Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

640x480

While I still think we should support 640x480 or at least 720x480/576 it appears 800x600 is fine for the OLPC [1] Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's important that the site is usable on 640x480, but it would be unreasonable for it to look fantastic on such a low resolution. We should optimize for the most used resolution 1024x768, but not sacrifice upward scaling. It's also important to remember that many users with higher resolutions avoid browsing in a maximzed window. PretzelsTalk! 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, 640x480 represents less than 1% of screen resolution uses from every stats website I've seen:
Site 640x480 800x600 1024x768 and higher
[2] ~0.1% ~8% ~91%
[3] 0% 8% 86%
[4] 0% 7% 79%
While people do still use 640x480, making a design that looks poorer for the increasing majority of people to maintain support for a decreasing tiny minority doesn't make much sense (even 800x600 is a decreasing minority, but not quite so tiny). Mr.Z-man 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I second that, our <gallery> tag is actually designed for 1024, and so are many of our pages. If we were to remain compatible with this resolution, not only do we have to concern ourselves with the main page, but articles as well. Wikipedia as a site is also unfriendly to very old computers (my computer from '96 has a max resolution of 800), and its browser will not likely be able to support CSS2 (which is required), Javascript 1.6 and so on. In fact when I ran IE4 on Wikipedia: the browser crashed. Ultimately I don't believe that 640 compatibility should be part of the criteria, but simply as an option. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that screen resolution or browser window size? I for one have a 1024x768 screen, but I keep my browser resolution at 800x600 unless an inconsiderate site forces me to size it up to avoid horizontal scroll bars. That way I can have half a dozen other things going on instead of monopolizing my screen with one application. Anomie⚔ 00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As I've pointed out before the statistics are flawed. The websites you link to are special interest sites (primary webdesign companies), likely to be of primary interest to a specific group of users, which is unlikely to be the same as the general internet audience, particularly something like wikipedia which is likely to be of great interest to anyone including people from developing countries. Also who said anything about IE4? It is possible to use a modern browser with a lightweight OS. The OLPC for example, is a modern PC with a 433 mhz Geode and 256mb RAM. As I've pointed out above, 800x600 is fine for it but clearly it's probably not much better then a computer circa 1998/9. 14 inch/15 inch monitors were not uncommon at the time in some countries and it's perfectly likely that people in developing countries like Africa, India and China will still be using such an old computer including monitor (perhaps recycled). Many won't have internet access but some will. Just because they are in a minority and those that do probably don't access webdesign sites doesn't mean we should ignore them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sound offensive, but, yes it does. Part of the reason behind redesigning the main page is to update it. If we design it with outdated technology as our minimum, its not updated at all, its just different (is the current page even designed for 640x480?). As I said before, making a design that looks poorer for the increasing majority of people just to have a design that works well for a decreasing minority (even if its not 0%, its still much smaller than the number of people using higher-res monitors) is just silly. At some point we're going to have to stop supporting old technology; we can't wait until everyone in the world stops using it. How many other modern, top 10 or top 50 English sites are designed for 640x480? Mr.Z-man 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is 2008, and that the vast majority of Internet users are viewing with screen resolutions of far beyond 640×480, my opinion would be that it is behind the times to continue to support it. My guess is that the fraction of a percent of users that are still stuck with 640 will soon upgrade to much higher resolutions because their current systems are nearly unusable. Leave it where it is for now, and in a few years we should increase the optimization to 1280 or higher, given that that will likely be the standard then.--The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support minimum usable resolution of 800x600. PretzelsTalk! 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support 600x800 as the minimum resolution to which any consideration of accessibility is given. Our main efforts sitewide should be directed towards optimising 1024x768. Happy‑melon 21:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't support An old computer is perfectly usable with a lightweight OS (if it was usable in 1998 there's no reason it's not usable now. CSS2 and Javascript don't add that much overhead) and is often the only option for people in developing countries. Also as I've pointed out before SDTVs are 720x480/576. While the Wii browser (from what I've heard) evidentally renders as 800x600 and then scales down, most people using PVRs probably don't. More importantly, I've yet to see conclusive evidence that supporting 640x480 is actually detrimental for higher resolutions beyond poor web design. We shouldn't encourage sloppy programming. Bear in mind we are talking about windows size as well. If the windows isn't fullscreen at 800x600 then similar issues occur. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The main page must be properly usable with 640x480 and any other resolution [mobile etc.] (sometimes there are good reasons why people (have to) use <640x480). Whether the page looks ugly with 640x480 or not doesn't matter then, it just must stay usable. --Melancholie (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As a frequent mobile user, I can safely say we don't need to actively worry about mobile devices on the main Wikipedia - there are countless mobile access solutions for the site. PretzelsTalk! 08:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because there are options, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the main page work well for mobile users. As I've said before, if we are going to do this, we should do it properly and not be half-arsed about it. I for one will not support ANY proposal which is worse in mobile devices or 640x480 then our current page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Mobile users, if their browser works correctly, use a different stylesheet designed for handheld devices. Its not being "half-arsed" to make a design that isn't based on long outdated technology. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I ran out of time earlier, so I'll finish what I meant to say. Imagine you're a software developer working for a company to produce a new Windows application. You're going to want to make it compatible with Vista and XP, and possibly Windows 2000. You're not going to go out of your way to ensure it works on Windows 98 just because a few people might be using that as well. Its not lazy programming, its simple cost-benefit analysis. To make it functional on old technology, you're either going to have to remove features that won't work in older systems, or spend lots of extra time making it work or hacking around the incompatibilities for little benefit (and possibly additional drawbacks such as longer, inefficient code). Obviously for Wikipedia its a little more fuzzy because we aren't paying people by the hour and people aren't paying us for use of the site, but calling volunteers lazy for not wanting to go through the extra work to make sure the page looks good in both 640x480 and 1900x1200 is a bit unfair. Even if the page is designed with a minimum of 800x600 in mind, its not going to be unusable for lower resolutions, its just going to be less than ideal. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also a frequent user on small screens. You can expect large images and fixed widths (rather than proportional widths) to be a problem but in general, I think Wikipedia is generally good. However, we did have a recent discussion about deep indents on talk pages. When people use deep indents, the text gets shoved off to the right and sometimes just becomes a vertical string one or two characters wide. As in:

T
h
i
s
i
s
w
h
a
t
i
t
l
o
o
k
s
l
i
k
e

The only solution that I can think of is to encourage editors to use alternating indents. See the previous discussion. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point although talk pages, which are of greatest interest to editors are probably our area of least concern particularly for mobile devices. For 640x480 screens maybe since there is no reason we should ignore editors in developing countries with old computers nor editors with accessibility and other issues which may require 640x480.

It might be a good idea to raise at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility the proposal to drop support for 640x480. Because of my poor eysight I still browse at effectively 800x600 (I have a widescreen monitor, but reduce the window width to a little over 800px to avoid excessively long lines), and occasionally use my browser's "enlarge / zoom in" facility to make text appear larger - which reduces the effective screen res, but won't show in browser stats. -- Philcha (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Usable at that resolution I would imagine would be a given since our proposals are specified largely using percentages, and unless we specifically specified our proposal with absolute units such as pixels; I don't think this is a real issue at all. I was under the the guise that we should have an optimization (having the proposal look just as well at low resolutions than at any other) at 640. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, many people have suggested we drop support for 640x480 completely which I completely disagree with. I've personally strongly support the idea that we should try to optimise for all resolutions if possible rather then being half arsed about it. We have quite a number of proposals which don't even work with 800x600. I shudder to think how many proposals don't work at 640x480 Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is especially important when you consider that as a reference tool, Wikipedia is often opened in windows that are less than full screen. (While the user is doing the work that requires the reference in a different window.) APL (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is starting to get off topic, this isn't about Wikipedia page design in general, just the main page. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I think people are also getting confused between "supporting" 640x480 for the main page, and "optimising" its display at that resolution. They are fundamentally different things, and you can have one without the other. If anyone genuinely is suggesting that we stop "supporting" 640x480, please state that explicitly; this is, for instance, suggesting that we incorporate absolute widths greater than this, or allow material on the main page which is arranged in a similar fashion to the heavily-indented text demonstrated above. That is completely different to "optimising" for 640x480, which is a much more inclusive term covering, eg, not including three columns because only four or five words will fit on each line at such low resolution. The main page, or any other page for that matter, would still be entirely usable, but would simply not look optimal. Essentially we have a continuum, with full support for 640x480 (everything must look "good" at that resolution, anything that looks dodgy is prohibited) at one end, refusal to pay much heed to its appearance at 640x480 as long as it is still "usable" in the middle, and making it completely unsupported at the other end. The original proposal was, I think, the middle ground. Happy‑melon 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Though since 3 columns also looks pretty bad on 800x600, I don't think that's a possibility anyway. I also don't think its even possible to have a design that's optimized for 640x480, and also optimized for 1900x1200 or higher (if we go out of our way to support one minority, we need to support the others too), as well as everything in between. Mr.Z-man 01:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to remember that the high resolution minority (above or at 1680) has a much higher population than the low resolution minority (below or at 640).[5] Nevertheless I think this issue here is gathering far too much attention. If we wan to check for compatibility I think it should be on a proposal per proposal basis rather than a general proclamation. We can do a sweep just as we did the POTD test and so on. Since there is no consensus on whether to have it usable, optimized, or otherwise — it'll simply be information associated with the proposal, and nothing binding. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The first step...

...in narrowing the designs down may just be to take a straw poll, to narrow it down to about 5 proposals to work off of. It's not going anywhere else, Thoughts? iMatthew (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We need to get this moving along. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should definitely narrow down the proposals to about 5 before posting a watchlist notification. Otherwise, we'll get a strong bias towards the designs at the top of the page, as most people won't go through all 20 proposals. Or we simply won't get any input at all as people are put off by the vast number of designs. - Wintran (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go to ten before we go to five, but I won't go against it if its five. Anyway, are we going to copy and paste a template for the straw poll or are do we want to work out some details? To ensure that we aren't biased by other people's thoughts (when personal preference can play a key role in choosing a design, seeing other people's comments can skew our own) should be come up with what we would place as our results before we post them. That way, you've made up your mind before feeding the group-think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Do anybody oppose a straw poll to narrow us down to 5 nominations? iMatthew (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know how we're going to do it before actually doing it. The process can be just as important as the results. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it is to give everyone FIVE votes. iMatthew (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have more specifics, for example: when will this take place (next Saturday, tomorrow, so on); do we get to "vote" or "poll" for our own proposal; do we create a watch list notification; are we allowed to "campaign" (that is place small messages in other user's talk pages); will we establish a random sample (since our polls are self-selected it can't represent the population at a whole); and so on. I had a proposal of how we can do it in #What's going on with this?, it's a bit lengthy and there are somethings I think are unnecessary now. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to simplify all of that.

  • We will hold voting for a 7 day period starting tomorrow through next Sunday. During voting:
    • All voters have five votes they can cast and they must use each vote for a different proposal.
    • At the end, the proposals with the top five amount of votes will move on.
    • You can leave others messages such as "come vote" but not "come vote for mine and I'll give you a cookie."
    • If a tie, then we hold another three day voting round with just those proposals.

Does that sound good to everyone? Also, we should put out a watchlist notification for this. iMatthew (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This coming Sunday after that (October 25)? Also can we script the message to ask people to "vote" to something like "The 2008 main page redesign proposal is currently seeking support in selecting its proposals, please place your opinion at (link). (five ~ signature for just date)"? ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - that works. When would you say is good to open polls. iMatthew (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Give it a week. Since the conversation is between the two of us largely, want to move it to an IRC wikipedia-en? ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

See #The first step... for previous discussion. In order to narrow down five proposals before placing a site wide WP:RFC, we are proposing the following survey. The following list discusses the key points for a Request for Comment:

  1. On October 24th, we will open the survey and place a watch list notification.
  2. You can support up to five proposals
  3. You cannot support on your own proposal
  4. If there is a tie, then both proposals will continue
  5. Messages placed in other user's talk pages must be scripted:
    The [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18|Main Page Redesign proposal]] is currently conducting a vote to select five proposals to put forward for a new Main Page. Your input would be hugely appreciated. ~~~~
  6. A watch list notification will be issued on October 24:
    The [[Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18|Main Page Redesign proposal]] is currently conducting a vote to select five proposals to put forward for a new Main Page. Your input would be hugely appreciated.
  7. Runs for one week, from October 24 to October 31. (forgot to include)

Support:

Oppose:

  • We should go to the final vote with no more than 2 designs if we want to have any chance of one of them getting enough support. Mr.Z-man 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

  • Why 5? Is the intent to go to the final poll with 5 designs? Mr.Z-man 02:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    I believe so, Mr.Z-man. Question: For the talk page spam, can we add "Your participation would be appreciated" or something like that? لennavecia 03:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah we can definitely add that. iMatthew (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we intend to discuss the 5 passing designs after? I mean, will those designs be modified before we go to the final vote? --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • After we go down to five, we will use those designs to improve and discuss with. Then maybe a week or two later, we can hold another poll. iMatthew (talk)
  • The scripts do not make sense with "narrowing five proposals" — it should be something along the lines of "[...]currently conducting a survey to select five proposals before[...]" PretzelsTalk! 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work trying to get somewhere with this. I'm still worried (obviously...) about a strong bias towards designs at the top of the page when inviting new users to vote, as I'm sure many won't have time or interest to go through all designs, and they generally view designs from top to bottom. However, I've got no better idea atm, and we need to progress with this. I agree with Pretzels that the watchlist notification should be clarified to reach the most number of users possible. How about something like this:
The Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18 is currently selecting five design proposals to be used for a larger survey in determining whether or not to update the main page. Feel free to place your vote.

- Wintran (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the scripts accordingly. PretzelsTalk! 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, bias is a fundamental problem here: this is one reason why I suggested "scripted" RFCs (point 5). If it becomes possible in the future (say 2010 or 2012 main page redesign proposal) I think we could invest in a simple random sample taken from Wikipedia's active user population as means to solve this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This watchlist request is going no where. We can't go with 20 proposals and we can't narrow it down with community input unless we go with 20 proposals... catch 22, maybe? We'll have to cut them out ourselves and go with less, noting that once it does get wider attention, if certain aspects are requested, we can always pull out designs that have been cut. Remember, also, that if your design gets cut, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't play a part in bringing the remaining designs up to their best. As it is, as noted below, some designs just don't cut it. It's been months. If they're not done yet, it's time to trim them off. No offense to their creators. We've juts got to get a move on here. لennavecia 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutting down on the number of proposals

I strongly suggest removing some of the proposals before requesting mass-input. The current project page links to 23 (or 24) proposals.


