eye-catching. --Go for it! 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - yellow is a poor choice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Why do so many of the drafts have this yellow on them? I can't remember the last good website I saw that used the color in such a direct way. Plenty of others to choose from (red and blue are both nice) - JustinWick 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

White Small (Drafts A & B)

Support

1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Professional and blends smoothly with the core page design.   freshgavin TALK    00:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Zocky came up with an ingenious layout, and I believe that my tweaks brought it in line with our overall design objectives. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I find this design very attractive. jnothman ^talk 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Modest and dignified, not too crowded or busy. Her Pegship 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I think this is the most attractive design, but I would like to see the search box from Draft H incorporated, perhaps beneath the categories, if possible. --User:Jenmoa 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I especially like the 3x4 matrix of portal links, and the browse line of links. --Go for it! 11:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
9. 'Support - per Go for it and Her Pership. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Quinlan Vos 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't like having a background image. Ashibaka tock 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Jarringly asymmetrical. -- Mwalcoff 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I don't mind the background image, but the asymmetry is annoying. I'd prefer to keep this stuff centered. Equalpants 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Bigger than necessary. Draft B is the worst... What about draft C's layout in whatever color(s) are chosen? - JustinWick 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

White Small with Blue Border & Purple link box (Draft C)

Support

1. Support drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - not bad. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - A&B's version is fine, but having the links above the header make them seem to be a tacked on extra that doesn't belong. This version make the whole page more cohesive. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I think having the second row centered makes up for the asymmetry of the first row. Minor quibble: I think the text for the categories should be bigger. Equalpants 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Concise, no huge font, no farking icons. Tweak colors to suit - JustinWick 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bullets are not lined up.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

   This was a mistake in transfer.. not meant to be part of the final design, apologies. Fixed now. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2. It's OK but the bright aqua blue doesn't belong.   freshgavin TALK    00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Seems needlessly complicated. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. While this design makes the links box stand out, I find the busy colours more detractive than anything. jnothman ^talk 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Jarringly asymmetrical. -- Mwalcoff 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. All the headers lack something. We need something really special. Something eye-catching. --Go for it! 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• The purple box, if used, should go above and not below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Large with Portal Icons (Draft E)

Support

1. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
4. Weak support. Images too big but good idea. WriterFromAfar755 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, but we should use the icons in Portal:Browse rather than these bad looking purple ones. Tobyk777 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. -- Mwalcoff 12:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - I really, really like the icons. I think they are a good idea.- JustPhil 23:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - I like the icons.. i tend to prefer the layout in 6L with colours. it feels like it brings the main page to life. Mlm42 13:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too noisy, lots of wasted white space. Not appropriate for the main focus of a page.   freshgavin TALK    00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't dislike this design, but I prefer the small white layout from drafts A and B. —David Levy 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Far too noisy. And ugly. The Welcome to Wikipeda line is too scrunched up against the top. Zafiroblue05 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. No thanks, looks too busy. Her Pegship 04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I dislike the icons. --User:Jenmoa 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Too much wasted space, and the stuff above the icons looks cramped. Equalpants 23:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. All the headers lack something. We need something really special. Something eye-catching. And I don't think that will have anything to do with icons. We should leave icons out of the header. --Go for it! 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Too big. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Strongly, strongly oppose. The crafting of icons is a difficult, troublesome art prone to cheesy results. None of these icons acheive the excellence that can be found in many sections of wikipedia, nor do they efficiently represent their subject matter. Politics looks like it could be history, society looks like family, technology looks like a television, and for religion, why is the (comparatively) tiny religion of judaism on there, instead of hinduism or buddhism? Also law just looks like a book (where's the scales of justice?) I firmly believe that icons should always convey information that is supplimental to textual information - and in this case either the icons should be good enough that text is not necessary, or the text should be used instead. If you have to read something to figure out what an icon means (especially in nontechical contexts) then the icon has failed. The presence of these (or any other ill-suited icons) would prevent me from being able to vote for a new page design. - JustinWick 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
   • I think in this case the purpose of the icons is not to convey information, as you suggest.. i think their purpose is to grab one's attention, and say 'click here.. it'll take you somewhere cool'. whereas a list of words "Culture|Geography|History|..." boring!!! who wants to click there? apparently not me: in all my days on wikipedia, i never clicked those portal buttons for that exact reason, and i'm sure i'm not alone.. now put a little icon beside History, and suddenly a topic many would consider boring becomes worth checking out - so now i finally see why portals are cool.. and it was these new main page drafts with the icons that pursuaded me to find out! Mlm42 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry for the overly lengthy rant, but I cannot properly articulate how "lame" I consider the icons to be. I've made icons for commercial software before, and it is a very difficult process, so I am not attacking the individual(s) that made them. I think if we're going to allocate bandwidth and screen real-estate to icons they should be nothing short of spectacular, exciting and abundantly clear in their meaning. I also believe that history, science, culture, etc, are fascinating enough to stand on their own; an icon of a book (!?!?) does nothing to increase my interest in legal matters. Maybe some day when the art of Wikipedia icons has progressed ot the point where there is an undeniable greatness... and even then, is it truly worth the space? - JustinWick 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose icons are a waste of bandwidth. Also icons help when people who don't speak the language, but there is a wikipedia for almost every language... -Ravedave 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quiet header (Draft F)

Support

1. I think this one is the most efficient. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Second best, I think, to the A & B header. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Am I the only one that never uses categories? I only go to the main page to check out the featured article/pictures, news, and "did you know"/"on this day." This header adequately explains wikipedia to a new user. - JustinWick 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The categories should be at the top. I like the formatting up top, though. Equalpants 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. All the headers lack something. We need something really special. Something eye-catching. --Go for it! 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Extra Search Bar

Support

1. Huge Support I think this makes it far easier to find the info you want. the one on the left is not obvious enough. Also, the serach is probably the most used feature on WP. Tobyk777 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support as long as there's something right there telling people how to get the most out of it. It's finicky, and it's no use if newcomers don't get it. Black Carrot 19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
3. support Kevin Baas^talk 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Good location for it...and it occurs to me now that we still need the left-side search box for use when browsing away from the Main Page, so I'm leaning toward having both again. Her Pegship 04:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. We do need a more prominent searchbox in the Main Page, and this'd be ideal. Aris Katsaris 13:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. What's a redundant search box when people ask fewer redundant questions because of it? 12.72.243.78 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I'd love to see a more prominent search box. One hardly notices the one in the sidebar. --User:Jenmoa 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Useful to newbies. Plus, try clicking in the search bar on the side, and then hit enter. It takes you to a page that -- gasp -- has two search bars! And no one seems to have complained. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
   • And if you actually search for something, you will find that there are 3 search bars on a page of results. – ABCD^e✉ 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Mlm42 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. The one on the right just doesn't cut it (I don't even really consider the sidebar as part of a page). - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. The best way to find stuff, and a unique feature of an online encyclopedia.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I am guessing most new people come to look up a specific item, not browse all over, so making the search box as ovbious as possible is a good idea. -Ravedave 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support as per Ravedave. Too often, people don't notice they can search for information, and end up lost of asking for help. -- Ec5618 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support- among the most important aspects the main page could benefit from.

Oppose

1. Oppose since there already is a search bar at the left side and that makes an additional one unneccessary. --Tone 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Prefer to have just one. Equalpants 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Entirely redundant. The space is much better utilized with links. --Go for it! 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Agree with Tone. -Hoekenheef 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - no need. violet/riga (t) 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   There is a need. The one on the left is barely noticable, and by some is not even considered part of the page. It is more a part of the wiki software. Tobyk777 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose - there's already too much stuff on the main page, and many people (myself included) google wikipedia. If we have to have this, it should be near the bottom, where I think the categories should be as well. - JustinWick 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - The page looks cluttered and just plain odd with two search boxes on it. It would also get confusing if the user sees them both, especially if they're using a screen-reader. "Which one should i use?" Maybe the search box on the left could be made more prominent somehow instead. -- jeffthejiff 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - The main page is too full to accommodate it, it would make the page look cluttered. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I don't think we can have both the second search box (see Draft G, H, others) and prominent portal links in the header box (see Draft D, others). If I have to choose one or the other, I prefer the prominent portal links since there is already one search box on the main page anyway. With the usability testing on the German Wikipedia, people *did* find the search box on the left. We could perhaps modify the monobook skin and do something (slight color, bold text, ...) to make the search box noticed quicker by new users. In Drafts G and H, the portal links are similar to how they are on the current page, and I think are easily overlooked by people scanning (this is how most people view webpages) the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Columns

