From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Portals in banner, large 2 Search banner, 10 portals, alt. icons 3 Search banner, 15 portals 4 Search banner, 11 portals, no icons 5 Voting/Discussion 5.1 Portals in banner, large 5.2 Search banner, 10 portals, alt. icons 5.2.1 support 5.2.2 oppose 5.3 Search banner, 15 portals 5.3.1 support 5.3.2 oppose 5.4 Search banner, 11 portals, no icons 5.4.1 Oppose

[edit] Portals in banner, large

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

Welcome to Wikipedia The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit 2,408,024 articles and growing

Art Business Culture Geography

Health History Law Mathematics

People Philosophy Politics Religion

Science Sports Society Technology

[edit] Search banner, 10 portals, alt. icons

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

	Art		Geography		History	Image:Socrates blue.png	Philosophy		Society
	Culture		Health		People		Science		Technology

[edit] Search banner, 15 portals

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

	Art		Philosophy		Politics		Society		Science
	Culture		People		History		Geography		Mathematics
	Religion		Health		Law		Economics		Technology

[edit] Search banner, 11 portals, no icons

Introduction · Almanac · Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Site news · Index

Art | Culture | Geography | Health | History | Mathematics | People | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

[edit] Voting/Discussion

[edit] Portals in banner, large

1. Support; the single, mostly white large banner helps to reduce the feeling of clutter, and I like the larger number of portal links.--ragesoss 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - unrelated comment: it is getting difficult to track all of the surveys and other concensus building attempts on the main page changes. Trödel•talk 04:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search banner, 10 portals, alt. icons

[edit] support

1. Support. Good number of portals and better icons. Gflores ^Talk 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. These icons are more appealing, mainly because they are not tinted purple. SYCTHOS^talk 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I dislike monochromatic icons; the whole point of icons is so you can distinguish between them. These ones are nice. A nice number too; and the search bar is key. BigBlueFish 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Agree with Sycthos. vedant (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oppose

1. Oppose. While I like being able to distinguish icons more by color and shape, this particular set is too cartoony and XP-like.--ragesoss 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Inconsistent. Some blue, some Nuvola, some others—the mix and match looks unprofessional.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search banner, 15 portals

[edit] support

1. Support. Portals should be given more attention, wikipedia needs to look well-organized and like it covers a wide-range of topics (is discursive). Kevin Baas^talk 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this one's good. Icons look nice, and the more portals, the better. —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I love the 15 icons.. more is definitely better, even if they take up room; i mean it's nice to have a focus on the features on the main page, but really each of the portals have their own features - which instantly makes you see the depth of wikipedia, so they should be emphasised. as for the specific icons themselves, they could be made better, but that's secondary, as long as they're there. Mlm42 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support 15 Portals is good as it helps sort the articles better. 20 portals would be better! Hohohob 23:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Make wikipedia userfriendly dammit,not "eletist" friendly.

But I wouldn't put 15 icons up,but 10 instead.--Technosphere83 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Support It looks awesome! Brisvegas 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support 15 seems to be the perfect amount of links to cross all knowledge --Aaron Einstein 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oppose

1. oppose. Iconified portals take up too much room. Also, the economics icon is square and ugly.--ragesoss 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search banner, 11 portals, no icons

1. Support. Two things - we need a prominant search, and icons distract too much - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Per above, icons are too busy and distracting. Zafiroblue05 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, per above and that the browsebar is the way people will see the Portals elsewhere on the site. Consistency is good.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I liked icons at first, but don't like them any more. I'm not quite sure why the non-portal stuff got moved from above the banner. Those still seem to be above the other banners. Carcharoth 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   It's supposed to be top right like the others, for consistency. We're not voting on browsebar position here. Kevin Baas^talk 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Support meets my criteria - 1 no icons, 2 searchbox in title. -Ravedave 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support puts emphasis on searching which is what most users do with an encyclopedia. Icons are far too distracting. --WS 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose. Too many undifferentiated links, unclear; fades into oblivion - the eye just passes over it. Kevin Baas^talk 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Also not "showy" enough to compete with a commercial encyclopedia. Kevin Baas^talk 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Who needs "showy"? It's very modest and as the shortest alows you to see the content below. I don't think the eye just passes over it. Besides, we DON'T want to make a big deal with icons, which have had opposition at every turn.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs showy. That's who. Modesty is completely irrelevant and not the goal, and wikipedia is not a person, besides "Many a peacock hides his feathers and calls it his pride." And I think I made my point clear when I said the eye passes over it - it's clear what I believe the weakness is - so what's your point? Each person can judge for themselves, I was just begging the question. Regarding icons having opposition at every turn: I don't know what you're talking about, but they've definitely had some substantial support in this poll. I think you're taking your own opinion and projecting it on the community. Kevin Baas^talk 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. A blob of text hasn't been part of a professionnal site since the early introduction of visual browsers. If you want to leave it as text I BEG you to at least make it a REAL menu with text in a canvas,now with the dashes it looks like a site made by 10 year olds.

If you don't like icons at least make it standout with a menu setup(The icons were great btw,that's why every UI designer implements them).Remember that wikipedia is a site made for everyone,not just PC freaks and people with a higher eductation.Everyone has to be able to navigate wikipedia easly.That the very reason XP has those "friendly" icons.I really dislike this elitist atmosfere,intentional or not.--Technosphere83 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)