These appear to be fundamentally broken, or unfinished:

These have serious issues at 800x600:

and a few of the proposals have multiple variants listed. It's hard to tell if all are proposed, or if some were just earlier work:

  • Jennavecia - 3 (or 4?) variants listed
  • MindstormsKid and MindstormsKid (2)
  • Wintran 5 and Wintran 7 and Wintran 8


Additionally, anything that has internal scrollbars, or uses "hide" code, really needs to be fixed or removed, per WP:SCROLL.

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up. iMatthew (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The straw poll draft page still lists 20 variants, and includes all the variants that are broken in some way.
If you ask people to take these broken proposals seriously, many of them are just going to ignore the whole thing. You're wasting editor's time, if you ask them to take this seriously, as a contender for our Main page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Quiddity on this one. PretzelsTalk! 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well. While some of these may represent good "proof of concept" designs, at the end of the day, some are simply not up to the task of taking over the main page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some of them are "fundamentally broken or unfinished", however I would oppose to take them out of the first primary. Also in expanding on WP:SCROLL, printing should not be an issue if (and only if) it is implemented directly in Wikipedia's CSS files (for example MediaWiki:Common.css). In short CSS has "mediatypes", one for printing, one for screen, braile, TV screens, and so on. Therefore you can specify "overflow-x:auto" in the screen CSS file, and omit it in print CSS file—therefore solving the print problem. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think printing is really an issue for the main page, but scrollbars are still really ugly and really obnoxious, especially vertical scrollbars which can interfere with normal scrolling. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I as going by the primary reason why scroll bars were eliminated in the {{reflist}} discussions where editors wanted to place the refernces within a scroll box to conserve space. They can be distracting, but I think ugly would be pushing it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated and full-length screenshots requested

Updated and full-length screenshots would be good. Volunteer requested. (I'm still wrestling with linux fonts, otherwise I would take them myself.) I recommend the firefox extension http://www.screengrab.org/ and logging out, to take them all. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I started doing this, but instead I made view links in the gallery. It's easier than uploading a dozen pictures. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please wait until after the straw poll before removing the "unfinished/broken" proposals. The #Cutting down on the number of proposals hasn't reached consensus, and the #Request for Comment doesn't outline removing them. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I did the screengrabs for most of the proposals. There were like three that look unfinished. Redlinks where featured content should be, very large areas of white space in the middle of the design, etc. Seemed pointless to screenshot them like that. لennavecia 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Post RFC

Assuming that the RFC above passes, and we are left with five proposal (six in the case of a tie), the question becomes: how many do we want to run against the main page, how do we conduct the Wikipedia wide RFC in determining whether to keep or generate a new proposal, do we allow new proposals, and so forth. This asses it:

Wikipedia wide RFC

  1. Like a recall, we'll ask for two pieces of information:
    1. Whether or not to keep or update the main page
    2. Which proposal would you otherwise choose
  2. Scripted Watchlist notification (see #Request for Comment)
  3. Scripted userpage RFC (see #Request for Comment)
  4. A notification directly on the main page stating that there is a proposal to change it in progress
  5. Date is not yet determined, but I would prefer to put it on a holiday (Christmas or Thanskgiving)

Immediately following the Primary

  1. We cap proposals as of Friday October 24, Rationale: we've had over a hundred (pre-survey), its time to finish it
  2. We develop the remaining five proposals
    1. For example, if it has a GA, we make a version with and a version without
    2. We notify or re propose to the GA or whatever groups that there is a proposal that would promote the GA, rational: remember that when the proposal started in July, part of the criteria was to have a slots for GA and Featured list and so on
  3. We'll have a second straw poll to narrow it down to say: two or three
  4. We disown the proposals from the proposer, and develop it collectively, Rationale: we should lift the proposal from personal preference and potential bias, and develop like sort of like an article. After the second "primary", we'll look at the code and there we'll end it, until its decided to do something like a: Wikipedia:2010 main page redesign proposal

I think we can learn some tactics from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page, and we'll probably need to develop the RFC page to keep it as organized (and perhaps appealing) as possible. Nevertheless, what do you guys think? Can we form a consensus to finish the proposal? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Comment

Instead of tossing out ideas...

Hi, I worked with the 2005/2006 redesign and I just discovered this page. I think the current approach--come up with a bunch of ideas and narrow it to one--is not the right way to do things. Forgive me if this has already been done, but I saw relatively little on the talk archives about what we want to do and everything about how to do it. The design must have ideas and goals, rather than hashing out what looks good. To that end, there are two issues that need to be thouroughly discussed before we begin to toy with Wiki markup:

  1. What is wrong with the old design, and
  2. What useful features can we add?

One of the main cons with the current design is small screens. Fewer people are using small rez but more are using portable devices (smartphones). Can we have resolution and browser detection to accomodate each of these circumstances? And how drastic will the change have to be? Perhaps the answer is to stack the first four rotating features on top of each other, rather than side by side, thereby giving each twice the horizontal real estate. I would also support reviewing and refining the static links at the top of the page (above TFA and ITN). However, I think that there is not a whole lot wrong with the current design. We can make tweaks to it as described above, but considering the thought that went into it last time and the maturity of Wikipedia, I support a tune-up rather than starting from scratch. A couple of truisms that emerged from the last redesign:

  • Icons were ultimately discarded because they are liable to misinterpreted, inconsistent, and childish.
  • Likewise, color must be used carefully, tastefully, and consistently.
  • Once something is added to the Main, Page, it becomes almost impossible to remove it. The number of article was originally moved down below the FP; opposition was so strong it had to be re-added to the header at the top of the page.
  • A search bar in the header was ultimately rejected because there's already one in the sidebar. We don't want to imply that one has to go to the Main Page to search. If you know what you want, you'll use the search bar (or Google will bypass the Main Page altogether). The Main Page is for discovering new things you didn't know you didn't know.
  • The semitransparent book or puzzle globe behind "Welcome to Wikipedia" (which needs to be the first thing on the page for screen readers) looks cool but won't render in some browsers (though this might have changed with newer versions).

Thank you for reading. If we know where we want to go before we set out, we're much more likely to get there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least one thing that is missing from the main page is a donate button. This design has a good example on the right hand side. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not support a donate button. We are trying to introduce new readers to Wikipedia, and asking for donations seems off-putting to them and abases us. With the exception of donation drives, we should be as discreet as possible about asking for money. I like Pretzel's design's general color neutrality (austerity?) and how it breaks up the segments so the reader is not confronted with two side-by-side columns of text, which works better on small screens, too. I oppose the icons and search bar for reasons stated above. Ultimately, I think it raises a good point in contrast to the current MP: it's too cluttered, exacerbated by background colors.
On a quest for simplicity, I used Pretzel's and the current MP to come up with this design. It cuts back on icons and color (perhaps too much on the later) in favor of a brutally simple approach. My guiding philosophy is that the MP is an invitation to explore knowledge one wouldn't have otherwise gone to; for those with a purpose, there's the search bar. It eliminates redundant links (which aren't supposed to be in headers anyway.) It sacrifices links to specific portals in favor of four generic jumping off points, and nicely incorporates the article count as a preface to them. This results in a thinner top banner, which is good, because the design is not horizontally dense; there is only one column. Instead, features are layered vertically. This is because we don't mind scrolling down but we do mind scrolling side to side. While perhaps a more complex design could better serve as the main Main Page, this could be a perfect alternative for small screens and mobile devices.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think pandering to mobile devices is the way forward. There are three ways they render the web; 1) they use the official WP mobile site / Wapedia etc, 2) they show the content "flat", eg ignoring floats, in a single column (similar to how Lynx displays sites), or 3) they render as if the screen is wider and use zooming (Opera Mini, iPhone OS). None of these mean we should be cutting out links, features or content. PretzelsTalk! 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
We lost our sanity before the proposal really got off the ground (it started in July). One thing I found disappointing was that the only real instruction up until this point was to "make proposals." At first following the criteria, link here. However over time, that sort of became forgotten. There was a survey, however I think it failed because it didn't clearly distinguish which proposal failed or passed. A tremendous amount of the judgement rests upon personal preference, which further befuddles the criteria. This is the purpose behind having a proposal oriented RFC rather than element oriented RFC. It's difficult to develop twenty-two proposals, and the plan is to reduce the number to five and develop it collectively from there.
Perhaps one of the initial purposes (other than simply ignorance of previous MP proposals) behind a "competition" mentality was allow new ideas to flourish and show its worth; before being constrained by consensus, potential group-think (hive-mind), and so forth. I think we're in that transition. And following the end of the RFC on Friday, October 31, we would begin finalizing the criteria and goals (I think it should still stay proposal oriented), before making a RFC site notice that the current main page is ready to transition. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware of Wapedia; I suppose I've been beaten to the punch there. However, just because an iPhone can render the real MP doesn't mean that a simplified version would not be much more accessible (remember: horizontal scrolling = bad). I had a bunch of specific comments typed up, but the ChyranandChloe posted and I realized that I'm being a little too cynical. However, I think you've closed then nominations too early, mostly because there's hardly any community exposure. I haven't seen anything on the watchlists, the Singnpost, or the Community Bulletin Board (at the Community Portal); rather I stumbled on to this page by chance. I suppose, though, that it's alright to have an open design submission. Let's just make sure we get a lot of variety in those final five (and it probably shouldn't be a fixed number). If we try to build consensus rather than attract votes, the process will work much better. To that end, I'm changing my proposal to be a tweaked version of 88wolfmaster's. It's also a simple design, but I like the about box and internal links.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a page about WP's mobile access options - my proposal has a link to it :D   There have been watchlist notifications (that's how I found out about it) and multiple messages on the Community Bulletin Board. We've also posted on relevant talk pages and other places so it's a real shame we didn't reach you. I hope you stick around to help. PretzelsTalk! 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? Oh well....and yes I saw the mobile access options as I was going over the designs. Anyway, I redid mine off of 88wolfmaster's, so it's not so anemic. Let's publicize even more--but a side effect of that is that people (like me) are going to try their hand at making their own designs. I can understand closing the entries once the polls have begun, but in the meantime, I think we should welcome other ideas (like mine?). I also suggest approval voting for the first round of easy cuts. Once some strong ideas emerge, we can discuss and combine and go from there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Jennenvicia and I fought for the watch-list notification, link here; however it was struck down. The rationale that we were pitted against is that proposal was flawed from the start and that more community attention would be the last thing we need (you'll have to read the full discussion to get the whole story). We found an alternative, link here, however we only notified former people involved in the MPRP2008. I think we have a consensus. The current RFC is a form of approval voting, and the plan afterward was to discuss the features and criteria of proposals that pass. Not to be harsh, since your (HereToHelp) proposal is similar to Wolfmaster88, would it make sense to vote for it? And following the RFC, when we begin serious discussion over criteria and goals, you would enter your idea in to amend it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No harshness taken; that sounds like a good idea. (And besides, it's usually easier to work with the bureaucracy than against it.) Will we be able to submit new designs after this poll, provided they are variants of winning designs? Also, thank you for trying to get publicity. Transparency gives us more ideas to work with (and voters who feel like they haven't had a chance to help designing the new page are more likely to oppose it in the inevitable vote against the current page). Until then, this poll looks like it will yield some interesting ideas.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the active editors in the RfC have proposals themselves, should we have an editor without a proposal close the RfC? iMatthew (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody opposes, I may soon go through and close some nominations per WP:SNOW - there's only a few right now. I think the best way to close is to archive the discussion with "The result was eliminated per WP:SNOW" iMatthew (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Only if they really are SNOW and their sponsor is not trying hard to improve them. Users who voted for such cases would get their "vote credit" (out of five) back. But I again ask: Will we be able to submit new designs after this poll, provided they are variants of winning designs?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No, but you can work with the original proposer to make it better. iMatthew (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And what if the original poster and I have different ideas? I feel that after this poll we need to evaluate what works and what doesn't. Armed with this new information we should again foster creativity and allow different variations. Is this the authoritative opinion or just yours? (I'm hoping on a flood of new ideas and responses will mean we can't limit ourselves the creativity to those already on board. It's a good problem.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. First, and more just a vent because there's nothing I can do about it now, and I really should have checked the page the day it was created, but the wrong version of my design was put up in the straw poll. So this is just fantastic. That aside, I think the point is to narrow it down to the top five designs and determine what the best features are from each and then attempt to create, as a group, a couple of new designs that incorporate those features. I think it would be best to keep those in the project space, not in anyone's user space. Everyone is welcome to work on those, as many of the current designs, including mine, welcomed the help of others. Once they're finished, that will be one or two designs to show to the community along with the current main page, and we'll go from there. Further changes will probably be made to the design that ultimately gains the greatest support, of course. That's been my impression of how this is going down. لennavecia 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From my understanding, following the RFC we will disown the proposals from the proposer and develop it as a community: under either under consensus agreement between the persons working on that particular proposal, or simply by majority vote within the proposal. There is no fully authoritative opinion here. You happen to join when we finished essentially achieving a consensus to establish a RFC (and as a result the closure of new proposals), the remainder is largely opinion between ourselves. I'm sure you have plenty of great ideas — I know how it feels when I began my proposal, and how stifling it would be to see that new proposals are closed. However this MPRP has been going on since July, and there are some people I believe who feel that this proposal has fallen into an unrecoverable anarchy. This is the rationale against new proposals: new ideas, I think, are still welcome. I'm not entirely sure how another proposal would be received, but if you can make we, we will look at it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
So lets talk about what ideas we have decided on. When I look back at the brief survey, it looks like the only things everyone agreed on was using a two column view, keeping the welcome banner, removing the search bar and the language section. Most of these designs fit the bar, so we need to agree on some other criteria. I think a good discussion starter would be hearing the arguments for and against using icons for portals and such on the main page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) Stolen from response of mine to Pretzels: The icon most people use for FP focuses too much on the brush; it's used fittingly at {{RetouchedPicture}} but does not belong here. The Featured Star is used with articles, implying that they are the only type of featured content. Some of the other icons are better but I'd like their number reduced to almost nothing. The portal icons are often too small to discern if you've never seen them at high rez, and may be biased. (Socrates for Philosophy and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for Religion both imply a Western slant.) I prefer grouping portals (though not with the exact execution of that design, which still includes icons and probably has too much geography). Another issue many people are neglecting is that links are meant to face the reader, not the contributor (that's what WP:CP is for). Welcome to Wikipedia, which appears on many designs, makes the immediate assumption that the reader is an editor, implying that we expect all reader to contribute (which would be nice, but isn't true). Also, one of things I like about the current design is that it uses different formatting for dynamic (changing) and static (permanent) content. 88wolfmaster and ChyranandChloe make this distinction, but most designs do not. I also did not meet the deadline but I have a version derived from 88wolfmaster. The right column is still liable to change and I'd like to fit some more color in there somewhere, but I think it's much more serious (or perhaps austere) than most. Another idea I had was to declare the dynamic content and formatting off limits and to improve only the static content of the current design, but I'm not sure of the reaction that this "ultra-conservative" design would get. I'd also be interested in allowing different types of featured content on the MP - perhaps a sound instead of a picture occasionally, and either a list, portal, or topic daily. Thanks for reading.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Following the end of the RFC on Friday, I have a replacement for the project page prepared, link here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see: User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. - jc37 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Final five