Four (4) features

Support

1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3.   freshgavin TALK    00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support as above. Ashibaka tock 08:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Srong support --BigBlueFish 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Kevin Baas^talk 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Although what I really like is David's 5-item layout. Her Pegship 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Brevity is good. -- Mwalcoff 12:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Equalpants 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Four sections good. Six sections bad. I remember as a newbie being confused by all the stuff on the main page - with just four sections! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This configuration confines Picture of the day to weekends, and Did you know to weekdays. Based on the straw poll on drafts above, there seems to be a lot of demand for having the Featured Picuture and Did you know seven days per week. --Go for it! 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Six (6) features (including featured picture)

Support

1. Support drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --Black Carrot 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Jeff8765 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Zafiroblue05 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Partial Support see comment below - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support -- Rohit 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Tobyk777 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Cuivienen 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - as above. --NorkNork 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support, keeping in mind that Wikipedia Community was intended to fill in the sixth slot temporarily (moved up from the boilerplate section) until an actual sixth feature could be found. --Go for it! 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support - These features are the only reason I ever visit the main page. They add variety and excitement to browsing wikipedia. - JustinWick 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support featured picture every day. If it takes 6 columns so be it. -Ravedave 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Oppose

1. Oppose - too much stuff. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. There is no worthwhile 6th and thus this is too much. Overwhelming for basic users. Increases page load time/bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per the above comments. I like the four-feature setup, and we have no sixth subject. —David Levy 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia Community as a 6th section doesn't make sense, because it is static. The colored sections should be updated daily. Ashibaka tock 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Kevin Baas^talk 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Excessive.
6. Oppose. Too busy. -- Mwalcoff 12:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Too much; 6th is weak. Equalpants 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Four sections good. Six sections bad. I remember as a newbie being confused by all the stuff on the main page - with just four sections! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

1. I agree some of the above oppose comments, but I don't want to strike down the POTD option for those reasons alone. Perhaps people should check out User:Kmf164/Main page draft. 5 features seem feasable, and the non-updating community section stays as part of the bottom section. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I like Draft H with four features in the columns and the POTD across the bottom of the two, with everything else beneath that. Trying to put five or six features in the columns seems a bit too much. --User:Jenmoa 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I also think 4 +1 is the best solution; keeps it from seeming crowded, but still makes room for POTD.--ragesoss 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Reference Data

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

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

Within a Box (Draft C)

Support

1. Support drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Quinlan Vos 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Neater. Zafiroblue05 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Kevin Baas^talk 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - A box just looks neater. --NorkNork 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - I slightly prefer the box, as it looks neater. I don't think it would look terrible without one, though. --User:Jenmoa 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - Colored boxes seem to be popular. --Go for it! 00:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Looks nice, although perhaps it should be the same color as the boxes above. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Pastel box creep. There's no need to distinguish this from something else on the page, if there is nothing else. Ashibaka tock 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Ashibaka
3. Oppose - Pastel boxes should be for dynamic content only! - JustinWick 16:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Support

1. Support --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2.   freshgavin TALK    00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Don't need too many pastel boxes. Ashibaka tock 08:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Readers tend to become editors on Wikipedia-- do we REALLY want to attract everybody? Let's do some triage. If you need pastel boxes, icons, smiley faces, or you won't use Wikipedia, please don't work with us. Go watch Entertainment Tonight. 29 Jan 06
   Now now, I don't like icons either but they have their uses. They make the Main Page look unprofessional but liven up userboxes and Help:Contents.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Her Pegship 04:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - Should not dilute meaning of pastel boxes (dynamic, featured content) - JustinWick 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Too sloppy and bare. drumguy&lt;/font>⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2. If we want to re-do the main page, let's make it worthwhile. Harro5 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per drumguy.--cj | talk 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Kevin Baas^talk 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) confusing.
5. Oppose too drab. --Go for it! 00:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Boxes don't have to be pastels or jarring colors. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking a step back

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

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

Structured discussion

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

Functions

The main page currently performs following functions:

Welcoming users

• Not strictly necessary, but nice and has a long tradition.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• No reason to change this. "Welcome to Wikipedia..." has become a tagline for the site. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Good to be friendly. - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Navigation links for readers

• An essential function of the main page. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Super important. The main page is the entry point for browsing topics. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely important --Go for it! 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Dissenting opinion - this should not take up much space on the main page, and does not in any way reflect wikipedia's true anarchical/nonheirchical model of organization. Search is by far the best way to find anything specific on wikipedia, not browsing. - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation for new editors to join.

• IMO, not explicit enough now. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also super important. The community feature can help improve how the main page does this. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• This is covered prominently in the intro, and in the help system. Plus, "edit this page" is at the top of every article. We're already very well covered on this point. --Go for it! 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"edit this page" is not at the top of the main page!! For protected pages you only see "view source". This is why there needs to be something on the main page that emphasises that people can edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth 11:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Get more people involved! - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Showcasing quality content

• It's nice to show off :) Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very important, as motivation for editors to write excellent articles and get them up to featured status. Ditto for featured pictures. Also keeps the main page fresh and interesting. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a Wikipedia tradition, gives a reason for those departments to exist, providing an extra incentive to improve the quality of Wikipedia content. Quite valuable. --Go for it! 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme support The only reason I ever come to the main page is to see this dynamic content. - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to articles likely to be popular at the time

• This helps attract attention to some articles - people are more likely to click a link to something they hear about in the media. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• ITN and OTD do this well. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Educational and informative - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exposing articles that need work to the public

• IMO, this is a large part of what makes Wikipedia work. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• ITN also does this, as can the portals (not all portals are equal in quality). --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• More help = better content - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to other Wikimedia projects

• The English wikipedia is just one of the foundation's project. We obviously need to link to other projects. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Essential. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Essential but should be non-obtrusive. - JustinWick 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Content

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

Browsebar

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

Do we need this and why?

• This has long been used for links to different ways of getting information on Wikipedia. These seem to come in two flavours - browsing tools (A-Z, categories, lists, portals, etc.) and links to meta information. Browsing tools are obviously essential, but Wikipedia-related information also needs to be readily accessable. We may want to split them into those two groups more explicitely, though. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• We should put it there if we are willing to rehaul the actual contents of that bar. (Categories are unmanageable and overwhelming; portals have information for editors, which shouldn't really be there if the portals are meant for user browing; etc.) - ElAmericano | talk 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

• I think we should decide on a fairly constant set of links for this. They should be those that a user will both look for and find actually useful. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

FAQs

• A meta-link to a nice page with tons of info for readers. Should stay, IMO, but should be grouped with other meta-links. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable (at least) from Portal:Browse, not the browse bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical index

• Essential. Should be either the first or the last in the list of browsing tools. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask a question

• A nice meta-link. Should stay and be grouped with other meta-links. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Portals

• We seem to like portals and many other browsing tools have been adapted to them. We should probably make them the primary browsing gateway. A prominent link is IMO essential, but this can also be in the portal link section. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Site news

• I'm not sure this meta-link is necessary here. It could go to the community section that most new proposals include. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Donations

• Again, I'm not sure that this is the right place for this link. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Almanac

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable (at least) from Portal:Browse, not the browse bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable (at least) from Portal:Browse, not the browse bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable (at least) from Portal:Browse, not the browse bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Overviews

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable (at least) from Portal:Browse, not the browse bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

• I think this link should be in the browsebar, but I think it should be made more explicit and obvious, something like How to edit.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling it "How to edit" would attract those who want to edit, but not those who are asking "What is Wikipedia?". Wikipedia:Introduction is a very nice set of pages, but should be called "Introduction to editing Wikipedia". Some people clicking something labelled introduction will want an overview of the different areas of Wikipedia, rather than to dive straight into a Wikipedia editing tutorial. Some will want to learn more about editing Wikipedia. Some will want to learn more about exploring and browsing Wikipedia (either the content of Wikipedia by the content portals or other content browsing options, or by exploring the Wikipedia community through its portal). I think you need to make the "editor 'how to' introduction" followed by "editor browsing (content and community)" and "reader 'what is this?' introduction" followed by "reader browsing (content)" entry routes into Wikipedia more explicit. Wasn't quite sure where to put these comments. Please move somewhere else if more appropriate. 194.200.237.219 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 194.200.237.219 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to off-screen sections of the main page

• I think these are very useful and would like to find a way to work them in somewhere.Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal links

Do we need this and why?

