Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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

Article count

Forget about Jimbo moving us into an age of "quality over quantity", a lot of people dislike the exclusion of the number of articles. Maybe they are not yet aquainted with this goal, but the single biggest complaint people have is the absence of this. We need to work out phrasing before we go live with the counter, and it should probably be added only after the poll is over. I think that, considering no one has praised its abscence, we should be able to add it in without a problem.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's too early to begin gauging consensus. Also, we haven't managed to come up with a suitable means of including the article count in the header, so it isn't as though we can simply slip it in. "Add it back" is a gut reaction that fails to consider how to go about doing that. If we were to make an attempt, it's likely that we'd draw far more complaints (due to the poor aesthetics).
Of course, if someone were able to come up with a good method that we've overlooked, that would be a different story. —David Levy 03:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah, too early to start drawing conclusions. There are going to be specific things people dislike about the new design. We can't appease everyone nor should we want to. If 115 people said "support but i wish you had the 2nd search box in there" we wouldnt add it. It "would be nice" if we could have everything that everyone wanted exactly where they wanted it; but that's unpossible, and is why it's nice that we have userpages, and main page alternates, and templates, and such.
Instead, maybe we could concentrate on improving Wikipedia:Main Page alternates so that it is ready for mentioning as the way to access the "old" main page when/if we implement the redesign. (?) --Quiddity 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. After a million articles most people won't care how much until we reach another major milestone (which will take awhile). And, true, we want to focus on quality now. And, very true, we don't have a good way to insert it now. Let's just hope nobody votes "no" based on this.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I care about the article count. It is the most important piece of information to me on the homepage. It is nonsensical social-engineering to bury it near the bottom of the page. There are plenty of good ways to put the article count in there. What you mean to say is you don't *like* any of them. Many people are voting no because of this, perhaps even with their wallets.Marktaff 07:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying they wouldn't donate because the article count is at the bottom? At any rate, the problem with just "Adding it back in" to the top, is that one of the design principles was that it be viewable on 800x600 resolution. Right now, there is no room at that resolution to put anything. Find a way to make room, then we'll talk. Fieari 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Current design

Will the current design still be available as a skin? I wouldn't mind a new front page if it's better for the masses, but I like the current one. Thanks.--AK7 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If the new design is approved, the current design will remain available as an alternative for those who prefer it. You'll be able to set it as your browser's home page and use it just as you do now. —David Levy 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate David. en.wikipedia.org would resolve to the new version. To use the old version, you would have to be at a machine you control, and have planned in advance to bookmark the old version of the page. All it takes is a few lines of code to let us keep using the old version. A one-size-fits-all (or most) solution is isn't what's needed.Marktaff 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to lay the blame on you, but it is. Yes, www.en.Wikipedia.org would lead to this new page. But the Main Page alternates would list the old one. You could set to be your browser's homepage and then ignore the new page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Search box in Monobook

A suggestion for improving the visibility of the search box, since a second one apparently won't be included in the new design: tweak MediaWiki:Monobook.js to make its border yellow (the same color as the border around the current tab) only when on the Main Page. This way, it still fits in with the general look and feel of Monobook, and it won't be overly distracting on other pages. It'll will be just sufficiently distracting on the Main Page that people will notice its presence.

Of course, IANAUE, but it seems to me that this approach would balance discoverability and subtlety decently well.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Doh, I didn't read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#Future issues well enough. Anyhow, I'd support putting the orange border around the search box only on the Main Page. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Main page title

Hi, can anybody say me, how it is possible, that the "Main page" title in the new design is hidden. I searched everywhere in mediawiki and net, but got no answer. Is it CSS? Java? MediaWiki directive in one of the templates? Thank you very much. --Gorn 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This was asked during the draft too, and noone answered. I'm getting the feeling it's some sort of admin secret... Possibly because it would be particularly abusable in some way? Sorry, i don't know. --Quiddity 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's the mainPageTransform() function in MediaWiki:Monobook.js that does the trick. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see the argument with possible abuse, but I am asking because I use the mediawiki engine for our local board games project and i would like to use it there. --Gorn 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you messages?

Should we leave notes on the talk pages of the voters like people do for RFAs? Should we wait until the page is posted so we can tell them the outcome?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess wait till over. --Quiddity 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll have t distribute the load: we already have a few hundred votes.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why no notice on the main page?