Okay, so regardless of which way we break it down, the top five are the same five designs and in the same order. Breakdown is as follows:

Design: Support | Net

  1. Jennavecia: 28 | 22
  2. Pretzels: 24 | 10
  3. CrazyChemGuy: 21 | 9
  4. Wintran: 16 | 3
  5. Dudemanfellabra: 12 | -1

So now we can finally get on to the final design phase. لennavecia 05:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this is put on hold until the question of consensus is resolved. - jc37 05:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is clear, as detailed above. From the beginning of the poll until the end, it was clearly stated that the five designs with the greatest amount of support (total or net, doesn't matter, as seen above, it's the same regardless) would move on. It was clearly stated to you in the general comments section that if you liked certain designs and wanted them to advance, to support them. Broad comments, such as yours, cannot be appropriated to five designs, thus they remain comments in the general comments section to be applied to the final five in building a final design or two to put up against the main page. It's taken us several months to get to this point, and we're not going to delay it any further because you are not pleased that someone else didn't take the time to determine which designs you wanted to support, and that the poll was closed on time. لennavecia 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not consensus, that's a "vote" count. The rest is unfounded accusations that I think I'll ignore for the time being. And yes, everyone interested please see the discussion noted by User:ChyranandChloe, below. - jc37 06:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's precisely why this poll (and by extension, the entire redesign endeavor) lacks legitimacy. To claim that "consensus is clear" because of a numerical tally is to ignore Wikipedia's basic principles. —David Levy 07:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The community's desires have been represented. This is a whole lot of complaining and pinging over process and for what? One participant out of how many is upset and has yet to explain exactly what he expected. And then, now, someone who has already made it clear that he doesn't like the way this process has been run (as if any of us have) has again weighed in here. Great. Well, months and hundreds of hours of work have gone into these proposals by dozens of people. So what, exactly, is it that you want? لennavecia 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I wanted you to conduct a legitimate discussion (instead of a winners-take-all vote). You know, like a wiki?
My point isn't that a participant is upset; it's that you haven't offered a sensible process in which to participate. You've evaluated the feedback as well as could be expected, but it's unreasonable to expect useful feedback from a poll in which respondents were required to vote for designs in their entirety (with the objective of eliminating designs in their entirety). I stated that before it began. —David Levy 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding closure of the straw poll, there is a ongoing discussion on User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

From the poll page

Proposed designs are listed below. Click the author's name to view the proposed page in full.

  • Please support no more than five proposals, by signing your name with four tildes (~~~~)
  • This Request for Comment (RFC) is not binding and will not be used to replace the current main page; its purpose is solely to narrow the number of proposals so that these can be discussed further and a larger RFC can be conducted.
  • This poll is about potential. Individual aspects (search bars, portal lists, multiple FAs) can be added or removed from any design. Those are a matter of community consensus. For this poll, vote based on design (layout) potential.
  • For more information and past discussion on the main page redesign, see Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Archive_2#Survey_results, the archives on Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal and Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal
Jc37's comments

These are so diverse, and yet each has something positive (and negative).

I find myself in a contradiction of opinion.
First: I like the vertical listings of the sister projects. (However, I'm not sure if perhaps having a "small column" which is semi-reciprocal to the sidebar just makes the page look "busy".)
But on the other hand, I like the 4-square versions. (I like Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Highfields the best of those.)

I wonder if we could have a "4-square version", but below that, have the reciprocal right-side-bar.

Realistically speaking, how is it even possible to determine which proposals would be supported for this? It's not clear if he supports a small column or not, he likes the four square versions, one design being the best, and wonders about the possibility of having a side bar below a 4-square version, which, honestly, doesn't make sense to me. So, someone please tell me, how does that apply to support up to five designs based on potential? لennavecia 06:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is centered on User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure, however there are several notes of interest on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Highlights of Straw Poll Discussions

Upon re-reading the discussions for the designs (all of them, not just the top five) I got the impression that these are the highlights:
What commenters liked or wanted:

  • Creating a professional design
  • Creating a simple and clean design
  • Making good use of space
  • Solve problems with the current Main Page
  • Accessible to users of mobile phones and alternate skins
  • Keeping "In the News" near the top
  • Keeping links to the sister projects
  • Moving up "Today's Featured Picture"
  • Adding dates to "In the News"
  • Displaying the recently Featured Photos instead of their links
  • Making "Find an article"-type links more obvious
  • Making the "Welcome to Wikipedia" text larger and more prominent
  • A brighter, more inviting design

What commenters had mixed reactions about:

  • Adding and placement of Today's Quote
  • Featured topics / lists / portals
  • Adding / leaving out the Search Bar
  • Usage of too much / not enough color
  • Usage and placement of Portal and Category icons
  • "Best of Wikipedia" v. "Featured Article"
  • Featuring one or two Featured Articles
  • Icons
  • Ranking the Did You Know?, In the News, On This Day sections via listing

What commenters did not like or want:

  • Requiring horizontal scrolling due to long page length.
  • Usage of Javascript
  • Usage of round borders
  • Created a child-centered design
  • Creating a design with too much white space.
  • Usage of small text
  • Making the top menu too empty / too bloated.

Any thoughts on how the above can help us improve the five potential proposals? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of these things should probably be brought up on Talk:Main page. Changing the features of the main page should be discussed there first. I think it will be easiest to begin designing from there. لennavecia 16:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some observations about approach

Competition didn't work during the last Main Page redesign, because versions that shared features tended to divide votes between them, allowing another version with not-so-popular features to attain a greater vote count. For example, if you have 5 nearly identical versions and one completely different one competing with them, the 5 nearly identical ones will diffuse their support between them potentially allowing the odd man out to win by shear numbers.

Another problem, and this was a MAJOR one, was that David Levy and Heretohelp basically took over the project, getting their way primarily by directly reverting others' changes, both to the main draft as well as to the instructions and announcements on the organization pages. Most participants didn't seem to realize that this was how consensus was in large part reached the last time around - by sheer weight of edits and reversions rather than in discussion. I'm still amazed by how many people David Levy got away with reverting. I often found myself alone opposing Levy and Heretohelp, with them continuously outreverting me on the draft and in the organization page's instructions (which they usurped, by the way, without discussion on any talk page - it happened directly in the edit history - a highly disruptive approach, even though the method I had adopted from the coordinator before me was equally flawed as it bypassed direct collaboration, which they immediately gave me a huge dose of! Looking back, I readily admit I hadn't been wikified yet and didn't have a clue how the wiki and consensus-building worked.)  :) But everyone except for a handful of editors seemed to be oblivious to the actual procedure (and edit war) by which decisions were being made and how the project was being managed.

I hope there are enough savy participants this time around that this will not happen again, to avoid the sheer frustration I experienced. For more information about reaching consensus through direct editing, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

That being said, keep in mind that David was absolutely right: the competition mentality (or beauty pageant approach) doesn't work very well in the wiki model, which is a collaborative medium (for the reasons mentioned above and because anybody can edit each and every draft in a competition). He and others dragged me kicking and screaming to that same conclusion: the competition mentality eventually landed me in an RfC, and they finally convinced me to ditch the many-version contest approach. I understand and agree with David Levy this time around for the most part...

...but there is a caveat:

while every "look and feel" can be broken down into features (color, columns, header style, heading style, etc.), a strictly featured-based approach could result in something akin to Frankenstein's monster, where each of the components seem OK on their own but just don't fit together quite right. Therefore, somehow you've got to agree on a general layout or design theme as a starting point, and then build it in collaborative fashion like any article would be developed. Then the finished "draft" could be proposed to replace the current Main Page without diluting votes between multiple challengers. I propose that you select your starting point by posing one version against another, one at a time. Then, when you have a single draft left, start discussing (from scratch) specific features to be added to or subtracted from it.

I believe David Levy is an excellent leader, when he doesn't give-in to the temptation of arguing-to-the-death, a tendency he has which he readily admits (and of which I'm guilty as well). But he's an expert on Wikipedia, he loves this encyclopedia, and he puts his heart and soul into it. I've come to trust his judgement generally speaking - you may find you are trying to get to the same end result except by different means, so open communication and compromise are key. You're in good hands - David knows what he is doing and he usually sees pitfalls well in advance of most of the rest of us.

I'd like to try my hand at collaborating with David again, but unfortunately, I'm too involved in another project to participate this time around. Though I thought I'd pop in to add my 2 cents. I hope you find my ramblings helpful.

Good luck, have fun, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

The Transhumanist 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (formerly User:Go for it!).

I'm sorry you have such bitter memories of the project - and I do not want to re-incite an edit war - part of the reason why I may have been so vindictive about the design is that there was only one of them. I think multiple options and freedom to draft will help diffuse tension immensely. Frankenstein's monster is a good point, but it's impossible to prevent until you see it assembled. I still support the breaking-down of issues. As for formatting designs, I think we need to narrow it down - only a few people at the moment seem willing to champion a design. When we start drafting, we'll see. Until then, we need to establish what to draft (see #Goals).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry as well for such bitter memories, we need people willing to join like you and perhaps better establish the reputation of this project. One thing that crossed my mind again, is empty discussion. There have been a lot of them going over several criterias which all seem to parallel one another. You have to remember that after the discussion you have to apply it. This is one reason why I support moving some of the discussion (over layout, aestetics, and design) over to the proposal candidates rather than cetranlizing it here. So far, I think we're on that track; but it's a reminder when we finish our discussion over search bars and content. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm too busy recruiting editors to join the team that is building Wikipedia's outline of knowledge, and passing out task assignments. There's just so much work that needs to be done there that I can't pull away. Though I wish you the best of luck (and results). Cheers. The Transhumanist 22:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Transhumanist: I appreciate your praise, but I must dispute some your claims regarding my involvement in the last main page redesign.
At no point did I (or HereToHelp) "take over" the project or "usurp" anything. We did, however, work very hard to get you to release your stranglehold (no offense intended). As the self-appointed "coordinator," you were unilaterally imposing all sorts of counterproductive rules and procedures (many of which violated policy). The above leads me to believe that you now realize this, but it seems that your memory of HereToHelp's and my behavior remains colored by your perceptions at the time (before you realized the error of your ways). If you were to go back and read the archives (which would be quite a chore, of course), I suspect that you'd see that HereToHelp and I spent much of our time countering your unintentional disruption.
As for my reversions, I did not unilaterally impose my will. I frequently reverted edits that unwittingly introduced broken code and/or contradicted existing consensus. This was not edit-warring; it was necessary cleanup of well-intentioned edits by users who hadn't followed the discussions and didn't realize that their changes were unhelpful (and often duplicative of ideas that already had been rejected).
I'll remind you that when I arrived, direct editing of the draft by anyone other than you (the "coordinator") had been deemed off-limits. It was I who insisted that this unwiki rule be dropped. —David Levy 16:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What David said.
Aude was the main force behind the last redesign. Then Go for it! arrived and tried to supervise everything, which David and Heretohelp had to keep correcting, whilst trying to educate him on basic wikiquette and webdesign. Read the archives if that isn't clear. This was the cream on the cake. All in the past, of course. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with David and Quiddity. The three of us "old timers" are not trying to control the design (I have yet to seeGo for it!/Transhumanist get too involved) but rather the designing process. It's not a defense of the old formatting - which is not inherently incontrovertible, but it remains up to the new designers to come up with something better. Rather, we want something proffesional, too. Icons and bright, unharmonized colors are not professional; simplicity is (but that's much harder to do objectively). The current design manages to be serious without being austere.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to go high-tech...

...and work with Wikimedia's (software) developers to create a configurable main page. Then all Wikipedians would get the main page they want.

It would take an especially dedicated team of Wikipedians to make it happen.

The Transhumanist 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean like iGoogle? That's an interesting idea! Of course, we would still have to have a default page, but it would be much more flexible for registered users, and could provide really useful functionality for them (maybe a snippet that allow you to view your watchlist from the main page, for example). - Wintran (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
More like my yahoo, for which each user decides which sections to have displayed (news, weather, etc.), and in what order. The sections to choose from for Wikipedia's main page might be "featured article", "picture of the day", "in the news", "did you know?", "featured this", "featured that", etc. etc. Look and feel could also be controlled (background color, etc.) The Transhumanist 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! I think that customisable modules would be great. Maybe you could be able to add your own modules and allow transclusions of templates on the main page. For example, there could be a template that's updated regularly, and you could transclude that. Or maybe even having Recent Changes or other Special Pages on there! --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You can redirect the main page to another page of your choosing already. See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. Its not exactly what you are talking about but it still provides options other than the current main page.--88wolfmaster (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
But the fundamental question is, what do we show to anonymous users? What is the default?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with HereToHelp, we went over this above; the method is to add this to your monobook.js
if (wgPageName == "Main_Page") {
  window.location = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEW_MAIN_PAGE_HERE";
}

ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not throw in page design too. I think it would look cool in a kind of parchment type layout like an old encyclopedia Count Blofeld 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean the background? That is done with "skins". Does anyone have a link for that? WP:SKIN? More generally, I've just read through the latest discussions (I'm one of the 'old-timers' that took part in the 2006 main page redesign) and I think people miss the point that everyone can have a customisable design. See Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives as others have pointed out. The point is (as has been pointed out) that the Main Page should: (a) be aimed at readers who are not logged in (this is the vast majority of our readers), and (b) be presentable and accessible and professional. Some change for the sake of change in order to avoid the site feeling "dated" might be desirable, but remember that the vast majority of the website will still look the same (the sidebar and the default skin, for example). What should be avoided in any main page redesign is a popularity contest where the editors design pretty pages and ask other editors to vote on them (apologies if referring to 'pretty pages' upsets anyone - I've looked at the designs and I really do like several of them). If you want to see which of your designs are most popular, by all means select a shortlist and attract people to vote for their favorite, and then put them in Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives and have some way of monitoring how many people actually use which ones (though be prepared for most people to stick to the default through sheer apathy). Remember as well, that many people who want a customisable main page simply create and use their own. Now, has there been a detailed discussion of how the current main page can be improved or what is wrong with it? I'm sure there is lots that can be said about that - could someone point me to that discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was aiming to address that in #Goals, however we've redefined that section. Right now, perhaps your best bet is in #Signpost press release, and perhaps more specifically in #Alternative. Also there's a lot of discussion, and I suggest remaining independent until you have a sure place to put your opinion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Talking about Signpost, publication has been irregular. See WT:SIGNPOST. Best to check these sort of things before planning a press release. Not sure they do press releases anyway. They'd write a story about it, or a short note. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It started out as a way to get people involved and spread the word, but it quickly devolved from there. You'll see. I know it's a lot to read.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice designs

Candidate 1 is by far the most trust-inspiring and professional looking. That is probably my first pick for that reason, followed by Candidate 3. After that, I like candidates 5 then 4 for their simple and informal look. My two cents. Althepal (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Goals

I think we need to discussion why we are conducting a Main Page Redesign Proposal. In short, I believe we need to ask the questions what is wrong with the current main page and what we can do to improve it. Below is a list copied from the original instruction:

  • The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader.
  • It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy)
  • It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles.
  • The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position.
  • Links to better-used pages should be added.
  • There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles.