• These are very useful for quick access to portals, and thus articles about a topic. Portals should be regarded as extensions of the main page. They would be much more useful if they followed a clear hierarchy, at least for the first few levels. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  Portals are regarded already as Main Pages for various topic areas. They are also loosely (although imperfectly) structured by hierarchy.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

• Same as for the browserbar links, I think we should decide on a fairly constant set of links for this. They should be those that a user will both look for and actually find useful. Topical portals linked from here should have soundly defined areas of interest. I also think that Categories, Glossaries, Overviews, Almanac and Lists should be made into portals and made available here, as a separate group. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think that Categories, Alamanac etc. should be made into portals nor should they be featured on Portal:Browse. As mentioned, portals are intended as Main Pages for various topic areas.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Culture

• Essential, but not well defined at the moment. It includes things one would expect under Society. Perhaps should be made a subportal of Society. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree, outside Wikipedia the difference between Culture and Society are very well defined. I would be willing to blame 'lack of definition' on individual Wikipedia editors.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Necessary. --cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Geography

• Essential. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Necessary.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

History

• This can be usefully distinguished from society, and is very useful as a portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Necessary.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

• I'm not sure about this one - I would like it to stay, but I'm not sure how I would justify that, apart from the fact that math is really not science, but many people may expect to find it there. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this one is essential. In elementary school, math and science are different subjects. They should be here, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with elementary school, they're seperate throughout grade school, high school and college. They're just basically different, and they each have a wide range of things under them. Black Carrot 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Essential.

It does not matter how Mathematics is treated in schools, it is a science because it uses the scientific method in its research (that includes a possibility of verifying its findings and also the actual verification - peer review). However, I wouldn't bundle it with science since its position is quite unique:

- it uses the power of pure thought to solve problems,

- it is the metalanguage of science and technology,

- it is better separated and defined than any other area,

- its importance continually grows.

There is no other subject with such a unique position.

Gogino 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

People

• Essential. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Science

• Essential. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Necessary. --cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Society

• Just as culture, this is not really well defined. Society should be made a general portal for everything related to societies and cultures, which should have Culture and Humanities as major subportals. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would disagree. See culture.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Technology

• Essential. Could be grouped into a common parent article with science, but preferably not. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Art

• This, strictly speaking, is a subportal of Culture, but I can see good sides in its inclusion. Not sure on this one. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As most (or much) of culture IS art I believe they deserve to be keps separate.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Health

• I'm not sure if this is the right portal for the browsebar, but IMO we need a directly acessable portal with articles about the human animal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely un-necessary.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

• As for maths, I have no good arguments, but I think this shouldn't be here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is the need for a top-leve portal relating to religion, philosophy, etc.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics

• This should go under Society. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Humanities

• We don't have this, or at least I haven't found it, but I think it's an obvious link that readers will look for. It could be great as a top-level portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe 'humanities' is as popular a top-level search as the ones already there.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  Category portal? Do I hear you right? Ashibaka tock 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not a portal.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have so many separate trees in the first place? Is it just that people couldn't agree on one organization system? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Almanac

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not a portal, nor could it be.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not a portal.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not a portal.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Black Carrot 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Overviews

• This should be made into a portal and made accessable from here. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not a portal.--cj | talk 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The welcome message

Do we need this and why?

• We don't really need it, but it's one of our great traditions, plus it's very nice. It should stay. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How about rephrasing it the way the French wikipedia does [4]? "Bienvenue sur Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre, gratuite et multilingue que chacun peut améliorer

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

• This is somewhat redundant (it's in the logo and at the top of every page for most people), but it does complete the message nicely. I'd like it to stay. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Word. Black Carrot 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty much Wikipedia's official slogan, or as close as there is to one.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

...that anyone can edit.

• Again, essential, but IMO should be changed to written by its readers. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

written by its readers sounds like it may imply a more inward-facing structure, and though strange I wouldn't be suprised if there's many 'writers' who don't in fact 'read' Wikipedia. anyone can edit is general and easy to understand.   freshgavin TALK    23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, to be able to edit Wikipedia, you also have to speak one of the languages it is offered in. At least to edit in any meaningful way. 194.200.237.219 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, but if you can't read the language, you can't read that guarantee, can you? So it doesn't much matter. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In this English version...

• We need to make it clear that this is only one of the many Wikipedias. If we drop this, we need to provide a replacement to perform the same function. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to imply to me that it is one of several _English_ versions. Also, "version" doesn't sound quite right. There is translation between the different language Wikipedias, but they are not really versions of each other. They are separate entities. How about "This is an English language encyclopedia, started in 2001. We are currently working on...". Breaks it up into two punchy sentences and loses the misleading "versions" bit. The other languages bit is important, but that function can be filled by having a separate, prominent "other languages" link to www.wikipedia.org [5]. 194.200.237.219 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you really 'misled' by this? It seems perfectly clear to me. Black Carrot 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of emphasis. If you put the emphasis on "this", then it implies there are several English versions. If you put the emphasis on "English", then it is one of several versions in different languages. If you use no emphasis, it becomes unclear. I suggest putting "English" in bold (as a way of emphasising it), or making "English" a wikilink to something explaining different languages, like the www.wikipedia.org page. I was surprised to struggle to find a link to this overarching wikipedia portal on the English wikipedia Main Page.

In this English version...

In this English version...

In this English version...

I hope these examples make my point clear. Carcharoth 10:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. I don't think it needs to be there, but it shouldn't be "version" anyway. --24.26.178.224 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...started in 2001...

• It's nice to have this piece of info in the header, but I'm not sure it's essential. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I always read this as meaning that there were versions that started before 2001, and that there may be versions started after 2001. That is, I suppose technically correct (Nupedia and future forks spring to mind), but it is not clear that this is what it means, and there is no need for it to imply this. 194.200.237.219 17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• No. Useless trivia. This information is not hard to look up. Someone may find it interesting, but everyone else has to sift through this answer to a question they never asked to delve into Wikipedia. And what exactly does "since 2001" convey? To the new-user, I'd argue it makes the project seem like an infant. It shouldn't be there just for pride reasons. --24.26.178.224 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

...we are currently working on zillions of articles.

• The number of articles needs to stay, but it can be worded differently, AFAIC. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Features

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

4 features

• The currently used format with DYK and POTD switching on weekends/weekdays. I find this acceptable. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Four features, with DYK and POTD alternating is acceptable to me, given the formatting problems with trying to have 5 features and should six features be overwhelming for people with smaller screens or using mobile devices. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

5 features

• This has repeatedly proven to be too difficult to lay out. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with Zocky. We haven't figured out a good way to layout five features. Though, if someone comes up with a brilliant solution for five features, I'd entertain the idea. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: such a layout has been designed, and is pretty cool. Black Carrot 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

6 features

• We don't really have 6 features at this moment. Unless we have a useful 6th feature, this shouldn't be done. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It feels nice on the page. Also, it gives a place for something we can't fit in the header (like the community links, maybe), and when we do get a sixth feature, it won't be hard to integrate. Black Carrot

I think it should be dealt with when there is a real need for expansion of features. Right now it's just wasted bandwidth.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm okay with 6 features, so long as it works adequately well on small screens and mobile devices. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• On Slovenian Wikipedia we use a Featured person feature on the Main Page. It is the same as the Featured article only that it's biographical. The idea has proven good so far. So why not having two featured articles on the Main Page, there surely is a plenty of well-written articles to feature. --Tone 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Featured article

• Essential, should stay right where it is. My only concern is that blurbs tend to be rather long, which makes the FA box too bulky. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's the most viewed and most important feature, thus its prominent position and large (but acceptable) size.   freshgavin TALK    00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with Zocky. This is essential, though if the blurb can be slightly shorter, I think that would help make six features fit better on the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe a possible solution was on the original first draft, though that seems to have disappeared slightly. Keep the first paragraph (doesn't have to be a whole paragraph - any amount that works) the regular font size and make the rest of the blurb a smaller font size - so about half of the blurb is in each font size. It gets more text in the same space, and can look better as well. Zafiroblue05 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• The Featured Article section is a wonderful showcase of the best that the contributers have to offer and is great to spart people's interest. User:AllPeopleUnite 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the news

• Brilliant for getting editor attention on currently interesting stories. Should stay where it is. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• This is important to demonstrate a key advantage of Wikipedia over Britannica (that Wikipedia is up-to-date and quickly updated). Plus, it keeps the main page fresh and interesting. ITN is updated more than once a day, as news breaks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you know...

• Great for getting attention to new articles. Most new proposals group it with FA, which is how it should be. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• This encourages people to participate in Wikipedia, with the "start a new article" link. Though, as Wikipedia nears 1,000,000 articles, the "new" articles may be on increasingly obscure topics and the DYK facts also quite obscure. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries...

