Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Development: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Why no notice on the main page?: respond to Go for it! |
m Fixing broken anchor: Update links to archived section (The bot operation is completed 0.1% in total): what qualifies as consensus? (When checking links to talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page) |
||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}
== Article count ==
Line 11 ⟶ 12:
:::Okay. After a million articles most people won't care how much until we reach another major milestone (which will take awhile). And, true, we want to focus on quality now. And, very true, we don't have a good way to insert it now. Let's just hope nobody votes "no" based on this.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I care about the article count. It is the most important piece of information to me on the homepage. It is nonsensical social-engineering to bury it near the bottom of the page. There are plenty of good ways to put the article count in there. What you mean to say is you don't *like* any of them. Many people are voting no because of this, perhaps even with their wallets.[[User:Marktaff|Marktaff]] 07:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Are you saying they wouldn't donate because the article count is at the bottom? At any rate, the problem with just "Adding it back in" to the top, is that one of the design principles was that it be viewable on 800x600 resolution. Right now, there is ''no room'' at that resolution to put ''anything''. Find a way to make room, then we'll talk. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
==Current design==
Line 17 ⟶ 22:
:If the new design is approved, the current design will remain available as an alternative for those who prefer it. You'll be able to set it as your browser's home page and use it just as you do now. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
::That's not entirely accurate David. en.wikipedia.org would resolve to the new version. To use the old version, you would have to be at a machine you control, and have planned in advance to bookmark the old version of the page. All it takes is a few lines of code to let us keep using the old version. A one-size-fits-all (or most) solution is isn't what's needed.[[User:Marktaff|Marktaff]] 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:::
== Search box in Monobook ==
Line 31 ⟶ 40:
Hi, can anybody say me, how it is possible, that the "Main page" title in the new design is hidden. I searched everywhere in mediawiki and net, but got no answer. Is it CSS? Java? MediaWiki directive in one of the templates? Thank you very much. --[[User:Gorn|Gorn]] 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:This was asked during the draft too, and noone answered. I'm getting the feeling it's some sort of admin secret... Possibly because it would be particularly abusable in some way? Sorry, i don't know. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:I believe it's the <code>mainPageTransform()</code> function in [[MediaWiki:Monobook.js]] that does the trick. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn]] <small class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Mxn|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Mxn|contribs]])</small> 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
:: I can see the argument with possible abuse, but I am asking because I use the mediawiki engine for our local board games project and i would like to use it there. --[[User:Gorn|Gorn]] 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
== Thank you messages? ==
Line 37 ⟶ 50:
:I guess wait till over. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::We'll have t distribute the load: we already have a few hundred votes.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
== Searching page still needs work ==▼
I'm still very concerned about the inclusion of the "[[Wikipedia:Searching|Searching]]" link in the header. The page is quite out of date in parts ([[Wikipedia:Searching#Delay_in_updating_the_search_index|delay]]), and there are unaddressed issues on its talk page (which has more than 50% posts from 2003, proving it's a low traffic metapage), and i'm fairly sure the opera instructions near the bottom are missing key info. And of course it still doesnt look anywhere NEAR the standard of the pages it's linked next to aesthetically (questions, help, etc). It needs a good going over by a bunch of people. (i dont know which cleanup-template to put at the top, otherwise i wouldve done that.).<br>▼
OR we need an alternative link to replace the Searching link completely. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)▼
:I'll work on it, and recommend structuring it like the [[:de:Hilfe:Suche|German search]] page, but with the search box at the top that's been added to [[Wikipedia:Searching]]. I've begun working on a [[:Template:HelpTOC]] to use here (and on other help pages), but just beginning to organize what links to include. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)▼
::[[Special:Search]].--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)▼
:::If we refer readers to [[Special:Search]], they might believe that this is a required entry point (instead of realizing that there's a search box on every page). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)▼
▲::::True. I haven't realy liked the idea of highlighting the left search box, but using the orange already in the skin and only for the Main page seems the best way to do it. On the other hand, newbies may think there's something special about that search box over the others.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::If it is technically possible to have the left search box highlighted on JUST the main page (which noone has confirmed), then it would be possible to also highlight it (the left search box) on the "Searching" page. I see no benefit in adding a second search box on the "Searching" page, for the same reason David pointed out for Special:Search, and as detailed against the second search box during the the main page draft. ▼
:::::The German page does look informative and concisely laid-out, good plan, but i am against that second search box (which was just added on feb 27). --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)▼
== Why no notice on the main page? ==
Line 54 ⟶ 56:
:Notice of the election is/has been on:
:* [[WP:
:* [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]
:* [[Talk:Main Page]]
:* Mentioned on the [[WP:AN|Administrators' noticeboard]]
Line 63 ⟶ 65:
:* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l WikiEN-l]
:Any other places?--[[User:
::The election is also mentioned on my [[User talk:Kmf164|user and talk pages]], and I noticed it on [[User:HereToHelp]]. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>[[User:AudeVivere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]</small>) 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
== Result of vote ==
What exactly is going to determine the outcome of this vote? Is there a certain percentage that have to be in support for the main page to be changed? Do conditional supports count as opposition or neutral if conditions are not met? [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Final archive#What qualifies as consensus?|what qualifies as consensus?]]{{Broken anchor|date=2024-04-21|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page#What qualifies as consensus?|reason= The anchor (What qualifies as consensus?) [[Special:Diff/44857757|has been deleted]].}} on parent page. (basically, 70-80% support, but taking weight of arguments into account) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
==Article count in the header==
Um, what happened to no editing during the voting process? The article count is back and the draft is locked. And why the ugly emdashes? [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:Those are admins editing. experimenting with options. but, I dont like the emdashes either. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::I also guess that some changes are being made on the basis of objections made so far during the voting/discussion period (I'm now confused as to whether it is a vote or a discussion). I'm also guessing that a lot of oppose votes might be swept into the support camp on the basis of these changes, but that might not be valid as an oppose vote might not be on the basis of objections other than those mentioned in the vote comment. Conditional supports can be moved to support on the basis of changes, but I'm generally unhappy with _any_ editing during the voting process, as people might then want to change their votes. I'd suggest making the changes _after_ the voting period has ended. And then assessing whether such changes tip things further towards support. BTW, this 70-80% support figure that is being bandied about, does that take neutral and conditionals into account? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::1. This is both a discussion and a vote (but ''not'' a majority/plurality vote).
