Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page and Talk:Tatkreis: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
m tagged WP:GER low
 
Line 1:
{{WikiProject Germany | class = | importance = Low
{{High-traffic|type=discussion page|date=[[March 9]], [[2006]] (UTC)|site=Digg.com|url=http://digg.com/links/Vote_for_the_revised_Wikipedia_design}}
| needs-infobox =
{{High-traffic|type=discussion page|date=[[March 9]], [[2006]] (UTC)|site=reddit.com|url=http://reddit.com/}}
| B-Class-1 =
{{Main page draft interlinks}}
| B-Class-2 =
 
| B-Class-3 =
==Proposed main page redesign==
| B-Class-4 =
In October 2005, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability|WikiProject Usability]] embarked on a redesign of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[Main Page|main page]].
| B-Class-5 =
 
}}
After numerous rounds of voting and feedback, we have arrived at a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|final design]] that we hereby place before the Wikipedia community for an official vote.
 
<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#About the redesign|Read a summary of the redesign.]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>
 
==Official voting procedure==
The proposed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|new main page design]] is up for a vote to replace the [[Main Page|current main page]].
 
* '''Only registered users may vote.''' All constructive comments are welcome, but votes cast via visible IP addresses will not be counted.
* The issue to be decided is whether or not to replace the [[Main Page|current main page]] with a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|new design]] created by members of the community. Vote '''Support''' to choose the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|new design]], or vote '''Oppose''' if you want to keep the [[Main Page|current main page]]. If you have no preference, you may vote '''Neutral'''.
* Comments and questions may be added to the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#Discussion|discussion section]]. Such participation is welcome and encouraged, regardless of whether/how you choose to vote.
* Only one vote per person. Additional votes from the same person will be discarded.
* The official voting period begins 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) and continues until '''18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC)'''. Votes not cast during this time frame will not be counted.
* The current time is {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC).
 