So let's expand on it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What we tried didn't work; that we spent so much time on it is no justification. I'm creating headers as outlines of those bullet points. I invite anyone and everyone to contribute (a major factor lacking last time was transparency). However, I think we should stay on these points for the moment. These steps must be completed in order:
  1. Decide what is wrong with old MP. (Quotes above are a good start.) A little bit later, decide what specific design elements we want to use, and which to discard. (rounded corners, icons, show/hide buttons, number of columns, color schemes, etc.)
  2. Begin drafting one design as a group, using the current MP as a base and altering only what we can improve. "Improve" will have been defined by the previous step. In the mean time, no drafting please.
These are my ideas on how to best structure the redesign, round 2. If the consensus is otherwise, I cannot fight that. Without further ado, headings: --HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the home page as it stands is that it's very busy and crowded, resulting in a lack of resting space for the eye, having nothing stand out, and a long scroll for the home page. I say this as a studying web-designer. Now while it is way too big a project for me, I really think Wikipedia needs to take a slice out of that $2,000,000 they raised to hire a real professional web designer. Because as it stands this "main page redesign" is doing nothing to the wireframe and information design -- it's just putting on a new coat of paint when it needs a remodel. Althepal (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Visually appealing

The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader. You can discuss colors and icons soon, but please try to hold off awhile we discuss what we want colors and icons to do.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

  • The images currently used on the Main Page are miniscule and almost not worth having. It should almost be a given that in this redesign images dimensions should be increased. PretzelsTalk! 05:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
True, but do consider that many people are browsing on small displays. Another issue is whether to show previews of previously featured images. I think it would make it look to cluttered and distract from the current image, but I'm willing to look at mock-ups. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings on this. However, I do like the look of larger images for the TFA, though I do not like the look of displaying previously featured images. لennavecia 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Icons

Perhaps one of the most divisive issues. I, personally, am opposed to including icons. I think that they are childish and not becoming of a legitimate reference source. They are often inconsistent and potentially misleading or ambiguous, especially for those with bad eyesight who have never seen them at higher resolution. The suggested icons for portals (are we using portals?) are biased. Socrates for Philosophy and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for Religion both have a Western slant. Those same two are not of the Nuvola family and don't match the others. The Featured star and GA button are the only icons that are used frequently, consistently, and uniformly; using only one or two icons, though, does not look very good, either.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that icons are of little use. In most of the contexts in which they would be used on the main page, they could not be comprehended without reading the text next to them, so they add little to navigation. From an aesthetic viewpoint I find they detract. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the use of icons in the headers, but I think they add a good splash of color for the portal list, if included. It is, however, a good point, that people may not be able to distinguish the image at that size. لennavecia 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Content sections

It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles. The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position. Links to better-used pages should be added. When discussing specific links, please make sure they are targeted towards the reader (Wikipedia:Introduction) and not editors (Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't strong support for portals, we could omit all the links between the header and two columns, instead having "Browse #### of articles by: Contents, Index, Categories, Portals, Featured Content" over to the right. Also, there has beentalk of having featured sounds along with images on the MP. That's perhaps more of a coding issue (once we decide whether it's a good idea or not - I think so), but because of featured panoramas, it needs to remain a full-width section, not in a column. I'd like to see a daily Featured List, Portal, or Topic; I'll drop by those talk pages and ask anyone interested to comment here.--HereToHelp (talk to me)17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
POTD does not, as popular thought goes, need to be full-width because of panoramas. It's not 1998 anymore, and many more people are using high resolution monitors. Those with lower resolutions will simply get a scrollbar, using overflow:auto. We've been through this before. PretzelsTalk!21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have my browser window set up to occupy as much of my 17" monitor as I can, but not everyone will have that - many laptops have 12" or so screens. I really don't like horizontal scrolling. However, it's a moot point because we aren't drafting yet. Please evaluate the sections on their merits (see also Featured content below) and we'll worry about layout in a week or two. Thank you for your patience.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You really want to start from the ground up again? It's kind of sad that we couldn't have recruited you some time ago. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the most structured discussion we've had so far. I've writtened POTD transclusion for me and Dudemanfellabra which allows for horizontal scrolling from within the image sort of like the {{panorama}} template. Currently we have "Today's featured article" "Did you know" "In the news" "On this day" and "Today's feautred picture"
  • I think "Today's featured article" could be changed to simply "Featured article"; the reason, I think, for this lengthy name is that not all of the featured content is updated daily. This and the POTD is.
  • "Did you know" was proposed to be bumped up above the "In the news"; I'm not sure about my position on that
  • "In the news" is ok where it is, we've had a discussion about it some time ago in archives concerning it with Wikinews.
  • "On this day" I think it's ok where it is.
  • "Today's featured article", I accommodate the featured sounds, I think we can merge it into "Today's featured media", or "Featured media" to keep the name short. Like the FA, it's updated daily.
ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd really love to see us take a brave step and merge In the News and On This Day. It makes sense. PretzelsTalk! 04:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I also think it would make sense to split the page into three sections: first, Featured / daily editorial content. Second, "Find an article" resources - portal lists (inc featured portal if you want), links to different topic lists, categories, etc. And last, a summary of the Wikipedia community: perhaps a signpost box, links for new users and handy reference links.PretzelsTalk! 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had been recruited a long time ago, too, but I was on Wikibreak when the project started. I prefer ITN, DYK, and OTD, in that order. Featured content is being discussed under that header; I favor an article, a picture or sound, and a topic list or portal, daily, though I also like the Beethoven idea. I think that portals may be a little too much information when we're trying to get dynamic content closer to the top. But if they are below all of that, are grouped by subject (Kollison has the right idea, though I think there's too much Geography), and don't use icons (see that separate discussion), I could go for it. I'm leaning against community links on a reader-facing page, but I'll look at how it's done and make a decision then. Another idea is to have jump-off links to different sections of the page, like a table of contents. See 88wolfmaster's proposal for a demonstration. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I am opposed to bringing the SignPost to the main page. Maybe I could be swayed on this, but it's just a bit too internal. I don't think readers care who was granted adminship this week, or what bots were approved (as if many of them would even know what bots are), or what drama our court system churned out, or what bugs they didn't realize existed have been fixed... or not. I don't think we should increase the length of the main page more than necessary, if at all. That seems like unnecessary clutter.لennavecia 05:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely on the Signpost; it belongs where it is, at WP:CP. I reiterate: please make sure that content is targeted towards the reader (Wikipedia:Introduction) and not editors (Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-description

There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Something pages will generally be more suitable than encyclopedia articles.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Past pages: Wikipedia has had an introductory passage such as thisin the past. PretzelsTalk! 05:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've experimented with this, but been convinced that a clearly visible link to an introduction is better than an actual description on the Main Page. The point of such a description would be to inform people of things they didn't already know. However, almost everyone today (even new users) know that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just as people know that Google is a search engine. To give usefulinformation would mean we'd have to explain more advanced features that might be unclear to new users, such as page history, but this is hard to do in such a short summary. Ultimately, I think the Main Page will be better off without a descriptive section taking up space in the top of the page, providing a clear link (not too many different, mind you) to a simple introductory article. - Wintran (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Streamlining the links is definitively good. I'd support dropping everything but WP:INTRO; but if possible, WP:ABOUTshould be there too.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more irritating to go on a front page which millions of people regularly use. That extract was from 2002 when nobody knew what wikipedia was. We don't need such an explanation on the front page anymore. Do we really need to change the main page anyway? Who has complained about it? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the slogan has become old and redundant. I changed it to "a one for all encyclopediadesign." at one point; paralleling from an article I read. The one for all comes from the idea that the first encyclopedia was written by one person trying to compile all of human knowledge. It was extended to a one best design, which entailed working as a team or group. And now we've transitioned to a one for all where everyone can participate. ChyranandChloe(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the slogan is great, and anyhow, it would be pushing it to get a change on that as well as the design at the same time! Dr Blofeld, look at the Main Page. It's more or less the 8th most visited page in the world. Now look at Yahoo.com, MSN.com, eBay.com, Youtube.com. These are all the leaders in their respective fields. Comparing their vibrant, inviting front pages to our wall of text is embarrassing. That's why we need to improve — this is a wiki, it can always be improved. PretzelsTalk! 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the simplicity of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''." --HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) We essentially have the slogan posted in two locations on the main page. One on the image in the top left-hand corner, and another below "Wikipedia". However I think it's ok to leaving it as it is; and changing it, I think, would be too much. It's kind of like the Nike logo. We've risen to the point where we don't need much description for people to understand what Wikipedia is. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit" has worked long enough and effectively summarises it without have to keep reading what wikipedia is and under this has seen wikipedia develop dramatically. Why change it? Dr. Blofeld(talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the slogan. As far as it being in two places on the main page, that's only true for the Monobook skin. Other skins do not have the globe of the slogan... I could be wrong, some may, but I don't recall any of them having it.لennavecia 04:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The default skin is Monobook, and I they can't exactly change it. They're the reader's we're the writers. Nevertheless, such a change would be very dramatic, and I think we should hold off on it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured content

Perhaps the primary reason for a main page redesign is allow more space for featured content.