:::2. While the votes' present applicability should be evaluated, no one is going to count "oppose" votes as "support" votes.
:::3. Percentages are calculated by factoring only the "support" and "oppose" votes. But again, any number is merely a rough guide. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
==IS A NEW PAGE REALLY NECESSARY???==
Wikipedia changes it's design far more often than any other major site. The 'old' page hasn't even been around very long (less than a year, I think). What is the point of changing something that seems to be working fine, unless you're 're-branding' for the eventual sell-out to the man...<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:24.69.51.224|24.69.51.224]] ([[User talk:24.69.51.224|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.69.51.224|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
== Further suggestions ==
Could we fractionally increase the white space just above the '''Wikipedia's sister projects''' heading? The gap above it is noticeably smaller than the surrounding gaps above and below. (I can take a screenshot if what I mean isn't clear.) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 09:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:Specifically: Could an admin please test this: The '''Wikipedia's sister projects''' section is followed by a: <pre><br clear="all"></pre> Could we either remove this, or add another <pre><br clear="all"></pre> above the section. I think this will create a more uniform headings layout in the 3 bottom sections. Thanks. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
==[[Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board]]==
[[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] and I disagree as to how the wording of the election announcement should read. (See the template's revision history and <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Go_for_it%21&oldid=43139602#Template:Announcements.2FCommunity_bulletin_board my posting to his talk page]</span>, for an explanation of why.)
I've hit three reverts for the day, and I don't intend to violate the three-revert rule. If, however, anyone agrees with me, feel free to revert to my version. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:I've changed it to David Levy's version for 3 reasons. It's concise, it's less divisive, and the fact that the draft is '''still''' changing means that it is still more a discussion than a "vote" here. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
==This is it?==
All this discussion, all the prominence and media, and all for a few minor aesthetic changes? And after coming to this agreement, it was deemed a large enough change from the current main page to warrant all the further prominence/media/voting? I was expecting some interesting new changes that actually improve ''usability'', not just ''visibility''; or if such improvements could not be agreed upon or brought to fruition, then just continue discussion or go back to the drawing board. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<span style="color:#444444;">0918</span>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><span style="color:#222222;">BRIAN</span></b>]]</span></sup> • 2006-03-10 16:38</small>
== Nicer apostrophes, please :) ==
Both instances of "Today's" should be "Today’s". This may seem pedantic, but when it's in boldface in a headline, the straight-up apostrophes really stand out as wrong... [[User:Porge|porges]] 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
▲== Searching page still needs work ==
▲I'm still very concerned about the inclusion of the "[[Wikipedia:Searching|Searching]]" link in the header. The page is quite out of date in parts ([[Wikipedia:Searching#Delay_in_updating_the_search_index|delay]]), and there are unaddressed issues on its talk page (which has more than 50% posts from 2003, proving it's a low traffic metapage), and i'm fairly sure the opera instructions near the bottom are missing key info. And of course it still doesnt look anywhere NEAR the standard of the pages it's linked next to aesthetically (questions, help, etc). It needs a good going over by a bunch of people. (i dont know which cleanup-template to put at the top, otherwise i wouldve done that.).<br>
▲OR we need an alternative link to replace the Searching link completely. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
▲:I'll work on it, and recommend structuring it like the [[:de:Hilfe:Suche|German search]] page, but with the search box at the top that's been added to [[Wikipedia:Searching]]. I've begun working on a [[:Template:HelpTOC]] to use here (and on other help pages), but just beginning to organize what links to include. --[[User:
▲::[[Special:Search]].--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
▲:::If we refer readers to [[Special:Search]], they might believe that this is a required entry point (instead of realizing that there's a search box on every page). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::True. I haven't realy liked the idea of highlighting the left search box, but using the orange already in the skin and only for the Main page seems the best way to do it. On the other hand, newbies may think there's something special about that search box over the others.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ([[User talk:HereToHelp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HereToHelp|contribs]]) 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
▲:::::If it is technically possible to have the left search box highlighted on JUST the main page (which noone has confirmed), then it would be possible to also highlight it (the left search box) on the "Searching" page. I see no benefit in adding a second search box on the "Searching" page, for the same reason David pointed out for Special:Search, and as detailed against the second search box during the the main page draft.
▲:::::The German page does look informative and concisely laid-out, good plan, but i am against that second search box (which was just added on feb 27). --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
These 2 links will be '''newly appearing''' in the header of the Main Page.
* [[Wikipedia:Searching]]
* [[Wikipedia:Tutorial]]
Add them to your watchlists please, and help improve them before (assuming) we launch the redesign. Thank you. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
| |||