 
__TOC__
 
==Voting==
 
===Support the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|proposed new design]]===
#'''Support''' though I would prefer article count on the top. Nice work otherwise. --[[User:Tone|Tone]] 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:see below: "[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#Issues_considered_in_the_redesign_process|Article count in header]]" --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]
#'''Support.''' I too, miss the article count, please put it back in at the top. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. After all that work, you don't think I'd oppose, would you? A noticeable improvement over what we have: even [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Unencyclopedia] think so.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. a great improvement. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like having [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|Picture of the day]] on the main page, all week. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', a considerable amount of work was done here, and this makes everyone happy. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' 110%. The redesign is much better. --- [[User:Dralwik|'''''D''ralwik''']] of the [[Midwestern United States|Midwest]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Dralwik|Have a Chat]]</sup> '''[[Image:Municipal Flag of Chicago.svg|30px]]''' [[User:Dralwik/Chicago|My "Great Project"]]
#'''Support''' --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', it looks great! <s>Like everyone else though, it would be nice if we had the article count up the top again.</s> (Saw comments about article count lower down the page, and agree) Will the current main page style be moved to [[Wikipedia:Main Page alternates]]? [[User:bookofjude|Jude]]<small>([[User_talk:Bookofjude|talk]],[[Special:Contributions/Bookofjude|contribs]])</small> 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I dig that. --[[User:Broquaint|Broquaint]] 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support'''; it looks much better, great work. :) // [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (<sub>''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pathoschild admin]''</sub> / <sup>''[[en:User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''</sup>) 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', nice. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. In the year since I became a Wikipedian, I've never been more proud of any achievement. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks really good, great sorting and doesn't look crowded. A good change! (PS - Wow, when I clicked to check where the article count was, I caught it at 998,000. 2000 more articles!) - [[User:Enzo Aquarius|Enzo Aquarius]] 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I am soooo tempted to vote neutral because the search box is not here... But let's not throw away 4 months of hard work because of some stupid box ;) [[User:Renata3|Renata]] 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it --[[User:BirgitteSB|<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β</font>]] ʈ [[User talk:BirgitteSB|<small><font color="#778899">Talk</font></small>]] 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's guud. [[User:Silvdraggoj]]
#'''Support''', good. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &ndash; [[User:ABCD|AB]]''[[Special:Contributions/ABCD|C]]'''[[User talk:ABCD|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<sup style="color:green">e</sup>]]'''''[[Special:Emailuser/ABCD|✉]] 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' of course, without reservation. Thanks to DL for keeping us on track through the many diversions. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Could be better, but what we have is worse. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Slightly. I don't know but there's just something about it that seems, un-stylish, but as long as that big ugly "Main Page" is not there I'm for it. Page Count needs to be returned and the top of the page, I see it there near the bottom, but I'd like to see page count every time I log-on to the main page, and not have to go searching for it. -[[User:Kodemage|Kode]] 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I prefered having the additional search box, but at any rate, the new design is superior in just about every way to the old one. We can deal with further improvements later. For now, this is a major improvement. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks better. [[User:Greatigers|Greatigers]] 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Well done! [[User:Canderson7|Canderson7]] <sup>([[User_talk:Canderson7|talk]])</sup> 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Seqsea|Chris]] 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''100% Support'''&mdash;this is a huge improvement. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Great work. [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]]</sup> 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I agree with and support the rationale below. But why the new background colors? --&nbsp;[[User:Krash|Krash]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Krash|Talk]])</small> 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The pink clashes with the new design, and the blue is less purple to accommodate the new purple box. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#::I can dig it. Pink is for sissies anyway. --&nbsp;[[User:Krash|Krash]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Krash|Talk]])</small> 03:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. In general, well done. Portal categorization scheme needs some work. [[User:Vir|Vir]] 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Indeed, and that's an issue that we intend to address. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' this greatly improved design. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Very nice new design. So much more information is contained on the new main page, and the page itself is only slightly longer than the old one. -[[User:Travis Emergency|Travis]] 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I really like the PotD and "Did You Know" sections both included. Nice work! [[User:Peter Gawtry|Peter Gawtry]] 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like it!!!! [[User:Lamuk69|lamuk]] 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Dig it. PoTD is welcome [[User:Argan0n|Argan0n]] 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks much better! [[User:Gflores|Gflores]] <sup>[[User Talk:Gflores|Talk]]</sup> 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' and get this up and implemented in time for the 1,000,000th article! --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:That isn't going to happen, but if all goes well, we can aim for an April Fool's Day launch. :-) &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' This redesign is an improvement, especially in that PotD and "Did you Know" are now both present all the time. I am proud to support it. --[[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]] 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' --[[User:Anthonymorris|AMorris]] [[User_talk:Anthonymorris|<small>(talk)</small>]]<small>&#x25CF;</small>[[Special:Contributions/Anthonymorris|<small>(contribs)</small>]] 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Change the portals though. Mathematics is a branch of Science for instance. Keeping it simple would be good (maybe looking into university faculty systems would help? e.g. Humanities and Social Sciences, Science, Law, and Commerce; following that with Sport/Leisure and anything else not covered). But, other than that, it looks far better. --[[User:Midnighttonight|Midnighttonight]] 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:We do, in fact, intend to pursue that type of reform. We didn't want to force people to vote on the page layout and the portal link assortment as a package deal, so we left the latter unaltered for the time being. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:The Tom|The Tom]] 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:HP465|HP465]] 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like boxes. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''.The addition featured photo is good.However,the article count on the top (as in the current main page) should be there.--[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayanc]] 08:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''.A refreshing change.[[User:XDarklytez|XDarklytez]] 10:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. A much-needed facelift. --<strong>[[User:V0rt3x|vortex]]</strong> <sup>[[User talk:V0rt3x|talk]]</sup> 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Well done. [[User:Agnte|Agnte]] 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I love everything about except the font used for "Welcome to Wikipedia". Great work though! --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's a good design, and a lot of work and time were spent on it. [[User:Pixelanteninja|Pixelanteninja]] 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks nice. Please keep an eye on the static links to pages that are one click away from the main page, especially the ones at the top. These need to be kept up to standard as well. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', although I think not having a prominent link to the number of articles is certainly a shame. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 11:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The boxes are seperated much more clearly and the style is very aesthetic. POTD is a very good idea. --[[User:NorkNork|NorkNork]] 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' lookin' pretty good. [[User:Feydey|feydey]] 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good. [[User:Gmcfoley|Gerard Foley]] 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', nice design. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>[[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Definitely an improvement. I would have preferred the article count near the top, but it doesnt outweigh the rest of the positive changes. [[User:Rem120|Remy B]] 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. -[[User:Missmarple|Missmarple]] 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', but please give a more prominent place to the article count. [[User:Gerritholl|Gerrit]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Gerritholl|C]][[User:Gerritholl|U]][[User_talk:Gerritholl|T]][[Special:Emailuser/Gerritholl|E]][[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Gerritholl|D]][http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl/ H]</sup> 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - looks very clean and accessible. Good work. [[User:GlobeTrotter|GlobeTrotter]] 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - To be honest I didn't like it when I first glanced at it, but after staring at it compared to the other one for a while I am convinced it is a huge improvement. [[User:Alex3917|Alex Krupp]] 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
# Looks very nice, an improvement over the current one, not too sure on colors, but it'll grow on me I'm sure. --[[User:Falcorian|Falcorian]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Falcorian|(talk)]]</small></sup> 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:Ksheka|Ksheka]]
#'''Support''' - I really like how it looks, and should be a bit easier to navigate [[User:SonicAD|SonicAD]] 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- The changes feel "odd" but I guess just because it's unfamiliar. Ah, well. I'll get used to it.--[[User:AK7|AK7]] 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - A good amount of effort was put into tweaking the proposed design and it came out just about how I wanted it. [[User_talk:Ziggur|Ziggur]] 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The new design is more interesting to the eyes. It seems easier to get around, too. [[User:Un sogno modesto|Un sogno modesto]] 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks good to me. [[User:SomeGod|SomeGod]] 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &mdash; yupp <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|Aza]]</font><font style="color:#325596">[[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]]</font></sub> 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:Redquark|Redquark]] 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- <font face="fixedsys">[[User:Johan Elisson|Elisson]]</font> [[Special:Contributions/Johan Elisson|•]] <font face="fixedsys">[[User talk:Johan Elisson|Talk]]</font> 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks nice, except for the "featured picture" of the wolf spider. Eww. And it needs the article count. [[User:Urbane legend|UrbaneLegend]] 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Warm and welcoming, agree with POTD comment by Kmf164 [[User:Djm1279|Djm1279]] 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Nice color scheme, the "anyone can edit" is well placed and very visible, as it should be. Good articles over many articles. --[[User:Spacebar|Spacebar]] 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The only thing I prefer from the current main page is the varying sizes of the links to Wikipedias in other languages; it gives a direct representation of its real size (in articles). Very nice otherwise. --[[User:Shadypalm88|Shadypalm88]] 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I'm a-lookin' and I'm a-likin'. [[User:AngryParsley|AngryParsley]] <sup>[[User talk:AngryParsley|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/AngryParsley|(contribs)]]</sup> 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks good to me - [[User:No Guru|No Guru]] 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I'm a fan --[[User:NickCatal|Nick Catalano]] ([[User_talk:NickCatal |Talk]]) 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like the featured picture layout. "Change for the sake of change" can be a good thing sometimes. [[User:Pepsidrinka|Pepsidrinka]] 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like the additions, looks good. [[User:Jjinfoothills|Jjinfoothills]] 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --[[User:CannotResolveSymbol|CannotResolveSymbol]] <sup>[[User talk:CannotResolveSymbol|talk]]</sup> 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Nice design. - [[User:Jpo|Jpo]] 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Change is good, we spent a lot of time on it and it is pretty. - [[User:-Ozone-|Ozone]] 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- [[User:Saberwyn|Saberwyn]] 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The green part reminds me of [http://metamath.org/ Metamath]... --[[User:AnOddName|an]] '''[[User_talk:AnOddName|odd]]''' [[Special:Contributions/AnOddName|name]] 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like it, but still it needs something ''more''. Possibly a few more touches like pictures relating to wiki articles? Anyway, it's a great attempt. [[User:Random articles|Random articles]] 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' but same as above. A welcome change though. [[User:TheObtuseAngleOfDoom|toad]] ([[User_talk:TheObtuseAngleOfDoom|t]]) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Its better, could still be improved more though. [[User:Jonathan Karlsson|Jonathan Karlsson]] 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Its great, I prefer the colours on the new design, much easier on the eye. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Alex.mitchell13|Alex.mitchell13]] ([[User talk:Alex.mitchell13|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Alex.mitchell13|contribs]]) 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' – I like it. I like the current Main Page as well, but I like this one more – [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] 22:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Although I think the search box really should have been included, the new design is better, although I say so purely from an aesthetics point of view.--[[User:J250x|j250x]] 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The new design looks nice and clean. I like it! &mdash;[[User:Chairlunchdinner|chair lunch dinner&trade;]] ([[User_talk:Chairlunchdinner|talk]]) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Excellent work from all involved. [[User:Radagast|Radagast]] 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ... a cleaner look [[User:DavidLevinson|dml]] 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, the current front page is showing its age. --[[User:Measure|Measure]] 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Dv82matt|Dv82matt]] 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The new design is cleaner and easy to read. -- [[user:Lewiscrouch|<font color="#339900">Lewis</font>]] 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - it separates the sections much more cleanly. [[User:SECProto|SECProto]] 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A thousand reasons to Support. I think Support --[[User:Michael Simpson]]
#'''Support''' --[[User:Midnightcomm|Midnightcomm]] 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Youngamerican| ''<font color="blue">young</font>''<font color="#CFB53B">american</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Youngamerican|talk]])</small> 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks good. --[[User:RayaruB|RayaruB]] 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- The "Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance" was definately acheived. [[User:Schyler|schyler]] 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Like it. [[User:Finnegar|Finnegar]] 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Absolutely. My only objection is the lack of an article count, but this is hardly a reason to object to an otherwise excellent design. [[User:Rangeley|Rangeley]] 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - great job to whomever made it [[User:Say1988|say1988]] 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:SmthManly|<font color="black">SmthManly</font>]] / <sup><font color="blue">[[User_talk:SmthManly|ManlyTalk]]</font></sup> / <sup><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/SmthManly|ManlyContribs]]</font></sup> 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The new page greatly improves the visibility of the portals and other links at the top. --[[User:Constantine Evans|Constantine Evans]] 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Although the new design does not look better than the old, there are very useful additions to the front page. --[[User:Jannex|Jannex]] 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like it. [[User:Zaui|Zaui]] 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Great work! - [[User:L1AM|L<small>1AM</small>]] <small>([[User_talk:L1AM|talk]])</small> 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Clean design, and it's nice to see the featured picture as well as DYK ''':'''-) --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus<b>.</b>man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|&#9997;]]</font> 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Good work, nice clean design, with all the useful links in clear places. [[User:Kcordina|Kcordina]] 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''[[User:Bkwillwm|Bkwillwm]] 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. A substantial improvement! [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] [[User:TodorBozhinov|→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov]] [[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]] 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - this looks better than the old one -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks fantastic - hopefully this gets through. [[User:Mdmanser|mdmanser]] 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Main Page needs a new face. [[User:Hohohob|Hohohob]] 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Very nice - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion]]<font color="#cc0033">&#9733;</font>[[User_talk:Cohesion|talk]] 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks very clean clear and crisp. An article count is the only missing element, and I know all about that issue now. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] | [[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]] 12:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - A lot of work went into this design, and it shows. [[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #99B3FF">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub> <small>&bull;</small>&nbsp;<small>13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)</small>
#'''Support''' - Allthough I think the article count should be at the top -- <font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snailwalker '''talk'''] 13:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The new design is ''way'' better than the old one. However, I do agree with (pretty much) everyone else that the article count should be at the top. —[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The featured picture box does seem a bit out of place, but the rest of it is lovely, much better than the current design. [[User:Shen|Shen]] 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Unlike the vast majority of proposed mainpage changes, this doesn't add anything bad (like another search bar) and actually looks nice. I would like to suggest that different colours be used for section headers in the new design though. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' had hoped for something more interesting and less cluttery from the new design, but it's still preferable to the status quo, I think. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I was skeptical about changing the page, but looking at the proposed Main Page and the current Main Page, I'm actually pretty impressed. I like how the "Main Page" text is replaced with a box that eliminates redundancy and provides the same links in less space. --[[User:Optichan|Optichan]] 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Very nice. :) --[[User:Bugs5382|^BuGs^]] 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Much clearer than current version. --[[User:Tangotango|Tangotango]] 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Clearer sections and makes better use of my big screen. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Like the addition of 'did you know' and 'picture of the day'. Don't love that the page is getting longer with the new content and moving towards a more Yahoo-like include everything feel. [[User:Antonrojo|Antonrojo]] 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', slightly better than the current one. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Kjetil r|kjetil_r]] 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:wrestlenovi|wrestlenovi]] 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I like it, i never use the other links on the original one.
#'''Support''' I think this is only a slight improvement over the current design. I would suggest a continued simplification of the main page in the future. -- [[User:No Underbites|No Underbites]] 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Supoort''' Love it!--[[User:Esprit15d|Esprit15d]] 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - great work, folks. — [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Ceejayoz|talk]]</font> <font color="darkred">[http://ceejayoz.com/ .com]</font></sup> [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|24px]] 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Excellent work guys! :) <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Bona Fide|Bona Fide]] ([[User talk:Bona Fide|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Bona Fide|contribs]]) 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' --[[User:Rhmoore|rhmoore]] 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--[[User:CharlesM|CharlesM]] 22:03 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--[[User:Adjam|Adjam]] 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Excellent layout for newcomers [[User:GrapeSteinbeck|Siraf]] 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' I hope this gets approved. - [[User:JPM|JPM]] | 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the graphology of the new layout, the headings are very usefully bolder. The article count would be useful somewhere. The large Wikipedia font at the top is welcomed too.[[User:Tim_teddybear]] 23:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
#:The article count has been relocated to the "Wikipedia languages" section. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support'''. It's a bit better, and I like the POTD on the page, but maybe you could improve on the boxy look? [[User:Bratsche|<font color="#669933">Bratsch</font>]][[User:Bratsche/Esperanza|<font color="#003300">e</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bratsche|<font color="#669933">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:It's possible to make them ovals, but they only display in Firefox.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Greater clarity. Top banner much better organised. [[User:Simmyymmis|Simmyymmis]] 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very good redisign, i just hope the article count gets moved to somewhere more visible.--[[User:Costas Skarlatos|Costas Skarlatos]] 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very nice. [[User:Killdevil|Killdevil]] 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I support, but not that much, the old one is good enough [[User:Astroview120mm|Astroview120mm]] 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. [[User:Taylor N|Taylor]] 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
# '''Week Support''' add article count at top --[[User:Banana04131|Banana04131]] 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Although I think the {{tl|MainPageIntro}} template had some helpful information; it should be at the top.--<strong><code>[[User:Schwarzm|<font color="maroon">Max</font>]]</code></strong> <small class="plainlinksneverexpand">[[User Talk:Schwarzm|Talk ]][{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Schwarzm|action=edit&section=new}} (add)] • [[Special:Contributions/Schwarzm|Contribs]] • </small> 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' lets give wikipedia [[style]] [[User:Spencerk|Spencerk]] 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''--[[User:Fito|Fito]] 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not perfect, but certainly better than the current main page. [[User:Boccobrock|Boccobrock]] 6:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', but keep the article count on the bottom. It is not an especially useful metric by which to judge ourselves. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, and I like the article count on the bottom. Shows that we place quality over quantity. I also like the simple and compact "banner". --[[User:LiquidGhoul|liquidGhoul]] 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the picture [[User:Howaboutadog|Howaboutadog]] 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''', although a search box and article count would be welcomed. &mdash;[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]&there4;<b><font color="#007700">[[User talk:Vanderdecken|&int;]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|&xi;]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|&phi;]]</font></b> 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' a slight improvement and the removal of the article count is probably a good thing as wikipedia itself can suffer from editcountitis and at this stage, wikipedia no longer needs to sell itself on coverage. [[User:MLA|MLA]] 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Better than the existing version and its a good idea to refresh the main page every now and then. We can add back in the article count at a later date; when someone comes up with an elegant proposal. --[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A step in the right direction, but it looks quite like the old one, yet I believe this one is certainly better. -[[User:Ridge Racer|Ridge Racer]] 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like having ITN and On This Day on one side with the FA and DYK on the other, it just meshes better IMO. Plus, have PotD right there is very nice. [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]] 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think having the In The News section in the same box as OTD is a nice touch, and nice colours. <font style="color:#55BBBB"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><sup>([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]])</sup></font> 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks good. [[User:DCEdwards1966|DCEdwards1966]] 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support, support, support!''' Wonderful design, extremely well put together and much more usable. -[[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Change is good — [[User:Cuahl|Cua<small>HL</small>]] 18:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', overall better. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Dusso Janladde|Dusso Janladde]] 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —[[User:Serein|Serein]] 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''— I like it! [[User:Filmcom|Filmcom]] 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- I think all the reasons have been covered. [[User:Ljlego|Ljlego]] 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- [[User:Godlord2|Godlord2]] 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nice design, smoother and includes more useful links (important for newcomers). — <font face=";wingdings">Y</font> [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]] || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] <font face="wingdings">Y</font> 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support"" - Good work. '''<font color="82022C">[[User:Zellin|zellin]]</font> <font color="FEC900">[[User talk:Zellin|<font color="FEC900">t</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Zellin|<font color="FEC900">c</font>]]</font>''' 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- I really like the new design, its a lot more eyecatching, I've always considered the old(current) one to be a bit bland--[[User:BoyoJonesJr|BoyoJonesJr]] 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I really like the new design, esp. the inclusion of reference desk links etc. Also what BoyoJonesJr said. Great work. -- [[User:Sarsaparilla39|Sarsaparilla39]] 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Musicofmymind|Musicofmymind]] 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', simply because it looks better, especially the top part. [[User:EdGl|EdGl]] 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', although I liked the book-image background in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. But it's an improvement over the old page. --[[User:Darkdan|Darkdan]] 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''- i like the new one more. --[[User:Jeffness|Jeff]] 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." bar is ugly, the rest is pretty. Also, the portals are easier for newbies to work through.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[WP:EA|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font></sup> 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', because it looks a lot more inviting.--[[User:R.suleman|R.suleman]] 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks much better. Very well done! <font color="#08457E">[[User:Chairman S.|Chairman S.]]</font> <sup><font color="#CD5700*">[[User talk:Chairman S.|Talk]]</font></sup> 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks very nice. There's not much else I have to say. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Squid Vicious|Squid Vicious]] ([[User talk:Squid Vicious|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Squid Vicious|contribs]]) 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' Nice.--[[User:PhaseDMA|Anthony]] 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Junes|Junes]] 11:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Daniel A. A.|\alive]] 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &mdash; [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Also fully support any efforts to keep the article count at the top, not at the bottom; and to increase the prominence of the search box on the left. [[User:CheekyMonkey|CheekyMonkey]] 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. --[[User:Zoz|Zoz]] 18:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Hell's yea! --<span style="border:1px solid #ccc;background:#eee; padding:1px">[[User:IAMTHEEGGMAN|<span style="color:#333;font-weight:bold">IAMTHE</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color: #480">'''E'''</span>]][[User:IAMTHEEGGMAN|GGMAN]]</span> <span style="font-size:80%;color:#999">([[User_talk:IAMTHEEGGMAN|<span style="color:#999;">talk</span>]])</span> 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, but I think something should be done with the "Welcome to WikiPedia" line. It just looks too unprofessional, the way it's worded. I don't know why, it just does to me. [[User:Robot Chicken|Robot Chicken]] 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Excellent design.--[[User:Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme|Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme]] 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I am [[User:Messedrocker|Messedrocker]] and I approve. —[[User:Messedrocker|'''M'''<small>'''ESSED'''</small>'''R'''<small>'''OCKER'''</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Messedrocker|talk]])</small> 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''200th Support!''' I'd support anything that has the Picture of the Day always there, but this looks really good as well. [[User:Raven4x4x|Raven4x4x]] 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &mdash; [[User:Dash|Dash]] 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', although I liked the version up slightly earlier today that had the colored background just in the header bars. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Looks very welcoming in my own opinion. Better use of a front page. [[User:Bmahoney|Pvt Mahoney]] 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not super-duper amazing, but an improvement. [[User:Richardmtl|Richardmtl]] 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support!''' It's freakin' awesome. [[User:Uris|Uris]][[I Love New York|<font color="#DD0000" size="3">&#9829;</font>]] 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' It's an improvement over the current main page, although still way too crowded for my taste. [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Improved over the old version. Would still prefer a less cluttered verson, even if it meant less front page features. [[User:Todfox|Kit O'Connell]] ([[User:Todfox|Todfox: user]] / [[User talk:Todfox|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Todfox|contribs]]) 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as I helped design it. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] ([[User talk:Ashibaka|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ashibaka|contribs]]) 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support'''Great job! [[User:Judgesurreal777|Judgesurreal777]] 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I am a fan of encapsulation, so I aesthetically approve of rectangles containing text. [[User:J. Finkelstein|J. Finkelstein]] 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Nitnaga|Nitnaga]] 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --- [[User:Deano252|Deano252]] 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC): I'm all for the new design. I like have useful information right on the top page instead of huntiong around for it.
#'''Support'''Good job. Looks nice, just add article count. [[User Talk:WikiScholarChad|WikiScholarChad]] 8:32, March 5, 2006
#'''Support'''. Cool, I guess. +[[User:Johnson542|Johnson542]] 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Very aesthetically appealing. -- [[User:The tooth|<font color="#ff1493">'''Наташа'''</font>]] ( <sup>[[User:The tooth|User]]</sup> ♡ <sup>[[User talk:The tooth|Talk]]</sup> ) 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' More coherant and better looking --[[User:Ma8thew|Ma8thew]] 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks much clearer and has a lot of visual appeal. [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it.[[User:Jedi6|Jedi6]] 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. [[User:Sergio.solar|Sergio.solar]] 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A new look is always good. [[User:JPGomes|JPGomes]] 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks a lot cleaner than the current one and Wikipedia needs to move on in terms of its appearance so this is good, I really like it. — [[User:Wackymacs|Wackymacs]] 13:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User: Kernitou|kernitou]] <small>[[User talk|talk]]</small> 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Tarret|Tarret]] 13:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Catchacode|Catchacode]][[User:CATCHACODE|CATCHACODE]] 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)=
#'''Support'''--[[User:Technosphere83|Technosphere83]] 15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I love it. [[User:TheCoffee|Coffee]] 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The change is much easier on the eyes. [[User:bwolper|bwolper]] 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks clearer and more appealing --[[User:Jorvik|Jorvik]] 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very clean, the new colours and layout is much better [[User:Derf noxid|Derf noxid]] 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good step. [[User:Fantusta|Fantusta]] 20:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks Better [[User:Nooby_god|Nooby_god]] | [[User talk:Nooby_god|Talk]] 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Definitely an improvement. --[[User:Joelmills|Joelmills]] 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Better than the current, but needs the statistics. [[User:Narsamson|Nathaniel]] 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very nice (not that it didn't look good already). I like the improved organization of the news and featured article sections. [[User:Foobicus|Foobicus]] 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - could go further. --[[User:Artw|Artw]] 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' but agree with Artw above. Look forward to seeing it happen. [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' but it would be nice to have a little bit more "stuff" and whitespace at the top, such as the oft-mentioned article count. This will work for now, though. [[User:ZacharyS|ZacharyS]] 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think we're ready for a change, and I like the new design. --[[User:Phantom784|Phantom784]] 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not perfect, but an improvement! [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Definite improvement. [[User:EdC|EdC]] 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. It's great! With the picture of the day, beautiful! [[User:Uncke Herb|Uncke Herb]] 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the top bar. --Tom 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Works for me. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Joaocastro|JoaoCastro]] 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' [[User:Pikachu9000|Pikachu9000]] 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:Sheldrake|Sheldrake]] 04:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:NEMT|NEMT]] 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' They both are the same to me. But I like the change. Can you make the number of article to the top? It's easy for at least me to see. [[User:Manop|Manop - TH]] 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#:If you have any suggestions on how to do that, while still making the banner not break when viewing it in 800x600 resolution, we're all ears. Accessability is one of the goals, after all. Right now, at 800x600, there's just no room for anything else. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 06:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A lot nicer, but it's a bit cramped, could use a little more [[lebensraum]] between the top box and the feat. art. and in the news boxes. [[User:EivindFOyangen|Eivind]] 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Green is good. A step forward. [[User:Mercer66|Mercer66]] 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Much nicer visual appeal and better organized. The new design highlights different parts of the encyclopedia in a clearer manner than the current main page. -- [[User:Backburner001|backburner001]] 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'll support the new page, but the biggest prob with both pages is that the search/go to bar isn't prominent enough. It should be done a la Google and occupy the center of the page. After all, does any one actually use the various categories to browse?? [[User:Nicolasdz|Nicolasdz]] 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Not perfect, but better than the current design. [[User:RexNL|RexNL]] 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, it's nicer than what's there at the moment. [[User:Annihilatenow|Annihilatenow]] 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is more professional and sober look and arrangement makes it more navigable. [[User:Tanul|This is Tanul]] | [[User talk:Tanul|Wanna Talk]] 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I prefer it, as it looks more organized, and is easier to tell what is what [[User:Slokunshialgo|Slokunshialgo]] 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Is it perfect and in all ways wonderful? No. Is it an improvement? Yes. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The design looks great. - [[User:Ddlamb|ddlamb]] 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Meh, I like it better than the old page, but I'm not sure I love it. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])&bull; 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Elizabeth M Ross|elizmr]] 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, although I think it needs to be four boxes instead of two big boxed, with some white space in between. The proposed main page is just a little busy. [[User:Hypeer|Hypeer]] 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. It's good. However, I do think every feature is just a little too tall. A shorter summary of the main article and reducing the number of entries in the other categories would be good.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#:We're obtaining this content from the same sources used for the current main page, so I sugest that you post these comments at [[Talk:Main Page]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weakly Support''' Although it's hard to consider with that unflattering picture of [[Barbara McClintock]] on the Main Page, I like that the sections are no longer numbered when the "number sections" feature is turned on. It would be nice if the "Did you Know" and "On this Day" sections were at the same level horizontally. I prefer the boxes from an organizational standpoint. (on voting procedure, I think that the votes should be separated by hundreds to avoid accidental vote deletion). --[[User:RealGrouchy|RealGrouchy]] 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Moving us in the right direction. [[User:Jacooks|JACooks]] 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I was looking around at the main pages of other languages and it hit me how much better ours could look with simple tweaks. Then I remembered this project. I think the incredible amount of work and consensus that went into drafting this shows that their is not only general consensus for change, but also genuine improvements to the new page. The improvement of having both "Did you know" and "featured picture" each day is worth the change. Plus I just like the design; it feels much more personal and less bland. All in all, I don't see any reason not to replace it with this one.--[[User:naryathegreat|naryathegreat]] | [[User talk:Naryathegreat|(talk)]] 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it [[User:Eenu|Eenu]] 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the Main Page needs a change and this sure is a nice one! :) [[User:Renatta81|Renatta]] 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' would like to see "anyone can edit" changed to "good editors always welcome," but that doesn't change my support [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]&#149;<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Anshumanbhatia|Anshu]] 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support!''' - Looks great! --[[User:Risingpower|risingpower]] 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Excellent! --[[User:The Wookieepedian|The Wookieepedian]] 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not perfect, but an improvement. It directs focus better: in the old design, it felt like there was too much introductory text to wade through. [[User:Wandering oojah|Wandering oojah]] 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I really like it. I'm sure that it could be even better, but it's really nice. [[User:Dybeck|Dybeck]] 12:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' looks good -- [[User:Astrokey44|Astrokey44]]<small>|[[User talk:Astrokey44|talk]]</small> 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &mdash; Very slick and polished. Nice! &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' and let's get on with our lives. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' really nice, and I like changes. [[User:Zodiax|Lars]] 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I thought I had seen some prettier versions earlier on the redesign process, but this is still a good improvement. Now the Wikipedia logo is starting to look dated. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Let's go for it!! [[User:Thegoob|Thegoob]] 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the POTD on the main page. The rest seems just like new window dressing. --[[User:Reverend Loki|Reverend Loki]] 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Leo44|Leo44]] ([[User_talk:Leo44|talk]]) 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Nautile|Nautile]] 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Alphachimp|Alphachimp]] 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The boxes look good, as does the font type [[User:Jofunu6|Jofunu6]]