• Should be renamed to "On this day". Essential, but often lack geographical and topical dispersion. Most new proposals group them with ITN, which is the natural place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the selected anniversaries wording is used because of the lack of accurate dates for some historical events. It gives the impression that 'this date has been chosen' rather than 'it actually, really happened on this day'.   freshgavin TALK    23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I like this feature, always interesting. "On this day" might be a better name for it, but "selected anniversaries..." is okay. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think "Selected anniversaries" lacks the conversational tone other sections like "Did you know?" and "In the News" has, but "On this day" sounds much better. Also, could we change the additional date links from yesterday and the day before to yesterday and tomorrow? Not just because I want to know what happened on tomorrow's date, but because where I am - Australia - the time difference means that for half the day I'm actually seeing yesterday's events with no easy way to check out today's.

Confusing Manifestation 12:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• This section, I think is wonderful and needs to stay, it sparks people's curiosity and is such great trivia and is really interesting. It has led me personally to learn about a lot of other things, and I think others would agree. User:AllPeopleUnite 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the day

• Nice, but not really essential. IMO, it shouldn't be one of our priority concerns. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I really would like this to be included, as this adds more visual appeal to the main page. It also encourages people to contribute great images (photos, diagrams...). --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Nice, but not really essential. --Tone 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto with Kmf164, more pictures = good! -Ravedave 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Community feature

• For a long time there was a community box on the main page, which took up the whole right column in the table. It was much like a condensed modern community portal. This had many good sides, so I wouldn't mind getting it back. It can be made quite prominent as far as I'm concerned. But, this will make sense only if it's regularly updated and genuinely useful. If we're just looking for a place to provide useful links, we should do that in a separate section, or provide a prominent link to the community portal. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• The Spanish Wikipedia has a "Participate in Wikipedia" feature. I think this is essential, and the community feature can fit this need. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I beg to differ. That was just a way of filling space for POTD. We need to make a distinction between dynamic and static items; this is static. Features should be dynamic. This belongs below the columns at best. Those static links need a different style than than the dynamic features.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Community links section

Do we need this and why?

• If we don't go for a full community feature, we should use this. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• This is good for now to fill the sixth feature and provide needed links to encourage participation in Wikipedia. Though, we can always improve this feature. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• No no no no no no no no no. The community section on all the drafts that have one is wrong! I have a feeling this is going to be a tough one to persuade to the community to which it refers, but it gives far too much emphasis to the community. Jimbo has repeatedly stressed that the community is a means to the ends of writing an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not the community. The introductory sentence is just too distracting from the primary purpose of the encyclopedia. As for the links, at first I was all for keeping them in a condensed form, but looking at them, I think they are almost all redundant as per my comments below... --BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose since it is not a thing to have on the Main Page but on the Community portal where it already is.--Tone 10:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

---

The Community Portal

• Yes, this is the essential place that encourages participation. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's in the main navigation bar. Its title is pretty self-explanatory. And to be honest, once you're there, you have all the other links to this section. BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Help Desk

• This is useful. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• First point of call on the Questions link; also linked to on the Help link. BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Reference Desk

• Okay to include. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Same prominence as Help Desk. BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump

• Essential. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Another on the list of where to ask a question. Hold on a second, is Main Page being merged with the Community Portal? BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost

• This is good to include, though "The Signpost" ... maybe another more obvious title such as "Wikipedia News". --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• WP:NEWS already exists, and is linked to at the top by the News link. I don't think the Signpost is official and definitive enough to appear here. BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Donations

• This doesn't belong here, but rather in the side navigation bar and top header. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Second that. BigBlueFish 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

Do we need this and why?

• These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is fine as it is, IMO.--Tone 10:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Should include a link to the multilingual portal, probably in the horizontal list at the bottom of the section (as shown below). Carcharoth 13:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Multilingual portal· Complete list· Multilingual coordination· Start a Wikipedia in another language

• Agree.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

• We need to strike a balance between the number of links displayed and the need to provide links to sister projects. I think that we should aim to display about 20-30 other languages and provide a link to a page with others. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think how other languages are presented on the current page is okay, with all the languages rather than show/hide for languages with over 1000 articles. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I am trying to work out how to link between areas of the main page. In the discussion above on the phrasing of "English version" in the Wikipedia tagline that appears on the current main page, I suggested making "English" link to the English subsection of the en.wikipedia page on Wikipedia: Wikipedia#Language_editions, but it could equally well link to this part of the main page, if that was possible (doesn't seem possible at the moment). I also see that "free" has been omitted from the tagline for many drafts, but that some have reinstated it. I was wondering why "English" shouldn't similarly be reinstated to the tagline. Without that qualifier in the tagline, it looks like the en wikipedia is claiming to be the entry portal for wikipedia. Also, somewhere in this "other languages" section, and somewhere on the main page, there should, IMO, be a link to www.wikipedia.org, which is the overarching portal for all the languages. I looked, but couldn't find it. If I missed it, it should be made more prominent within this section. I tried to link, but could only get it as an external link [6]. Carcharoth 11:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Other concerns

• The languages need to be alphabetized consistently and logically. I would prefer ordering them by their English names. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Separated by "over 100,000", "over 10,000", and "over 1,000", then alphabetized (as done on the current main page). --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Organization by # of articles is not very convenient for readers, who are virtually guaranteed to have no clue how many articles are in the language they are looking for. The best organization scheme is to alphabetize all the languages together, perhaps bolding those with more than a certain # of articles (25000? 50000?). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sister projects

Do we need this and why?

• These must be easily accessable. I think that a section at the bottom of the main page is the right place for them. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, we need these links. How they are done on the current page, and in all the drafts is fine. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Layout considerations

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

Small screens

• IMO, everything needs to look acceptable on anything down to 800x600. This limits the size of various elements, like the browser bar. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Zocky about the small screen issue. Also what about mobile devices? I'm okay with six featured items, so long as the formatting works well with smaller screens. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think micro-browsers for Pocket PC should be considered as well. Maybe a separate CSS? -- WB 10:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming the reader

• My main concern is with the quantity of text in features. They should be made shorter so that other links don't lose on their prominence. Brevity is golden, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The POTD could have just a title (maybe a brief caption), and photo credit. DYK could be slightly shorter, and ITN could also be slightly shorter (with items rotated through more frequently). --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Intro

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

That's how it is on the current MP.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because the intro is about editing? Black Carrot 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is the most surprising, and it's a jumping-off point for getting a reader involved. This is a good place to link to the Introduction. Ashibaka tock 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New draft (Draft D)

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

User:David Levy/Main2

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

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

I quite like this design. jnothman ^talk 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice. I like it and think we're reaching a consensus. The main outstanding issue is the 5th (or 6th) feature, POTD. I have just made an attempt at adding POTD as a 5th feature (User:Kmf164/Main page draft), by:

1. Shrinking POTD
2. Swapping DYK and OTD (this could be switched back)
3. We might want to make DYK slightly smaller (one fewer item, but updated more often)
4. Today's featured article could show some more text to balance the left column (and/or list one more OTD item)

Do you think this might work, or any thoughts on how this looks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I've been working on a five-feature version of my own (without having read the above). I saved it in the same location: User:David Levy/Main2 —David Levy 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Having the picture of the day below the text columns is very smart. Good work with that. Ashibaka tock 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Kmf's 5-feature attempt: I was impressed, but I think that's about as much featured article text as anyone has the attention span for (it also seems to intentionally fit the heading of OTD onto common screen sizes), so we are left with the whitespace below OTD. I think that David's solution is quite brilliant, the only problem being that it pushes the Reference stuff further down and because the ref stuff has white background, makes that seem less significant. jnothman ^talk 10:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Despite the inclusion of an additional box and considerably more text, my version actually pushes the reference section down less. Here's a side-by-side comparison:

• actual size
• 50% of actual size
• 25% of actual size

I took the screen captures in Firefox ("normal" text size, full screen) in the 1280x1024 resolution. With different settings, the difference can be much greater than that.

