Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The synopsis 1.1 "Easy" version 2 final changes, and options 2.1 Capitalisation of box headers 3 Mop-up 4 Caps 5 A-Z / Prefixindex 6 Search inside navigation box 7 Donations link 8 WikiProject Usability 9 Go and search buttons should be links instead 10 Query in passing re search accessibility or "basic" vs "extended" search 11 My sidebar 12 Search discussion

The synopsis

(I leave you people alone overnight, and look what happens...again!)

• Fields and basic topics are not going to make it in. They are not nearly at a good enough standard.
• A-Z is not needed. Its a low use page, and doesnt deserve sidebar access.
• The search box should not be conjoined, or have the heading removed. It is not done in any other Wikimedia site, and there is no obvious reason to do it here. KISS.
• The search box will remain titled "search", because too many people will argue over "find". Ditto for "donations".
• The interact box is complete. The title is debatable, but many people support "interact"
• The toolbox will be ordered as version 20, as its better for readers, and all editors are readers. (plus its alphabetical, quite by accident).
• The only real decision left is whether to capitalise the box headers.

And that's it. (assuming the changes are programmable.)

I will now create the "easy" and "optimal" variants, on the project page. --Quiddity 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If, at this point, you want to make a major change/suggestion, please do so in your own sandbox and link to it. Or, wait until this simple and agreeable redesign is implemented, and then make your own proposal for a further change. --Quiddity 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Skip down to #Really really final decisions for the wrap-up decisions.

"Easy" version

Umm,

Excuse me,

But... Where on earth did you pull the "Easy" version out of???

From Dragons flight's request Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/programming#Easy vs. Hard. "I'd like to ask this group to consider making two rounds of proposals. First a proposal for easy changes that take no developer intervention, and then afterwards work on the hard stuff.". Easy requires the least re-programming. --Quiddity 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The capitalisation, and choice of "interact" was addressed above (I said they were still debatable. And "Interact" was suggested long ago by David Levy, and was a part of version 20 (did you see the 3 pages of archives at the top?)).

Renaming "help" to "wikipedia help" is an unnecessary change, and just invites quibbles. It makes the word "help" harder to see at a glance. "Help contents" is a possible alternative.

I suggest you rewrite or remove the arguments below to account for all this. --Quiddity 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood and my comments addressed individually based on your replies. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it just has a ton of things there was either a consensus not to include, or no discussion about whatsoever. For example:

• It was made a clear point that search must be visible from top of page at 800x600 without having to scroll down. Easy version has too much links above it.
  • This point still remains. If easy version is implemented, it still needs to have search higher. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• There was a majority opinion to visually break up toolbox
  • Point taken if means easier technical implementation Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto for recent changes belonging in toolbox. It is a very specific tool mostly used as counter-vandalism. There's no reason for majority of users to see it in such a place where it displaces search bar and other navigation.
  • Point taken if means easier technical implementation Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• To top it off, neither version gives an option for lower-case box titles (which I personally support). Where did you find a consensus to have it always capitalized? Oh and what about renaming "help" to "interact" without asking anyone? It's cool to have new ideas, but don't displace existing ones that have support with new ones nobody even saw before.
  • Points still remain, I suggest including alternative options instead of just one version. I did not see clear consensus on a particular version in the archives. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of not assuming good faith, but it really seems to me that the "easy" version is just a classic Dilbert style "bad solution" that stands aside a "good solution" so the PHB has no trouble picking the "right" one.

• Didn't realize it had to do with technical implementation, I take back my words. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think the Easy version needs to be thrown out, and discussion focused on refining the Optimal version on those points which are still actual (like capitalization of box titles, "interact" vs "help" in title, "Help" vs "Wikipedia Help" in box, etc.

• OK, I see the justification for the Easy version now. In my opinion however, the easy version is really too similar to existing version, and because it pushes searchbox too far down, it is actually worse then the current version. I'd rather keep the current one over the Easy version. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To sum it up, we really agreed on too much to throw it all away and start talking about a whole new version. We should focus on fine-tuning what we have and proceed on putting it up against the original. Elvarg 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but you could be waiting a really long time (if ever) for some of the code modifications to be accepted. Dragons flight 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elvarg that the "easy" version is worse than the current version. We should simply wait until the necessary coding modifications have been made. Incidentally, I'm not sure that the current code supports uppercase lettering in the section titles. —David Levy 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The lowercasing is coming from a lowercase attribute in CSS that could be removed without modifying the code. Dragons flight 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info!  :) —David Levy 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Even though the editor is a newcomer, I've had to revert these changes because they were not discussed and consensus hasn't been reached yet. Sorry. --DavidHOzAu 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

final changes, and options

I've removed the easy version, as noone likes it.