#'''Support''' I love it. [[User:Jezpuh|Jezpuh]] 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not perfect, but better than status quo [[User:CGMullin|CGMullin]] 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Better use of screen real estate, especially at the top... [[User:NathanBeach|Nathan Beach]] 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Süpport''' Yap --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>[[User:Obli|bli]] ([[User_talk:Obli|Talk]])<small><sup>[[WP:TALK|?]]</sup></small> 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'm always willing to give my approval on changes and improvements, and this new proposed main page is surely better than the (already good) previous/current version. --[[User:Jotomicron|jοτομικρόν]] | '''[[User_talk:Jotomicron|talk]]''' 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — [[User:J3ff|J3ff]] 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' very pleasing design... [[User:PotatoeMasher|PotatoeMasher]] 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - If it comes down to with or without the article count, I prefer the version without, but support either version. Nice work! My thanks go out to those that did this work, whether it is adopted or not. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like it, it's rather nice '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #09F">Sceptr</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color: green">e</span>]]''' <sup>(<em>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #606">Talk</span>]]</em>)</sup> 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - simply the redesign is much better. --[[User:Zayani|Zayani]] 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like the design. its much better than old. --[[User:Jacob the Quaker|Jacob]][[User Talk:Jacob the Quaker|The Quaker]]
#'''Surport''' - hasnt changed as much as I would have hoped, but its still (slightly) better than before. [[User:Tooto|tooto]] 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Slightly better than the old one, I guess. Certainly not any worse. &mdash;[[User:Naddy|Naddy]] 00:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. looks good. [[User:Llamadog903|Llamadog903]] 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Almost perfect [[User:Ciacchi|Ciacchi]] 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the new titles!, not too big of a change [[User:AlternativePlus|AlternativePlus]] 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Better. [[User:Kellen`|Kellen]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:Kellen`|T]]</sup> 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks more refined. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I agree with the majority of the comments posted before me. It looks more streamlined, some slight changes which made an incredible difference. [[User:A Born Cynic|A Born Cynic]] 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better, and the coloured bars show better on some screens than the old coloured boxes [[User:Politas|Myk]] 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' yeah! [[User:Terry Longbaugh|Terry]] 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not a huge difference, but it does look better. [[User:Geoffrey Gibson|Geoffrey Gibson]] 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Mmmmmm.... content good. [[User:Calibas|Calibas]] 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks quite nice to me. --[[User:B44H|Sheeo]] 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A lot better! [[User:99jonathan|99jonathan]] 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I came here preparing to hate it, 'cause I love the old main page, and think change is bad, however, one look and I changed my mind. Great job! [[User:VonWoland|VonWoland]] 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Much preferred --[[User:Stretch 135|Stretch]] 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good to me --[[User:Old Coaster|Old Coaster]] 09:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' Really looks better! A new layout and colour scheme... just better! Hope the new page will be up soon! --[[User:Bruin_rrss23|Bruin_rrss23]] 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''Tons of info and a good look. Nice rework--[[User:Looper5920|Looper5920]] 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''I like it--[[User:Bara_bg|Bara_bg]] 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Seems to increase readability and navigability for new or infrequent visitors. -[[User:SCEhardt|<font color="blue">SCEhard</font>]][[User talk:SCEhardt|<font color="#3D9140"><b>T</b></font>]] 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's not much of a change but it's enough that the page looks a little better than the "classic" look. [[User:BWF89|BWF89]] -- 16:49 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very nice. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Zsinj|Talk]]</sup></font> 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Perhaps a little cluttered at the bottom, but overall a good design. [[User:Scotsboyuk|scotsboyuk]] 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, it is better. dugg.[[User:X1987x|x1987x]] 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Killerofkiller|Killerofkiller]] 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's great. [[User:Snroy|Snroy]] 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nice improvements. [[User:JustDerek|JustDerek]] 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Cleaner, slightly better design. [[User:Gaius Octavius Atellus|Gaius Octavius Atellus]] 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The header is the best improvement, in my opinion. The rest of the design looks good, its not amazing, but its certainly not worse than the current design. [[User:buss]|buss]] 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Big Improvment! --[[User:Colin.faulkingham|Colin Faulkingham]] 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Cleaner, clearer, funkier. I like it. [[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Sure, why not? Looks good to me. [[User:Zifnabxar|Zifnabxar]] 21:35, 8 March 2006
#'''Support''' It looks great. Very organized, nice colors. Fantastic! [[User:ProfMoriarty|ProfMoriarty]] 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looking good. --[[User:Sozekai|Sozekai]] 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's not much of a change, but it does kind of tidy the site up. It is well organized, too. [[User:zimmera|zimmera]] 4:10 pm, 8 March 2006
#'''Support''' It really helps set the main page apart from the "standard" wikipedia article (no "Main Page" header at the top, much more of a custom design flare to it). I say go with it. [[User:Jesusjonez|Jesusjonez]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jesusjonez|Talk]]</sup> 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Aesthetically I marginally prefer the old page, but from a usability perspective the new design is easier to use and improves navigability of the site. [[User:Castorquinn|CastorQuinn]] 22:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#''' Weak Support''' I '''LOVE''' the thing that tells you how many articles there are, but there are too many boxes, and the picture of the day is too subtle. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Jonathan235|Jonathan235]] ([[User talk:Jonathan235|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jonathan235|contribs]]) 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' I like it [[User:gleb|Gleb]] 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, althought I would like to see the picture of the day highlighted more prominantly.--[[User:BradPatrick|BradPatrick]] 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think it is much better. --[[User:Nofxjunkee|Nofxjunkee]] 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks marginally better. --[[User:Bishoco|Bishoco]] 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks very clean and is a very nice improvement [[User:SirGrant|SirGrant]] 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' &mdash; [[User:Seven Days|<strong><font color="#666">Seven Days</font></strong>]] <strong>&raquo;</strong> [[User talk:Seven Days|<strong><font color="#666">talk</font></strong>]] 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nice and clean, it looks good. [[User:mrbill|mrbill]] 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the old design uses up the space too much. [[User:Stevefis|Stevefis]] 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Personally, I'd like to see a bit more of an overhaul than that, but it definitely is an improvement. [[User:Temoshi|Temoshi]] 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Big improvement. [[User:bobmatnyc|bobmatnyc]] 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looking good. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Spivurno|Spivurno]] ([[User talk:Spivurno|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Spivurno|contribs]]) 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' It allows for more content. My daily wiki activites stem from what is on the front page. It makes the feel more lively and gives more options. Big kuods to the design person/team responsible.[[User:Binarypower|Binarypower]] 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looking good. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Austinbond|Austinbond]] ([[User talk:Austinbond|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Austinbond|contribs]]) 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' The old version looks unappealing and bland in comparison, although I must ask why the colors used were chosen .. . is it because of the designer's preference? --[[User: Btnheazy03|btnheazy03]] 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good! Easier to navigate. [[User:Mwwallace|Mwwallace]] 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, especially the portal links in the header. [[User:Jon.baldwin|Jon.baldwin]] 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks great. Cleaner and less intimidating. Good work [[User:Jambell|Jambell]] 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Attractive on the eyes! [[User:sauron256|sauron256]] 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I really like it! [[User:kbandy|Kbandy]] 00:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. [[User:Mushroom|Mushroom]] <small>([[User talk:Mushroom|Talk]])</small> 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good; change is always nice, if it is for the purpose of better browsing. [[User:Raptordrew|Raptordrew]] 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I can see the reasons against it... but they are wrong ^_^ --[[User:Tylerni7|TylerNi7]] 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's good that the change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary -- more usable, yet people will immediately realise, ah, this is Wikipedia! --[[User:Mintchocicecream|Mintchocicecream]] 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Compared the two in some firefox tabs. Like the new one better, I must say. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] <sup>[[User Talk:JoeSmack|Talk]]</sup> 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The boxes create a nice, cleaner look; the page is a lot easier on the eyes now.--[[User:BuckeyeRowe|BuckeyeRowe]] 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's a small but worthwile improvment--[[User:Tedwardo2|Tedwardo2]] 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Is there anything left to say? --<em>[[User:Digitalme|digital_me]]</em><sub><span style="color:#007700; cursor: crosshair;">(</span>[[User_talk:Digitalme|<span style="color:#007700; cursor: crosshair;">Talk</span>]]<span style="color:#007700; cursor: crosshair;">)</span><em>(</em>[[Special:Contributions/Digitalme|<em>Contribs</em>]]<em>)</em></sub> 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Somewhat superior to the old design. I don't see why not. [[User:Jredwards|Jredwards]] 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The new look is really great. I like the colors and the clean up of the random looking links at the bottom. Definitely supporting. --[[User:kaorikittii|kaorikittii]] 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better - much more clarity as to where sections/articles start/end. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Nixnet|Nixnet]] ([[User talk:Nixnet|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Nixnet|contribs]]) 0:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' Better organization, improved readability, and the "Today's featured picture" section is very interesting. Two thumbs up. --[[User:MHowell|MHowell]] 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, nice, clean design, and i do like the colours. [[User:The Decryptor|The Decryptor]] 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it, more content above the scroll. [[User:Dummies102|Dummies102]] 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Much easier to read. --[[User:Matteh|Matteh]] ([[User_talk:Matteh|<i>talk</i>]]) 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A lot nicer looking in general. Looks more... modern. --[[User:Itamae|Itamae]] 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Don't like the colors of the box headings. Like to way the sections are organized. Can see more information on the screen now without scrolling. It does look much better than the current main page. - <font color="navy">[[User:Ganeshk|Ganeshk]] ([[User talk:Ganeshk|talk]])</font> 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While the colors used for the heading aren't that great, the overall design is far better than the current main page, so it has my vote. -- [[User:rjoseph|rjoseph]] 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks a little better but not that much of a change but it still looks better nonetheless [[User:Axsuul|Axsuul]] 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Improvement over the current page, but could perhaps use some more work. making the change wont hurt.--[[User:Jgstew|Jgstew]] 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Matt13|Matt13]] 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not much of a change, but a change for the better nonetheless.--[[User:Jp3z|jp3z]] 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the design. It has more color and doesn't lose functionality. [[User:Allemannster|Allemannster]] 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is a pretty hot redesign - [[User:KnightsHFU|KnightsHFU]] 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Alison9|Alison9]] 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks like a good design to me. [[User:durin42|durin42]] 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:GoFlyi|GoFlyi]] 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I feel the new boxes better compartmentalize information, making the page more legible at a glance.[[User:michaelrjohnson|michaelrjohnson]] 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Ghee22|Ghee22]] 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The top of the new page is easier to read. [[User:Egamma|Egamma]] 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] [[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]|[[User_talk:Naconkantari|t]]||[[Special:Contributions/Naconkantari|c]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Naconkantari|m]] 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Liked consolidation of metadata at top of page. Liked the colors but understand the boxy complaint. Also liked the new sequence of other wiki, wiki sister and wiki language at the bottom as it seems most likely what you want most is closer to the top of the page [[User:Parabolis|Parabolis]] 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's a lot of small changes, but adds up to a big improvement. Kudos to the wikipedians who did this! [[User:Singingwolfboy|Singingwolfboy]] 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good to get rid of the white space at the top --[[User:EEMeltonIV|EEMeltonIV]] 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Jcmaco|Jcmaco]] 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' New design is a more efficient use of space. Plus, it looks cooler =) [[User:Zelmerszoetrop|Zelmerszoetrop]] 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very neat and organized, less ambiguous space, more user-friendly. [[User:Theodork|Theodork]] 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Ciperl|Ciperl]] 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Like the shorcuts to categories. [[User:Android 93|Android 93]] 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' More structured than the current page. It makes better use of space and is better looking as well [[User:fuscob|fuscob]] 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' why the hell not? [[User:Nortelrye|Nortelrye]] 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Although I like the old design. The new design is good too and change isn't a bad thing. [[User:Ikariotis|Ikariotis]] 21:17, 8 March 2006 (EST)
#'''Support''' Both aren't that much great, but this new proposal is way better than the old one. --[[User:Saoshyant|Saoshyant]] 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Like the highlighting of the titles. Maybe the boxes could have rounded corners? --[[User:Ash211| Ash211]] 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:It's possible to round the corners, but it only works in some browsers (namely, Firefox) and it is pixelated (there's no known way to make perfectly smooth round corners). Yeah, that might help it feel less boxy, but it was decided early on that browser-specific formatting was not an option.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks much better. And it's been quite a long time since Wikipedia's had a facelift. [[User:D14BL0|D14BL0]] 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's sleaker! --[[User:Kloy1334|Jeff Supodsson]] 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The new design seems much clearer to me, and I am a big fan of the "new picture of the moment section". [[User:Gleffler|Gleffler]] 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Pioto|Pioto]] 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Emanuelbri|Emanuelbri]] 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:AJBcoolman8|AJBcoolman8]] 03:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Jrideout|Jacob]] 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Sleaker, Friendlier, Better. The Picture of the Day feature is very nice. --[[User:Chaoselephant23|Chaoselephant23]] 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Cybersavior|Cybersavior]] 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- [[User:Irdepesca572|Irdepesca572]] 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks somewhat better than the original, and I will support any update in Wikipedia style ;) --[[User:Nneonneo|nneonneo]] 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks nice and clean &mdash; [[User:Linnwood|Linnwood]] 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- the article count should return, but I do like the use of color. It brightens up the page a bit more than the whites and grays. The article count, at this time, looks good too. [[User:CBrown82633|CBrown82633]] 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support Strongly''' -- I absolutely love the new designs. Well done. --[[User:JohnSabel|JohnSabel]] 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Computerdan000|Computerdan000]] 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' It's an slight improvement, but I hesitate to call it a new design. More like a revision, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is nicer in appearance than the current front page, so I will support it. [[User:Tomunist|Tomunist]] 03:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Jtrost|Jtrost]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jtrost|T]]</sup> | <small>[[Special:Contributions/Jtrost|C]]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Jtrost #]</span></sub>) 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The eye/brain interface processes color much more easily than it does walls of text. --[[User:AndyFinkenstadt|AndyFinkenstadt]] 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' It does look a bit better than the old one, but i really liked the old one too. Either way. --[[User:Quasar Jarosz|Quasar]] 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A little cleaner and neater, but not too much difference other than that [[User:Opiniastrous|Opiniastrous]] 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Needs a little more vertical whitespace between the sections, but otherwise a nice improvement. [[User:Brian.fsm|Brian.fsm]] 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Header is much better than the old main page. Fifth feature is also great. [[User:Jeff8765|Jeff8765]] 04:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Stereo|Stereo]] 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' What an upgrade! --[[User:Claydanford|Claydanford]] 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better. Gives Wikipedia more of a face.--[[User:Jlanctot|Jonathan]] 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I love it! --[[User:Honshuzen|Honshuzen]] 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Finally --[[User:Snowcatben] 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Change is good. -[[User:DMurphy|DMurphy]] 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. --[[User:Patik|Patik]] 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks a lot more inviting. --[[User:Dean.l|Dean.l]] 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Like it. [[User:DaBlade|DaBlade]] 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Alazoral|Alazoral]] 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks cool and i'm sure people will find it as a value add service from Wiki. Thanks <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Sucharith|Sucharith]] ([[User talk:Sucharith|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Sucharith|contribs]]) 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' [[User:Swerty|Swerty]] [[User:Swerty|Swerty]] 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I loveeeeeeeeeeeee it............ --[[User:Machanta|Kumar]] 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:RandomChu|RandomChu]] 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks nice! I like it. And.... stuff. So there. [[User:Laurenkendall|Laurenkendall]] 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I do like it. [[User:Taral|Taral]] 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks more encyclopedic. -[[User:Joshuapaquin|Joshuapaquin]] 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Looks nice and sleek. -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] <sup>([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|t]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|c]])</sub> <small>@</small> 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', i think it will be nice <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Wrongbanana|Wrongbanana]] ([[User talk:Wrongbanana|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wrongbanana|contribs]]) 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' I think the new look is a lot cleaner [[User:Csyberblue|Csyberblue]] 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nice cleaner look compared to the current one [[User:Debroglie|Debroglie]] 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks good, although I would still be tempted by less content (Google-esque). In particular, the most important bit - finding the articles - isn't immediately obvious. The subjects may be overlooked on the far right, and the search box is only in the sidebar, somehow lessening its importance. But on the whole, looks good, though not a dramatic improvement over the original.[[User:Joel.Gilmore|Joel.Gilmore]] 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks much clearer, cleaner and more freshy to me. Nice work. Greetings from Vienna. [[User:bit2bit|bit2bit]] 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better, more warm, sleek. [[User:Qaz|Qaz]] 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Db0|DB0]] 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:Ora|ora]] 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's a breath of fresh air. I digg it! [[User:Nukem945|Nukem945]] 07:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Looks great. [[User:EvilPettingZoo|EvilPettingZoo]] 07:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better, I think there's still room for improvement but it's better. [[User:joelpt|joelpt]] 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very nice and clean. --[[User:Ben kenobi 00|General_Kenobi]] 07:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' More organized. Important stuff given proper attention, lesser important stuff demoted. --[[User:Philosophistry|Philosophistry]] 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks really clean and nice. [[User:Vegarg|Vegarg]] 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Better than the current one, and consistent with portals. [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]<sup>[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sup> 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like it. [[User:RichMorin|RichMorin]] 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Pretty Cool. [[User:NickBall|NickBall]] 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The boxes around topic headers dramatically improve readability and instant cognition of what's going on where. Also, I'm not a fan of pastel colors for my living room, but on a data-rich page, they allow identification of multiple topic areas in a way that does not distract the eye as much as darker colors do. These changes seem to be all about readability, not hipness or being 'design-y', as such. I think it's really an excellent way to handle a page where the goal is 'data-richness', not 'pretty'.--[[User:Cmlilley|Cmlilley]] 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Hwliang|Wayne]] 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' not a dramatic change from the current version, but makes better use of space. [[Image:Huskyeye.jpg]] <span style="letter-spacing:1px;">[[User:Husky|Husky]]</span> <sup><small>([[User_talk:Husky|talk page]])</small></sup> 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good. [[User:Arto B|Arto B]] 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Not a vast improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
#'''Support''' because of improved readability and navigation. Also because the featured pic is back.--[[User:Deadworm222|Wormsie]] 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It is a clean and simple design. Love the featured pic section! --[[User:Mac Loco|macloco]] 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' change is good [[User:Yablo|Yablo]] 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks good --[[User:Polaris75|Polaris75]] 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' looks very clean and accessible. Good work. --[[User:Licklavin]] 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Much better!. --[[User:Meaganhanes]] 13:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No reason that hasn't been said, I just like the look of it [[User:Lurker|Lurker]] 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Nice work usability team [[User:Earth2Marsh|Marsh]] 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:AfterSpencer|AfterSpencer]] 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It looks better than the previous page. More breaks in the page to allow easier reading of content. Go for it! <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Ahillman3|Ahillman3]] ([[User talk:Ahillman3|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ahillman3|contribs]]) 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' Had a look at international sites and prefer the Spannish Wikipedia layout but this is a move in the right direction [[User:Nogwa|Nogwa]] 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Jason Bouwmeester|Jason Bouwmeester]] 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Ed Boraas|Ed Boraas]] 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks fine... [[User:Mbgb14|Mbgb14]] 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks better… [[User:etandrib|etandirb]] 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' if somebody is willing to put the time and effort in to this..great. i would vote for it and work out the minor details later. minor details..prefer multilanguage links not take up so much real estate and the proposed color selection gravitate towards something more conventional. [[User:Apainttown|Apainttown]] 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - obviously. User-friendly and fresh. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like it! Great job! --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Fang Aili|ng Aili]] 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Sure. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Honestly, it doesn't seem a significant improvement over the current design, but it's fresh, and fresh is good. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Love it. Congrats to those involved in the designing process. You guys rock! [[User:1c3d0g|1c3d0g]] 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''Though if they were going to change it, it could've been more exciting [[User:Ghingo]] 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Better, but not perfect. [[User:Sidar|Sidar]] 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Hedghogz|Hedghogz]] 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It might be beneficial to in the footer include a simple Back to Top link to help folks get back up to the top. [[User:AmiNTT|AmiNTT]] 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Seems to me that it will be friendlier to first time visitors. --[[User:Vots|Jeff Greco]] 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''Though they should not keep the pale green on the left, not a nice colour.[[User:Elliotgoodrich|Elliotgoodrich]] 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''If they have to change it, they ought to have made a more drastic change, but this is good, modern, easy to use and it brings out some of the more forgotten pages. [[User:Dbmag9|D<small>aniel]]</small> ([[User_talk:Dbmag9|☎]]) 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I like it, it's nicely laid out and clear to read, and although not a huge change, it's a great improvement to the current one. ''-- [[User:MldIFS|MldIFS]] 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)''
#'''Support''' Certainly an inprovement over the current design, easier to read. [[User:Tghe-retford|tghe-retford]] 21:10 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I don't like the top table, but the new design is better notwithstanding --[[User:Cataphract|Cataphract]] 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' It's an improvement, althought I like the portal layout on the French page more. Looks good =) <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Seamusb|Seamusb]] ([[User talk:Seamusb|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Seamusb|contribs]]) 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support''' I'm loving it! [[User:Olaboy-|<b><font color="red">Pow</font><font color="darkred">ered</font><font color="hotpink">Death</font>]] 16:29, 9 March (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Umbrae|Umbrae]] 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''-[[User:PlasmaDragon|PlasmaDragon]] 22:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Vicovico|Vicovico]] 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Out with the old, in with the new. Nice new look. Some kinks can be worked out. But it's a nice look. [[User:Mkaycomputer|Mkaycomputer]] 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Ayavaron|Ayavaron]] 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I really like the way this is. The way it opens you up directly to Portals is brilliant. I didn't discover portals intil months of use. The only thing I don't like about this is the color-design. The color design on the current page is wonderful and the new green color doesn't maintain the same harmony as the pinkish color it replaces.
#'''Support'''[[User:Salmar|Salmar]] 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' looks much better. --[[User:Revolución|Revolución]] <small><font color="green"><u>'''[[User talk:Revolución|hablar]]'''</u></font></small> <small><font color="green">'''[[Special:Contributions/Revolución|ver]]'''</font></small> 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Incredible improvement... fresh, modernized, streamlined, and best of all, LOGICAL! [[User:Soakologist|Soakologist]] 00:45, 10, March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Matches how I mostly use the first page, to see anything interesting... [[User:Zotel|Zotel - the Stub Maker]] 01:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Looks nice and I like having both the Did You Know... and Featured Picture on the same page (instead of weekdays and weekends). [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' You've done a great job guys. I love the green instead of red & all the other changes. You should make a start on some of the other pages now. How about ''community portal''? [[User:Veej|Veej]] 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. <b><font color="AE1C28">[[User:Jacoplane|jaco]]</font><font color="#21468B">[[User_talk:Jacoplane|plane]]</font></b> 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', looks livelier and fresher. --[[User:Grnch|Grnch]] 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', looks fine.[[Image:S16x16.gif]] --[[User:Salvor|Salvör]] 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', change's good. [[User:Mu5ti|musti]] 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', I dig it. When will this go into effect? [[User:Sean|'''Sean''']] ([[User_talk:Sean|talk]] || [[Special:Contributions/Sean|contribs]]| [[WP:EA|<font color="green">esperanza</font>]])) 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', only if featured picture is raised a little bit so you don't have to scroll down to see it. Possibly switch around this day in history and featured picture would be nice. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:A Clown in the Dark|A Clown in the Dark]] ([[User talk:A Clown in the Dark|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/A Clown in the Dark|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Support'''. I'm usually kinda change averse but this design flows much better than the current design, and includes the Picture of the Day 7 days a week. Can't hate on that. -- [[User:RPIRED|RPIRED]] 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Like the featured picture ... like the blue [[User:Kauri|Kauri]] 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', It's much cooler - much more inviting to new users, and as sad as it may be for me to say this - much more "Web 2.0" [[User:Chad78|Chad78]] 4:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This version is significantly less cluttered, at least in the top bar. The "In this English version..." was definately not neccessary, and the links to the portals are much clearer. However, I'm curious--although it might clutter the top, why was the donations link removed? Also, although the top of the main page looks nicer, the page itself has been lengthened by almost a fourth. Is there any way to shorten it or prevent its vertical growth? Few will scroll all the way down everytime they come to Wikipedia. On that note, it may be good to switch the locations of the "featured picture" and the "on this day" tables, as the picture is probably the more popular link. [[User:Kashomon|Kashomon]] 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The donations link is still located on the navbar to the left. Honestly, there was so much text surrounding the old donations link on the main page, that I had never noticed it before there, although I have seen it on the bar to the left. Vertical growth shouldn't be much of a problem, in my estimation... the new length comes mostly from: A) PotD, B) "Other areas of Wikipedia", and C) Not shrinking the text size of the other language wikipedias. None of these things should ever really take up more space than they do now. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like the colors, I like the layout. Thought it was a little cluttered myself, but it does well enough. --[[User:Wolf530|Wolf530]] 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Love it! Makes it much easier to read. [[User:Sigmalmtd|Sigmalmtd]] 05:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I like it, but it's not too much a change, is it? [[User:JHMM13|JHMM13]] ([[User talk:JHMM13|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/JHMM13|C]]) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Nice new page much more functional especiallly with featured pic of the day:) [[User:Tomwood0|Tom]] 06:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Easier to read key information and navigate to portals quicky. I like it, I like it a lot. [[User:Bananafritter|Bananafritter]] 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' Nice change - less wordy - more task oriented - like add of portals [[User:Abeo Paliurus|Abeo]]<small> [[User talk:Abeo Paliurus|Paliurus]]</small> 12:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Conditional Support===
# <s>I would support if a page count was added to the top of the new design.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)</s>'''Full Support''' now that a page count has been added.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God]] <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font> [[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#I like it, but it should include the "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles." from the old version, or at least the number of articles. The linked Portals will also need to be carefully watched and maintained. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#: A slightly modified version of text in question is included in the "Wikipedia languages" section (where it's contextually relevant, because other Wikipedias are listed by article threshold).
#: With the exception of [[Portal:Featured content]], all of the linked portals were taken straight from the current main page. Did we improve their visibility to such an extent that you noticed them for the first time? ;) &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Ah yes, so it is. It seems fine down there, especially as the article [[Wikipedia]] is now a more prominent link. However I'd still like the article count at the top. As for the portal links, they used to be categories on the old main page, and I never really noticed the change over there, since they still said exactly the same thing. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' per God_of_War. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' i'd like to see a page count and perhaps a tidy up of the top banner the welcome to wikipedia looks particularly ugly, i like the rest of the page though. [[User:Discordance|Discordance]] 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Now the whites gone and theres an article count i like it more but last niggling issue for me is welcome to wikipedia, its still ugly, if that gets changed ill switch to support. [[User:Discordance|Discordance]] 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