2. All of the drafts (except for the unpopular draft G) use a white background for the reference section. The idea is to use colored backgrounds only for the featured content (not the static information). —David Levy 12:04/12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You can vote on it right now. I've added it as a new entry above (it's now Draft D). --Go for it! 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Draft c is the best

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

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

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

I prefer Draft E

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

Thanks: Tom

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

Another new draft (Draft H)

User:Zafiroblue05/Draft

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

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

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

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

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

One other small knit pick: We had a magnifiying glass in header background, like the book, just on the left. With the search box back in place, I think it's appropriate to put that in and balance it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the Browse bar below the WP heading (I think it looks more balanced), so on my draft I'm going to keep it like that for now. If this draft goes beyond just my userspace, obviously a consensus on whether to put it below or above the main header is needed. As to the magnifying glass, one can see what it looks like here. Basically, it looks fine with the yellow background, but when you switch it to white, it stays gray-ish and looks a little ugly. If anyone knows how to change it too look like the book (where the book itself is grayish, but what's behind it is white), please go ahead and fix it. For now, though, the draft looks cleaner without it. Finally, the Go button does not overlap the grey line for me, and I agree it would look rather ugly. I don't know why it overlaps for you, and am concerned it does the same for others. Like you, I'm rather inept with the code (I only made the magnifying glass disappear with adding "background-position: 0% 20%;" to its code, and don't know why that works). I can figure out how to nudge the stuff on the left in or out, and I know how to make the search box itself wider or smaller, but I don't know how to move the whole thing. Any help from someone actually knowledgeable would be much appreciated. Zafiroblue05 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can fix that. Point me to the image (I'm very inept at the markup code).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem - it's not a regular image tag. The magnifying glass image is called "EnWpMpSearch2." Switching the code to "EnWpMpSearch" makes it yellow instead of grey. But as to how to access the image itself - I don't know. Zafiroblue05

Putting "Image:" before it doesn't work...well, it was worth a try...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The code for the background images is found at MediaWiki:Common.css. User:Tom- put it there for his initial redesign. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained this in more detail on the Help Desk. jnothman ^talk 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The magnifying glass image with the gray background was left over from one of my previous attempts. I created an appropriate version and added it to the draft. —David Levy 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer the header look in David Levy's latest draft, but will deal with it either way. jnothman ^talk 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Insane project

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

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

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

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

See #Election below. --Go for it! 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How about to finish this project and then create rules for future projects. Gogino 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Header problem

I just noticed that the header from draft H contains the same bug that's present in earlier versions (including draft G): a broken book image when viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. Zocky eliminated this problem by introducing a different type of coding (present in drafts A, B and D). I attempted to adapt the IE-compatible setup (by replacing the portal links with the search box and magnifying glass image), but I was unsuccessful. Can someone else please do this? (I've also posted this request on Zocky's talk page.) —David Levy 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting template on the main page

Go for it! - I noticed that you're asking a bunch of admins to put the voting template (currently on Talk:Main page) on the main page, itself. This discussion page has become confusing and I think we first need to archive this page, particularly all the arguments amongst ourselves. I think just 4/5 feature designs that we came up with more recently should be presented, as these seem to be a compromise based on comments on the earlier drafts (A, B, C, ...). We could also ask a few key questions, such as header style preferences (search box vs. portal links)? --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Another key question is which portal links to put on the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We could possibly refactor the above discussion into:

• Draft A (6/0/0)
• Draft B (17/0/0)
• Draft C (14/0/0)
• Draft E (3/0/0)
• Draft F (3/0/0)
• Draft G (10/0/0)

And summarize what the key objections or comments were for each. This is important, rather than just archiving so that people know the votes and comments have for sure counted in the discussion. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely consider this an election (at this point), but rather a discussion and gathering feedback. The way the page is structured is confusing, and there are too many different things to vote for (drafts, comment on the drafts, design elements, function of the design, etc.). All these things are important for feedback, so let's not remove them. Let this round of voting/feedback go until the weekend. An election would be a much more formal process, as HereToHelp mentions. At that point, we would need a clean page with the choices narrowed down (and taking into consideration the many great comments and suggestions we're getting here). --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're still working on a draft, we should keep this on the talk page. When we move into a final draft and have a strict vote on it vs. the current Main Page, then we'll put a notcice on the Community Portal and watchlists: just like the ArbCom elections.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just want to make sure we don't move too fast. And, when we are ready for a more formal vote, we might want to archive the page, summarize the discussions, and document how the new design offers improved usability ... --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need another round of refinements and improvements to the drafts, based on all the great feedback, suggestions, and comments here. These are already being incorporated into new drafts (D + H). And, sure there is an 'official' policy for changing the main page. But, this is a bit more significant and in my opinion, deserves a more formal vote process, like Arb Com. elections. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The exposure on the Main Page should do this project good. And if we are going to hold a full-blown election, we need to determine the schedule and rules. See #Election below. --Go for it! 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Row Separation

A gripe that I have with the current main page and all of the current drafts is that they seem to imply that the features in the same column are related to each other, when in fact all 4 or 6 have no greater connection to one than another. This is a particular problem with drafts where the feature heading spans the full column background (i.e. draft A and B, not draft D which is my current favourite) because it then looks like the second feature somehow comes underneath the first's heading. In the next draft could someone try a version where there is an actual white separation between the end of the background of the first feature in each column and the header of the one below? --BigBlueFish 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The big problem with this has been that lots of people complain when the end of the columns don't line up, and we haven't been able to find any other way to make that work. If you know a way, please let us in on the secret.  ;-) --Go for it! 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be so difficult. I'll try implementing something when the votes are over. BigBlueFish 17:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Draft I

I synthesized some ideas in the other drafts. Some styles/color details are frankenstiened, but the idea is clear. Kevin Baas^talk 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done we think! hydnjo talk 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get the snowflakes. Why? jnothman ^talk 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's residue from a piece i pulled from another template. There's no actual reason. anycase, I know have made Version 2 of draft 6I: Draft 6I.2. Kevin Baas^talk 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowflakes

Perhaps, since I imported them over from the Italian Main page I should explain the slowflakes. The current season (in the Norther Hemisphere) is winter. In winter (at least where I'm from) it snows. Snowflakes=Winter. I suspect the idea is to change the pic each season. Leaves=Fall, Sun=summer, Flowers=Spring, or something to that effect. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting idea, but the northern hemisphere thing would be a problem, since English Wikipedia serves both hemispheres. How about something other than snowflakes? --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you will find those who didn't get it don't connect snow to this time of year (or have never had snow). Anything will do. I'm not attached to the idea. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It snowed here last week, and I still didn't know what the heck the snowflakes were supposed to mean. To be honest, draft G strikes me as seemingly random combination of elements. —David Levy 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the footer, let alone the graphic. --Go for it! 12:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) What if we used barnstars instead of snowflakes? The barnstar just about is the official Wiki mascot, after all; it seems to be the symbol of the community. 12.72.243.78 21:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole idea has died anyway, but what about jigsaw globes?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft interlinks

Please continue to include the draft interlinks that I have boldly added. It's really the only way to be able to compare with any degree of convience. Thanks, hydnjo talk 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Though, might be easier to maintain with a template. So, the links are now in Template:Main page draft interlinks which is inserted at the top of each draft. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oohhh... a template... Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you hydnjo talk 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --Go for it! 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Consultation session extended

Administration has added a notice to the Main Page, extending this feedback phase until February 4th. That'll basically gives us a steady stream of comments (and new talent) for another week. I suggest we make the best use of it and improve the drafts as much as possible while the feedback lasts.

We can change the project page to read "Please look these drafts over, and vote for your favorite design elements on the discussion page." Or something similar.

Go for it! 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the header in most of them but I really think the word "Wikipedia" should stand out more and that A is far too cramped and busy. Any redesign should be spacious and thus easily legible in my view. - JVG 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What will happen next?

I'm just wondering what the next step will be. My suggestion: after this round of voting closes the top 50% drafts can be updated with suggestions people are giving in their votes ("I like it but would like to see..."). Maybe another round of votes, comparing both A to B to C to D (just example letters) and A to A.5, B to B.5, C to C.5, and D to D.5. Or is that too complicated? Hmm.- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I say we certainly drop the bottom 3rd. But as a latecomer, I'm somewhat bias, because I have an unfair disadvantage in votes. Kevin Baas^talk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The feedback session has been extended. And we haven't decided on any rules yet. See Election below. --Go for it! 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Configurability issue

Sorry if this has already idea has already been raised, but I would like something similar to the Google personalised homepage, where each user can choose what content and where it goes on the page. I think some of these draphts have too much content on them, and not everyone is going to want to read all of it.

Neilgravir 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are coming from; anyone can create his own Wikipedia "home" page now! I have one that includes nothing that's on the current Wikipedia Main home page (because my home page is utilitarian). — I start with links to the spots I most likely visit in Wikipedia, including this page, and follow that with what purports to be a Wikipedia 'index.' (See Starter toolset as an example.) I think the Main page should be a 'lively' introduction to and example of Wikipedia. Tailoring/configurability is an unnecessary frill. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How does that work? I wouldn't know where to begin. Can that be done in .CSS, or does it require (ASP) programming?

At the moment it appears to be beyond the scope of this project, but would be an excellent goal for the next Main Page upgrade project.