I've lowercased the headings, to mirror the current version. Hopefully will result in shorter arguments (argument for change likely to be less emotional than argument against change.)

Mop-up

Can I archive everything on this page above #The synopsis now? --Quiddity 23:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quid, what would we do without you ;) Elvarg 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

um, no thanks next time. leave some recent discussion. some points may have validity not yet incorporated into the lastest discussion. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I read through it all, and tried to sort all the new and recurring questions/comments/rants/decisions into the synopsis at the top and the decisions-remaining list just above. I realize people may still have replies they may not have had time to read, but I decided (boldly) that getting this thing over smoothly, was more important. Or did you have a specific point in mind, that had been left unaddressed? --Quiddity 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We're still discussing things. Do not archive ongoing discussions. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I asked in the comment you replied to; Is there something specific you're referring to? Because all I see in the last 24 hours of discussion is argument about voting, and tangents into things that have already been discussed to death.

We wouldnt be as far along now as we are, if I and others didnt keep prodding the discussion forward... --Quiddity 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone want to ressurect or revisit stuff in the archives (by copying a summary out to the front discussion page), they should feel free to do so. Moving things along is a good idea. Carcharoth 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing things. You do not archive things that are being discussed. There is no consensus yet. I don't see how one cannot agree with this. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is really very easy to restart the discussion on an archived topic. Just copy the whole thread back out here and ask for more discussion. Carcharoth 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which parts of "the discussion is still ongoing" do you not get? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which discussion?!?? Are you angry that I ignored all rules and archived rapidly, and are trying to 'lawyer' me into an apology? Or, is there a specific thread that you actually believe was cut off early? If the latter: Either cut it out of the archive and paste it back here, or just link to it and I will. It's that simple!

We don't "get" why you keep arguing the abstract point, without mentioning a specific instance. --Quiddity 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The search box discussion is ongoing. Thus this should not be archived. Whichever frozen discussions you archive is none of my concern since I'm not arguing for those to remain on this page. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about #Search discussion? Because this thread (gatoatigrado) was talking about /Archive 04, not the Search discussion. ;) --Quiddity 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... well, I'm sorry. I thought that you were talking about archiving everything above this paragraph, including the search discussion. I thought that it wasn't being done but was still being suggested in here, and that people simply weren't listening to me saying that ongoing discussions should not be archived. I guess I was wrong about that! Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. :) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Caps

It has always bugged me that the Main Page and Community Portal are capitalized for no apparent reason. Contact Wikipedia escapes since Wikipedia is a proper noun, but any takers for lowercasing the other two? Incidentally, portal is even lowercase in the default install, so we are a legacy anomaly. Dragons flight 05:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How did they creep back in? Version 9 and onward feature correct capitalization of titles according to WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization. I find it amusing that the actual titles of Main Page and Community Portal aren't up to naming standard. --DavidHOzAu 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Title Caps Are Not Pretty. We should just use normal capitalization. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me, doing various fixes to stop the arguing, and updating link-targets. I'll change to correct caps.

Are you proposing to rename the pages in question too, or just to retitle the sidebar links? --Quiddity 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've seen this argued out elsewhere though: Community Portal is cap'd to differentiate it from Portal:Community -- The Community portal. (It's a proper name, like Kensington Station. As opposed to a portal about the subject Community. (Talking of which, why is "portal" in the top-box header capitalised at all the portals? eg at Portal:Science it says "The Science Portal")) --Quiddity 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Dragons flight and DavidH: Main Page and Community Portal are correctly capitalised per the guideline DavidH quotes, WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization. Proper nouns should be capitalised. Community Portal and Main Page are the names of the pages, rather than the subject titles. Compare with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, where the page title is also the name. The inconsistency is that Main Page should be at Wikipedia:Main Page, and Main page should be an article about main pages. Carcharoth 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the dispute would be whether or not they should be treated as proper nouns when other major community pages like Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reference desk, Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy are not. Incidentally, "Community Portal" was changed to "Community portal" in the default install a long time ago, so the use of caps there has as much to do with legacy usage as anything else. Dragons flight 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this "default install" you keep mentioning? Carcharoth 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What you get when you install the Mediawiki software on a new website. Dragons flight 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So what's the outcome? Should I re-capitalise the draft links? Or are we proposing a page/namespace rename for either of them? --Quiddity 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are significant technical reasons for not renaming the Main Page, but I wouldn't mind renaming the portal. Either way, the choice of capitalization need not be defined be the choice of name. Dragons flight 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's just forget how the article's name is capitalized as DragonsFlight said and use the correct capitalization via a pipe on our links. It just occurred to me that Wikipedia:Community portal is a redirect to Wikipedia:Community Portal, (obviously we aren't the first to come across this anomaly,) so listing it on WP:RM will probably result in a lot of people saying that the move is redundant. --DavidHOzAu 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A-Z / Prefixindex