<s>#'''Conditional Support''' again per God_of_War. </s>[[User:Cerebrus13|Cerebrus13]]'''Full Support'''
#'''Conditional Support''' if we have the article count up top. Anyway, I think the new redesign is okay, but not exceptional -- its still to cluttered. [[User:P-unit|P-unit]] 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#I'd support if (A) the white background behind most of the content (background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252)) was eliminated (it should be transparent there) and (B) the design was recoded to use div elements and not tables. Come on. This is 2006. [[User:Blankfaze|&#123;&#123;User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Just to clarify - (A) the off-white (rgb252) is only used in the header box. What do you mean by "it should be transparent"? that it should be pure white(rgb255)? (B) The code is actually fairly well structured xhtml 1 transitional using mostly divs. The tables remain present to support the visual layout in older browsers that are still widespread throughout much of the world. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' I like it, except for the bar at the top. It would look much better, in my opinion, if "Welcome to..." was centered, with the other stuff below it, kind of like the current version. [[User:Clarinetplayer|Clarinetplayer]] 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
# Slightly better. Progress. nice work.[[User:Ozten]] 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#<s>'''Conditional support''' as per God of War. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:PlasmaDragon|PlasmaDragon]] ([[User talk:PlasmaDragon|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/PlasmaDragon|contribs]]) 17:29, 6 March 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--></s>Changed vote to support now that article count has been added.-[[User:PlasmaDragon|PlasmaDragon]] 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' It needs the article count at the top of the page. [[User:Sherwharr|H-BOMB]] 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support'''. Needs article count... somewhere. I realise that this vote isn't going to make any difference, because it's already been fixed, but I'm not voting support otherwise. --[[User:Mark J|Mark J]] 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The article count '''''is''''' included "somewhere" (the "Wikipedia languages" section, to be specific). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support.''' The gutter between the boxes should be larger. Gutter between boxes (between "Today's Featured Article" and "In the News," and also above "Today's featured picture.") should be maybe twice as large as the margin inside the box between the border of the box and the text (or inner box). A little more air, and variation in air, will make it feel less "boxy." (Also, I favor article count at top.) [[User:Still A Student|Still A Student]] 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support.''' As above. I think a greater space between the boxes would make the page seem more "streamlined", so to speak. [[User:Allthesestars|Allthesestars]] 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support''' I like the way that the new front page design makes it easier to pick out the categories by boxing them out. The major criticism I have is that there is very little white space on the page and the eye can't rest as a result. This page doesn't invite me to read the detailed content or make me want to read any other page. The eye must be allowed space to relax and pick out details rather than be overwhelmed. [[User:(aeropagitica)|<font style="background: #800080" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;(aeropagitica)&nbsp;'''</font>]] 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support''' It's OK, not an improvement yet. For me to support it, I really want that ugly '''Welcome to Wikipedia''' changed. Maybe italicize it, or bold it, or something; it just looks like someone's geocities page to me. And a bit more spacing would be nice, like after the header, and perhaps inside the boxes, just to make people feel less overwhelmed when entering the site. I also really liked the light red color, which is a nice contrast to the blue links.--[[User:Mets501|mets501]] 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support''' I like it, but I would like ot see the '''Welcome to Wikipedia''' centered just a bit more. I understand the purpose of seperating it form the portals. I recommend we center it in the space between he Portals list and the left end of the box. I don't care for it on that left edge of the box. --[[User:Arobie|Arobie]] 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#:For someone with the 800x600 display resolution, there is no extra space between the portals list and the left end of the box. If we force the welcome message over to the right, we'll mess up the page for these people. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support.''' The design is quite good, but I'd like very much to see a change in the navigation at the left of all Wikipedia pages -- it needs either more whitespace or more focus on aesthetics. The "Welcome to Wikipedia" is rather distracting compared to the Wikipedia logo in the top left of the page, but the portal navigation on the top right is excellent and so are the headings in the content area. [[User:Webdinger|Webdinger]] 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#:We have absolutely no control over the sidebar. That's a part of the MonoBook skin, not the main page. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support''' It's too wordy to say ''Wikipedias are also being written in '''many other [[Wikipedia#Language_editions|languages]]'''''. Please consider changing the latter to '''''plenty of [[Wikipedia#Language_editions|languages]]''''', as it is better grammar. It sounds better. --[[User:Cumbiagermen|Cumbiagermen]] 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Just how is "plenty of" less ''wordy'' than '"many other'"?? And, as for grammar, there is absolutely no difference. "Many other", though, is ''stylistically'' vastly superior to "plenty of". -- [[User:Picapica|Picapica]] 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#:You know, you could always say ''Wikipedias are also being written in '''other [[Wikipedia#Language_editions|languages]]'''''...You know, I'm sure people will get the "many" part from the fact that languages is plural. They're reading a encyclopedia, so they can't be totally inept. -[[User:Noneloud|Noneloud]] 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support.''' We've passed the milestone; if we have the article count under ''Wikipedia languages'', we don't need it at the top. Also, "Wikipedias ''are also being written'' in many other languages" is better said as "Wikipedia ''is also available'' in many other languages" or something to that effect&nbsp;–&nbsp;it's not in the passive voice, so it sounds better. Lastly, a bit more white space would be nice. [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Stating that "Wikipedia is also available in many other languages" implies that the different Wikipedias are translations of the same entity. This is not the case. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#::I don't think that wording ''necessarily'' implies that. Perhaps something like "View and edit Wikipedia in any of the following languages"? I don't like the passive voice being used, is all. [[User_talk:Athelwulf|Äþelwulf]] <Small>[[Special:Contributions/Athelwulf|See my contributions.]]</Small> 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support.''' Don't like it there is too much stuff I like it the way it is <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Wikipediarules|Wikipediarules]] ([[User talk:Wikipediarules|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wikipediarules|contribs]]) 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Conditional support''' I disagree with putting the article count at the top. I also agree with Athelwulf in that we should rewrite it to be "are also being written". Furthermore, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" link looks pretty horrible. [[User:Sayhar|Sayhar]] 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' I support a redesign, but I know you guys can do better than this. [[User:Jaxshores|Jaxshores]] 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:So what's your condition? Do you mean oppose, instead? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support''' banner at the top is ugly. I'm for it mostly otherwise though. What would be nice is an overhaul of the navigation system, maybe a whole new theme for the wikipedia. --[[User:Jasonm|Jason]] 01:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' I really think you would do better off with only a few minor changes. The boxes on the header titles are unneded since the fonts are big and bold anyways, so I really think you would be better off without them...That would help I think; however, I think the main thing that is throwing me of is that everything on the page is adjusted left, yet that "Welcome to wikipedia" banner is centered, yet not in the middle of the page. It makes the page very uncomfortable to look at because it causes a tension due to the offset. I think that's also why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 this] example is more bearable because you can't tell that it's centered as much...You could even keep the counter by removing the dashes on the right side (like "— 1,012,649 articles in English") while having it adjusted left with the rest of that text. -[[User:Noneloud|Noneloud]] 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' When I read new design, I thought..'wow! they are really going to make it less cluttered now'. But it is just the opposite. I will support a redesign where you have less text on the homepage and more links. How about putting a search field in the center , sans google, and adding a tree-like diagram showing where the users can navigate to. And maybe we can have a language selector on top right corner, maybe a drop down menu (or better). The idea is, put less text on the homepage. We can put links to different child sites (wikimedia, wikinews etc.) --[[User:Prnay|Prnay]] 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:I think you mean to oppose instead. The changes you suggest are pretty major for the design, and for what you'd prefer to go through, there'd need to be more consensus for your idea specifically... which would likely call for several more months of design and decision. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' I like the new design, mostly, I am not entirely crazy about the shade of green and i'm also unsure if pre-empting the normal title in the way that they are is a good idea. But, beyond this, i think it's a good impovement, and an improvment in the right way (incremental, not too drastic of a change) Kudos to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability|WikiProject Usability]] [[User:AdamJacobMuller|AdamJacobMuller]] 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#: one small suggested copyedit "Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages" -> "Wikipedia is also being written in many other languages" The latter has a much more natural language flow to it [[User:AdamJacobMuller|AdamJacobMuller]] 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Again, that would suggest that a single set of articles is being written in multiple languages. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#<s>'''Conditional Support'''</s> Why does the ''Other areas of Wikipedia'' section (below the featured picture) exist? I genuinely can't see any need for it at all. On the far left top we already have ''navigation'' & ''toolbox'' that do this job. ''Community Portal'' is repeated for starters as is ''help''. The ''village pump'' is already at the top of [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]] anyway. Why do we need ''site news'' and ''reference desk'' on the front page? Why not have a good navigation page intead? The rest of it I love. the boxes are nice. I read somewhere that green was proven to be easier on the eye while red is strains the eye. And psychologically, green is better than red too. The layout is pretty good & the changes to the upper section are well though out too. I've got a big screen (1600x1200) so a lot of space is wasted on the current version. Over time more & more people will have bigger screens. Generally a vast improvement (apart from ''Other areas of Wikipedia''), so well done guys. [[User:Veej|Veej]] 04:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:For new users, simply linking to these pages isn't sufficient. Unless we provide reasonable descriptions on the main page, the experience can be overwhelming. Speaking for myself, I wish that such a section had existed when I first found this site. It would have helped me to understand what Wikipedia is all about (and begin editing) much sooner. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Oops, David got to this first, but since I typed it all up already, feels like a waste to just let it go.
#::The "Other areas of wikipedia" are needed on the main page, because currently, those areas of wikipedia have been considered too hard to find. The point isn't "efficiency", as defined as lack of redundancy, but rather making things easier for newcommers. The Reference Desk is a great resource Wikipedia offers... but how many links do you have to click on to find it? Where's the first place you are even told we HAVE such a thing? I've seen a lot of Reference Desk-style questions on the main discussion page... this could be avoided if people can see that we have that service elsewhere, easily. "Community Portal" is an enigmatic title for a page... useful, yes, but think from the eyes of a newcommer, who doesn't feel part of the "community" yet. Explanations are nice.
#::That's basically the reason for it. If you still hate them, and hate them enough to vote oppose because of it, that's your perogitive. As for the screen resolution, yes, more people are going to bigger screens, but I've noticed the elderly keep resetting my computer-lab screen resolutions lower when my back is turned, and when they aren't doing that, they're increasing the font size. So accessibility is an issue for them there. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::I laughed heartily reading about the elderly. I've experienced the same thing so many times. Your explanations make a lot of sense. I still think we need a good navigation page (of the quality of this new main page), to help both new & existing users get about easier. I don't see how new users need ''site news'' though? Changing vote to "support".[[User:Veej|Veej]] 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#::::It makes more sense to include [[Wikipedia:News|Site news]] in this section than it does to leave it in the header (from which it's been relocated). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support'''- The blue just doesn't work with the grey logo and grey everything else. I vote for a darker color, but other than that, go for it! --[[User:Kandh07|Kandh07]] 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' Easier to make out different areas, nice to have portals at the top, nice to see a page number counter att the top, but the design doesn't mingle particularly well with the otherwise quite conservative use of colors. It also feels a bit cluttered. But, on the whole, the redesign is very attractive! Much more professional than the current one. To have both a picture of the day and a tip of the day is good news. It will probably just be a question of adjusting to the new main page. Well done! [[User:Shandolad|Shandolad]] 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support'''- The color scheme needs to change and the page should be customizable. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Jagatpreet |Jagatpreet ]] ([[User talk:Jagatpreet |talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jagatpreet |contribs]]) 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#:The page is customizable. Check out "skins" in your preferences. Note that wikimedia would prefer the not everyone does this, as each person using a different skin or modifying other preferences like that increases server load whenever you view a page. As to the color scheme, many people seem to agree with you, more people seem to disagree with you. *shrug* Hard to please everyone. Objection noted though... [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support'''. Most of the page is nice, but the banner at the top is very unappealing. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[User talk:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">ert</font>]]''' 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' - The 'featured photo' section should be the same color as the rest of the page. Change, in some way, the ridiculous ugly banner on the top, and you have my full support. [[User:Bayberrylane|Bayberrylane]] 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional Support''' I like the idea of adding more to the layout, but perhaps a more streamlined front page (less clutter) would suit the purpose better. A large menu made with Macromedia Flash (it could be optional for people that do not have Flash) that users could scroll through for current events, etc. would reduce the clutter greatly. [[User:Guitar Buddy]] 22:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Oppose the new design and wish to keep the [[Main Page|current main page]]===
#'''Oppose''', I just hate it, and like the current version --[[User:Frenchman113|Frenchman113]] 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Seems like change for the sake of change to me. What, ''exactly'', is wrong with the current Main Page? --[[User:JohnOw|<font color="red">J</font>]][[User:JohnOw|<font color="orange">o</font>]][[User:JohnOw|<font color="darkyellow">h</font>]][[User:JohnOw|<font color="green">n</font>]][[William Blake|<font color="cyan">O</font>]] 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Our design objectives are outlined [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#About the redesign|below]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Way too many boxes.''' Why does every piece of the design have to be in its own little box? This is bad web design. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 version] without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#::That was the version I was looking at. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 06:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::You're right Zafiro. That ''is'' much cleaner. why aren't we going with that version? [[User:Veej|Veej]] 02:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''UGG-LEEE''' current interface is both better in appearance and content. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not pulled together well. --[[User:Grocer|Grocer]] 11:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Ugly. <sup>[[User:Lubaf|Thanks]],</sup> <sub>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]]</sub> 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Header looks worse than current header. Needs more drafts.--[[User:Urthogie|Urthogie]] 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Contains more [[WP:NSR]] violations than I care to count [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:It's a project page, not an article. Self-references are entirely appropriate. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't particularly care for the new design. [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|KnowledgeOfSelf]] 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I can't see much difference on the new site except layers. I would really like to see the new page to be less cluttered. Maybe its just me, but I think the main page should be a little more "clean" if you know what I mean. [[User:Sagarkhushalani|Sagarkhushalani]] 11:50, 1 March 2006 (CST)
#:See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 version] without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', I like what we have and certainly prefer it to boxy mc-boxbox. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 version] without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
# "oppose". Ilike the current main page. is ease reading and "discreet" <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Leeandro|Leeandro]] ([[User talk:Leeandro|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Leeandro|contribs]]) 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose''', It's ugly, and too boxy. [[User:Bigredpaul|BigRedPaul]] 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 Without] the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' too many boxes. [[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:black">Compu</span>]][[User:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">terjoe</span>]] 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 version] without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' serious case of de streamlineing.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. It's too similar to the current version. We had the chance to be bold and come up with something really interesting, but design by the masses has apparently not allowed that. — [[User:BrianSmithson|BrianSmithson]] 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Is it better or worse than the current design though? Being too bold turned far too many people off. Obviously, you're in favor of being bold. Is the proposed page MORE bold, or LESS bold? I think it's more bold. Is the fact that we didn't go ''as far'' as you would have liked a reason not to at least step in the correct direction? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' prefer the old [[User:Arnemann|Arnemann]] 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' There isn't much wrong with the current layout, and it requires too much horizontal scrolling for me. [[User:Robmods|Robmods]] 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:What is your screen resolution? We tried to test/tweak on all common sizes, browsers and skins.. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]
#'''Oppose''' The first thing I see on the new design is the huge text size for the "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too big, and looks like an amateur did that. The rest of it is good however. [[User:Onthost|Mike]] <sub>([[User_talk:Onthost|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Onthost|C]])</sub> [[Image:Star_of_life2.png|20px]] 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weakly Oppose''' mainly because the main page looks great, is useful, and functional. The new page doesn't add much; if it ain't broke don't fix it, or something. Also, why so much emphasis placed on the featured picture? [[User:Semiconscious|<font color="#6D603B">S</font>]][[WP:EA|<font color="green"><b>e</b></font>]][[User:Semiconscious|<font color="#6D603B">miconscious</font>]] • [[User talk:Semiconscious|<font color="#6D603B"><small>talk</small></font>]] 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I feel bad voting this way, because of all the work that I know has gone into it. I just like the current page better. sorry --[[User:T-rex|T-rex]] 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It looks ugly, far too blocky. The top bit is the worst. I think the featured picture should go at the top, it would be far friendlier (well, unless its [[:image:autofellatio_2.jpg|that unspeakably notorious image]]). --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[Talk:Jesus#Run-Off for Final Vote|Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist?]] 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I much prefer the current page, as I think the gigantic WIKIPEDIA is a little silly. Also, how many featured things are we going to fill the main page with? [[User:TheConsortium|TheConsortium]] 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#: What do you mean by "featured things are we going to fill the main page with?" We already have a [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture]], [[Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article|article]], and [[Wikipedia:Did you know|Did you know]] selected and stocked for the current main page, and that wouldn't change in the new one. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:: On the main page now is one featured box, the article. I like this, as Wiki is all about articles. For a featured pictures section to be added to the main page makes Wikipedia look like more of a photo album, albiet a somewhat professional looking one. I personally would have made the main page smaller and easer to load. [[User:TheConsortium|TheConsortium]] 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::The current main page contains two featured content boxes, one of which hosts our featured picture two days out of every week (thereby displacing "Did you know..."). The new layout accommodates both features seven days a week, and it places the featured picture below the text-based featured content (with load time in mind). I agree that Wikipedia is "all about articles," but images play a major role in these articles. In our previous discussions, the idea of including the featured picture every day was overwhelmingly popular. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#::::I stand corrected, informed, and still unconvinced that the new page is better. Here's to democracy. [[User:TheConsortium|TheConsortium]] 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't like the new design. [[User:Yaohua2000|Yaohua2000]] 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I like the top bar, but overall I dislike this redesign. The page seems more crowded (less empty space), which is a retrograde step as the current page is already too confusing and information dense for newcomers. There should at least be larger borders between the text and their containing boxes (eg the featured article box). I don't like some of the new colours, either - I find the cyan used for the featured article particularly lurid. The old main page separated the columns using colour; abandoning the coloured box backgrounds means that this has been lost here, and it is easy for the eye to wander into the wrong column when scanning rapidly. [[User:Lupin|'''Lupin''']]|[[User_talk:Lupin|talk]]|[[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|popups]] 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' with a passion. I can take or leave the current, but the redesign is ugly. [[User:Sean WI|Sean WI]] 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''; way too many freaking boxes. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:See the version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 without] the 1 million article banner - much less cluttered and boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#<strike>'''Oppose'''; It doesn't look aesthetically as pleasing as the current one, though I can't say why. I think it's mainly the top that's the problem. I like the objectives, though. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)</strike>
#'''Oppose''' I'm with the "It's just uglier" crowd here. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's uglier, way too many boxes. Not the first thing you want new users to see.--[[User:Sir_Lewk|Lewk_of_Serthic]] <sub><span style="text-decoration:none">[[Special:Contributions/Sir_Lewk|contrib]]</span></sub> <sup><span style="position: relative; left: -36px; margin-right: -36px; text-decoration:none;">[[User talk:Sir_Lewk|talk]]</span></sup> 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 Without] the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too close to the current and not enough change to get my vote. And, as already mentioned, it's pretty ugly. [[User:Political Lefty|Political Lefty]] 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved. --[[User:Clngre|Clngre]] 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I like the present one just fine. The new one needlessly surrounds things with more boxes.-[[User:Platypus222|'''Platypus Man''']] <small>| [[User talk:Platypus222|''Talk'']]</small> 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Political Lefty|Political Lefty]]. [[User:Leftist|Leftis]][[User talk:Leftist|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]] 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
# Strongly oppose. Their design philosophy - "let's throw everything in, so we don't upset anyone" - is not a good way to create a page. The current main page isn't great, but this is a monstrosity. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:If our philosophy were what you suggest, the redundant search box, header-bound article count, extra portal links and book image would still be present in the draft. What, in particular, do you believe should have been excluded? I know that you opposed the inclusion of the links to Wikipedias with 1000 or more articles (present on the current main page) and the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, but nearly everyone disagreed with you. We included only the elements that were backed by consensus, and the fact that you happen to disagree with some of these decisions doesn't mean that they were made recklessly. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Ugh. The new design looks horrible, and seems to be lop-sided compared to the current page. What exactly does the new design actually accomplish that the current one doesn't? [[User:Terrafire|Terrafire]] 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
#:Our design objectives are outlined [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#About the redesign|below]]. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#::I don't see why we need to change the entire page in this way - if extra features need to be added surely they can be added to the existing main page. The new design looks lop-sided and boxy. [[User:Terrafire|Terrafire]] 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The picture of the day has way to much room - all the width?!?!. No article count is not good either. --<small>[[User:Hamedog|Hamedog]]<sup>[[User talk:Hamedog|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Hamedog|@]]</sup></small> 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The picture has been assigned '''''less''''' space than it occupies on the current main page on weekends. (The horizontal orientation results in a greater section width, but you aren't considering the reduced height.) Our draft contains five features. This one is thematically detached from the other four, and placing it at the bottom is beneficial to users with slow Internet connections and/or text-based browsers. By "no article count," I assume that you mean "an article count with placement lower on the page." (Again, it's been relocated, ''not'' removed.) &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#::My main concern is that amount of width for the FP for the day. The width requries more wording to make it full - currently there is way to much room for that section. I also think that the article count should be at the top, and the welcome to wikipedia bar at the top is too empty, which could actually be turned into a plus by putting in a search bar. This is the main page of wikipedia, and is usally the first page people will click on to. The new design is no better, and probably worse. --<small>[[User:Hamedog|Hamedog]]<sup>[[User talk:Hamedog|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Hamedog|@]]</sup></small>
#:::You're failing to consider users with different display settings. The featured picture's caption might not fill the entire box for you, but for someone with a larger text size, it actually exceeds the height of the image itself. Likewise, the header may appear partially "empty" to you, but it's entirely full for someone with the 800x600 resolution. The extra search box failed to garner consensus in a straw poll, so it's unreasonable to expect its inclusion. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#::::Sorry, I didn't realise you were accounting for people who like to enlarge the text to compensate for there eye sight. I do have a suggestion to fix this problem - make the Featured picture the same size as the Did you know section and place next to it a featured portal. Also, bring the article count back to the top. I can't see why "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 1,004,185 articles" can't fit anywhere up there.--<small>[[User:Hamedog|Hamedog]]<sup>[[User talk:Hamedog|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Hamedog|@]]</sup></small> 09:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::::I would support if the top of the page had the extra search box like here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft_extra_search_box] and you fixed the picture problem.--<small>[[User:Hamedog|Hamedog]]<sup>[[User_talk:Hamedog|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Hamedog|@]]</sup></small>02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The top right is far too cluttered and busy. Fix that though and I'll support as I like the basic Idea... - [[User:Burwellian|JVG]] 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 Without] the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The colour scheme and boxes around titles are simply ugly. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Although I sincerely appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into this, I don't see it as an definite improvement of the current design. I liked the 'clean' look of the current design, it's too cluttered now. --[[User:JoanneB|Joann]]<font color="green">[[WP:EA|e]]</font>[[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''': The top "Welcome to Wikipedia" often overlaps into the portal section and thus looks sloppy. Also while it's a cool idea to have a featured picture every day of the week the current designated space for it doesn't seem to fit with the layout. I don't want to be overly negative since no doubt a lot of work has been put into this, but that's just my opinion. [[User:Deathawk|Deathawk]] 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The overlapping problem should be fixed now. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. It hurts my eyes, and the old one doesn't [[User:Bifgis|Bifgis]] 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Way too many boxes. Count me out. [[User:Oskar Sigvardsson|Oskar]] 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Note: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 without] the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' Not pleasant to look at: I feel like everything's squeezed in. [[User:Kane5187|Dylan]] 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I appreciate the work, but it's too crowded. [[User:Deltabeignet|Deltabeignet]] 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too many boxes, and it seems like some stuff is moved around just for the sake of moving stuff around. [[User:RMG|RMG]] 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Agreed with above, and I like a big, centered welcome text. -[[User:Samuel Levine|Beefnut]] 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Lose the colored boxes around the headings and then we'll talk. &mdash;[[User:Andux|Andux]]<sup>[[User_talk:Andux|␅]]</sup> 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too many boxes, and the boxes are too crowded. When I looked at it, with or without the million articles banner, the first thing I thought was, "Too much text." I like the current main page too, so why would I want it changed? --[[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#Bifgis puts it well. The main problem for me is the color scheme: that greenish thing placidly dripping off the left column cocks eyebrows. Can it be changed (to almost anything else)? If it can, or if someone can give me one of those annoyingly sensible reasons why I must, despite hating it, go along with the color scheme for the greater good and all that, I'll consider changing to 'support'. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)''
#:Is the color scheme really enough to change your vote from support to oppose, in light of the fact that it took four months to argue out the changes? I remember seeing various color wheels and all sorts of heated arguments about slight hues... suggesting a color scheme change isn't a minor thing from my experience. Is ditching the whole design for a color really the right idea? Is the current color worth not having the POTD 7 days a week instead of just on the weekend? What about the layout? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Hi there. You seem to suggest that the color scheme is important—critical, even, judging by your emphasis on the dicussion it engendered—but yet that I should not give much weight to it when making my decision to support or oppose. Why? Many of us (try to) make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of each element in a proposed change. In my judgement, the proposed change here is minimal—this is a ''<u>very</u>'' conservative redesign—and in such a scenario the relative importance of aesthetic considerations increases. In fact, since most of the changes ''are'' cosmetic and not functional (the new page doesn't actually ''do'' much more than the current one), it seems a tad odd to suggest that I shouldn't consider perhaps the most obvious cosmetic change. Yet I think I'm being very reasonable—I said if someone could inform me of the rationale for the color scheme, I'd strongly consider moving to support, if I found it sensible. Very kind regards —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)''
#:::My issue is the difficulty of any one person changing any one tiny little detail. Basically, I'm saying that for consensus to get anywhere, massive work has to be done to please as many people as possible. Just look [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Archive_6#Colorations|here]] for how some of the color schemes were chosen. Everyone has opinions on aesthetics, but basically, what needs to be chosen is that which is least offensive to the most amount of people. Every issue was hammered against a large number of votes, and every issue had both supporters and dissenters. In many cases, strong supporters and strong dissenters. Pleasing both is massively difficult. Basically, I'm asking for give and take here. If you can't have every little detail the way you'd like it-- because what you would prefer I garuantee someone else is strongly opposed to... can't we at least find things that most people at least don't mind all that much, and then add things in that most people do in fact find as an improvement? I'm voting support mostly because I love the new organization of the featured stuff on the left, news stuff on the right, and also the inclusion of the featured picture every day. I think these are major improvements that vastly outweigh minor aesthetic concerns. In order to get these, I'm more than willing to compremise on colors. Does this make sense? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#::::This conversation is taking on an unfortunate hue and I'm not especially keen on continuing it much further, Fieari. Please note:
#::::*I think the color scheme of the proposed design is very poor, poor enough that I'm unable to see that the few benefits of the design justify it. The things that you suggest are benefits are themselves simply cosmetic changes: eg. placement of the "featured stuff" on the left and the "news stuff" on the right. You appear to believe this is a "major improvement" that "vastly outweigh[s] minor aesthetic concerns." You are certainly entitled to that view, although I'd point out that the improvement you speak of is itself an aesthetic concern. IMO, a poor color scheme very substantially reduces the appeal of having a couple of paragraps a few centimeters to the left or right of where they used to be.
#::::*I'm perfectly happy to respect your right to your views on this issue, and while I certainy don't share them I'll not suggest that you are being unreasonable to hold them. I'd like to ask that you be as considerate of your fellow Wikipedians who have voted to oppose. To imply that I'm insisting on having "every little detail the way [I]'d like it" is odd. Not only did I choose only to voice one objection, I also stated that I'd move to support even without any changes if someone could provide a compelling rationale for the current scheme. I'm not especially impressed with some of your remarks to others. Suggesting that [[User:Stettlerj]] is being ''petty'' strikes me as decidely impolite, and I don't particularly care for the tone you seem to be addressing Taxman with. I understand that you must feel quite strongly about the redesign, Fieari, but do be more careful with how you address opposing views. Very kind regards —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)''
#::::::I'm afraid that the most compelling rationale behind this color scheme is that it was deemed acceptable by more users than any other. I respect your right to dislike it, but changing it would generate more new opposition than support. If you personally believe that the cons outweigh the pros, you're correct to oppose the redesign. As for this discussion, I don't think that Fieari intended to insult you. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::::::''Thank you'', David. I had just wondered if there might be some sort of technical or graphic design rationale for the scheme that was lost on this non-expert. It's really not a bad piece of work at all, frankly, and you guys are right to feel proud of the effort you put into it. Tell you what, I'm gonna see if it grows on me in the next few days, and if I start being able to stand that green and purple (!) I'll plonk down a support vote. <tt>;-)</tt> —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 22:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)''
#'''Oppose''' The top is composed of too many boxes which make it look ugly and untidy. I also feel that there is no point in choosing any because they both appear similar. I want to know how the page is affected when the template for a new Wikipedia message is introduced - - [[User:Erebus555|'''Erebus555''']]↔[[User talk:Erebus555|<sup>'''talk'''</sup>]]
#:See "About the redesign' below for the changes, which also imply why the changes were made. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''As was already stated I believe by Political Lefty, ''Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved.'' [[User:Stettlerj|Stettlerj]] 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Isn't an incremental improvement better than holding out for something better that might never come? Isn't that petty? Bird-in-hand and all that... [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''This is cluttered, useless, buggy, and doesn't even have a 2nd search bar. Waste of time trying to totally redesign the main page, why don't we do evolutionary changes instead so it slowly gets better with extensive bug testing? Plus, make it clean, like RexNL's userpage, thats simple elegence --[[User:Weirdperson11|Weirdperson11]] 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
