Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Development: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
talkarchive |
m Fixing broken anchor: Update links to archived section (The bot operation is completed 0.1% in total): what qualifies as consensus? (When checking links to talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 56:
:Notice of the election is/has been on:
:* [[WP:
:* [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]
:* [[Talk:Main Page]]
:* Mentioned on the [[WP:AN|Administrators' noticeboard]]
Line 65:
:* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l WikiEN-l]
:Any other places?--[[User:
::The election is also mentioned on my [[User talk:Kmf164|user and talk pages]], and I noticed it on [[User:HereToHelp]]. --[[User:
== Result of vote ==
Line 73:
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? [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Final archive#What qualifies as consensus?|what qualifies as consensus?]]{{Broken anchor|date=2024-04-21|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#
==Article count in the header==
Line 90:
==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...
== Further suggestions ==
Line 107:
==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. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<
== Nicer apostrophes, please :) ==
Line 117:
I'm still very concerned about the inclusion of the "[[Wikipedia:Searching|Searching]]" link in the header. The page is quite out of date in parts ([[Wikipedia:Searching#Delay_in_updating_the_search_index|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.).<br>
OR we need an alternative link to replace the Searching link completely. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'll work on it, and recommend structuring it like the [[:de:Hilfe:Suche|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. --[[User:
::[[Special:Search]].--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|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). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
| |||