I really believe in an encyclopedia an A-Z index belongs in the navigation box. Electionworld Talk? 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that the Wikipedia:Quick_index page is really clunky. I never use it, and I doubt many people do. It is nice to occasionally look at, but it is not really usable or helpful. It is on the "reserve list" above, so you could argue for its inclusion at a later date. I have similar doubts about how useful Wikipedia:Questions is, as it is a signpost poiting to other pages, not all of which should really be two clicks away from the Main Page in my opinion. Carcharoth 12:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it currently uses the Special:Allpages feature, when, in my opinion, it should use the Special:Prefixindex feature. Compare Special:Allpages/AA to Special:Prefixindex/AA. I'll raise this over there. Carcharoth 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'll add an option to remove that link to the "final changes" list. --Quiddity 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to suggest it in this discussion (see my earlier contributions on the procedure), so I do it here. I think if we agree it can be added to the present redesign (I don't know why not). I must say i like Special:Prefixindex much more than other options. My suggestion would be to add a link to the prefixindex and name it A-Z. Even better, couldn't we add the form just below the search box?Electionworld Talk? 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Search inside navigation box

How about putting the search box inside the navigation box, as shown here? I think it is the most essential part of navigation, and it doesn't only search it also lets you navigate to each individual article. --WS 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Was suggested many times, in many styles (see the archives). Too many people dislike the concept though. sorry. --Quiddity 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I like A-Z too. Electionworld Talk? 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I dislike it. The Wikipedia search function is still not ideal, so promoting it over well-organised content seems wrong. I suspect many people use Google or other ways of searching Wikipedia. Also, people are used to the current placement. Too much change will get people upset. Carcharoth 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I first came up with the idea of putting search in the navigation box for version 15, (apparently because "searching" is also a "navigation" tool,) but I now wish had not. Although good in theory, in practice it looks just plain ugly. Search is perfectly fine where it is, and there is no pressing need to move it. --DavidHOzAu 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is nor really important, so I can agree with DavidHOzAU. But what about A-Z? Electionworld Talk? 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment added to section above about A-Z stuff. Carcharoth 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Donations link

I mentioned this when there was a donations link in the Main Page redesign (the link got dropped), but the current link takes you straight to a page section talking about credit card details. This is rather abrupt for someone clicking on the link for the first time (those who have already donated won't be put off by having to scroll down). I think the link should direct to the page in general (not the section), allowing people to read a bit about why and how to make a donation, before being confronted with credit card details. In other words, change the link from WikiMedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods to WikiMedia:Fundraising. Does this sound acceptable, and if so, can this reasoning be added to the rationale on the front page of this project? Carcharoth 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I Strongly agree. --Quiddity 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds acceptable; the old link skips the preamble which explains exactly where the donations are going. --DavidHOzAu 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And looking more closely, that preamble points to the budget for 2005... Surely the 2006 budget should be out now and the link should point there? Does anyone have an account at Meta to try and correct that? See also here, where people are asking for updates on what is happening with their money for 2006. Carcharoth 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The CFO seems to be in the middle of a changeover. I didn't put comments anywhere, as I imagine the new CFO(?) has their hands full. --Quiddity 18:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I did put some comments somewhere, but as you say - hands full. I'll try and remember at a later date. Carcharoth 11:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Usability

I just recently went back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability, and I was wondering why this project (or rather proposal) isn't part of that or advertised there. Carcharoth 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It was hiding at the bottom of the talk page (under a crazy rant) ;) --Quiddity 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Go and search buttons should be links instead

Is it too late to put in my 2 cents? This is something that is a bit of a personal annoyance and a suggestion of wish list quality. BUT, instead of the "go" and "search" submit buttons being buttons that are rendered by the client's browser, I would like to see them either as a server end graphic button or a text link. WHY? you might ask, the reason is how firefox and other modern browsers allow the client to open a link in a new tab/window by clicking the middle button on the mouse or holding down a qualifier key while clicking. When a form button is used this feature is circumvented. If they were links or graphics then tab/window management would be easier and convienient. --Monotonehell 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I support this. Though for what it is worth, middle-clicking doesn't work on Google. Carcharoth 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an extension problem. I forget what I uninstalled to fix it (possibly greasemonkey?). Try clicking the bold part of google's link, vs the non-bold part (eg [1] monkey vs heaven); one of them should work, which was how I discovered it was fixable. -Quiddity 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this too. Too often do i have to open a new tab just to keep multiple wikipedia searches around. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to submit an html form using a text link? --Quiddity 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooohh, that's a good question! With javascript it is possible, but not everyone on the internet has javascript enabled. (although I think most of us editors do.) --DavidHOzAu 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity, I hate you lol, you're right. Without some java voodoo a graphic submit isn't possible in all browsers. I KNEW this already, stupid me. see this discussion. I guess it's a patch that needs to be applied to the browser not the website. --Monotonehell 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An "Open search results in new window" preferences option should be possible though. (I think submitting a bug-report is the only way to make that happen?).