# Like the current version. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too cluttered. --[[User:DanielNuyu|DanielNuyu]] 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too cluttered not as easy to read as it could be --[[User:Aaron Einstein|Aaron Einstein]] 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The current page is much less cluttered and visually attractive --[[User:Mathwizxp|mathwizxp]] 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose''' I don't really like the overall look as much as the current main page, but it's similar enough that I don't care much -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' Old version looks better and Easier to read. --[[User:Z.Spy|Z.Spy]] 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I dislike the big "Wikipedia" at the top, it is too stark, and I dislike the darker-colored boxes around each heading. The clearer explanation of the difference between "help desk" and "reference desk" is an improvement, though I might list "reference desk" first. [[User:Crypticfirefly|Crypticfirefly]] 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly Oppose''' While some new elements are quite nice, not having the article count at the top of the page is a deal-breaker. We should be talking billions of articles, not millions. Jimbo is wrong in that regard. Just because printed encyclopedia's have natural limits doesn't mean we do. The quality of an article we don't have is zero. Lastly, if we lose, why couldn't choice of homepage layout be a preference? I suppose I could write a script to fork the homepage, but I'd rather spend my efforts on articles, not coding around the new homepage. Someone said this isn't a democracy; it most certainly is a democracy of dollars donated.[[User:Marktaff|Marktaff]] 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#:If the article count was included at the top, would you support? Is that your only objection? Would you be willing to go the compromise of accepting this design for now, and then starting a new vote as soon as this one is done to place the article count higher on the page? If there's enough consensus for that, I'd imagine that one change could be made pretty quickly... [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Current page seems much cleaner - new page does not increase [[Human Computer Interaction|usability]] [[User:QmunkE|QmunkE]] 07:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I feel that the old version is cleaner. The new page is a little too cluttered and I'm not sure about the Welcome message.10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[[User:Gaspode the Wonder Dog|Gaspode the Wonder Dog]]
#'''Oppose''' for reasons outlines in opposing votes 62, 2, 9 and also 58. [[User:Greentubing|Greentubing]] 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' First, the "Welcome to Wikipedia". The '''Wikipedia''' looks very bad, because of the centering and it being bold within not bold text. Second, it doesn't look that much different from the old page. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Weatherman1126|Weatherman1126]] ([[User talk:Weatherman1126|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Weatherman1126|contribs]]) 13:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose''' on aesthetic grounds (and yes I am looking at the one without the million articles). I also agree with the sentiments expressed by a few people above that the proposed replacement is surprisingly similar to the existing page. As a brief overview the only change seems to have been to make it slightly uglier and to shoehorn a "Featured Picture" box into a row of its own where it looks like an afterthought (and is off the bottom of my browser window). [[User:PeteVerdon|PeteVerdon]] 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I personally see no problem with the current main page (and yes, I have read the objectives and the opposition to the current main page). However, if a redesign is a must, I would vote for anything but this one. I absolutely despise this design. It feels too boxy (both with and without the million article banner). I also feel that the picture of the day box looks like it's an afterthought (I agree with whoever said it above). Also per [[User:QmunkE|QmunkE]] and [[User:Gaspode the Wonder Dog|Gaspode]], I feel that the old version has a cleaner feel to it. This one just seems cluttered. --[[User:^demon|^demon]] 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Awful lot of work for a worse outcome, sorry. It looks worse, and Did you know, in it's current incarnation highlights completely unverified claims in new articles. Not the type of thing we should be highlighting, but looking worse is the problem. I think it's the box around the welcome that's particularly displeasing. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#:How is the proposed "Did you know" worse than the current one, which, you might note, is IDENTICAL to the current one, except in the proposed draft, has been moved to the left instead of the right. If you want to remove our "Did you know" section, is this really the place to do so? Wouldn't the village pump be a better place for such a campaign? As for looking worse... well... everyone has an opinion. I guess I can let you have that one. I, for one, find the proposed page much, much, MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the current one, by leaps and bounds, and think the current main page is the ugly one. You can't please 'em all there. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 17:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I feel that the new design is incredibly boxy, and doesnt improve significantly on the current design. --[[User:Deemo|Deemo]] 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Looks more cluttered than the current page. Proposed page is too long and requires too much vertical scrolling (which I usually don't do) to see it all. --[[User:MarkS|MarkS]] 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I've changed my mind; this one is too boxy. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik Johansson]] 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The new design is boxy, brings nothing we don't already have and is frankly just plain ugly. Wikipedia is one of the Internet's biggest websites and it and its users deserve much better. --[[User:Hn|Hn]] 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#:You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding the page's appearance, but how can you possibly claim that it "brings nothing we don't already have"? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too square and pointy. Graphic design should be friendly and inviting, and the sharp corners here make it cold an unwelcoming. I like the addition of the featured picture, but the design just doesn't scream "Hi!, come on in and set awhile." <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">mp</font>]] | [[User talk:Pschemp|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</small> 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too many boxes. If you're going to change anything put an article counter at the top [[User:The Bread|The Bread]] 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#Preferred some of the earlier drafts; believe this is too clumsy. Everyone has tried to include every possible thing you could have on the main page, which isn't what we want. [[User:Harro5|Harr]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">o</font>]]<b>[[User talk:Harro5|5]]</b> 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Its ugly, and makes me jump. (Or maybe its just that its new.) -[[User:Reuvenk|Reuvenk]]<sub>[[User_talk:Reuvenk|[T]]][[Special:Contributions/Reuvenk|[C]]]</sub> 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' Too boxy! [[User:SushiGeek|SushiGeek]] 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I see two issues. First, the colors used for the left and right sides are too close making them difficult to distinguish. Then, I don't like the top box (police, ....). [[User:Poppypetty|Poppypetty]] 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' I think the current design is much more elegant and suitable for Wikipedia. --[[User:Tail|Tail]] 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.'''--[[User:Lkjhgfdsa|Lkjhgfdsa]] 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. --'''[[User:R6MaY89|<font color="#000">ʀ6ʍ</font>]]<u>ɑ</u>[[User talk:R6MaY89|<font color="#000">ʏ89</font>]]''' 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. This seems as others have noted change for change sakes. The largest item on the page (the Wikipedia on top) is a link to another page. C'mon. Also, I have to admit reluctance at seeing the "anyone can edit" moniker made more prominent. It's a heightened invitation to vandals. [[User:Jtmichcock|Jtmichcock]] 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#:As a wiki, isn't the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone one of its most prominant features? It should be one of the first things a visitor sees. [[User:Bcasterline|bcasterline]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bcasterline|talk]]</sup> 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Actually, the most important thing for the user is that it is an Encyclopedia covering a broad array of topics. Second: it's free. That people can add to the information is noteworthy, but not the most important thing. [[User:Jtmichcock|Jtmichcock]] 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' its less attractive than the current one, could you not just add the links on the new page onto the current one, instead of redesigning it? [[User:Philc 0780|Philc 0780]] 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' it doesn't seem to work on my explorer. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Could you please be more specific? What doesn't work? Can you post a screen capture? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new header looks awful (too many ugly blue links!). Other than that, the other changes just seem like minor aesthetic improvements. &#126;[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' While it would be great if we could get the 'picture of the day', and 'did you know' sections on the main page all the time, this new redesign simply isn't the way to do it. imo, of course.-[[User:Laplace's Demon|Laplace&#39;s Demon]] 07:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Like the old version beter. [[User:SYSS Mouse|SYSS Mouse]] 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't think this actually improves usability at all--and the page count is missing. The boxes are not very attractive. Also, the words 'Welcome to Wikipedia' look very ugly for some reason.[[User:Yorick|Yorick]] 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The differences in content aren't that apparent to me, and the top bar is just horrendous. It's so neat and tidy as to be almost medically sterile. --[[User:Cantara|Cantara]] 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' The current page serves it's purpose well enough. - [[User:Bladeswin|Bladeswin]] 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I see no reason to change it at this point. [[User:Danthemankhan|Danthemankhan]]<sup>([[User talk:Danthemankhan|talk]])</sup>[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Whilst the overall layout is generally pleasant, the colour scheme is so utterly hideous that I cannot attach even conditional support to this design. The colours are incoherent and the green is particularly offensive-looking. By comparison, the present Main Page – although severely lacking in several respects – has an elegance that is lost here. That said, I do believe a design suitable for Wikipedia will eventually emerge from this endeavour. --[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''I agree with the "too boxy" argument.--[[User:Theloniouszen|Theloniouszen]] 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak oppose''', in the end I don't particularly care. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too much of clutter. The current page is very pleasing to look at. [[User:Nivus|<b><font color="blue">Nivus</font></b>]] 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''I saw some good proposals earlier, but this is not one of them. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine&#39;s Sunbird]] 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new "Welcome to Wikipedia" header looks good, and I like the layout of "In the news" "Did you know" etc and the inclusion of Picture of the Day, but the rest of the changes seem to be unnecessary. The colour scheme is ugly, and the overuse of boxes to contain material and indicate headings gives the page a very heavy feel. White space is a key element of web design, but this design clearly seeks to obliterate it. The bottom half of the page containing the other areas, sister projects, and languages actually expands the clutter instead of cleaning it up, and most of the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" are duplicates of what's already available in the navigation sidebar. Instead of listing every language under the sun, there should be a single link to a page with all the languages listed in alphabetic order. If the design used the old colour-scheme and only used boxes where the old boxes were, I suspect half the opposition would disappear. --[[User:NormanEinstein|NormanEinstein]] 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Don't like the new colors and the excessive boxes. Also don't like the changes in font sizes and headers for the other language Wikipedias. The current page is simply more elegant and there is very little functionality improvement in this change. The header links at the top are fairly minor and could be adjusted without a vote like this. [[User:Tfine80|Tfine80]] 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Don't like the small 'Welcome to Wikipedia' at the top. Don't like new font settings and the only thing that has been changed apart from that really is layout, which I am not all that keen on either. [[User:UKWiki|UKWiki]] 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' IMO, it should have a larger picture of the day and isn't worth doing without it. --[[User:PSzalapski|Locarno]] 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' this change for the sake of change. The main page could certainly use an update, but this ugly, cluttered variation on the current MP isn't it. Apologies to the folks who have worked on this, but a group-think approach to design seldom succeeds (especially when most of the group aren't design or usability experts) and this is a perfect example as to why. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' The current seems better, easier to use, and more user-friendly. --[[User:Daunrealist|daunrealist]] 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose.''' Eww. It's just plain ugly. The current one is much better. [[User:The Kids Aren't Alright|The Kids Aren&#39;t Alright]] 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose''' per cj [[User:Brian New Zealand|Brian]] | [[User talk:Brian New Zealand|(Talk)]] 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose.''' Too boxy, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header at the top just doesn't look right to me - I think it's because the welcome message isn't centered like in the current version. I agree that change is necessary, and I like several of the changes made here, but I'd much rather see some of the concerns of oppose voters addressed before we make a change. There's no reason to rush into a major decision like this - it's not like the current page is totally broken. [[User:BryanG|BryanG]] 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#:To be clear, no rushing has occurred. This design wasn't thrown together overnight; it's been in the works since October, and it's the product of countless discussions and debates. We're trying to please as many people as possible, but we can't please everyone. Among those voting to "oppose" on this page, some feel that the page is too drastic a departure from the current main page, while others feel that too few changes have been made. No matter what we do, someone will object, so we have to strike a balance. We've aimed for a viable compromise, and I believe that we've succeeded in finding it. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#::I realize that this has been going on for a while, and that many people put a lot of work into it, but I think you misunderstood my point. It feels like (to me anyway) that now that we have a "final" design, some people have decided that regardless of any further objections raised, we should approve this design no matter what objections are made, because it's better than nothing. I'm sure that some of the opposing voters have been complaining throughout this process, and will never change their opinion, but others (like me) weren't really aware this was going on until now. I hope you won't discount their suggestions just because they weren't involved up to this point. [[User:BryanG|BryanG]] 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::I'm not discounting anyone's opinions, but most of these suggestions already were tried at some point along the way (and proved unsuccessful or unpopular). What some people want is the exact opposite of what others want, so it's impossible to implement everything. This is the combination that drew the most praise and the fewest complaints. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new design seems to be too boxy, and I'm not too fond of the new colors and font. Personally, I prefer the original design --[[User:TBC|<font color="gray">T</font><font color="blue">B</font><font color="purple">C</font>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:TBC|<font color="gray">???</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/TBC|<font color="blue">???</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/TBC|<font color="purple">???</font>]]</sup></small> 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too boxy, top of page looks terrible comparitively. Sticking one box right under the tabs gives me a gut reaction that this page just isn't aesthetically acceptable. All of the rest of the proposed change is kind of nice, but really just "change for change's sake". [[User:Gspawn|Gspawn]] 17:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new design doesnt look as sophisticated and the extra boxes only exist to make the page look less professional, keep the original design. 19:51 07-march-06 <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:LordPaul1066|LordPaul1066]] ([[User talk:LordPaul1066|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/LordPaul1066|contribs]]) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose'' The proposed design is too compact - i.e text per pixel density is too high on the first part of the page. Also it is a bit too symmetrical for my taste. --[[User:Denoir|Denoir]] 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', too less space between header and the two boxes below of it. Also, the current layout is "cleaner" and easier to read. --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', i think the old one just plainly exhibits information better; new one is squares ville man--[[User:Zachjones4|zachjones4]] 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too many squares, the colors are too "cold" (unlike the warm glowing colors of the current version), there's not enough whitespace (too dense), and the "On this day" and "Did you know" don't line up.--[[User:Sir_Lewk|Lewk_of_Serthic]] <sub><span style="text-decoration:none">[[Special:Contributions/Sir_Lewk|contrib]]</span></sub> <sup><span style="position: relative; left: -36px; margin-right: -36px; text-decoration:none;">[[User talk:Sir_Lewk|talk]]</span></sup> 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' The new proposal looks perfectly wretched... and people are used to and can function with the old mainpage. Don't change just for change's sake. [[User:Thesocialistesq|Thesocialistesq]] 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' As already mentioned, the new layout doesn't add much to the existing design. Also, there are too many boxes.[[User:Yeu Ninje|Yeu Ninje]] 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' The proposed change is huge! Twice as long as the original. More links and buttons don't make for good design. Compare [http://www.yahoo.com Yahoo] to [http://www.google.com Google]. It's called [[Signal-to-noise_ratio|SNR]]. GIVE ME WHITESPACE OR GIVE ME DEATH!!! [[User:Meekrob|Meekrob]] 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' There are some good aspects to the redesign, but the way to improve the main page is to ''reduce'' the number of links and amount of colored boxes. The page will be perfect when there is nothing left to take away. Symptomatic of the problem: the continued existence of the ''utterly useless'' "start a wikipedia in another language" link. What fraction of visitors to the english main page need to start a new wikipedia in another language? One in a million?? <span style="font-size: 10px">&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Brighterorange|<span style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">brighterorange</span>]] ([[User_talk:Brighterorange|talk]])</span> 13:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - Although I do quite like the some of the former frontpage candidates, I prefer the original to this one. I like the clean centralised top part of the original main page, and that's lost in the redesign. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]] 13:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' it is just ugly <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="green">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Love]]</font>[[Plankton]] 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly Oppose'''The immidiate response to the new design is revulsion. The page is too crowded, and the colors are unappeling.[[User:Eyeballcancer|Eyeballcancer]] 19:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I don't really see where it's an obvious improvement over the current main page -- it's different, not better. [[User:Sahasrahla|Sahasrahla]] 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too boxy/square. [[User:Mikeee|Mikeee]] 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I too like the current design better. [[User:Patrick Gill|Patrick Gill]] 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' First impression of the page is ugliness. Too cluttered and compartmented with ghastly multicolored boxes. Also 5 pictures of roughly equal size means nothing has prominence. I don't think we should change until we have something demonstrably better. [[User:Meersan|Meersan]] 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Although I would love a change, this is not what I wanted. -- [[User:Water Bottle|WB]] 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This new one is a slight improvement in terms of colour and clarity, but the boxyness and amatureness of it all are very un-wikipedia like. Sorry! -- [[User:StaticFish]] 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Agree that the new one is nicer color and clarity, but disagree strongly about the boxes. Looks like a circa late 90's web look. -- [[User:flxstr]] 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new design looks absolutely aweful. Though a new design may be in order, this definatly should not be it. -- [[User:YourParadigm|YourParadigm]]
#'''Oppose''' I like the current design. Why change?--[[User:Byronknoll|Byron]] 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This design is just not different enough, it's change for the sake of change. It's not clean and organized enough. 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC) <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Chickenofbristol|Chickenofbristol]] ([[User talk:Chickenofbristol|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Chickenofbristol|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose''' I don't see much difference. It needs to be cleaner, simpler, and more effective. [[User:Sturmur|Sturmur]] 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose, Wholeheartedly and Passionately''' The old design looks cleaner. --[[User:Err0neous|Err0neous]] 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The added clarity is unnecessary and unsightly. --[[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]] 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Very Weak Oppose''' I don't really like the way the WP:The Free Encyclo is centered but not really centered. I don't really like that header much at all, actually. Can't really describe it. Otherwise good work. This may change as I think about it. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Worthawholebean|Worthawholebean]] ([[User talk:Worthawholebean|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Worthawholebean|contribs]]) 0:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose''' The old one is fine; leave it alone.[[User:Realkyhick|Realkyhick]] 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Keep it simple and functional and leave it alone. [[User:Thatbox|Thatbox]] 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I hate it for all the reasons mentioned above. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I am great. [[User:Imav|Imav]] 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too cluttered. [[User:Theccy|Theccy]] 01:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not really a difference. Harder to read. [[User:Praetorian42|Praetorian42]] 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Way too complex. Like the simplicity of the current design. [[User:Menuet|Menuet]] 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's too cluttered and harder to read, and not a change enough to have my vote. -- [[User:Flibuste|Flibuste]] 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Not enough of a re-design to merit a change. Anyways, the old design looks cleaner and simpler. --[[User:Mikm|Mikm]] 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Maybe I'm just attached with the old one but I prefer it -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The colors are still need work, and the header is distracting and awkward looking. -- [[User:MonoNexo|MonoNexo]] 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Like simplicity and clarity of current page. This one is too busy and cluttered, overwhelming as a home page [[User:Augustz|Augustz]] 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new design is not a big enough improvement to justify the change of the now-familiar front page. However, I do like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft_L Draft L]. Anyone else agree that it is better than the currently proposed version? --[[User:Vekron|vekron]] 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The new design is a little to cluttered with the top right nav. Also not really digging the color scheme <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:MagneticStain|MagneticStain]] ([[User talk:MagneticStain|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/MagneticStain|contribs]]) 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Oppose''' The whole placement seems somewhat squished. Also the light blue does not work at all IMO. [[User:Jraynes|Jraynes]] 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Poorly designed. It does not provide efficient access to information. -- [[User:Rvallee|Rvallee]] 9 March 2006, 02:27 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I don't like the new color scheme, and the whole thing seems cluttered. I like the current text sizes on the main page at the bottom- in order of "importance". [[User:Mintrepublic|Mintrepublic]] 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' The current page is great, clean, and functional. The new design is plain horrible. [[User:Suril.amin|The Intellectual]] 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Really quite prefer the current version. [[User:$cirisme|$cirisme]] 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The old colors and layout are peaceful and welcoming. The new colors and layout are jarring and mugly. Very 1970s Italian living room.--[[User:Bigplankton|Bigplankton]] 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' This new layout seems clunky and pointless. The current page isn't great, but this new one makes it worse. [[User:MrC539|MrC]] 03:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Colors clash with the site's color scheme and their use seems completely unnecessary, and detracts from the flow of the main page. --[[User:Kgasso|Kameron]] 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Ugly color changes, no real added functionality [[User:krbrowning|krbrowning]] 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Bigbadbyte|Bigbadbyte]] 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Sometimes a little unused space can be a good thing - the new one's a little too dense. Also I like the old colors better. I agree the new header is better, but the rest is worse. [[User:StringCheesian|StringCheesian]] 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Messy looking, too much going at once. -[[User:Goldom|Goldom]] [[User_talk:Goldom|莨夊ｩｱ]] [[Special:Contributions/Goldom|謚慕ｨｿ]] 04:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Prefer previous design.. [[User:Sndrsn|Sndrsn]] 08:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Current design, as well as proposed new design contain too much text boxes. It looks too messy and should improve much better with shorter texts. Empty space on the portal site also improves a lot and has a more calming effect. The [[nl: nl.wikipedia.org|Dutch]] portal site shows some improvements by using small logos, which makes a nicer appearance. [[User:Brynnar|Brynnar]] 12:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Pjamescowie|Paul James Cowie]] 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' To box like, doesnt flow as well as the current main page. --[[User:Reefsurfer226|Reefsurfer226]] 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' To me, it seems obtrusive a little, doesn't really flow. The colored bars around each section title seem to actually isolate them too much, actually making it harder to differentiate between the sections. Ease of use definitely seems to be less.--<small>[[User:Oni Ookami Alfador|Oni Ookami Alfador]]<sup>[[User talk:Oni Ookami Alfador|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Oni Ookami Alfador|@]]</sup></small> 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Moderate oppose''' The new design doesn't strike me as simpler. The huge list of languages in the footer is a negative. I'd rather the front page be simpler. --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak oppose''': I think a new main page design is damn well needed, both for the sake of change (yes, this _is_ a reason) and because I'm not very fond of the other one. However this doesn't really cut it for me. It's too cramped, the colours are jarrying, the layout looks strange. [[User:Ludraman|Ludraman]] 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' The current site is fine, don't mess with something that isn't broken [[User:Naelphin|Naelphin]] 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' New design is busy and the divide down the middle is clumsy. Please don't. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 05:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Neutral; no preference===
#Needs the article count. Also, people who vote on this should get to all be admins.--[[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:I'm not entirely sure that I understand your latter comment, but I can tell you that the article count has been moved to the "Wikipedia languages" section. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:See the "About the redesign" section. One of the considerations is that some people, including Jimmy Wales, think the focus should be "quality not quantity." I agree. We have just shy of a million articles already, far more than any paper encyclopedia so the article count novelty is bound to wear off eventually. --<strong>[[User:V0rt3x|vortex]]</strong> <sup>[[User talk:V0rt3x|talk]]</sup> 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#::::Not if it keeps growing; not if its doubling time keeps shrinking; and not as long as it can be used to compare Wikipedias in various languages. Face it, editcountitis is part of Wikipedian culture. Embrace it. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 11:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. The current version works fine for me, and David's rabid campaigning completely turned me off. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] <sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:I honestly don't know what you're referring to. Could you please elaborate? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' Part of me says shake it up!!!!!, and then another part says it looks ok now what more can you expect from the main page. Finally a third part of me says "Burritos are nice."--[[User:M4bwav|M4bwav]] 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' - I think it's better than the current page in that its focus is better balanced, but I really think the top banner needs ''something'' more in it (such as a very subtle image, like the site's background or even a faded version of the 'world logo') - it is the first thing the eye rests on after all. Being educational doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be needlessly ''proper'' (I say needlessly because there was a previous draft that had such a background, if I remember correctly) - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:The background image was removed when it was learned that it displayed improperly for some users. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#::I agree but David has a point. If we can get it to work for everyone, I'd support, say, a faded jigsaw globe behind the Portals.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::On the type of low-end monitor that I've seen, any faded background image would appear quite unattractive (and render the superimposed text less legible). I liked the book image (and actually created the latest version), but we must be considerate of the potentially affected users. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Well if you look at the way the (current) background image for the whole site fits in, the 'focus' of it - the dark patch - lines up well with where the box we're talking about sits. I'm not suggesting making the box transparent (for obvious reasons) but if that image is taken to work fine for users, could part of it be used? Wouldn't that give continuity too? I just think that if the main page changes, that'll be it for a ''very long time'' - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' - the headings look slightly clunky and unWikipedia-like. As someone said above, some part wants change, some part doesn't. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">[[User:x42bn6|<span style="font-weight: bold;">x42bn6</span>]] [[User_talk:x42bn6|Talk]]</span> 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' both versions have too much junk that no one wants. Like anaversaies, or news. People don't come to an encyclopedia for news or anaverseries, they come for information. also, both versions omit the one thing that people actualy use to get that info. the search bar. '''The search bar was one of the main reasons for starting this project in the first place. How can we possibly leave it out? Especialy since it's by far the most important feature.''' sure catagories and portals are fine. but they're slow. to get where you want fast. Search. Both versions are terrible. Every attempt I made to have the redsign be actualy useful was reverted. Both pages are completely useless. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Wikipedia already has a search bar. There is also a link, [[Wikipedia:Searching]], to help people search. There are many different ways of searching, not just using the Wikipedia search function. Also, the Main Page has to cater for those who want to browse, not just search. Categories and Portals are NOT intended to be used to find things. They are for browsing. There is nothing to stop you using the several options available to create a personalised dedicated searching interface to use as your entry point to Wikipedia. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''neutral''' They both look very similar to me.--[[User:Acebrock|Acebrock]] 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' Overall a slight improvement, but I miss the article count. I'm not truly happy about the background colors either. I don't see the problem with the search, the search box in the sidebar is still there. --[[User:Bogfjellmo|Bogfjellmo]] 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. It looks more streamlined that the current design, but, at the same time, just too cluttered with so many new boxes. The featured picture receives too much emphasis &mdash; and is unbalanced, with a picture on the left and often sparse text on the right. Scrolling further down, there's simply too much boxed clutter, with a lot of empty space to the right of "Other areas of Wikipedia." Overall, I can't say it's an improvement, though I wouldn't say it's bad either. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font></sup> 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#:There is lots of empty space in some displays because we have to make it fit well in a 800x600 browser window. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' I like the current design beacause it is easy to see everything but the new design would work also. --[[User:ARIG@ele]] 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. [[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' The differences in the style and usability of the current and new design are so minial that I could not leff the difference. [[User:Chemica|chemica]] 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' This seems like a frivolous distraction from far more important internal societal issues that need to be addressed first, I see very little difference in terms of layout. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font> 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''', just for the record. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean<small>25</small>]] 23:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I think the header bar at the top and the suppression of the "Main Page" heading are both big improvements, but the colored boxes are just too distracting for me. &mdash;[[User:David Wahler|David Wahler]] [[User_talk:David Wahler|<small>(talk)</small>]] 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' I like it, but I don't see how it really improves usability all that much. &mdash;[[User:ACupOfCoffee|<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Times New Roman;">User:ACupOfCoffee</span>]][[User talk:ACupOfCoffee|<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Times New Roman;">@</span>]] 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. Too boxy (and yes, I am looking at the one without the 1MM article comment) and even after reading the design principles below I really don't think there was anything terribly wrong with the previous page. But strong approval of deemphasizing the article count. We should not be getting hung up on this as much as we are. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. No strong feelings one way or another. As mentioned under "Discussion, would like to see a link to the excellent "About Wikipedia" page added to the left hand Navigation box. [[User:Tclose|Tony]] 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' don't really feel that this is much of an improvement; its not bad either, maybe a little clutered at the top [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. It doesn't seem like it makes it much more readable or improves user experience. It's a little more flashy, but it has the same clutter issues that the original has. --[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]] 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. It doesn't look like a lot has changed between the existing and proposed pages. There doesn't seem to be any major improvement that makes Wikipedia more attractive or easier to use. [[User:Solarusdude|Solarusdude]] 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' The Color Scheme is prety Loud, But the arrangement of textual Content is much better than the present Page. I would like a combo of the New Textual arrangement and Old color schemes. [[User:sharath.sridhar|Sharath Sridhar]] 10:31 9 March 2006 (IST)
#'''Neutral''' Can barely tell the difference. [[User:Souk|Souk]] 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' Not much point. Change for the sake of change. I would suggest if you do change it to lose the box-corners of the talbes. Rounded corners and light "transluscent" colours (think Flickr) are very sleek and appealing. Box corners an dtoo much repetition in colour (like in new design) are like potholes to the eye. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Yakksoho|Yakksoho]] ([[User talk:Yakksoho|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Yakksoho|contribs]]) 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
#'''Neutral''' ...Are you serious? Why is this even being voted on? The change is minimal. If the moderators want change, then they should do it. This is not big enough to invoke a public response. [[User:Ellimist|Ellimist]] 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#:Wouldn't that mean you support the change, but object to voting? Ironically, wouldn't voting support be a better way of doing that? The reason for the vote is because it's the main change, which everyone sees first thing... and the fact that we have a segment voting oppose should suggest the need for the vote. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
#Meh. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span></sup> &bull; 2006-03-9 22:29</small>
#'''Neutral''' The changes are inconsequential. AND, though I've used wikipedia.org for years, I had no clue that this main page existed until the article was posted on digg. [[User:Cassavau|Cassavau]] 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' This change is far too small to be important. I came into this expecting huge differences, but, to be honest, if it had been changed yesterday without any warning I'd have hardly batted an eyelid. It says something about the weaknesses of Wikipedia that something as miniscule as this change should warrant such a large discussion and voting process. [[User:Phileas|Phileas]] 07:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
==Discussion==
 