Good Article
The GA is found on other language Wikipedias (particuarly the Spanish).
Featured List
Featured lists are lists of particular information, there are over 1000 of these.
Featured Sounds
We can combine this with the POTD in Featured Media, or place it in a seperate box of its own — probably next to the POTD. There 73, so merger seems to be the best option right now.
Featured portal
portals are regarded to providing attractive content along a particular subject. There are 126 right now, however I don't think its mature enough.
Featured Topic
inter-related articles that are of a good quality. There are 67, and I think it's too early to consider.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's currently under discussion under "I thought...", which I have merged in to this subheader. My response is posted there; I haven't gotten around to defending why I don't like GAs (will do as soon as someone wants to go there).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the main point of mainpage redesign was to include more of the featured parts of the wikipedia. At this point for example, there are almost half as many featured lists than there are featured articles, YET none of these five proposals EVEN consider lists... What is the point with all of this hassle if nothing new is actually brought to the mainpage?????Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on addressing that in the Goals, however we're side tracked right now. Also it wasn't just the Featured list, were to also consider the GA, Featured Portals, and Featured media as well. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not support GAs on the Main Page. However, I did post the following notice on a the Featured Portal, Topic, and List (and candidates of them) talk pages: "Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposaland I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion." That sums up my opinion - perhaps we want to have that discussion here? So far, I've seen responses from only theFeatured List crowd. The response is mixed; some valid negatives are clutter and usefulness - lists are very specific and are only useful to those who intentionally seek them out. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we have enough support to change "Today's featured picture" to "Feature media." Thus satisfying people in the POTD and the Featured Sounds. I'm on the other side with the GA, I support it. Despite this Jennavencia is in the GA wikiproject, so let's hear what she has to say.
In the matters of the Featured list, it is very specific in substance — and this is perhaps what's holding it back; so I'm opposed. A lot of the designs display the featured content in two columns, so if we want to add GA or featured list, I think we'll have to do it in pairs. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pretzels has made the point above the Featured Picture (Media) does not need to cover two columns because most people are using big screens. I disagree, but it's an irrelevant point because we aren't worrying about formatting yet. Featured lists would make up the bulk of the Featured Miscellany (we won't actually use that term), ensuring that there's always new content. No one has contested this (that there wouldn't be enough between the three of them to feature something daily), so until someone does, I'll assume it's not a problem. "Very specific in substance," though, is legitimate grounds to oppose. Still, it's no more specific or specialized than Metallica, a dragonfly, or the world chess champion - all of whom are on the MP right now.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The solution in my proposal was to merge all the featured stuff into a Best of Wikipedia section that you can do anything with day-to-day. Yes, most days it will have an article, but somedays you could add a list, or a sound, or whatever. And the naming makes more sense to readers. PretzelsTalk!23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That's an innovative idea. Though it'll take a lot of discussion to get people from the FA, GA, and so on to approve — and that's perhaps the greatest challenge with it. Also "Best of Wikipedia" seems kind of polarizing: the best implies that everything else is not as good. Is it possible to change the name? Perhaps, "Today's feautred content," or "Featured content" would be more appropriate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds awfully similar to Featured Topics. (Which could be scheduled to run on the same day as one of their articles.) Still...it could work. All featured stuff would have to be together; but there's also been strong support for ITN near the top - which suggests a two column scheme - but we're not there yet. I still advocate an article, a picture or sound, and a portal, list, or topic - but unity is a good thing. Per ChyranandChloe, though, I don't like the name. --HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Re "implies that everything else is not as good". Well, content that isn't featured isn't as good! We shouldn't be afraid of making these distinctions for our readers. Perhaps Best of / Featured in a 75% on the left, then In the News / On this day on the right, in a thin column? PretzelsTalk! 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We should make that distinction by not having merely "Good" content on the Main Page. I think it's too early to worry about column width, but let's see how 50/50 looks before we adjust it, ok? I do support keeping featured to the left and news to the right, because that's how it's formatted now.--HereToHelp (talk to me)00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this conversation is going somewhat in the right direction. I support combining featured articles with featured lists.. I mean lists ARE articles, aren't they? Just because they're lists doesn't demote them from being an article.. Since lists are articles, a name change wouldn't really be necessary (unless we just think we need one).. "Featured Article" would work fine. I think POTD should be changed to "Featured Media" (as in my proposal) and contain not only images but sounds and video clips as well. (I mean technically it already does; I've seen video clips and sounds in the POTD box before)... so just a simple name change would suffice there. I don't think portals and topics should be in the featured boxes; they aren't really articles.. they're just links or passages to articles. I like having a portals list on the main page, but I don't think they should be featured or anything.. Good articles aren't "featured"... so why is there even discussion about this? Featured articles are the best we have; display them.... not good articles. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Lists are articles, but I want to show off as much featured content as possible, and there are enough of both to run a section daily. I support a combined Featured Media and no Good Articles. I suppose portals and topics may unsuitable. I suggest placing the lists below the media, which goes below the article, because lists have very specific audiences (though the point is to show them to a wider readership) and the picture helps break up the text.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Nergaal, as has been pointed out a few times, the five designs were chosen for design and layout. Actual features are to be determined in this phase, which is what this discussion is for. As far as good articles on the main page, this has been proposed a few times, I don't recall what, if any, position I took on the matter. At this point, I would only support a list of newly promoted articles, but even that is risky with the current way GA is run, so it would be with the caveat of a couple directors, similar to Raul654 for FAs, to determine if the articles are truly up to standards and good enough to even have the title listed on the main page. That said, there would first have to be a whole lot of discussion, change, and testing within the GA project before that could even be considered for community-wide discussion regarding inclusion on the main page. Speaking of testing, so to speak, User:TonyTheTiger has been running a Featured List of the Day for quite a while now. I support having a featured list included on the main page, though I think it should be separate from the TFA, personally, though would support it either way. If implemented, I think TTT should continue to run it. لennavecia 05:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured List, I think it's kind of awkward, can I get more explanation of what it is? My understanding is that they're articles, but the entire article is essentially a list. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. Discographies (such as Red Hot Chili Peppers discography) include a lead section followed by tabled information; similarly, timelines (for example, Timeline of chemistry) include a lead section followed by a timeline. Some lists (like List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong) include a lead section followed by a long tabled list and a lot of pictures, then lists (such as List of United States graduate business school rankings) are basically an article followed by a long list, the list being the primary focus of the article, of course. Hope that helps. To become featured, they must be complete, so I believe having them on the main page would be a great thing. Having the lead on the page with a link to view the actual "list" part. لennavecia 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have missed a lot of the proposal consideration and am not sure where to find the five finalists (if I am understanding the process). I support the following changes to the main page. Split the Featured picture into Featured picture and Other featured media. Other could be used for audio or video files. I also support adding a pair of sections split between Good Article, which I feel is more advanced than FA was when it went on the main page and Featured List.--TonyTheTiger(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to see GA and featured portals up there on main page. Accommodating featured portals are not hard, as seen onFeatured content page, all it needs is a small box, a small image, and a caption that states what portal it is. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tony, the five designs are on the project page attached to this talk page. To both you and Ohana, there's no way the community will approve GAs on the main page, or even a link to them, with the current format for GA. It would just never happen. Shady reviews to get articles listed is bad enough. Risking shady reviews to get an article on the main page... no way. There would have to be a lot of change within the GA project to make this happen. لennavecia 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that GAs should not be on the Main Page, not only because of the shady process but because they are second rate. Even if they are better off than FAs once were, our standards have increased, and GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness. I so not support splitting Featured Pictures because I do not think that there would be enough media for daily use, and it prohibits collection like the Beethoven mockup (scroll down a little). I am still flexible as to how FLs would be depicted, whether as lead (kinda defeats the list part of it...) or as something similar to Portal:Featured content, where is gives the first few entries. I do not think that Featured Portals or Featured Topics are sufficiently developped, numerous, or suited to the Main Page to be displayed there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The lack of appearance on Main Page further contributes to an endless cycle of "not sufficiently developed = no display" and "no display = no chance to gather interest for development". OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think our opinion is beginning to become very diverse. Perhaps we should bring some of the discussion to the proposals candidates and show what we mean. I think it's difficult to apply something you only merely agree or disagree with, seeing it in a proposal candidate variation makes a stronger impression. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are discussing about main page redesign, centralize the discussion for all changes in one venue. <sacrasm>Maybe we should put out one page of layout design proposal, another for the colour of the layout, another page for suggesting to include featured sound, an additional page for inclusing of GA, one page for the proposal of featured portals, yet another page for what contents we should delete off main page. And to top it off, create a page for each of them for... er... I'm running out of ideas to create more pages! Wait! I know, let's designate these pages for all the straw polls to each of the proposal!</scarasm> Honestly, making so many pages makes us hard to swallow the discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
We've only got this one page right now, right? For the design drafts, though, we need to keep discussion specific to each design, so it's not practical to do that on this page. لennavecia 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness." What a pleasant and respectful way to refer to one of the largest Wikiprojects on Wikipedia, which has the main goal of article improvement. Can you please provide a link showing where the projectimplicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness? That aside, I don't see how any featured content would not be sufficiently developed to be on the main page. If it's not fit to be featured, it should not be featured. لennavecia 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, Lara. HereToHelp should provide a link to that statement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
HereToHelp's wording is a bit harsh, but I agree that GAs shouldn't be listed on the main page. My primary rationale is the simple fact that we have a backlog of featured articles and promote articles to this status at a rate higher than one per day. Therefore, unless we begin listing two "Today's featured articles" on a regular basis, many of them will never appear on the main page. Given that, why should GAs appear instead?
Another concern is that it would be difficult to convey the distinction between "featured" and "good." —David Levy 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As noted, I don't think GAs should be on the main page either, but the lack of respect was a bit off-putting. Anyway, I like the idea of two featured articles. Two things completely different, to draw interest from different demographics, perhaps.لennavecia 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with it all, I think we can say that there is one suggestions that do not have much opposition and from which we can perhaps get a consensus on. Today's featured image to "Featured media" or "Today's feature media". So let's concentrate on that, is there anyone who would oppose changing all "Today's featured picture" from the Proposal Candidates to "Feature media"?ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea. —David Levy 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Featured Media. GAs are second-rate because they aren't FAs. I admire their drive toqards improvement but they still have much to be improved. Putting GAs on the MP lowers our standards. My other concern was that it would be difficult to sample FTs and FPorts in a way significantly different than articles. How does one condense a portal or a list of articles. I don't think the list is enough; you'd have to sample the lead of the main article, just like an FA. Besides, are there enough of them?HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit shocked by the one-sided disparagement of the GA project I see here, and the arguments used. The fact that GAs are of lower quality than FAs is irrelevant, as the vast majority of Main Page content is not featured. Some of the articles linked from e.g. OTD can just about make you cringe. Allowing GAs on the MP would in fact increase the quality of the content there, not decrease it.

GA is the most vital venue for creation of quality content on WP today. As can be seen from this chart, the number of GAs is exploding, while new FAs are dwindling. All this while GA quality is getting higher, not lower. The review process has been made more thorough and more transparent, while older, subpar GAs are being demoted at a quick rate. Yes, it’s still a single-reviewer process, and yes, the quality is still below that of FAs, but GAs are nevertheless of far superior quality than 99% of the articles on WP. There seems to be a knee-jerk response against GAs on the MP here, and I guess there’s little I can do about that, I just wanted to point out the superficiality of some of the arguments. Lampman (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lampman. In most cases, DYK are worse than GA so why do ~20 DYKs get displayed every day? HereToHelp, you're starting fires everywhere, first stating "GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness" and now you said "Putting GAs on the MP lowers our standards". You need to stop these kinds of acts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The data at WP:GA/S do not give the numbers of new FAs. I've uploaded a graph of the number of new FAs and the number of removed FAs per month, averaged over the preceding 12 months. New FAs are not dwindling noticeably, but have been approximately constant (around 65/month) since the beginning of the year. This still means that we would need to feature at least two articles per month to keep up, something which the featured article director has said he does not want to do. Thus appearing on the main page should not be regarded as an entitlement for FAs. It would be even more daft to suggest that every recently created or expanded article is entitled to appear under DYK.
Instead, I would encourage editors to view both GAs and FAs as a resource to be exploited by the main page. We need to maximise the benefit of the main page to the encyclopedia, which means encouraging new and old contributors by representing our community and our encyclopedia well. At the moment we only feature our newest articles (DYKs) and our very best work (FAs). We do not take advantage of the many high quality articles in between, except by linking to very mixed quality content (via OTD and ITN).
These articles in between have a role to play, I believe, in highlighting the diversity of Wikipedia. That means we have to be selective about which ones to feature. I suggest that GAs are a good place to look for such articles, because they have had at least one editor check them, there are plenty of them, but not so many that one doesn't know where to start. But selection is absolutely essential not only because GAs vary in quality, but also because we do not encourage improvement of the encyclopedia by featuring multiple articles on (e.g.) Simpson's episodes or hurricanes. Geometry guy 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not just make DYK include good articles instead of new ones? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. Also, could we list related GAs with the FA? PretzelsTalk! 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
POTD is now "Featured media." I like that idea as well. If we really want to push it (I don't support this idea) it's possible to have two FAs and four GAs a day. That's a lot, and perhaps we need to raise our standards in the GA or FA wikiproject.ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I love that idea. It would make room for GAs on the main page while simultaneously eliminating the problem of low-quality (and possibly inaccurate or even hoax-filled) content from appearing in the section.
This, however, should be addressed separately from the proposed redesign (because it's likely to be controversial and has no bearing on the page's layout). —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mark (who has done an outstanding job as featured article director), the decision of how many featured articles to include per day ultimately isn't his to make. His role is to execute the will of the community, not to impose his own. If the community decides that it wants two featured articles per day, he'll have to accept that. If he can't handle the added workload, there are plenty of others who can (either on their own or in tandem with Mark). —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that HereToHelp's comments about GAs seem rather harsh, though I suspect that he didn't intend for them to come across this way. —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Featured content: arbitrary edit point
Absolutely, I did not mean to insult the GA's value to the encyclopedia, merely put it in context. But with the context of DYK, I will support GAs there, because they can be separate from FAs. I oppose, but not strongly, multiple FAs. I do support having related content together (especially some lists), but we also need diversity. I propose that related content may be featured together occaisonaly in the same subsection, but content between subsections should be diverse. See Main Page/tomorrow. Is this an acceptable compromise? HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I made up a quick example of what a richer featured box as we've been discussing could look like.This one has GAs listed down the side, and a sound link. This is just to see what it would look like. PretzelsTalk! 02:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But are we going to be able to sustain that many GAs that are related to the featured articles? I like how you've done this, and I would support the plan, but having to coordinate several GAs every day that relate to the current FA would be a monstrous task for whomever takes that up. And what about Featured/Good Articles that don't have any of the other type to go along with them? Like in your example if the FA was changed to something like Priestfield Stadium (today's FA).. If there were only 1 or possibly no good articles related to that subject, how would we handle that? --Dudemanfellabra(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually Gillingham F.C. is also an FA, as are six other related ones... But I agree with you, normally it would be practically impossible to find enough quality articles that are related to TFA, and I believe such an idea would be impracticable. Lampman (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for including GAs in the DYK section, there is a discussion going on about this at the DYK talk page. The problem is that DYK is already swamped with so many suggestions that they can hardly manage to feature all of them. One solution would be to tighten the criteria for inclusion of DYKs, and I have made a couple of suggestions about this, but the people over there tend to get very defensive and negative whenever anything like this is brought up. My favourite reply would have to be "I do not like the idea of adding GAs. Leave DYK alone as it is." In short form, that one summed up the gist of most of the responses. Lampman (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels: That's not quite what I had in mind but it looks pretty good. I like having related content together but GAs separate from FAs. (A separate "Today's Good Article" would be redundant, but that can be considered independently.) My main concern is sustainability, that is, how many days can we do this for, because there are only so many GAs and fewer that are relevant. Can an FA me barred from the MP because it doesn't have companion media? Also, we're putting GAs and Featured media together in the same coulmn, are we implying equality? Is being mentioned on the MP something worth documenting with templates? Does it disqualify content from being the main featured content? It's a good idea but we need to work out a few kinks. HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that either GA's should be added to DYK, or have a smaller, seperate DYK-like section for GA's, i propesed changing the DYK criteria here and mentioned a seperate DYK for non-new articles here. An editor responded to me his propositionhere. That's the main idea that i agree with. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to have DYK GAs but there's just too much resistance ("social momentum") against it. Also per all other reasons, like too many new articles.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, too many pages that are discussing the same thing. There's one here, one at DYK, one at Main Page, one at main page redesign. I'm starting to lose track. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best to focus the discussion here. The objections to GAs in DYK seem to mostly come from within the DYK community; in the WP community at large there seems to be great enthusiasm for it. The editors of a project do not own it, however, and if the greater community decides on a change, they will have to comply. Lampman (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory. How do we amass and demonstrate overwhelming support for it? Because I support it, if it can be done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Putting really good GAs up on main page without inventing another process that is overly bureaucratic is hard, but definitely not impossible. I suggest we should have a public queue of some sort. Anyone is free to nominate any GA article provided they fall within a guideline (should we just use the existing good article criteria or establish a new criteria for GAs that will make an appearance on main page?). Unless someone opposes, that article will be on main page (at the discretion of the admin). This way, it will have more transparency to the process and not just an editor picking what articles will appear on main page.OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea of replacing DYK with GA articles instead of new articles is brilliant. Or, even better, to tighten the criteria and open it to both new and GA. That would prevent increasing flooding while improving quality. A good point was also made that a good amount of content on the main page is not of good quality. I hadn't thought about that. There was one article in the ITN section I noticed a couple weeks ago that was just horrible. Tagged for clean-up, poor prose... just a mess. So the not of quality for doesn't really fit as a reason to deny GA. لennavecia 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Instead, it's an excellent reason to replace DYK's new/newly expanded articles with good articles. At this point, should we really be blindly incentifying sheer quantity? I don't think so. Let's reward users who improve the quality of articles, even if they haven't yet risen to "featured" status. —David Levy 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's a choice, DYK should be retained to compromise both sides and to avoid DYK people going against this idea on the basis that DYK is removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
As I commented previously, this matter should be addressed separately from any other proposed changes to the main page. —David Levy 02:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone is as clear-minded as we are. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure how you're going to get it done (I heard that the DYK crowd was pretty opposed) but if you can persuade them, I'm for it. It brings up the quality, highlights GAs, without a "Today's Good Article" section (which should be reserved for featured).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to go is to recommend a tightening of the criteria to decrease the number of articles that qualify, then add to that criteria that it can apply to articles 5 days old or younger as well as GAs. That should, hopefully, please the DYK regulars while opening the door to articles of much better quality. Also, such a change is dependent on what the community decides, so it's not simply a matter of convincing those at DYK. My wonder is if it's better to go to DYK first and attempt to work something out there before going to the community, or just going straight to community discussion and dropping a notice of discussion to them. I think the former is probably the better choice. لennavecia 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The community has a voice, but those actively involved in DYK are the ones that make the final decisions (by definition). They are more important; persuade them first. If you prove that the process if viable is underway, the general community won't complain as much. Many don't care either way.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-goals discussion