Or we could possibly add a checkbox next to the search buttons, which would accomplish the same. Though that's kind of cluttering... --Quiddity 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's good practice to use a link instead of a button when submitting a form. It goes against everything I know... common sense included. --DavidHOzAu 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Current XHTML implementation aside, how is it diferent? --Monotonehell 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to alter the visual style of form buttons, for the reasons iterated in that link you referenced... specifically "Consistency in widget appearance is essential in usability, and on the WWW, that means compliance with what each user is accustomed to, i.e. browser defaults (whatever they are in each browser)."

This is one of the reasons both Google and Yahoo use the completely-standard [grey] button. 'Grandma Thomasson' has been sucessfully trained to click the [grey] button when she wants to search, Don't Subvert her Weltanschuuang! [the buttons are grey in windows98, firefox and ie] --Quiddity 09:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, although I'm not completely convinced that it's a huge usabilty concern. People can find a properly designed button. Back to the lobbying on Firefox mailing lists for me... ;) --Monotonehell 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A button would be workable; I was still thinking about the "text link to submit" part of the suggestion. That'd confuse people! --Quiddity 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Query in passing re search accessibility or "basic" vs "extended" search

Apologies if the following is addressed somewhere in the reams of material above or somewhere else I haven't happened upon, but I was wondering if the multiple namespace tick/checkbox section that's displayed at the bottom of the Special:Search page only after no exact match is found for a search (so it seems) might...

1. (cosmetic) ...be tidied a little, i.e. sorted into columned groups;
2. ...be given its own page, i.e. no longer only seem to appear after no exact match for a search found;
3. ...perhaps become (many of) the options revealed in the new sidebar when a user toggles between a "basic" and "extended" search format...?

Regards, David Kernow 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely seperate topic. Would have to be addressed individually elsewhere. Try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Quiddity 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for response, but does point 3 above (to which point 1 and 2 may be seen to build) mean it's completely separate...?  Regards, David 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick correction: the checkboxes always appear when you click "Search" (which is what "Go" defaults to doing, if it doesn't find an exact match). Possibly that answers your query?

The actual talkpage is at Wikipedia talk:Special:Specialpages, but that looks kinda quiet, hence I suggest the Village pump. --Quiddity 09:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re answering my query, I'm not sure; I don't think your description quite matches my experience. However, I'll mention it at the Village Pump somewhere sometime. Thanks for your input, David 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing: When clicking the Search button, either in the search box or on the Search page, with an empty input field, the Search page should be displayed in the "advanced" mode (with checkboxes). --83.253.36.136 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My sidebar

Sorry, I don't especially care for the new design -- but then, I don't really like the current version, either. (Note that I always use the Cologne Blue skin.) On the other hand, I don't object to a redesign of the default sidebar that anon readers will use. I just want to be able to edit my own sidebar.

From a design viewpoint, the sidebar is expensive. Even on my gigantic monitor, it consumes about 12% of the window width I normally use to browse. A poor fellow will find that same fixed-width sidebar eating up nearly 25% of his screen. But some of the links are too useful -- I can't work with it off all the time and it's much too difficult to turn on and off again.

I count 34 links in one sidebar. Of these, I use 3 or 4 regularly and maybe another 6 occasionally. If I've got to give up 144px of horizontal real estate all the way down the page, I want that space to be far more useful. Check out my userpage if you want an idea of what I want to have handy at all times.

So, let me edit my own User:John Reid/Sidebar. Let me put whatever I like into it; nobody has to see it but me. Do what you like with the default. John Reid 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as an alternative viewpoint, I find the grey sidebar area useful as an empty page margin. Text running from edge to edge of a monitor/display, is poor usability design -- one of the many reasons they use multiple columns in broadsheet newspapers.

It should be possible to add your own content to your sidebar using browser-side scripting? Greasemonkey or something similar? or page skins? I'm not sure. I tend to leave things fairly default so that I know what everyone else is seeing is the same as what I'm editing. --Quiddity 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Search discussion

Searchbox redesign threads moved to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Searchbox redesign. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)