===Anonymous votes===
*'''Support''' It's about time. --[[User:71.50.168.42|71.50.168.42]] 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:* Only registered users may vote. --<strong>[[User:V0rt3x|vortex]]</strong> <sup>[[User talk:V0rt3x|talk]]</sup> 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Somewhat ugly, it would be nice to have the article count on top. --[[User:24.247.126.44|24.247.126.44]] 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Root for the underdog. --[[User:67.86.102.43|67.86.102.43]] 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It's just plain ugly! There's nothing wrong with the current main page, in fact it beautifully illustrates the easy, simplistic look of Wikipedia that everyone loves! <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:82.36.193.225|82.36.193.225]] ([[User talk:82.36.193.225|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/82.36.193.225|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Oppose''', I would prefer the older design at this stage, the new one is two "boxed up". themit <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:203.208.88.138|203.208.88.138]] ([[User talk:203.208.88.138|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/203.208.88.138|contribs]]) 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Oppose''' Too much stuff, I dont look at main page in the first place, I want a page that wil load quickly and not cause browser problems. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:65.31.21.120|65.31.21.120]] ([[User talk:65.31.21.120|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/65.31.21.120|contribs]]) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' looks good, cheers! <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:67.188.7.4|67.188.7.4]] ([[User talk:67.188.7.4|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/67.188.7.4|contribs]]) 0:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' looks ok <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:68.222.13.93|68.222.13.93]] ([[User talk:68.222.13.93|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/68.222.13.93|contribs]]) 0:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Oppose''' The Current is simple and clean the new one just doesnt really add anything and breaks up the clean look <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:12.211.56.31|12.211.56.31]] ([[User talk:12.211.56.31|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/12.211.56.31|contribs]]) 0:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' Looks like reasonable changes to me. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:24.30.230.131|24.30.230.131]] ([[User talk:24.30.230.131|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/24.30.230.131|contribs]]) 0:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' Looks the same to me --Flaco 19:13, 8 March 2006 <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:150.250.229.239|150.250.229.239]] ([[User talk:150.250.229.239|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/150.250.229.239|contribs]]) 0:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' The new version is much cleaner; it is easier to organize my initial glaced readings. I suggest stronger colors: royal blue, rather than sky blue, for instance. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:68.49.111.68|68.49.111.68]] ([[User talk:68.49.111.68|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/68.49.111.68|contribs]]) 0:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' The new one looks a little bit nicer, so let's go with that one. 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:69.207.150.91|69.207.150.91]] ([[User talk:69.207.150.91|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/69.207.150.91|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''SUPER DUPER ULTRA MEGA PWNAG3 SUPPORT''' Love the design!! -- TIRUS/MUSHROOM/TIRUS89 <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:71.105.176.176|71.105.176.176]] ([[User talk:71.105.176.176|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/71.105.176.176|contribs]]) 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' Looks much nicer. [[User:71.8.74.51|71.8.74.51]] 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Good. [[User:144.173.6.76|144.173.6.76]] 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I like the new design <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:64.236.208.25|64.236.208.25]] ([[User talk:64.236.208.25|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/64.236.208.25|contribs]]) 11:15, 9 March 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Support''' Better looking and harder to make a post so less people spam wikipedia <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:68.162.220.195|68.162.220.195]] ([[User talk:68.162.220.195|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/68.162.220.195|contribs]]) 13:31, 9 March 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
*'''Conditional support''' Portals in top-right aren't more prominent IMHO - that's 'blind spot' for most people (people start reading from top-left and after reading heading they look further down). <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:86.135.89.126|86.135.89.126]] ([[User talk:86.135.89.126|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/86.135.89.126|contribs]]) 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
 