(outdent) I'm with HereToHelp that we need to convince the wikiproject involved with whatsoever section we are planning to replace before we can really implement it here. Also, I think we are getting to the point where we perhaps need proof of concept designs to put for the community, the goals sections appears to be concluding. If you want HereToHelp, please start the discussion.ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't really want to involve myself with taking on the DYKers, but I could support a "proof of concept" inquiry (notice the avoidance of the word "poll"). If I'm understanding you right, you mean a discussion about potential features and arrangements on the page (what does it look like to have a combined media portion or a featured list? which information section works the best?). Conversely, formatting and presentation (color scheme, header types, which areas are formatted alike and which aren't, and possibly icons, but they can go either way) - those things would not be up for discussion. The only way to draw attention away from those things would be to constrain everyone to use the current MP's formatting so participants can focus on the aforesaid qualities we want feedback on. No design would be turned away, provided it did not try to promote style over substance and followed the MP formatting, and there would be no formal beginning and end. Finally, we would discourage numerical voting, and there would be no binding results. If you can accept all of those caveats, I'm all for beginning a "content inquiry". If not, tell me your objections and we'll try to work something out.--HereToHelp (talk to me)21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is what the current group involved in the MPRP wants. Here is an outline of what I feel should be done, that is before we begin the section and achieve the current threads.
  1. Close of current MPRP candidates, we don't have enough support to run so many and promote such a radical change
    • Within my opinion it wasn't the fundamental principal that was flawed, that is I do not believe that competition mentality killed, but instead time. When the MPRP began, there wasn't any specific goals, scopes, or methods in running such an experimental method of creating a MPRP. And by the time we began formulating one, many of the contributors have already left. Time and specifics is what killed it.
  2. Copy and paste the current MPRP code, into the MPRP main page, and we can modify and correct it from there
  3. Since there is only one candidate (based off the current main page), a candidate centered poll is irrelevant; and as David, Jc37, and HeretoHelp have expressed: we will not have one until, perhaps, when we place it against the current main page
  4. We will have two discussions,
    • One over what is wrong with the current main page
    • And a second over what we are to do with it
  5. A third discussion is possible, in discussing other important points not covered by above

I'm unsure whether this accurately represents our views combined, however I'm aiming to start this proposal on Wednesday, that is if you want. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Copy and paste the current MPRP code, into the MPRP main page, and we can modify and correct it from there." You mean the MP code, what we're currently using at Main Page, right? If so, then yes, everything looks good, and we should try to get the community involved, though I wouldn't go as far as watchlist spamming. If you like, we could bill this project as the Main PageRevision Proposal, since starting with the current MP certainly lends itself to tweaks rather than overhauls. I'm also going to put in another shameless ad for my design. I can't force such changes on the rest of the community, but please review and consider (1) the reduced number of links in the header and jump-to links there (2) the order of dynamic content and grouping of featured content together (the list isn't templated yet, bare with me) and (3) the Find and article section, which has a number of useful links but as static (non-templated) content is formatted simpler. </self promotion> Wednesday sounds good. There shouldn't be a formal time limit on feedback and improvement but it's probably going to take at least two weeks.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Reducing this project to a "revision" or "tweaks" makes no sense at all, particularly from my point of view: my proposal, which was a complete redesign and shares almost nothing with the current layout, received the second most support. Just because it is more difficult to get a larger change perfect, does not mean it will not be worth it. It would be lazy and submissive to drop this project to removing a few header links etc, and these changes can already be made through Talk:Main Page. This proposal was conceived as a redesign for a reason! PretzelsTalk! 03:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
And that reason was the opinion that the current main page design had become "stale" and therefore required change for the sake of change. Instead of attempting to identify and address specific areas warranting modification, the goal was to make the page "different," without regard for the considerations behind the current elements or whether said changes would result in actual improvement. See, for example, this comment from the proposal's creator. —David Levy 04:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's not consensus behind changing the name, that's fine. But you're both missing the point of the proposal: that by worrying about formatting up front, we lump formatting and content together. My idea is to isolate just content, like a scientist would isolate one variable and hold the others constant. I want to see what features and content work, rather than worrying about freshening it up --yet. Once we figure out what content sections we want and which ones we don't, and roughly where to put them, then we can hold a similar consensus collection with different formatting/styles all using the same content sections that we're about to decide on. I am not opposed to changing the style, but it must be an improvement. When people vote on style and content together, it's hard to determine which one people like and dislike. David, you're being too negative. We will "identify and address specific areas warranting modification" first, and then try to change the style if we can agree on one that is better than the current one. I'm not sure how much you can do through Talk:Main Page, but I'm sorry I put in my personal ideas in my previous post, coloring your perception that this is minor change; it need not be. I should be neutral; that means starting with the current MP and running with it, implementing ideas that have have gotten good reception and removing unused portions. So please, is this "content inquiry," as outlined in the last few posts, an acceptable compromise?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
David, you're being too negative.
Actually, I'm optimistic about the new direction that appears to be evolving. Pretzels stated that "this proposal was conceived as a redesign for a reason," so I noted what "the goal was" (new emphasis) when the proposal was conceived. This criticism has no bearing on the current situation, except to justify a shift away from that type of thinking. —David Levy 08:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I'm totally in favour of deciding on the content first. :) PretzelsTalk! 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
...I'll take that as approval. David, sorry I said that you were negative. CC or I will institute the content inquiry in a few (12?) hours.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've copied and pasted the code from the Current main page into the MPRP. I am assuming good faith at the moment. However, David, if are perceiving that this change in direction as a result of competition mentality: I will be unwilling to provide to you this proposal as supportive evidence. If there is little or no discussion, then all current threads will be archived within 24-hours to improve accessibility. Lastly, when this is all over, we're archiving all proposals for future reference for the WP:2010MPRP, and perhaps we can also begin discussion for a policy or guideline to how we are to run the MPRP in the first place. The lack of scope and instruction killed this MPRP, let's not let it happen again. I'm sorry for those who had an independently developed proposal, however we do not have enough support to promote them and allow them to develop to their fullest.ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Woah. We reached consensus to start from the existing Main Page? Deciding content first means not laying it out at all; listing here, in detail, what will be on the Main Page. PretzelsTalk! 22:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good on the whole, but I'd like a summary of the consensus we have achieved to be posted someplace visible, if we can neutrality condense long discussions down to a few words. I would definitely support an outline of what we have learned for future redesigns, which are bound to happen but I don't think they should be slated ahead of time -- but I'm not against them outright. I thought that we had content down pat the last time; now we've figured out how to tweak it a little more. (Part of that is the changes in public perception and the rise of new featured content types.) As for style, I do think that we could "freshen up" the Main Page every few years, but the design must be used based on its merits, not that "oh, I don't like the old one anymore." I personally feel that the current design is the best of the options put forth so far - but we're focusing on content, not design, at this point. Pretzels: Yes, that was the idea, though you're welcome to contest it. I think we've pretty much exhausted textual discussion, though again I favor a summary that outlines clearly what we want, what we don't, and what are points of contention. If we see versions with and without icons, it may help to make a decision, so long as it doesn't devolve into a poll. Also, just because it starts from the current MP doesn't mean it has to stay there. (Well, the formatting should, for reasons I've outlined above. But as for content, have at it.) --HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Search bar

This was a point of contention in the poll: should we include a search bar in the header? My personal opinion is no. There's already a search bar to the left, and having one on the Main Page may imply that they do different things. It takes up a lot of space. Furthermore, the point of the MP is to introduce the reader to new content they would have otherwise not seen. The search bar does not do this; it is useful for those who know what they want to find, not for those who want find out what they want to know. I'll leave the arguments in favor to a supporter.—HereToHelp (talk to me)03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the search bar is the Main Page's most important function, as most new users visit the Main Page in order to search for a topic. I've talked to many people who said it was hard to find the search bar at its current placement, at that's NOT good for an encyclopedia. First of all, and without doubt, the existing search bar should be moved up above "navigation", and we should have just one submit button instead of two. Second, I think new users would appreciate if we place a clearly visible search bar on the Main Page, especially until the existing search bar is made much more visible. I don't think the duplication itself is as harmful as some make it sound. It hurts a lot more if people are unable or delayed in finding articles on Wikipedia. - Wintran(talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. The MP is meant to promote our best content, but it also needs to help users find what they're looking for as easily and quickly as possible. A prominent search bar on the front page is a great idea and something that many readerswould appreciate. PretzelsTalk!04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a more prominent search function would be an improvement on the current page, the top of which is dominated by links to portals, contents, and indices, which are all basically useless in my view. Search is the best content-finding tool for 99% of user needs and should be given maximum visibility. Christopher Parham (talk)04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need two search bars for sure. But remember people use different skins and I and a number of others regularly use classic in which we prefer our search bar at the top rather than at the side. As long as any change in design does not affect our preferences Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I support making the current one more visible. Some people have talked about putting "finding an article" below the dynamic content. I would support it there, where screen real estate is less valuable.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a strong supporter of the second search bar. Look at google. I mean, granted, it's a search engine, but still, search box in the middle of the page is what people look for. When I first came to this site, no lie, I seriously had issues finding the search bar. I may be blonde, but I'm a smart cookie. So, it's not like it took me days to locate it, but it should be prominent. To be clear, though, the search bar is significantly higher now than it was a few years ago, so... I could probably have easily found it in it's current location, which does not require vertical scrolling. But I digress. So anyway, I support a second search bar in the header if, in the design layout we ultimately use, it does not overly clutter the header. لennavecia 05:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I oppose it in theory for reasons stated above, but if someone can make it work in practice, I'll support it. That goes for any issue, actually.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember we can use CSS styling if you think the search bar is ugly. PretzelsTalk! 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've done search bars embedded into a design, that is we can apply more stylistic effects such as backgrounds and rounded corners to make it less obvious: however that requires some CSS work, but it's possible. If we can get a design that does it well, I'll support it; but otherwise it looks too obvious in the current designs. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be prominent. Perhaps we can do something to draw more attention to the search bar in the sidebar. If only to put a bold border around it. لennavecia 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A bold border...not a bad idea. Someone needs to find where to request that, because a prominent search bar to the side means it doens't have to be so noticeable on the Main page, if it's there at all.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tried that back in April 2006. User:Quiddity/highlight search box. E.g. Image:Mainpage searchbox1.png. No consensus. (too many options? just not enough feedback? don't know). Feel free to use the code/images there, if you want to try again. I still strongly support the idea of visually highlighting the standard searchbox (and vigorously oppose a second/redundant/duplicate searchbox within the Main Page).
One of the oppositions back then, was that our search engine was appalling. With the recent updates, that may have changed somewhat. --Quiddity (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I say no. The current search bar is already easy enough to find.  Marlith (Talk)  01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been very heavily discussed, and we've never managed to establish consensus. I personally believe that a second search box would be unhelpful, as it would distract users from the standard search box (and confuse some regarding what the difference is) and vanish after a single search. It also would appear directly above the site-wide search box for users of some skins.
I do, however, support efforts to make the existing search box more prominent. Moving it above the "interaction" box certainly helped, and moving it above the "navigation" box would help more, as would adding a special border. —David Levy15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with David, a second search box can distract users from the one in the left column. To an extreme extent it can create a poor habit of going to the main page whenever you need to do search. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
So what are we waiting for? Why isn't the current search bar moved up above "navigation"? That would be a good start, as there seems to be consensus for it. A good-looking design solution to emphasize the current search bar more could also help (though I doubt a colored border will fit in nicely with the rest of the design). Reducing the number of buttons to one would also help. People generally expect just one search button in a inline search function like this, so two might make it harder for them to identify the box. I would say, just keep the "Go" button but rename it to "Search", and put a link somewhere in the menu toadvanced search. - Wintran (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Further to your point, the Go button does a Search if there isn't an exact match anyway. PretzelsTalk! 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The search button will not be removed, it is part of the standard mediawiki interface across all our sites. Give up on that notion. (Or propose it at meta:, if you want to joust at windmills).
As for changing the sidebar, it is not part of the Main page, so any changes need to be proposed at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. It would be best to have a solid idea of what exactly you are proposing before inquiring there. Read through the 2006 thread I linked above, to see some of the options previously proposed. If you rush it, the idea will end up being lost and ignored again. Act with calm, deliberation, and Patience. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Started a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Moving search box above navigation focused on the idea of moving the current search box to the top of the sidebar. That is the most important change as I see it, and also seems to have the most consensus. -Wintran (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost press release

I want to get us as much publicity as possible. That will vet us more ideas, more support come the final vote against the current MP, and less "where did this come from?" later on. Before we go and put something up on the watchlists (if we do at all), I want to write a press release for the Wikipedia Signpost. In the interests of avoiding bias and accusations of bias, I'm drafting it publicly.

The Main Page redesign is asking for the opinions and participation of the general public. The results of a contentious straw poll had to be thrown out, although the designs themselves remain. The project is now focusing on its goals for the design; asking "What should and should not be on the Main Page?". Users have agreed not to draft designs until ideas have solidified, which is estimated to take a week or two. In the mean time, you are invited tomake your voice heard.