Go for it! 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not without significant changes to the software. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This would be something set in "my preferences", which is a software issue. Not to say it's not possible, but would take more serious coding by someone with the talent, time, and interest in taking this on. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can have a personalised homepage even now: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XY Gogino 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Portals

The Portals have been bothering me for awhile, because I got the funny feeling something major was missing. Then it finally hit me: it's Business. Business is missing. It's prominent in newspapers and therefore fits in with Culture, Health, People, Politics, Society, and Technology. It's a university department, and therefore fits in well with Geography, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Science. It's also one of the Big Three fields: Business, Politics, & Science. But which subject should it offset? Of all the others, Art seemed the most redundant, as it folds easily under Culture. I've changed it on Drafts B & C, to start getting feedback on the change. --Go for it! 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a sixth feature

I've been thinking about working on a six-feature candidate for the upcoming election, but haven't come up with a sixth feature yet. Any ideas? So far we have:

1. Featured article
2. Picture of the day
3. Did you know...
4. In the news
5. On this day
6. ?????

Wikipedia Community really isn't a feature, as it is static and doesn't update daily, and so logically goes with the boilerplate text after the features. It's in the sixth feature slot to balance the columns.

Someone mentioned Quote of the day from Wikiquote, in an earlier discussion. But would that fill enough room to balance the columns?

Someone else mentioned "Wikipedia Tip of the day." I checked that, and though it hasn't been updated very often, it probably would become well supported if it became a Main Page feature.

Also from previous discussions:

Wikipedia news? Word AND quote of the day? Wikipedia tip of the day? Today's Featured Portal/List?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew version separates the holidays from "On this day". the holidays appear at the top of OTD bolded.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Some languages have Recent Deaths on the front page. I think de: is one. that would take us up to six.--Cherry blossom tree 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any other ideas for a sixth feature?

--Go for it! 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Deaths might be a little morbid, but it's not a half bad idea. Quote of the Day or Word of the Day (or both, as per HereToHelp) could be interesting, as well. As a side note, the search for a sixth feature reminds me distinctly of underpants gnomes. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting addition might be selected community colaborations. "Todays Community Collaboration: [[Large Icon/Image]] Toast!" The only downside I can see is that it might be too appealing for vandals ("lets screw everything they're working on up!"), but the threat of vandals has never held Wikipedia back before. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We're going about this backwards.

It's obvious that the demand for including "today's featured picture" (feature #5) on the main page is strong. If, in the future, there should happen to be another feature that proves similarly popular, that will be something to consider. Conversely, it's absurd to decide that we should add a sixth feature...and then try to come up with something that can fill the slot (purely for the sake of having an even number). It's already been proven that we can successfully (and efficiently) display five features, so there's absolutely no justification for artificially promoting whatever feature is deemed least unworthy to the main page. —David Levy 00:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not looking for the least unworthy. We're trying to TRANSCEND. You know, to knock their socks off! And if we can find something kick ass, and voters choose in the election, well then, we did our job well. --Go for it! 06:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see that nothing is jumping out at us? If we have to struggle to come up with something acceptable, there obviously isn't anything worthy (at this juncture, at least). Why should we dilute the main page's value (and increase its clutter and load time) in this manner? —David Levy 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My best ideas come after considerable brain strain, so I find your reasoning a bit thin. I don't plan on diluting anything. I won't support putting something in unless it is worthy. So quit worrying. Searching isn't hurting anything. So please, quit trying to kill ideas before they have time to blossom. The real question is, are we showcasing on the main page everything that an on-line encyclopedia has to offer?

• Articles? Yes. But would more be better? Like articles of various subjects or types?
• Pictures? Yes.
• Facts? Yes.
• History? Yes.
• News? Yes
• Trends?
• Locations?
• Biographies?
• Quotes?
• Holidays?
• Seasonal touches? (Like on Google)
• Vocations?
• Wikipedians?
• Spotlight cool userpages? (or links to them)
• Wikipedia-specific news?
• Internet-specific news?
• External links?
• Web-site of the day?
• Tip of the day (any kind)?
• Horoscopes?
• Puzzles or games?
• Trivia?
• Book of the day?
• A second feature article?
• More detailed wiki-statistics?
• A box with a bunch of "of the day" links, from the list above.

So there are lots of possibilities. We just haven't thought of them all yet.

At what rate are feature articles produced? Are there enough feature article biographies to provide the front page with one per day? Portals feature biographies, so why not the main page, since it is the superportal? Just a thought. Brainstorming here.

What about 3 features: one on a person, one on a place, and one on a thing? Again, just spouting anything that comes to mind.

Come on, strain your brains and share whatever you can think of.

--Go for it! 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here. I think we have various acceptable ways of including five features (Draft D, Draft G, Draft H. And, I have put the 5 features in the two columns (User:Kmf164/Main page draft), which would require adjusting the size of "Today's featured article" (or "On this day"). Let's not get too ahead of ourselves with a sixth feature. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since a number of people supported six features in the straw poll above, I think its worth looking into, and there's no harm in looking. Besides, you don't have to participate in the search if you don't want to. --Go for it! 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people who supported the six-feature concept (many before the five-feature drafts were added) did so because they liked the idea of having both "Did you know..." and "Today's featured picture" on the main page every day. —David Levy 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What about "Yesterday's featured article"? Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense. The phrase "today's featured article" refers an article's encomiastic placement on the main page for one day. If it were to be listed for two days, the concept of "today's featured article" would be lost. (Something can't be "yesterday's featured article" if it remains featured today.)

And of course, an archive link is prominently displayed, thereby enabling easy access to previous "featured article" listings. —David Levy 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a product list page for a sales site like amazon.com or something. I think the analogy is fairly appropriate, except that they don't have to buy the articles, they can just read them. Kevin Baas^talk 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the foggiest notion of what you mean. —David Levy 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try looking at the example I cited for the sole purpose of giving you a notion of what I mean? Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Amazon.com, but I don't understand what comparison you're drawing. —David Levy 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you don't understand. Comparison? You mean analogy? Well they advertise the books that they sell, we advertise the articles that we write. Show off the good content, get people interested, give them a few good random articles to pull them in. Same thing that amazon.com does on. Kevin Baas^talk 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why you're attempting to correct my use of the word "comparison." You're comparing Wikipedia with Amazon.com. Secondly, we don't list "random" articles on the main page. Thirdly, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the idea of listing "yesterday's featured article." Do shopping websites advertise "yesterday's featured item"? —David Levy 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, this is going nowhere. You're welcome for the suggestion. Kevin Baas^talk 22:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going here. The idea is to generate ideas without bashing them down. After we've generated a bunch of ideas, then we can pick through them and see if there are any worthy of development. Right now, I'm just trying to inspire thought and imagination on the subject. So come on everyone! What ideas do you have for a possible sixth feature!!! --Go for it! 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the hypothetical demand for a sixth feature is reasonable justification for implementing a six-feature design, but the desire to implement a six-feature design is not reasonable justification for adding a sixth feature (especially when we know that a five-feature design is viable and likely to unite two formerly opposing camps). If an obvious sixth feature existed, we'd know about it by now. —David Levy 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There's no harm in looking, but we've looked. Nothing. If you have a great idea, tell us; otherwise, I say abandon a sixth feature.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

what about featured content from the other projects? I.e. b:Wikibooks:Book of the month, Commons:Media of the day, q:Wikiquote:Quote of the day. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have a difficult time explaining to some people that this is strictly an encyclopedia (and that other types of content belong elsewhere). It would be a big mistake to deliberately blur the lines by featuring another project's content. —David Levy 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

At some point in the future Wikipedia:Featured topics would be a worthy candidate, but I've not had time to push that recently. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would not be too difficult for someone to set up a rotating "Media of the day" here as I did on commons - see commons:commons:Media of the day and commons:Main Page. Raul654 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft J.2

There, best done. I still don't know where to put the browser bar, but besides that I think this one's about perfect. Kevin Baas^talk 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for whatever that's worth on this humungous page. As for the browse bar, and here's a new twist, forget about it, it's available from every link in the header section. And for another twist how about adding one more link:

Learn about Wikipedia  •  Browse by category  •  Index  •  Learn how to edit articles  •  Frequently Asked Questions  •  Other questions  •  First time here?

where we encourage and explain about logging in. hydnjo talk 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, you've got my vote. I like humongous— so long as it does not put an unnecessary burden on slow dial-ups. I think we should advertise what we've got! ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 04:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Main Pages

Pardon me if this has been suggested, but why do we have to only have one main page? Why not make the main page customizable to each user's preference, thereby satisfiying all? -Hoekenheef 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has been suggested before. But, let me summarize what has been said:

• What you've suggested would bring up many technical problems,
• Anons still see a MP without getting to choose one,
• People can have their own in their userspace and any links can be engineered to link to their page.
• Currently, this is too convoluted to persue.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you know how this could be accomplished, please explain it to us. What would this entail? -Go for it! 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

IANAPNAIABWCGACTC: I am not a programmer, nor am I a Bureaucrat who can go and change the code. You'll have to talk to someone other than me.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Too cluttered

I dislike all of the new designs. They are all way too cluttered. First, many of them ignore the basic tenant of all design - always remember who you are designing for. The main page is for encyclopedia readers. Everyone knows this. And yet, almost all of the designs include some "Community" section which obviously doesn't belong. Ask any regular wikipedian how many times he looks at the main page and hte answer will be close to 0. Who is this section supposed to help then?