===Comments===
 
*'''Comment''' - I'd like to mention that the process for obtaining concensus on each little tiny niggling detail was long and arduous. I would reccomend that people vote simply on the consideration of whether the proposed main page is better or worse than the current page, not whether the new page is perfect in their minds. Other improvements might be possible with further work, but I think those niggling details should be proposed and hashed out elsewhere, perhaps at the village pump. Unlike a FAC, where objections are easy because A) We want it to be ''perfect'' and B) Fixing a problem is a simple matter of clicking "edit", any suggested changes will probably require a few extra months of "politicing". So please... yay or nay, is the proposed change better than the old main page? More or less better, that is. Given "These are the only two possible choices", which is better? I know it's hard for most wikipedians to accept the fact that an aspect of wikipedia isn't modifiable at a moments notice, but changing the main page is slow and hard to do. [[User:24.116.38.54|24.116.38.54]] 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:The only problem I have with what you say is that since this change is so time-consuming, it's not likely to happen very often at all. Deadlines are good for motivating us all, but overrunning them costs us nothing: no money, no users, no reputation (since how do you label an ever-changing mass?). It's best to get it right first time, imho - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Wikipedia languages''' All of the forigen charaters slows down my web browser if I scroll over the Wikipedia languages section. Not really a big deal. --[[User:Midnightcomm|Midnightcomm]] 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:Do you experience this issue with the [[Main Page|current main page]]? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The redesign seriously needs some white space or a centered logo between the Welcome to Wikipedia and the featured article stuff. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note''': without the 1,000,000 article banner, there's a lot more white space: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Someone mentioned that they were pleased that this proposed replacement of the Main Page doesn't have "Main Page" at the top. Is this assumption in fact wrong? Is the appearance of the proposed replacement for the Main Page missing the "Main Page" (the Wikipedia "page title" bit) and "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (the tagline that appears on ALL Wikipedia page) that is at the top of the current Main Page? I know it might be difficult to make this "visible", but it seems misleading to have this missing when people are directly comparing these two pages. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::This is, in fact, an actual design element (in most skins). It wouldn't ''have'' to be carried over (if it were to prove unpopular), but it is a part of the current proposal. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you mean here. Are you saying that this is part of the layout of the Monobook skin? I understand that, but the point I am making is that people are currently comparing apples and oranges - they don't see "WikiProject:Usability/Main Page" at the top of the proposed replacement. Unless we really are proposing to suppress the top-of-the-page "Main Page" part of the Monobook layout on the Main Page only. If we are, that should be added to the summary of the differences on the voting page, so people are clear about this. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm saying that we plan to suppress the text in question (which works in most skins). I suppose that we could add this to the list, but it seems like a somewhat separate (and optional) deal in my mind. (If people don't like this, we can add the text back.) &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' One thing that I really do like about the new design is that it has the "Today's featured picture" seven days a week. If the vote turns out being "Oppose", I suggest that at least the "Today's featured picture" be permanently added to the old Main Page. —[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 
Why is the search box all the way down at the bottom of the page? And what happened to the tabs at the top of each article?
I can't tell if this has to do with the new changes or whether it's just the site not loading properly on my computer...but if it's the former, please, don't move the most important things down to the bottom of the page. It's not only inconvenient but the whole site looks totally unprofessional now.
I'm confused though, because the "current main page" and articles also have this layout.
--[[User:130.126.67.39|130.126.67.39]] 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:You seem to be describing an alternative skin. Were you logged in when you saw these changes? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::Never mind, it appears to have reverted. Stayed for 2-3 days, despite F5-ing, and then suddenly reverted back to the old 'layout.' Here's a screenie of what it looked like, if you have any idea what happened:
::http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2484/untitled1ed1.jpg
::And no, I was never logged in.
::--[[User:130.126.67.39|130.126.67.39]] 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::For some reason, you were seeing the "MySkin" skin. I assume that this was some sort of glitch, and it was unrelated to the proposed redesign. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Suggestion''' There has been some controversy about the text 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' I think it should be capitalised and have the full stop as this shows the encyclopedia is wrriten in proper English. --[[User:81.104.37.81|81.104.37.81]] 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is ''not'' a sentence. The sentence is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Our current draft includes both the comma and the full stop. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 16:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It seems to me that this vote is biased towards the people that already have spent plenty of time developing the new main page, and so of course they'll prefer it. For such an important change, the vote page ought to have more visibility. Maybe a link on the real main page, or a mass email, would be a good idea. -[[User:Samuel Levine|Beefnut]] 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure how widespread the coverage of this vote has been. There was some discussion with a list of places it was suggested to announce this vote at. Can someone please make a list of the places that the vote was announced at. I agree with those who think that an announcment should be made on the Main Page itself (if I was a reader only, and not an editor, I'd still like to be able to consider contributing a vote, though how do you let readers without accounts vote in an election like this?). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' The Main Page Banner announcing the millionth article is likely to be in place for at least the next couple of days (I think the idea is for it to be there for a week after the event). This is already affecting some of the votes, though [[User:Zafiroblue05|Zafiroblue05]] is pointing out the differences. Can the links to the two pages being voted on (at the top of this page) ''also'' include links to the pages without that Main Page banner? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' Although I voted to oppose, there is one feature of the new design that seems to be lacking from the current - the links to the Help Desk, Reference Desk etc. are much more obvious in the new design. Finding the Village Pump without being explicitly directed to it is currently unlikely, something which the new design remedies. Still think the old page is better though. [[User:QmunkE|QmunkE]] 10:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
* In addition, I would like to '''really strongly''' suggest that this vote be made more prominent to those who have not been involved in redesigning the main page. A link on the Main Page talk page is ''not'' sufficient; I very rarely read that and I doubt that many others do. If I hadn't mis-clicked on the Discussion tab while aiming for a bookmark on my browser bar above it, I would never have known about the vote and would have been annoyed when the Main Page suddenly turned into one I don't like with no apparent consultation. By contrast, those who have worked hard to come up with the new design and thus have a strong interest in its implemntation are all well aware of the poll. '''The population for this vote thus suffers from unbelievable [[selection bias]] and cannot possibly be considered valid by any competent statistician.''' I would suggest that an announcement to all ''registered'' users (similar to the "you have new messages" announcement) is required if the result of this vote is to have any credibility at all. [[User:PeteVerdon|PeteVerdon]] 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::Firstly, very few of the poll respondents participated in the draft creation process, and some such individuals have voted to '''oppose''' its implementation. Secondly, we wanted very much to publicize this election via the watchlist message or the current main page, but the project's most outspoken '''opponents''' vetoed these ideas. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 15:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Dude, it doesn't matter who vetoed the public election. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I too will be angry if the main page is changed due to a tiny, undoubtedly biased fraction of the community. --[[User:Samuel Levine|Beefnut]] 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::No one "vetoed the public election." It simply hasn't been advertised via the watchlist message or the current main page (despite our desire to do so). Nonetheless, the poll has received more publicity than most of the site's goings-on, so I don't think that either side has much to complain about.
::::I hate to break it to you, but '''''every''''' Wikipedia decision (both major and minor) is based upon input from a tiny fraction of the community. What, in your assessment, is the source of this alleged bias? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::I would like to mention that only once have I ever seen so many different users vote on any one topic or proposal here, and that was for voting on modifications to the speedy-deletion criteria-- and I suspect that by the time this is done, we'll have WELL more users voting on this than that. "Undoubtably biased" seems an unfair sentiment to me, since I doubt this myself, proving "undoubtably" wrong right there. Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. This said, I'd have no objections to a main-page banner declaring that this vote is going on. The more people voting, the better an idea of consensus we'd have. Either way though, I believe this vote is fair, and produces a pretty good sampling; indeed, a bettert sampling than we usually get. The voting period is huge, for one, and many many many people do look at the main page talk, including new users. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 18:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::: OK - I regret the absolutist language, and for lack of knowledge will take your word for it that this Decision is getting as much widespread attention, if not more, than other comparably important changes to Wikipedia. Still, as the main page is SO very visible to anyone who even glances at the site, surely everyone must agree that this decision ought to have a wider voter-base. Why not mass-email? --[[User:Samuel Levine|Beefnut]] 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::: (I'd also like to mention that, on reflection, the new proposed page is really nicer-looking, despite my initial resistance to the change. Still, this doesn't change my belief that many readers would really like to be a part of this decision and are being disenfranchised from lack of awareness.)
:One thing's for sure -- if the new version does get adopted based upon the vote as it currently stands, there will be a minor flood of gawd-that's-ugly comments from casual users who had no idea there was even a proposal, and that these comments will be the tip of an iceberg of unspoken feelings that will, in the long run, work against Wikipedia's desired image as a world-class outfit. And I think nearly everyone, supporters and opposers alike, knows in their heart/guts this to be true. ''That'', to me, is the deal-breaker. I want to see a design that makes me confident that most casual users -- the ones that don't know or care about this type of vote -- will actually like or at least feel okay about. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Doesn't that mean that there will also be a flood of "OMG the new Main Page rawks" comments from other casual users who had no idea of this proposal? and, since the "Support"s seem to be outnumbering the "Oppose"s, doesn't that mean that there'll be ''more'' of those kinds of comments? ("Selection bias" lol :P ) —[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I think not so much, in reading the pro and con comments: in addition to the fact that people naturally complain more than they compliment (grin), supporters seem to do so mainly on the basis of how well all the items have been included, on the incremental nature from the prior version, and in recognition of the effort; asthetic comments seem mostly neutral at best. Casual users just want to ''use'' the thing, and are more concerned with doing so without having to face an ugly page. In any event, assuming the new version is adopted, we shall see what the comments turn out to be. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::::The aesthetic comments "seem mostly neutral at best"? Are you and I reading the same page? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''comment''' - on the voting process... i voted in support of this change, but found myself discouraged at the brow-beating going on against those who voted in opposition. the vast majority of the opposition votes have refutation comments under them from people who are in support of the new main page design. just let people have their vote and their comment and don't get so involved as to reply to their vote even if they are wrong in their reasoning. it's silly. --[[User:Jeffness|Jeff]] 22:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::This is a discussion, ''not'' a majority vote. Anyone (irrespective of his/her viewpoint) is welcome to respond to anyone else's comments. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Two comments'''
** There is a single piece of non-boxed space with a few links under the welcome box and that makes the whole thing look somewhat incoherent. Shouldn't these links find some other place or get a box for themselves? Or alternatively, more non-boxed whitespace with a few other things.
** The article counter should stay out, as it sets the wrong preferences (we need a focus on quality, not on article counting). [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 10:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' - Lots of people may be voting on personal preferences. Shouldn't it have been made clearer that this is a page that ''lots'' of people use, and so it has to cater for a wide range of uses and types of users (though I think the emphasis should be heavily towards those who regularly browse the site, or people arriving here for the first time, rather than those who do lots of editing). The work done to get the right balance links on this page to make it more USABLE is something that hasn't been emphasised enough. ie. Ask people to vote on whether they think this page is the best one to be the Main Page of Wikipedia, not whether it is the page they would like to use (though a separate poll to gauge that would be useful). Probably too late for this election, but something to bear in mind for future discussions on these issues. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Concern''' - The length of FA lead keeps varying and this could throw DYK out of whack. --[[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] 17:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
::The same issue (the possibility of one column's length significantly exceeding the other's) exists on the current main page, and it's why the sysops responsible for authoring the content need be careful to manage the text accordingly (a capability that we presently lack, because we're drawing our content from the same sources as the current main page). Having compared the two versions on a daily basis for quite some time, I've noticed that even with this disadvantage, our combination of features (with the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day..." swapped) ends up resulting in greater balance more often than the reverse. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' - It needs the article count. [[User:Sherwharr|H-BOMB]] 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 
*When this is all done you might want to go through the 'oppose' and 'conditional support' type votes and put together a list of specific objections and how many people had issues with each of them. Then go through the list with the 'design team' from the top (most common objection) and see if there is any way to address them without significantly impacting the page. There may not be, but if even a couple of the 'big objections' could be addressed it might help. The biggest issue seems to be 'clutter/boxiness'... which goes hand-in-hand with the additional content being added. Only ways to alleviate that are to remove some things, make the page longer, or use some sort of 'thumbnailing' system where things are given in miniature and full info requires a mouse-rollover or click. The first two would probably cause more objections than they solved, but the third might have some viability. The various sections actually ''are'' essentially 'thumbnails' already, but they could be collapsed more. For instance, you could make the POTD just a picture and have the text describing it be the image text which pops up on mouse-rollover and/or a click to get the current POTD page. Et cetera. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think that this suggestion would help, as it would leave empty space. I do, however, have a very simple idea in mind that would reduce the "boxiness." The reference section (the white box at the bottom) needn't be a box at all. This matter was briefly debated, and neither option was overwhelmingly preferred over the other. We ended up retaining the box, but I don't think that it would upset too many people if we were to remove it (leaving all of the content freestanding). I've decided to boldly implement this idea now. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
* '''Comment''' for ''support'' - I'm always willing to give my approval on changes and improvements, and this new proposed main page is surely better than the (already good) previous/current version. Given only the choices ''yes'' and ''no'', thisis my vote. However, I don't really like the colouring. Other than that, it's excellent: I like the ''Welcome'' section very much, I really appreciate the fact that the article count has been removed, and I'm all in favour of the new Portal section. In a few words: very useable! --[[User:Jotomicron|jοτομικρόν]] | '''[[User_talk:Jotomicron|talk]]''' 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I don't know about it as a whole, but I'm unhappy with the increased prominence of the 'did you know?' section. I find its informational value usually questionable and was in favor of using a featured picture in its place all the time. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
* '''Comment''' - number of voters. Why is it that the ArbCom elections were given a much higher visibility than this issue? Everyone sees the Main Page - how many Wikipedia users come into contact with the ArbCom on a regular basis? ArbCom elections were clearly "advertised" on several key parts of the site, notably Watchlists. Has this already been explained elsewhere? [[User:QmunkE|QmunkE]] 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
* '''Comment''' - '''This Voting system seems to be very unfair. It shows the results before you vote. How many of you actually looked at the votes before voting and saw the big list of "supports". I am talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_%28psychology%29 Conformity] ''' <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:212.44.18.73|212.44.18.73]] ([[User talk:212.44.18.73|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/212.44.18.73|contribs]]) 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC).</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
:This is an open discussion, '''''not''''' a majority vote. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Exactly. If one does not have a stong opinion one way or another, it's a good idea to read the arguments on both sides and then decide accordingly. -[[User:EdGl|EdGl]] 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
* '''Comment''' - No matter which one wins, I think that there should be an option to change the skin so then other people will be happy. [[User:KSava|KSava]] 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
 
* '''Comment''' - I'm wondering if the Main Page thing at the top will still be there even though it isn't in the preview? I imagine it must be, but if it has somehow been removed I'm interested in why. It'd be the only page that doesn't have that, which is very wierd. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:This (no "Main Page" at the top) is part of the design. This heading is used on all other pages to give the page/article title. On the main page, we consider it unnecesary to say it's the "Main Page" at the top. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 01:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Article count===
 
Among those commenting on the "missing article count," I have to wonder how many realize that it has been relocated to the "Wikipedia articles" section (where it's contextually relevant), '''''not''''' removed.
 
Either way, many people would prefer to see the article count back in the header, and this is an issue to which we've dedicated a great deal of thought. If '''''anyone''''' has an idea of '''''how''''' we could go about integrating such an element with the new design, please [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Development|let us know]]! &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*Perhaps, underneath "the '''free encyclopedia''' that [[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]," you could put "Currently with [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles" or something like that. —[[User:OneofThem|OneofThem]] 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
** See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41323517] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41317118] for some attempts to do that. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
*"'''{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles''' that [[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]"? [[User:Alerante|æle]] <small>[[User talk:Alerante|✆]]</small> 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::We've tried that too. In my opinion, this was the best attempt to date, but it still was far from ideal. We don't want to give up the traditional tagline or imply that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts. Such wording also fails to consider the fact that users can author ''new'' articles (instead of editing existing ones) and contribute to the community by editing pages other than articles. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::But new users ''can't'' create new articles, so should making it obvious be an issue? - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::::The fact that new users are initially unable to create articles renders it even ''more'' important that they not be misled to believe that this very temporary restriction is permanent. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::True, but if there were a small message straight after signing up - such as 'You're now a member of the Wikipedia community, giving you the ability to create new articles!' - would clarify this without changing the [[traditional]] [[slogan]] and without misleading newcomers. It might even encourage people to create [useful] articles ;) - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 
How about under the top box, like so?
 