I am open to suggestions as far as revision. If there's still a difference of opinion as far as what became of the poll, we can put this on hold until that is decided. By the way, the agreement not to draft was my suggestion, not demand, but nobody has opposed it so I'm assuming it's been accepted. I am not enforcing a maximum time of discussion, but I think doing it properly will take at least a week.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly interesting that in the name of transparency, you've created your own version of events. The results of the poll have not been thrown out, and there is absolutely no reason not to continue drafting new design ideas. I'm quite disappointed at what you've written, to be honest. PretzelsTalk! 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It would have been un-transparent if I had sent this off already. Instead, this is exactly the reason why I put it here. I strongly insist, but cannot require, that we do not create new drafts for a while because draft-overload is what got us into the mess with the poll, the results of which are evidently still debated. But we can't decide what needs to go in the drafts without a lot of public opinion, which we can only get if we explain why we're back to the drawing board - temporarily, of course.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if anything for us to draft ideas we come up with in discussions here, grafted onto the 5 most popular designs. Out of everyone who voted, a "mess with the poll" was contested by one user, and only two others agreed with him. The results weren't definitive for anything anyway, so it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing. The old proposals are still being taken into account, hence their extended listing at the bottom of the project page. PretzelsTalk! 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
"The results weren't definitive for anything anyway" - exactly! I do not think that the results of the election are valid, but the designs themselves are useful. You're welcome to data mine and use the more popular designs, as long as the rest of us are not confined to them. I would recommend looking for ideas (this person grouped portals together and this one used hide boxes; which method do I like? Why?) as opposed to design issues (I like this blue banner with an icon and that's that), but I can't stop you. I still think we're too early for all out designs and need to focus on prototyping components. This was originally your idea from AN/I: most Wikipedians aren't graphics experts, so give them something to look at. I could understand prototyping different banners, say, with and without a search bar. Back on topic, I would like to have a universally-acceptable press release so we can get feedback, but it's not worth disturbing the nascent peace.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1. You've referred above to "the 5 most popular designs." I've repeatedly explained why such a determination is unhelpful. You're welcome to disagree, but I (and others) will not participate in a broken process.
2. Yes, "out of everyone who voted," one complained. But what about the editors who declined to vote because the poll was improper? I certainly did, and I was one of the most active participants in the last main page redesign.
Do you honestly not realize how many people have simply ignored this "mess" instead of actively criticising it? —David Levy 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
David, nobody is forcing you to be involved. If you truly believe it's a "broken process", I'm sorry to hear that, but it's not helpful loitering around doommongering how none of this will ever come to anything. We're totally fine if you don't want to participate, and unless you're going to engage constructively, it would be more sensible if you didn't. There's no reason we should have this argument overshadow the rest of the project, and run the risk of it escalating into something more. Thanks for understanding. PretzelsTalk! 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Translation: "Our way or the highway."
I want very much to participate in this proposal, and I want very much for it to succeed. I note its "broken" naturebecause I want it to be fixed. You don't have to agree with me that it's broken (let alone on how to go about fixing it), but referring to my comments as "loitering" is out of line. —David Levy 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This process is broken, so I'll just not participate outside of unconstructive criticism. Seriously? Several times during this process, I've almost pulled my design. Why? Because nothing was happening. It was just a mess. One day, I went to the page, hit the edit tab, highlighted my entry and deleted it. Before I hit save, I took a moment to think about it. I then backed out of the edit page, and decided to become more involved with the running of the process, to attempt to get it moving. So, David, what would have been helpful is back when you realized it was broken, to have used this wisdom from your participation in the last redesign to bring this one on a more solid foundation. Instead, you have this attitude of superiority, as if you're too good to even bother to attempt to help out with this; which is very disappointing, because I did think you had good intentions with your comments, but I'm starting to think otherwise at this point. I believe it's jc that keeps saying "the wiki-way" and you support that, no? What's wiki-like about your participation in this process?
The poll results have not been discarded. The plan to focus on goals and design from there is fantastic. But starting this thing over more than four months into it? Nah. Regardless of the bumpy road to get to this point, we have five really good designs with great potential, showing different styles and features to comment on and build from. Additionally, we have dozens of other designs to pull comments from in this phase. Everyone is welcome to participate in this phase, both in commenting and working on the design(s), but taking on new proposals and dropping the progress this far is no good. لennavecia 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"This process is broken, so I'll just not participate outside of unconstructive criticism."
How is it "unconstructive" for me to explain why I disagree with a process and how I believe it should be carried out instead?
Several times during this process, I've almost pulled my design. Why? Because nothing was happening. It was just a mess.
I know. I saw it coming, and I attempted to prevent it from occurring. My concerns were dismissed, just as they're being dismissed now.
So, David, what would have been helpful is back when you realized it was broken, to have used this wisdom from your participation in the last redesign to bring this one on a more solid foundation.
Why do you believe that I didn't try?! I realized that the "competition" was broken before it was even underway, and that's when I began expressing my concerns (and changed the name from Wikipedia:Main Page design competitionto the current title).
Have you read the archives? I count 59 messages that I posted here (mostly in vain) during the month of July. I couldn't tell you how much time I invested in this, all to no avail. What else was I supposed to do?
Instead, you have this attitude of superiority, as if you're too good to even bother to attempt to help out with this
No. I want very much to help. That's what I attempted to do in the beginning (when my concerns were dismissed) and what I'm trying to do now (as my concerns are again dismissed).
which is very disappointing, because I did think you had good intentions with your comments, but I'm starting to think otherwise at this point.
You're assuming bad faith on my part? That's unfortunate. —David Levy 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, David, I apologize. I was not involved on this page at that time, so was not aware. My perception since interacting with you myself has not been positive. I can understand that when you're not being heard, it gets to a point, you don't want to bother putting the effort to help in. So, I think at this point, from my point of view, it seems like it's turned to straight criticism rather than criticism and advice. It's unfortunate that no one listened to you in the beginning. I think things would have probably gone better if they had. Again, you have my apologies. لennavecia 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Guys stop bickering! As Pretzels said above "it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing". Given the number of people who edit wikipedia we are never going to decide on one main page which everybody likes. However many people like Jenna's or Pretzel's there will be people who want neither of these. Also a poll in which about 100 people are involved is hardly representative of the entirety of wikipedia users. So why not keep the front page as standard but allow a new preferences option where the editor has the choice to select his/her main page preference? So when I go into "My preferences" and select "Skin" there should not only be the option for overall skin type but underneath a "Main page skin" choice which has 5 or so options. This way everybody wins and those editors who loathe the front page can select which they want without having to worry about coding it in their monobooks as in the past.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that we need to stop bickering. I like Dr. Blofeld's idea, but there will always have to be a "default" MP for for anonymous users. Are you going to show the random Main Page every time the click in? (Not making an accusation there, but playing devil's advocate.) We need a baseline for which power-users can expand upon.
As painful as it is, I think we need to establish the official status of the poll before we move on. We need to clean up our own mess (or decide that it wasn't a mess, whatever) before we invite in fresh blood - or else, as David has been saying, users disgusted with the process will leave. I propose - and you can agree or disagree - that the five designs are to be considered in drafting, but no design will be barred from consideration. Those who like one of the five can refine it; those who don't like them can focus on another "eliminated" design and see how it compares to the five. Hopefully, we will soon be able to return to the "Goals" section above and discuss points civilly. On one hand, the Goals section seems to be garnering use and acceptance, on the other, there is obviously a difference of opinion as far as the poll. We can't call in fresh blood until that is resolved, but we also need to show that the Goals section can work, and is working.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm against reopening new proposals. When I wrote the RFC/Straw Poll I have two primary intentions, the first was to reduce the number of proposals to a workable number; the second intention was disowning the proposals from the sponsor. The first intention was pretty obvious, however the second has several implications that I believe you guys need to understand. In disowning the proposals, this entails that there is no longer an authoritative voice such as that of a sponsor in deciding on which direction the proposal will go. Therefore under consensus agreement you can change the proposal to whatever you like for that particular proposal candidate. If there is opposition, you can create a proposal candidate variation. Of course, logically less invasive changes are more likely pass.
When we (as a community) are proposing to change the main page, we need a foundation. If you start from absolute scratch, it often defaults the current main page; which severely hampers creativity and more radical redesigns. Therefore, the Straw Poll legitimizes several proposals who's foundation is not the current main page, but something more interesting. Given that they are disowned and are subject to community's discretion, if you and several supporters feel that the foundation of a certain proposal candidate is not fit: it is possible to change it to something you'd like. Otherwise you have look at it away from the idealistic highroad. Starting from scratch is very difficult, therefore the next option is to use the current proposal candidates as a foundation.
My position is that the RFC/Straw Poll is legitimate and have decided the foundation for five proposal candidates. However, I believe the former sponsors of two or three of them have otherwise left, therefore changing it should be easy. We are discussing the default main page here, if you want to change the main page for yourself, copy and paste the following code into yourmonobook.js:
if (wgPageName == "Main_Page") {
  window.location = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEW_MAIN_PAGE_HERE";
}

ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you already that David Levy is going to reject this, citing the poll as invalid and its results as irrelevant and void. I agree with that to an extent, but I also recognize the needs for progress and compromise. First: let's draw a line betweenformatting which is color schemes, box and corner types, and to an extent organization, and content, ideas that are not specific to formatting and are under discussion under the "Goals" header. "If you start from absolute scratch, it often defaults the current main page; which severely hampers creativity and more radical redesigns." True, and I'm willing to consider new formatting ideas, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the current MP formatting. Subjectively, one person might prefer one formatting scheme to another, but I don't think there's an objective reason to throw out the MP formatting, other than that it's already in use. So I'll compromise: New formatting ideas must be based on one of the five or the current Main Page, but nothing radically different from those six. Otherwise, you're enforcing change for change's sake. (Yes, no one suggested a MP design during the poll, but that failed to distinguish between formatting and content. If you're worried about stifling creativity, you oppose formatting creativity outside of the five, and content creativity is needed with the current MP as much as anywhere.) --HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't think that the entire poll should be discarded. There's no reason to ignore any of the feedback that's been received. I merely believe that the poll's format is flawed and object to the claim that its numerical outcome is formally binding. (Straw polls never have binding outcomes.) I also feel that it's counterproductive to encourage the editing/creation of five separate designs, as this continues the "competition" (at the expense of collaboration). That would be just more of the same method that's crippled this proposal. —David Levy 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll once again point out that requests for comment cannot have purely numerical outcomes and straw polls cannot be binding. —David Levy 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I wholly agree with this. (Noting that Consensus is not a "vote", andConsensus can change.) To suggest otherwise is to be contrary Wikipedia policy, as well as a Wikimedia Foundation principle.
As such, arguing whether it's an accurate statement isn't helpful, since it is policy. And thus far, no exceptional reason has been put forth to ignore it. ("It's too difficult" is simply a non-starter.) So in other words, continuing a discussion on the applicability of WP:CON (besides being a less-than-helpful venue) would seem to be simply a waste of time and resources, when (presuming that everyone here would like to see this move forward), further, more productive, discussion might be had. - jc37 07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the non-numerical, qualitative feedback is useful, but it's a chore to go through it all (that's why quantitative approval is so tempting). This issue has as much to do with the ideology of polling as it does with compromise and people skills (not implying you (David) don't posses those, just that you are more steadfast in your opposition to numerical polling). As for myself, ChyranandChloe (since you seem to be the one deciding it), let me draft from the current Main Page and I'll be happy. There's still a finite number of designs rather than an open ended "back to the drawing board" approach of my previous suggestion.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't catch it, I gave you several openings. First, there are two or three proposals (candidates 3-5), which I believe the former sponsor have but otherwise left. If you can convince a small consensus, swap it for yours. Capping the number of proposals to five is a compromise. I do not believe that a simple poll could easily terminate all competition mentality. In short, you two: HereToHelp and David Levy, have a disagreement which I believe hasn't been sufficiently promoted. (We are or was divided among the older design team and the new. Among the new, you need to see the fissures in your own internal positions. It's one reason why I try to make mine very clear.) For HereToHelp, if we combine all proposals into one: it makes it an exceedingly challenging for HereToHelp to act largely independent and propose a new designs. It is also somewhat hubris to state that I am the only one allowed to propose a proposal of my own (but I'm glad you did). For David, we have an agreement that we cannot work so independently (David calls it "competition mentality") that it cripples our efforts in deciding which proposal to take forth to the main RFC. If I constrain myself to these two arguments a new compromise can be achieved: close all five proposals but one and allow HereToHelp to propose one of HereToHelp's own. I find this exceedingly unilateral, leaning towards HereToHelp's and David's goals.
Therefore my position remains in using the results from the RFC/Straw Poll (it's never in the numerical outcome, we've already went over that) to establish the foundation of the five proposal candidates. HereToHelp, you have your opening as stated above. David, I'm sorry, but we're too diverged from your original position of an absolute elimination of competition mentality. Jennavencia, Pretzels, Jc37, and Dr. Blofeld — you really should make your positions known as well. Right now my concern is that we can't propose five, the number has to be smaller, but I think we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Concentrate on this one first, if we work on design perhaps we'll find compromise easier later on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"It is also somewhat hubris to state that I am the only one allowed to propose a proposal of my own (but I'm glad you did)." If that's how I came off, I'm very sorry. From what I gather of ChyranandChloe's comment, I am assuming that it is not The Five designs that are important, but the number five. (If that's not right, please ignore the rest of this and try to communicate your point again - thank you for trying to be as clear as possible.) I agree that we need to narrow the designs down to as few as possible, remaining with perhaps three (those of The Five with active sponsors plus mine; I intend to "convince a small consensus"). Hopefully, remaining with all designs that have active sponsors (so long as it is less than 5) will help ease the tensions of the numerical poll. Ultimately, we will (hopefully) get to a few fundamentally different formatting choices that display the same content (to be decided upon above). We will then have to choose which formatting we like (say, blue banners with icons vs. traditional blue, green, and purple). This will be very subjective, although I'd like to discuss the merits of each design as much as possible before resorting to numerical polling. In the mean time, we should 1) continue to brainstorm content ideas, above, 2) continue these discussions about how to proceed and 3) begin drafting in perhaps a few days.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify drafting? It's seems a little vague. Also, I think I understand what you mean, and the two fragments seems misleading and paradoxical (you're hubris and I like it?). I was looking for a word less harsh than hubris, however I ran out of ideas and time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Drafting: creating formatting design proposals as concrete designs with wiki formatting, rather than abstract ideas and textual discussion. Hubris: whatever. Is is hubris to replace inactive designs with one actively under developments (under the process of being drafted)? HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We should take no more than two to the community. The more options, the less chance for change because there will be those who want a change and those who don't. The ones that don't will all vote for the main page, the ones that do will spread their votes among alternative options. Our best bet is too attempt to incorporate all of the most popular and desired aspects into one design.لennavecia 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh definitely, it needs to be one design that we throw up against the Main Page in the final decision (which will probably be a numerical poll advertised to the general Wiki-public). In the mean time, we can have two or three designs that we decide between before we go straight to the final candidate.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This perfectly illustrates some of the problems with the current plan (if, in fact, it is the current plan). You state above, ChyranandChloe, that we need to have five designs at this juncture (because that was the compromise). You realize that this is an arbitrary number, right? Assuming that we should have multiple designs (which I disagree with), it could just as easily be four or six.
The idea that HereToHelp should establish "a small consensus" to swap out one of the five designs (selected via a highly flawed, policy-defying vote) for a design based on the current main page is ludicrously bureaucratic.
As HereToHelp noted, this proposal should have been based on modifying the existing main page in the first place. Working strictly toward radically different designs is an attempt to impose change for the sake of change. —David Levy15:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"This proposal should have been based on modifying the existing main page in the first place." Why? That's what you did two years ago, a few tweaks. It's time to start from scratch. PretzelsTalk! 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Because we should be determining what needs improvement and what doesn't. Throwing out good elements (change for the sake of change) isn't likely to result in improvement, let alone improvement that the community will welcome.
That's what you did two years ago, a few tweaks.
We made more than "a few tweaks," but we retained many aspects of the previous design that worked well. Why shouldn't we?
It's time to start from scratch.
Why? Many important considerations went into that design, and you want to ignore it. —David Levy 17:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The current main page is amateur. Wikipedia is the 8th largest website in the world. Our main page should look professional. That's why we're having a redesign. لennavecia 19:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how any of the five remaining drafts is more "professional" than our current main page. —David Levy 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree in theory, but everyone's idea of professional is different. Short of going for a Google-like search bar (which I do not advocate), there's no major content change that we can do that hasn't been discussed above. I might take on of The Five and format it against my design and let you judge which style looks better. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If you where here before the Straw Poll you'd understand why it is so arbitrary and bureaucratic, its purpose is to facilitate a transition away from "competition mentality" (which was developed to work towards your goals) and not to be end-all-be-all. If it never occurred, we would still be discussing how to use over twenty proposals which operate largely independent of any coordinated discussion. Your cynicism is not appreciated. I agree with your position, however, but my question remains: what do you want to do? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The solution was (and still should be) to discuss which elements we want to modify and incorporate some ideas from the various designs into a single draft derived from the current main page. The poll only served to continue the "competition" and provide potentially misleading/incomplete feedback. —David Levy 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This particular MPRP is unlikely to have a significant increase in featured content. For example there is no need for a new section such as the POTD. So a aesthetics have attracted significantly more attention than the previous MPRP. The English Wikipedia also posses the poorest visual appeal relative to most other language Wikipedias, take nlor es for example. An increase in aesthetics requires a more radical and independent approach, which has occurred. And in short, without it, the purpose of this MPRP is extremely vague and potentially weak: it is possible to state that we do not need a MPRP. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, while those two Wikipedias main pages (and others with similar designs) are flashier, they also are significantly less functional, professional and appealing than ours is. (If you're interested, I can cite specific examples of problems.) And frankly, I don't see how any of the five remaining candidates is better than (or even as good as) our current main page.
And yes, you've identified this proposal's biggest flaw: a lack of clear need. I'm sure that our main page could be improved, but we must determine how to go about doing that. This is done by analyzing each of the current main page's individual elements and thinking of ways that some of them could be better, not by creating a random assortment of complete designs and hoping that one of them (in its entirety) happens to click. —David Levy 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that the new MP should and will have more featured content. We don't need eye candy, we need professional seriousness while still being welcoming. I would love to support another formatting design but none look as good (IMHO) as the current one. My design looks like Number Four. What's the problem?HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This is perhaps our greatest disagreement. The poll does not continue the "competition." The evidence is clearly expressed on this talk page: we've moved far away from an uncoordinated design process. Otherwise our disagreement is a difference is preference. Part of application is being able to put your position into specific examples, cite what you feel to be essential to your point. HereToHelp, go ahead and start a discussion in PC4. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The more important concepts are not tied to the design: link removal at the welcome section per consensus above, jump-to links, organization and order of dynamic content, Find an article putting all the links in one place, removal of interlanguage links. Formating-wise, the colors are serious but not boring, that is, respectable and proffesional. The design is uncluttered by a bunch of extra borders and colors (or icons!), and the two collumn view allows for lots of visibility. Beyond that, it's subjective.HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