How many Wikipedians are obliviously unaware of this election? --Go for it! 11:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice of the election is/has been on:
Other possible places to notify people:
Any other places?--Aude (talk | contribs) 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The election is also mentioned on my user and talk pages, and I noticed it on User:HereToHelp. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Result of vote

What exactly is going to determine the outcome of this vote? Is there a certain percentage that have to be in support for the main page to be changed? Do conditional supports count as opposition or neutral if conditions are not met? BigBlueFish 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

see what qualifies as consensus? on parent page. (basically, 70-80% support, but taking weight of arguments into account) --Quiddity 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count in the header

Um, what happened to no editing during the voting process? The article count is back and the draft is locked. And why the ugly emdashes? BigBlueFish 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are admins editing. experimenting with options. but, I dont like the emdashes either. --Quiddity 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I also guess that some changes are being made on the basis of objections made so far during the voting/discussion period (I'm now confused as to whether it is a vote or a discussion). I'm also guessing that a lot of oppose votes might be swept into the support camp on the basis of these changes, but that might not be valid as an oppose vote might not be on the basis of objections other than those mentioned in the vote comment. Conditional supports can be moved to support on the basis of changes, but I'm generally unhappy with _any_ editing during the voting process, as people might then want to change their votes. I'd suggest making the changes _after_ the voting period has ended. And then assessing whether such changes tip things further towards support. BTW, this 70-80% support figure that is being bandied about, does that take neutral and conditionals into account? Carcharoth 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1. This is both a discussion and a vote (but not a majority/plurality vote).
2. While the votes' present applicability should be evaluated, no one is going to count "oppose" votes as "support" votes.
3. Percentages are calculated by factoring only the "support" and "oppose" votes. But again, any number is merely a rough guide. —David Levy 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

IS A NEW PAGE REALLY NECESSARY???

Wikipedia changes it's design far more often than any other major site. The 'old' page hasn't even been around very long (less than a year, I think). What is the point of changing something that seems to be working fine, unless you're 're-branding' for the eventual sell-out to the man...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.51.224 (talk • contribs).

Further suggestions

Could we fractionally increase the white space just above the Wikipedia's sister projects heading? The gap above it is noticeably smaller than the surrounding gaps above and below. (I can take a screenshot if what I mean isn't clear.) --Quiddity 09:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically: Could an admin please test this: The Wikipedia's sister projects section is followed by a: 
<br clear="all">
Could we either remove this, or add another 
<br clear="all">
above the section. I think this will create a more uniform headings layout in the 3 bottom sections. Thanks. --Quiddity 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board

Go for it! and I disagree as to how the wording of the election announcement should read. (See the template's revision history and my posting to his talk page, for an explanation of why.)

I've hit three reverts for the day, and I don't intend to violate the three-revert rule. If, however, anyone agrees with me, feel free to revert to my version. —David Levy 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to David Levy's version for 3 reasons. It's concise, it's less divisive, and the fact that the draft is still changing means that it is still more a discussion than a "vote" here. --Quiddity 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is it?

All this discussion, all the prominence and media, and all for a few minor aesthetic changes? And after coming to this agreement, it was deemed a large enough change from the current main page to warrant all the further prominence/media/voting? I was expecting some interesting new changes that actually improve usability, not just visibility; or if such improvements could not be agreed upon or brought to fruition, then just continue discussion or go back to the drawing board. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-10 16:38

Nicer apostrophes, please :)

Both instances of "Today's" should be "Today’s". This may seem pedantic, but when it's in boldface in a headline, the straight-up apostrophes really stand out as wrong... porges 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Searching page still needs work

I'm still very concerned about the inclusion of the "Searching" link in the header. The page is quite out of date in parts (delay), and there are unaddressed issues on its talk page (which has more than 50% posts from 2003, proving it's a low traffic metapage), and i'm fairly sure the opera instructions near the bottom are missing key info. And of course it still doesnt look anywhere NEAR the standard of the pages it's linked next to aesthetically (questions, help, etc). It needs a good going over by a bunch of people. (i dont know which cleanup-template to put at the top, otherwise i wouldve done that.).
OR we need an alternative link to replace the Searching link completely. --Quiddity 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it, and recommend structuring it like the German search page, but with the search box at the top that's been added to Wikipedia:Searching. I've begun working on a Template:HelpTOC to use here (and on other help pages), but just beginning to organize what links to include. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Special:Search.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If we refer readers to Special:Search, they might believe that this is a required entry point (instead of realizing that there's a search box on every page). —David Levy 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
True. I haven't realy liked the idea of highlighting the left search box, but using the orange already in the skin and only for the Main page seems the best way to do it. On the other hand, newbies may think there's something special about that search box over the others.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is technically possible to have the left search box highlighted on JUST the main page (which noone has confirmed), then it would be possible to also highlight it (the left search box) on the "Searching" page. I see no benefit in adding a second search box on the "Searching" page, for the same reason David pointed out for Special:Search, and as detailed against the second search box during the the main page draft.
The German page does look informative and concisely laid-out, good plan, but i am against that second search box (which was just added on feb 27). --Quiddity 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

These 2 links will be newly appearing in the header of the Main Page.

Add them to your watchlists please, and help improve them before (assuming) we launch the redesign. Thank you. --Quiddity 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Usability_Main_Page_Development_e901.html"