Second, I had the unfortunate experience of being relegated to a dial up for a couple weeks this month. I must say it would have been torture to try to access any of these designs, with their unnecessary sections and superfluous icons.

Google is the most popular site on the internet. Their main page has never exceeded 60 words. It's plain and very simple to use. This is the design we should be striving for. Raul654 06:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a nice uncluttered design already. Well, it might not be what you had in mind, but what do you think of this? [7] It has a simple logo with a search box underneath, and links to various areas of Wikipedia. Carcharoth 13:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For the multi-lingual portal, that is a good design. That's not appropriate for the en main page. Raul654 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that it's very hard to remove content from the main page because every section has a small group of editors who maintain it but are very invested in it remaining on the main page. So you have to be exceedingly careful about adding new content, since removing it later will be far more difficult than adding it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. This could very well be a one way trip.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective: Whereas I don't have a regular job on WP, I usually head over here with no particular destination in mind and thus my bookmark is set for the Main Page. I'll poke around from there for a while catching an interesting article by portalling or whatever and then find myself n links deep in something that, at the outset, I only had a casual interest. Oops it's getting late, better check my watchlist to see what's going on there or wait, maybe I should check my WP Active bookmark first. But, I always launch from the MP.

We're not Google, an empty slate where you can search for anything, nor should we attempt to parrot their MP model. We're not an empty slate but place of rich and delicious information. Not a collection of URLs with paid sidebar sponsors. Not a search engine where if you type "abcdefg" you get 590,000 hits. To me, the Main Page is more like going to a restaurant with a diverse menu than it is like going to one which has no menu at all, but your waiter will explain (I hate some analogies). No, I look at the Draft J proposal and I say "Wow! I want to come back here again". hydnjo talk 20:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

...Except for did you know. Nobody really cares about that section, which is why I have repeatedly said it should be removed and replaced with the featured picture. Raul654 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I don't remember ever launching to anywhere from there. hydnjo talk 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything went small, I don't know what the heck happened

What the ??? --Go for it! 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a mouse with a scroll wheel. hold down the ctrl key and roll the wheel. Kevin Baas^talk 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Different problem. Somewhere, half way through this, the font changes on my machine. It's only here. I think but cannot acertain that something happened with drumguy's HTML sig.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Must have cleared itself up...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

??? I put in that comment and it came back! It must be only one you edit this page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this page is getting too big? I'm getting problems with font and typeface as well. Carcharoth 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just missing a </font> in someone's sig. Fixed now, I'll tell him about it. hydnjo talk 16:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was a sig but I couldn't quite pinpoint it. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nearly halfway through the alphabet...

Only a week to go and nearly half the alphabet letters have been used up! :-) I would like to see an extremely stripped down version, like Raul suggested up above, though see my suggestion there. Also, the suggestions for a "main page" for beginners and for kids seems to have some merit, though the concept may be considered patronising. Of course, this can all be avoided if it is made clear that this main page redesign is aimed at being the default main page that anyone sees, rather than a page aimed at subsets of Wikipedia users. At the moment, the multiple designs (some of which are quite nice) are just layout tweaks, rather than redesigns, of the main page. Carcharoth 13:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. These are all variations on the same idea, so it shouldn't be too hard to combine them into one draft.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

Thanks to whoever refactored the top of this page, navigation was becoming damn near impossible. Will whoever did it please step forward and *blush* for us.  ;-) hydnjo talk 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It was hydnjo. See the "Draft interlinks" section on this page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nay, I was not referring to that *thank you* (besides which --Aude made the template) but the "Place your votes and reasons for them in this section:" menu section that showed up. Trying to find the right place to vote or comment was deterring some folks, of that I'm confident. Thankfully there now is a congealed section allowing us to easily land on our intended place. Thanks again, hydnjo talk 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

With so many issues on this project it's nice to know that some of them solve themselves.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm to think that it all happened by itself - I think not HTH. Somebody done it!  ;-) hydnjo talk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was really trying to just wrap this up. It looks like I was counter productive. Anyway, don't you think our time is better spent elsewhere?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, so it was you then. hydnjo talk 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it's a wrap!  ;-) hydnjo talk 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it wasn't me. It's just that this will be stored in the archives, forever taking up server room...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So then... (deleted to conserve server space) (smile deleted) hydnjo talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

(Laugh deleted)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Next step, please

I'm not sure where to post this, as this project seems terribly, and overly, complicated. Feel free to move it.

I've been watching this project for a while now, and I see little but disarray. It's true that you have produced some beautiful concepts, but I haven't, for example, found a place to discuss them. While 'Vote and discuss' leads here, this hardly seems the place for a discussion on general preferences. This page is rather dominated by those involved with the project, and who know what's going on already.

So.

While there are technically twelve proposals, some of which are virtually identical. There are a few design elements that recur in several drafts. It seems to me that deciding which specific layout is prefered is less important that deciding which design elements should be included:

1. The 'Welcome to Wikipedia' box
   1. with a bulleted list
   2. with a manual list (bigger box)
   3. with a search function
   4. no, alternative solution
2. Portals
   1. yes, large
   2. yes, small
   3. no
3. Browsebar
   1. op top of Wikipedia box
   2. below Wikipedia box
   3. no, alternative solution
4. Icons for each header
   1. yes
   2. no
5. Coloured boxes for each header
   1. Big coloured boxed for each header
   2. Smaller coloured boxed for each header

In brief, we have:

	1 'welcome'-box	2 portals	3 browsebar	4 header icons	5 header boxes
1. Draft 6A	yes	bulleted in welcome box	on top of welcome box	no	big
2. Draft 6B	yes	manual list in welcome box	below welcome box	no	big
3. Draft 6C	yes	bulleted in welcome box	below welcome box	no	small
4 Draft 6D	yes	bulleted in welcome box	above welcome box	no	small
5 Draft 6E	no	pictographs	above pictographs	no	small
6 Draft 6F	no	no	below alternative welcome	no	big
7 Draft 6G	yes, search	single line text	below category text	yes	big
8 Draft 6H	yes, search	single line text	between cat text and welcome box	no	small
9 Draft 6I	yes, search	pictographs	below welcome box	no	big
10 Draft 6J.2	yes, search	pictographs	alternative	yes	big
11 Draft 6K	yes, search	pictographs	above welcome box	no	small
12 Draft 6L	yes, search	pictographs	below welcome box	yes	big
13 Current mainpage

It seems that, with this information, it should be possible to eliminate a few proposals as reduncant. Draft GF for example is the only proposal without category button. If the majority of people state that they do want these, we can eliminate that draft. (Though any design elements specific to this Draft can be encorporated into the final design, if it desired.) -- Ec5618 11:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably do that (vote on different elements on a one-by-one basis and eliminate drafts as we go through the style elements). —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Those category icons are Portals.
On the whole, however, that is useful. I agree entirely that we have way too many drafts and we should get it down to one before the final vote.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and I've modified the table to that effect.

As for reducing the number of drafts, I think this would go quickest if we eliminate drafts, one by one. Once only a few designs have survived, the remaining drafts can be blended into one.