<div style="background: white">
{|style="width:100%; background-color: transparent; margin-top:-.8em; margin-bottom:-.7em"
|style="font-size:95%; text-align:left; white-space: nowrap"|
[[Wikipedia:About|Overview]] '''&middot;''' [[Wikipedia:Searching|Searching]] '''&middot;''' [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Editing]] '''&middot;''' [[Wikipedia:Questions|Questions]] '''&middot;''' [[Help:Contents|Help]]
|style="font-size:95%; text-align: center; white-space: nowrap"|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles
|style="font-size:95%; padding-top:10px; padding-bottom:10px; margin:0px; text-align:right; white-space: nowrap"|
[[Wikipedia:Browse|Categories]] '''&middot;''' [[Portal:Featured content|Featured content]] '''&middot;''' [[Wikipedia:Quick index|A&ndash;Z index]]
|}
</div>
 
[[User:Alerante|æle]] <small>[[User talk:Alerante|✆]]</small> 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:The two sets of links consume just the right amount of space for the line to display properly at the 800x600 resolution (without wrapping or horizontally scrolling). Any significant amount of additional text would cause one problem or the other. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::Good idea, though. Still, we've taken measures to keep this compatiable with 800x600.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
The styling is wrong, but ''just as a suggestion'' what about something like below?
<div style="background:white;width:30%;text-align:center"><h3>Welcome to [[Wikipedia]],<h3>
counting '''{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}''' articles
of '''free knowledge''' that [[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]</div>
 
I copied the banner code from the project page to try your idea out below...
<!-- ---------- BEGINNING OF HEADER SECTION -------------------------- -->
{|style="width:100%; margin-top:+.7em; background-color:#fcfcfc; border: 1px solid #ccc"
|style="width:56%"|
{| width="300px" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="border:solid 0px;background:none"
|-
| style="width:300px;text-align:center; white-space: nowrap" |
<h1 style="font-size: 150%; border: none; margin: 0; padding: 0 0 .2em 0">
Welcome to '''[[Wikipedia]]''',</h1>
<div style="font-size: 90%">- counting {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles -<br>
of '''free knowledge''' that [[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]</div>
|-
|}
<!-- ----------Portals Follow----------------------------- -->
|style="width:11%;font-size:95% "|
*[[Portal:Arts|Arts]]
*[[Portal:Biography|Biography]]
*[[Portal:Geography|Geography]]
|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
*[[Portal:History|History]]
*[[Portal:Mathematics|Mathematics]]
*[[Portal:Science|Science]]
|style="width:11%;font-size:95%"|
*[[Portal:Society|Society]]
*[[Portal:Technology|Technology]]
*'''[[Portal:Browse|All&nbsp;portals]]'''
|}
<!-- -------End Portals----- -->
I don't know... looks kinda ugly to me. How else could it be tweaked? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
:You were right. I reduced the size of the top line and removed the bold from the article count to try and make it look less cluttered. I fiddled with the same one just so there aren't too many of the same thing on the page. - [[User:Drrngrvy|Drrngrvy]] 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::'''Don't count articles'''. Many people here argue that the counter should be more visible. I wonder if any of them have asked themselves whether that counter has any value except that it's an old tradition. It is essentially a leftover from the days when not everybody knew us and size did matter. Today, we're among the top twenty Internet sites, are enormously popular, and certainly do not need to ask anybody for more articles. What we need is more quality. A counter for featured articles might be a far better idea. [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:::It seems to me that ''most'' people here are either ambivilant, apathetic, or supportive of having the article count. Myself, I'm ambivilant. I could also go either way. On the other hand, there seems to be a significant minority who are really serious about wanting the count up by the top. There's another faction who actively don't want it, like you... but they haven't spoken up, probably because they see that the count isn't prominent, and are happy with it that way. But how can we tell who those people are? I vote we let things stand as is, at the moment, since the vote seems to be leaning towards passing, and then have a new referendum immediately afterwards with the issue of having the article count made prominent or not. That was, we can more accurately gague consensus. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure if I'd support a FA counter ("What? A million artciles and less than a thousand of hem are any good?!"), but I agree, let's keep the counter out of the header—especially because no one can find a good way to put it in.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't think we should be ashame of that ratio (which has been around one in thousand for a very long time, seems almost like a physical constant). When we brag with the number of articles, that will likely be read as: "we have so many articles and that's what we are proud of". When we say: one in thousand articles is really good by our standards, that would hopefully be read as "we need good and intelligent people to help us create gold out of dirt". [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 09:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Vote counting for the math impaired===
Because I had to sit and think about this a moment, I thought I'd pass on this to the rest of you. In order to see which side is winning at any given moment, multiply the SUPPORT votes by three, and the OPPOSE votes by ten. Right now, at 173/51, the modified tally is 519/510, a very close match, narrowly winning on the support side. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:??!Intriguing math. What is the basis for this algorithm? Surely we are at (173+51=) 224 voters therefore 173 &#247; 2.24 = 77% support. ? --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 
Question: I don't know the general policy about this, so what is the threshold for the redesign to win? 50 percent? 70 percent? [[User:Redquark|Redquark]] 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy.]] In addition to the vote tally, the quality of the arguments presented is major factor. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::The raw algorithm in use here is:
:::<math>\frac {Votes_{support}}{Votes_{support} +Votes_{oppose}} \times 100 = Percent_{support} </math>
::The ''quality'' and ''substance'' of each vote is also taken into consideration and provides for a more precise analysis of the voting community's intention.
::<small><small>[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)</small></small>
 
:::Agree, but at some point the numbers have to be too lopsided to ignore them. At the moment, the count is 191-65-9. That seems to strong of a support by numbers to ignore without, say, virtualy everyone mildy supporting and strongly opposing. It seems much more rounded than that. Frankly, I think we've already won.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 13:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I based my math above on the assumption that we needed 70% support to pass. As such, thinking in terms of a simple majority, oppose votes are "worth more" than support votes, which is why I showed the x3/x10 thing, to make this easier to see. If it isn't a case of 70% to win, the weight is obviously different. And if things are more subjective... but I was under the impression this was actually a vote, and that there was a bright line in this particular case. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:Your math doesn't work. If there are exactly 70 support votes and 30 oppose votes, under your calculation Oppose wins handily. The correct way of calculating it is what Hydnjo said. [[User:Redquark|Redquark]] 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::At time of posting, there is 72.8% support. --<small>[[User:Hamedog|Hamedog]]<sup>[[User talk:Hamedog|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Hamedog|@]]</sup></small> 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah. I'm not sure what I was thinking. I do believe, still assuming a need for 70% support, that multiplying the support by three, and oppose by 7 works though. Since we need a 7/3 ratio, multiplying it by 3/7 should give us an "equalized" count. (as of this post, support has 73%) [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 
: New count: 471/29/160/24 Support/Conditional/Oppose/Neutral. Somebody else do the maths. &mdash;[[User:Vanderdecken|Vanderdecken]]&there4;<b><font color="#007700">[[User talk:Vanderdecken|&int;]][[Special:Emailuser/Vanderdecken|&xi;]][[Special:Contributions/Vanderdecken|&phi;]]</font></b> 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Current count is: 515 + 8 / 34 - 8 / 166 - 1 / 27, modified for striken votes and conditionals changing to supports. That works out to Support = %70.6, Conditional Support = %3.5, Oppose = %22.3, Neutral = %3.6, and I've updated the Community Portal count accordingly. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
=== What qualifies as consensus? ===
 
On RfAs, it's 70% support, right? What constitutes consensus here? Just curious. Please cite policy and/or precedent. Thank you. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think consensus is usually up to admins. Also: Even if there is consensus, but both sides share some concerns ("too boxy" and "leave the page counts" seem common at a glance), things might wind up at square one regardless. [[User:Gspawn|Gspawn]] 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:Again, [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy.]] The "70% support" figure is a merely rough guide. It doesn't guarantee success, nor does a lower figure automatically spell failure. It's very important to gauge the quality of the specific arguments presented. (Votes along the lines of ''"'''Support'''. It's ugly and harder to use, but you people worked really hard."'' or ''"'''Oppose'''. It's a big improvement, but it doesn't add an extra search box."'' carry less weight than logical, well-reasoned comments.) &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::While adminship is important, I think this is a bit more significant, as the main page is the face of Wikipedia... what new visitors see. I would like to see at least 75-80% support for the proposed design. Anyway, it should probably be up to a bureaucrat to make the decision. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Again, this is a discussion, not a numerical vote. It's more important to carefully analyze the specific comments than it is to tally the votes (some of which are based upon illogical reasoning and incorrect assumptions). &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::Also, given the complaints about no article count, I think we should go ahead and try to add it. When giving a response above about article counts, I noticed one version of the draft that had it and I thought could work. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41317118]. A variation of that could perhaps be something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=42697283]. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:::If it is a required addition, i'd be for the first variation you linked. Maybe in an ever-so-slightly smaller font? --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I prefer the second version (which is the best attempt that I've seen). Another common complaint has been that the design is too cluttered, and placing an em dash on either side provides much-needed demarcation. With slightly smaller, italicized text, this isn't bad at all. Let's give it a try. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I have tried tweaking the formatting of "Welcome to Wikipedia", adjusting the text size, padding, and removing the "Wikipedia" link underline. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=42745416] If you think this is suitable, go ahead and revert back to this version. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::I like these improvements, and I've reverted accordingly. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
::Just for the record, I've calculated the percentage of votes at least once a day, and it always comes out to be between 70% and 75% support. I'm guessing this will remain relatively constant, as it has been so far. -[[User:EdGl|EdGl]] 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I've heard of it dropping in to the upper 60s, but it by far more support than anything else. There seem to be a few key issues that people keep objecting to; I'm going to compile them in a new section below.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
 
===Who does the "gauging" and where are the gauging procedures covered?===
 
David, you keep talking about how democratic voting process doesn't directly apply, and stating that each voters' comments need to be analyzed and assigned a "weight". Who does this assigning, and where are the weight assignment rules? If there aren't any specific procedures documented in policy for this, then what it boils down to is someone's subjective opinion of the vote outcome (and by extension, someone's subjective opinion of the process itself). In that case, my question is "who gets to do the subjective interpretation?" Are they self-selected? And if so, shouldn't members of the Main Page redesign team (myself included) be disqualified due to their obvious bias? I'm just trying to understand your extremely vague statements concerning the decision-making process, in terms of what precisely that process is, and who the decision makers (or decision interpreters) are. You have yet to be specific on this issue. --[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:Gauging the comments is a matter of common sense. If a respondent's reasoning is based upon a demonstrably false premise, his/her vote carries less weight.
 
:I'm hoping that our draft will garner enough support to render the outcome obvious. If so, any admin would be qualified to close the debate, provided that he/she did not participate (or opposed the redesign). If not, proponents and opponents can argue their respective interpretations of the results, with an uninvolved party (ideally a bureaucrat) making the final call. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===Common objections===
I'm going to put together a list of the things that seem to upset a lot of users. Feel free to add any that I missed.
*Too "boxy"; not enough free space, too cramped or cluttered; too much info staring you in the face; etc.
*Lack of whitespace, especially at the top of the page. Wikipedia articles uniformly contain some whitespace at top (between tabs and article) due to page titles and redirects.
*The "Welcome to Wikipedia" is too big and "in-your-face". It also isn't centered. (Like the article count, I think this is just nostalgia for the old page. Also, this isn't as common as some of the other complaints.)
*No problem with the current Main Page, "don't fix it if it's not broken" mentality.
*Feelings of tradition. (New page is too similar or too different to justify change from the norm.)
*"Ugly", usually referencing a distaste for the proposed color scheme, but often also referring to boxiness and whitespace, or off-center "welcome" bar.
*No article count. (This is one of those things where our intensions are good but the politicts don't work out—people want it without thinking about why it no longer should be there.)
That looks like it. Maybe we could have a simple, Google-esque page as an [[WP:MPA|alternative]]?--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:Added my own problem (whitespace), which was actually what I meant by "too boxy". I think other users may be feeling the same. Changed the counterpoint on "no problem" to the more encyclopedic "not broken" line. Tried some general cleanup- some points just echoed each other. Hope that's okay! Also, some of the commentary seems like a start of a "Response" section. Do we want to go there? (leave personal responses in the commentary, and not on the list, perhaps?). Lastly, I'm with the people who think there's not really a problem with the numbers even given the response- I like knowing how far this community's come in an instantly quantifiable manner when I log in, personally. Not everyone who likes the number count is ignorant of the discussion. [[User:Gspawn|Gspawn]] 16:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::Really, I think it comes down to three things:
::*Ugly: too boxy, bad color scheme, or too cluttered with too much info.
::*Feelings of nostalgia and tradition.
:::*No article count (part of the above, but deserves its own spot because it's single-handedly one of the most common complaints.)
::The point of this is too see if we can remedy any of thee before we go live with this (assuming it gets passed).--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think the first two you listed there can actually be addressed at all. While some people find it ugly, more people find it pretty. Changing the aesthetics to please the minority has a very good chance of alienating the majority, which would be counterproductive. True, there would be a number of current supporters would would also support a different look, but then, how many of the objectors agree on exactly what aesthetics it should have anyway?
:::On the subject of nostalgia... heck, there's a large number of voters who can't tell the difference anyway. Note that the people who can't tell the difference are voting ''both ways''... some people think it's good that they can't tell the difference, others think it's bad. You can't please all the people all the time. And when it comes to nostalgia, if it isn't identicle, they'll vote object. And then the people who voted object because it was too similar would vote object even more strenuously..... again. You can't please all the people all the time.
:::Comparing this vote to the FAC process, we don't allow articles to be featured if they have even ONE strike against them. But that's because we have a list of very stringent criteria that can be followed objectively. Since this vote here is far more subjective ("Ugly" and "Pretty" can't actually be quantified, and if they can be, they can't be quantified the same way for each observer) the principle of "satisfy ''every'' objection" can't realistically be met.
:::Of course, the article count thing... that can be changed, and in fact, on the project page now, it HAS been changed, I note. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
=== Header wrapping in IE ===
The 'edit' in 'anyone can edit' in the header is wrapping to the next line for me, no matter how much i resize the window.. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm guessing that you have your text size set to "larger." We can't prevent wrapping completely, but perhaps someone can come up with a simple fix for this setting. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
=== 'Point of order' ===
The proposed layout has now changed multiple times since March 1. How can that be?? What am I actually commenting on/voting for or against, here?? [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:This is a wiki, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're commenting upon a design that will never change. It would be inappropriate to make fundamental alterations to the layout, relatively minor adjustments (in response to feedback) are to be expected. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, but what is "fundamental"? [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Many of differences between the current main page and the proposed design are fundamental (which is why we're holding this debate). The changes that have been made to the draft since March 1 are minor enough that if this were the actual main page, they would require no more advance discussion than what has occurred. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Will somebody go and switch left and right boxes 5 minutes before the end of voting and have it supported as that? [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::You seem to be under the impression that this is a majority vote. It isn't; it's a discussion. There would be no reason to sneak in a change, as nothing that we decide now will be etched in stone. If the design is approved, it ''will'' be modified at some point down the line. That's the nature of a wiki. If someone believes that his/her support is a vote to permanently adopt this exact configuration without ever making any changes, he/she is mistaken. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::There has to be some limit, right? For instance, I would think the new placement of the article count was more than a minor adjustment, since many people discussed that as if it was the most important design change compared to the current layout... Just wondering... [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::The prevailing opinion (including among supporters of the new design) is that the article count should be included in the header. I disagree, but what's the purpose of holding this discussion if we're going to ignore the will of the community? &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
 
Okay, I don't seem to get my concerns accross. It says near the top of the page: ''Official voting procedure'' as section title and then ''The proposed new main page design is up for a vote to replace the current main page'', and later
 
''The issue to be decided is whether or not to replace the current main page with a new design created by members of the community. Vote Support to choose the new design, or vote Oppose if you want to keep the current main page. If you have no preference, you may vote Neutral.''
 
It seems to me that this is actually not so, since this is a 'discussion' as you say. [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:A "vote" is a formal expression of preference. The concept of "voting" does '''''not''''' necessarily imply the existence of a majority/plurality vote. In this case, we're voting via an open discussion. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
I therefore will have to remove my ''vote'' (since it is not a ''vote'' :-) until the community is done with creating the new design. [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:Again, this is a [[wiki]]. As such, the design will '''''never''''' be "done." If you find this objectionable, you were correct to retract your vote. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:This is a vote, but Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not]] a majority democracy. There is no definitive percentage of support votes for the proposed design to win. It's ultimately up to a bureaucrat to interpret the voting, decide what the threshold is, and make the decision. As for the article count, this was one of the most commonly cited objections to the design. The main page redesign process needs to take into account such feedback and community consensus. We could have waited until after the voting to stick the article count in, but it's fine in my opinion to do it now in response to the feedback. I see no other specific element of the design that is drawing such major widespread objections. If there is something else very major and fixable, then I think we would be obligated to consider accommodating that. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::I must be really bad in explaining myself, sorry! I never said this is about a 'majority'. I just wanted clarification what I support when I say: "I support this". After ''months'' of design effort there should be a high level of stability in the proposed design, so I can make up my mind about it. Let's end this discussion and see what happens. Again, sorry for wasting time. [[User:Awolf002|Awolf002]] 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Again, if you thought that you were supporting an exact design (which would never be altered in the slightest), you were mistaken; that isn't how wikis work. You have to assume that changes will be made to whichever design is selected. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
=== About the "Conditional Support" votes ===
Now that it seems that the header contains the article count, should we start including those conditional supports in the pure "Support" category? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:Better to contact those voters, notify them of the change, and ask them to change it.--<small>[[User:Oni Ookami Alfador|Oni Ookami Alfador]]<sup>[[User talk:Oni Ookami Alfador|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Oni Ookami Alfador|@]]</sup></small> 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Gotcha. I've done so for all the ones I saw. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 
===A modest proposal===
Some of the opponents of this would be happier if both designs were retained, and the choice between them were made into a new set of skins. I suspect there are several ways to do this, including having two pages and a switch in the Main Page link. One talk page would redirect to the other. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 
==About the redesign==
{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Archive list}}
The proposed '''''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page|main page design]]''''':
* Improves the prominence of the [[Portal:Browse|portal]] links.
* Clearly divides the header's article navigation links and project-related links.
* Includes both the [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|Picture of the day]] and [[Wikipedia:Did you know|Did you know...]] on the main page, seven days a week.
* Adds a section containing descriptions of Wikipedia's important non-article areas.
* Swaps the positions of "Did you know..." and "Selected anniversaries" (renamed "On this day..."), thereby establishing a left-hand column that highlights our most polished articles and our newest articles (which hopefully will receive similar treatment), along with a right-hand column that highlights current news stories and news stories from years past.
* Swaps the positions of the links to our sister projects and the links to other languages' Wikipedias, thereby eliminating the need to use extra-small text for the latter.
* Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance.
 
===Issues considered in the redesign process===
* Second search box: With a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll|vote of "no consensus"]] on including a second search box in the design, we have omitted it. We are considering options for tweaking the MonoBook skin to make the left search box more prominent and noticeable.
* Article count in header: The proposed design provides no elegant means of including the article count in the main page header. It is, however, included in the "Wikipedia languages" section. The one million article milestone will have come and gone by the time voting on the main page redesign concludes. Beyond that milestone, many in the Wikipedia community, including [[Jimmy Wales]], have [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-02-27/Millionth_article_preparations|discussed]] putting more emphasis on quality than quantity of articles. Displacing the article count from the header is consistent with this.
 
===Future issues===
Subsequent issues to be considered after this vote include:
* Drive to improve quality of the portals and topic organization.
* Improve visibility of the left-navigation search box in the default MonoBook skin. Perhaps, an orange-colored border (as used on the active tabs at the top)?
 
<h3>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Development|Main page development discussion]]</h3>
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page"