In the end, this process needn't be quite so convoluted. Considering that many of the drafts are great improvements over the current Main page, I shouldn't be a problem to implement one. -- Ec5618 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Measuring public reaction to the various lements is a time-consuming process, and I'd rather try to gauge results when all reslts are in in a few days (on the fourth). Call this procrastination...but besides, only whent there's an open editing session can we really gt to work.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Usability experts

I have posed the main page drafts to the people who are working on the German Wikipedia usability tested, for their thoughts and advice. Here's the link to the discussion, with some good points to consider when combining the well-liked aspects of the various draft designs into a final design(s). http://openusability.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=974&forum_id=438. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. At least it isn't in German. Also, one of the users brings up stylistic differences between the stable (I prefer the word "static" but whatever) versus the dynamic content. This is what I've been saying all along. I like what Draft H does: Keeps the intricate boxes for the dynamic and a simple grey box for the static.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Browsebar items

how about Why create an account? on the browse bar? Kevin Baas^talk 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeahhh! I don't mean First time here? exactly but something recognizing a first-timer and extending our helping hand. That's been missing ever since I got here. We've come to a place where we are not just an enclypedia. We're a web-destination for many many newcomers and our front page has yet to recognize this. We should have a prominent link on our Main Page which hand-holds through their first experience. hydnjo talk 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so long as it isn't a blatant ad but a place ofr the interesting but uninformed user to start.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New header poll

New! Header poll Kevin Baas^talk 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Final version - how will we start it?

Well, one more day and then we start the open editing. How are we going to start? I suppose we should first quickly outline (summarize) what it seems people want, them start a page based on that and go from there. I'll start:

• Header -
  • color- white
  • search bar - yes
  • non-portal links - above box and right
  • portal links - no icons, below
• Color - toss-up I think, but I think green/blue may be the least opposed overall
• number of features - Hmm, 6 works with the community section, 5 works if the POTD is compressed, 4 means we havn't really redesign the main page, we've only tweaked it.
• Reference section - in a (very simple, uncolored) box

Now for the really controversial part....

• Overall page - Version G. Now, before you start moaning, let me explain my position here. I'm not advocating a direct transfer here, just that we start by using the basic layout and modify it with the above (fully supported) features. Yes there is some opposition (and going by the comments most of it seems to be about colors and snowflakes), but there is also a lot of support.

Some comments for:"interesting layout", "the only one that seems different enough from the current Main Page to be noticably "new" ", "like how the separate boxes look", "I absolutely love...the ability to slightly theme (based on the season or perhaps specific events",

Some comments against: "ideal if columns had the same length", "I hope to god that the snowflakes on the bottom of all those nifty boxes change with the seasons", "To bright and incoherent. Tacky", "colours are quite unbearable", The column lenght is an issue, but a fixable one I think, the snowflakes are not set in stone - it could be any pic or no pic at all, the colors of course will change.

As a test I've redesigned G here, just to show the doubters what a few changes will do. I'm not putting it up for vote or anything, It's not even final - nothing ever is here, the colors are still undecided and column length is still off - I'm just showing people what we can do next. Thanks. for (hopefully) your attention. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I love the gradients and overhanging icon on the static boxes. That's hot. (though I think the gradient needs to be longer) What I think we need is a box layout poll. Separate for static and dynamic boxes? Also, then, a color poll. Then I think instead of taking the best of all, we take the few (say, 3) best of each category (browsebar location, I'd say one, though - number depends on vote variance), and let people make new ones by trying a few combinations, work those down to 3 or 4, then have a final vote, and add some finishing touches. Kevin Baas^talk 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still undecided on whether to go with the second search box and the portal links below the header, or put the portal links in the header (as in Draft D). While many people expressed support for the second search box, a significant number also disliked it and expressed support for the header in Draft D and other drafts. With the usability testing on the German Wikipedia, people *did* find the search box on the left, though maybe it took them a minute to do so. So, maybe it would be worthwhile to present two drafts. (1) second search box and portal links below the header (2) portal links in the header, no second search box.

As for the other things you mentioned, (header color-white, non-portal links, feature box colors), I'm in agreement. The number of features, I'd go with five. We really don't have a sixth feature. The colored boxes should be for feature items that change regularly, everyday or more often. The "Participate in Wikipedia" won't be changing. Finally, the reference data could go in either an uncolored or grayscale box. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put both the portal links and the search bar in the header? I tried some experimenting but I don't understand the coding enough to keep the portal links from overlaping with the searchbar. It may require cutting down on the number of portal links and their font size but I'd like to see a test done. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt we can get both the portal links and search box into the header, and keep the design compatible with smaller screens, pdas, etc. It's just too much to fit horizontally, that the search box would and links would likely overlap eachother. Though, if someone can prove me wrong about this... Another possibility would be to modify the monobook skin, to make the search box on the left more prominent in some way, with bold text, colors, etc. And, if we went with just the portal links in the header, I suggest adding "Search" to the non-portal links above the header and maybe make it bold text. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be all for that if someone would just go ahead and do something to draw attention to the search on the main page. I'm sure it's easy for someone who knew what they were doing to modify the MediaWiki:Common.css or whatever. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the monobook.css and associated skin files that would need tweaking. If you go to "my preferences" and pick another skin , you would see how drastically different they are (to the point they clash with the current main page design). But, each skin varies in where they put the search box. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Be careful if you change your skin preferences... it can be hard to find "my preferences" (to change the skin back to monobook) in some of other skins (it's omitted entirely from the Nostalgia main page). My preferences can be accessed at Special:Preferences. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the footer question. Here's a sample of what can be accomplished: , and - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like Trevor's redesign, but I also have a cuople of problems with it. Compare it to say, draft H (my favorite) and others and you'll find:

1. Many users have objected to icons. I think it's best without them, although I like the sister projects.
2. Many users also objected to showy colors. Find some form of rhyme or reason to the color sheme. It looks bad having boxes of multiple colors stacked on top of each other. That may be just as well because we want to break up the page a little.
3. I do like the footers. Could you make purple, green and blue ones to go with Draft H? That helps keep the color scheme consistant.
4. Yes, I like the POTD but "participate in Wikipedia" is NOT a feature. Features should be dynamic, changing every 24 hours or less.
5. The box style of Draft H was liked better than those you used.

These are all, of course, suggestions.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the drafts

I found some time to go through the drafts and jot down some thoughts on drafts A-L and the Main Page (with the subtitle: "13 versions of a Main Page for the English Wikipedia"). Please incorporate these into any designs if any of it helps.

- Two search boxes could confuse people. My first reaction is to hesitate and wonder which one I should use to search. Then I might give up and go away. Personally, I favour a more prominent position for the search box in the banner (as in several of the drafts), but getting the search box removed from the sidebar is difficult. Other wikipedias would need it.

- Top part of page (welcome message etc). I like the layout from drafts G and H, mainly because the layout is not too different from the current main page, but the portal links and meta-links are clearly separated from the welcome message. The search box is a great idea.

- Portal links. I prefer text to icons.

- Feature boxes. Like the main page colours and layout and font sizes. Don't like the smaller fonts in drafts G, J and L. The only improvement I would incorporate from the drafts is making the headers a darker colour bar, which makes the four different features stand out.

- Features. There was something nice about the Main Page today. I couldn't quite figure it out. Then I realised it was the Featured Picture bit. I would love to see this become a daily feature.

[One problem with G is that it doesn't use the words "Today's featured article" - it just has the date. Also, it has the wording "Second feature" - which is a rubbish name for a feature box.]

- Number of features. I prefer the drafts with four features, rather than six. Six feels like the page is getting too full. I agree that the community area should not be in a feature box. I would personally drop the "On this day" feature from any personalised main page and just have the featured article, in the news, Picture of the Day, and Did you know (four features in total).

- Stuff at the bottom (currently languages and sister projects). The layout I like best is the ones in boxes. ie. three boxes for "community", "languages" and "sister projects". These areas should be "off the fold" and small - really just a collection of links like at the top. Not too much explanation, and not too chatty. Several drafts talk too much in the "communnity" section. The links by themselves sound interesting enough if people really want to click on them.

[One problem with the languages bit is that the "show"/"hide" link is not very obvious and is easily missed. Also, there is no link to the multilingual portal - something I have commented on elsewhere].

- General comment. Most layouts suffer from areas of white space and boxes not sizing properly. This really should be standardised, as sometimes it can look awful. Is this a limitation of the software?

- Overall, my vote goes for draft H (and I've just voted for it). If I were to tweak it, I would replace "On this day" with "Today's featured picture" (OK, that is a major redesign, not a tweak!), and I would put the three bottom sections (communnity, languages, sister projects) in their own boxes (still white) to make the separation between them clearer.

I hope to find time to do my own personal "main page" for my user space at some point. For now I'm looking forward to seeing what the final draft here will look like. Carcharoth 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Draft H is a great way to start the open editing session, but it can, will, and must be improved.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please archive this talk page?

It would be nice to discuss the draft (number 7?) that is currently being edited in an open-editing session. I'm just going to watch and comment from the sidelines, but doesn't this talk page need archiving first? I'd do it, but I've never done something like that before, and not with such a large page. Carcharoth 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Though only when the voting is finished, of course... Carcharoth 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The voting is finished. I'll do it.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)