24-hour trial run

Assuming that one of the five will be the new Main Page, why not give them a day in the sun to give the readers a chance to comment? Starting at 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC), each page will serve as the shell to host the content on the Main Page for 24 hours. The order of appearance can be chosen by a random process. -- Suntag ☼ 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. First, I don't think it should be The Five, it should be whichever of those still have active sponsors plus whatever latecomers can garner support (what have we here?) So we need to establish which designs are really on board. But in pinciple, once we clean them up a little, it's an idea.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I would give it more time; however I think it's an interesting idea. Swapping the main page for a day for each design will definitely attract a lot of anonymous users than a watchlist-notification or even a site-notification. To HereToHelp: I was referring to reopening new proposals, not swapping them. One method of overcoming votes being diffused is to ask for two pieces of information: whether they want the new main page or now; and if so, which one. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Designs do not need sponsors to continue. They have been disowned. Why are we now, after we've already said we weren't, going to reopen new proposals? We've been at this for months already. HereToHelp, your design isn't a redesign. It's the main page with some swapped features. You can make those suggestions on the talk page of the main page. This process is to revamp the main page, to make it look more professional. Can we please stop with the constant questioning of the process and just get on with the plan? We have the five chosen designs, we're discussing goals and such. Let's determine what is wanted and what isn't and start designing. Once we've got the designs polished based on these comments, then we can choose the best and go on to the next phase. Let's get this moving. لennavecia 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No, those of us who realize that the poll is highly flawed and violates policy will not cease our "constant questioning of the process" simply because you say so. You also need to realize that the length of time spent on this proposal doesn't somehow legitimize it. If it's broken, it's broken, and blindly marching forward (on the basis that all of the efforts leading up to this stage—no matter how ill-advised—must stand) won't fix it. You're welcome to dispute he assertion that the proposal is broken, but it's unhelpful to demand that people who disagree with you shut up and follow your plan. —David Levy 15:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It's you and HereToHelp trying to take over. He wants his design, which is just the main page with some tweaks, added to the list, and he wants to drop any designs that no longer have a sponsor. That doesn't even make sense. We were just told a week or so ago that we needed to disown the designs, to eliminate ownership and work on them collaboratively. And now we're supposed to drop designs that the community chose because they don't have a sponsor? No way. That directly contradicts what was advised and agreed upon a week or so ago, and is a slap in the face to the designers and the editors who supported those designs. None of the designs have a sponsor. They're open for anyone to work on. If HereToHelp wants to keep the current main page and make little changes to it, he can do that now, without going through this redesign, by just making his proposals on Talk:Main page. لennavecia 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No one is "trying to take over." That such a concept even seems possible to you conveys a belief that you currently are in charge (and that you somehow possess the authority to conduct a policy-defying poll and deem its outcome sacrosanct).
I'll note, however, that I don't understand HereToHelp's point about sponsors. —David Levy 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 2#Signal to noise ratio. (We're 3 months into "option 2", and nowhere near halfway done...) I've been saying it's broken from the beginning too.
I don't see anything "professional" in any of the draft designs offered up so far. For example: Proposal 1 (sorry) has 5 borders around the FA section (dark blue, light blue, yellow, white, yellow). Aside from that, it just makes a few little changes to the contents of the header-box of the current design, and removes the bottom language box.
Most of the proposals are little more than tinkering with box layout, and colour choices, and seem to be based on an "I would like ...." selection. 3 of them include the redundant search bar that so many people have expressed strong opposition to. None of them are very different from those already found at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. I like a few of the original elements (as said before, I think the intro paragraph idea is good, and many people like the idea of 2 FAs a day (has anyone asked Raul yet?)), but the prettifying/restyling is utterly subjective. Styling is not the same thing as Designing (repeatx3). Proper professional Design is what Kaldari and David Levy and I and others are asking for. We left notes about the criteria/rationale behind the current design, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#About the redesign. It would be good to see something better than that.
I'll say it again: I like the idea of a few tweaks and changes to the current design. I haven't seen any compelling reasons or designs that suggest a complete overhaul is wanted or needed. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. One, the whole "swap a design for one without sponsors" was an idea I took from ChryandChloe; evidently, I misinterpreted what he meant. I totally agree with Quiddity, styling (formatting) is not the same thing as designing (content). My design is primarily an exercise in content, not formatting. Focus on: links to subsections, Find an article, and grouping of content. Just as important is what I left out: icons, search bar (the first item under "Find an article" tells the reader where to look). Also note that the formatting differentiates between static (constant) and dynamic (changing) content. If there's support for minimal formatting change, I offer my design up for the community's support. If there is not, than please study it and incorporate the ideas it embodies into the designs that depart further from the current formatting style. I am not opposed to a new way of displaying the content that I have set forth in my design, but it's up to you to produce something better.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In discussion over how we are to conduct a straw poll or otherwise when it comes time to place our proposal against the current main page: we can cross that bridge when we get there. Once again I am in agreement with David, that the poll violates policies and that the proposal posses fundamental flaws. However, you are once again failing to state a definitive plan to how we are running this proposal. Almost all your comments circulate around the point that this proposal is flawed, and I agree with you, but your comments never posses the substance for any alternatives. Same applies to you Quiddity. My position is simple: you have a good amount of support, use it, and tell us what we should do rather than how we are wrong. HereToHelp and Jennavencia, I think we're redefining "sponsor" to simply a person endorsing or supporting a particular proposal. I do not think we need a complete overhaul in content (we have a section above discussing this), but if its a design we can offer then let's go by that. There are discussion pages for each proposal candidate, use them. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Strongly desired:
  • Intro paragraph (like in proposal 5, and asbriefly discussed last month).
  • Featured Media replace Featured Picture (would remain primarily images, but include occasional video and audio).
  • No icons, No Searchbar, No featured lists/portals/topics.
I don't have time to draft designs, sorry. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for all the newcomers, there was also a Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Survey in August, that may provide some rough/condensed idea of what has already been discussed. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the consensus under the approriate Goals section that most people know who we are by now, making an opening paragraph unnecessary. I do not think we need an overhaul of content beyond the Goals section ( which I tried to implement in my design), and that we might be able to find a better formatting design--but I have yet to see it.HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
From my own experiences, about 90% of the people I mention my involvement with Wikipedia to, and encourage to try out, are surprised that anyone can edit. That includes lawyers, bookstore managers, doctors, and environmental scientists, as well as janitors and privateschool teachers. We have a lot of educating to do still... -- Quiddity (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Then say so.HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time! If I did, I would have been trying to help with the drafting. Now that you and other people are bringing a wiser eye, I hope to spend even less time watching over things here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons between proposal candidates

This is a descriptive comparison of the content of the five current Wikipedia 2008 main page redesign proposal candidates. This comparison mentions both similar elements and distinctive elements, though not exhaustively and perhaps with a mistake or two. Reading this comparison should result in an improved awareness of the similarities and differences between the proposal candidates.

All five proposal candidates have identical top-of-page elements: a "log in / create account" link; tabs for "project page", "discussion", "edit this page", "history"; the title of the page; a line saying, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; and a link saying, "< Wikipedia: 2008 main page redesign proposal".

All five proposal candidates have an identical bottom box with logos for "A Wikimedia project" and "Powered by MediaWiki", a modification notice, license and trademark notices, and links to "Privacy policy", "About Wikipedia", and "Disclaimers".

All five proposal candidates have a thin left column the length of the page. Four of the five proposal candidates (#2,3,4,5) have five elements in the thin left column: the globe and "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia"; a "navigation" box with links to "Main page", "Contents", "Featured content", "Current events", "Random article"; a "search" box with a text entry line and two buttons, "Go" and "Search"; an "interaction" box with links to "About Wikipedia", "Community Portal", "Recent changes", "Contact Wikipedia", "Donate to Wikipedia", "Help"; and a "toolbox" box with links to "What links here", "Related changes", "Upload file", "Special pages", "Printable version", "Permanent link".

One proposal candidate (#1) also has a sixth element in the thin left column: a "languages" box with 51 links.

Under the identical top-of-page elements, all five proposal candidates have a banner area spanning across the page to the right of the thin left column. Four of the five candidates have the words, "Welcome to Wikipedia" prominently displayed in the banner: proposal candidate #4 differs by prominently displaying the single word, "Wikipedia". Four of the five candidates have the words, "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit": proposal candidate #2 differs by interjecting additional words in the expression and splitting the expression across the banner. Four of the five candidates have an article count in the banner: candidate #4 does not.

Under the banner area, and to the right of the thin left column, the proposal candidates have a set of boxes in various layouts. All five candidates have box titles similar to: "In the news" and "Did you know". Four of the five candidates have box titles similar to "Today's featured article" (#2 instead has "Best of Wikipedia") and "On this day" (#5 instead has "This day in history"). Three of the candidates have box titles similar to "Today's featured picture" (#1 instead has "Picture of the day", and #5 instead has "Today's featured media").

Distinctive box titles include: "Other areas of Wikipedia" (#1), "Wikipedia's sister projects" (#1) and "Sister projects" (#4), "Best of Wikipedia" (#2), "Browse by topic" (#2) and "Browse" (#5), "New users" (#2), "Resources" (#2), "Donate" (#2), "Navigate Wikipedia" (#3), "Other languages" (#3), "Categories" (#4), "Wikimedia Foundation" (#5). Proposal candidate #2 has an untitled box.

Within the boxes are sets of common links.

The banner area near the top of the page contains links to: "anyone can edit" (all five candidates); "encyclopedia" (#1,2,5); "A-Z index" (#1,2), "Categories" (#1,2), and "Wikipedia" (#1,5). Distinctive banner area links include: "Contents" (#2), "Editing" (#1), "Featured content" (#1), "Help (#1), and "Questions" (#1).

Boxes about "in the news" in all proposal candidates contain the same three links: "more current events", "recent deaths", and "Wikinews".

Boxes about "did you know" have links to: "archive" (all five candidates), "nominate an article" (#1,2,3,5), "start a new article" (#1,3,4,5), and "newest articles" (#2,5).

Boxes about today's "featured article" have links to: an archive (all five candidates), email (all five candidates), more featured items (all five candidates), and three recently featured items (#1,3,5).

Boxes about "this day" have links to: an archive (all five candidates), email (all five candidates), more anniversaries (all five candidates), and three events (#1,4,5). Some of these boxes also contained a time stamp (#1,5).

Boxes about a featured picture or media have links to: three recently featured pictures (#1,3), an archive (all five candidates), and more featured media (all five candidates).

Four of the five proposal candidates (excepting #3) have boxes of links to an identical set of Wikimedia Foundation projects including: the Commons, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, and Meta-Wiki. (Associated box titles include "Wikipedia's sister projects", "Sister projects", and "Wikimedia Foundation". Also, the untitled box in #2 includes these links.)

Portal links appear in #2 (22 links in the "Browse by topic" box), #3 (8 links in the "Navigate Wikipedia" box), and #5 (15 links in the "Browse" box).

Proposal candidate #1 has a distinctive "Other areas of Wikipedia" box, with links to: "Community portal", "Help desk", "Reference desk", "Site news", and "Village pump". (The last two of these links also appear in the "Resources" box in #2.)

Proposal candidate #2 has multiple distinctive boxes: "New users", "Resources", and "Donate". The new users box has links to: "Welcome", "Overview", "How to edit", "Questions", "Cheatsheet", "For students", and "For parents". The resources box has links to: "Village pump", "Department directory", "Site news", "Goings-on", "Site map", "Mobile access", "Other languages", "Contact us", and "About Wikimedia".

Proposal candidate #3 has a distinctive "Other languages" box. (A list of languages appears in the "Wikimedia Foundation" box in #5 and in the thin left column in #1. A single link to a list of languages appears in #2.)

Proposal candidate #5 has a distinctive "What is Wikipedia" box with links to: "help out", "About", "Help", "Current projects", "Pages needing attention", "Welcome", "Tutorial", "Policies and guidelines", and "FAQ".

Commentary: There are many common elements among the five proposal candidates, and some distinctive elements. Links in certain places in some candidates appear in other places in other candidates. Some boxes having similar content differ in their titles. Some boxes having similar titles differ in the specifics of their content. Some candidates have notably distinct content organization or layout. I have no doubt inadvertently left out some notable content items: please correct me and add to the discussion!BrainMarble (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort in sifting through the proposal candidates. I think we would greatly appreciate your help in the#Goals section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait. The thin left column with the tool box, search bar, navigation box, etc. In this summary, it says that design #1 (originally mine) is the only one with the language navigation. That's the sidebar present on all Wikipedia pages. It should look no different on my design than on any other page. لennavecia 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Strange. Yours is the only one with the interwiki language links down the side. That's done withTemplate:MainPageInterwikis. I suggest the other designs should have this added to them, unless omitting it was a feature of those designs? Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I added it a while ago. A lot of users forgot to add that; the transclusion is {{MainPageInterwikis}}.ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
My design (Proposal 5) PURPOSELY left them out.. Having a language section on the left side of the page is redundant when in the design there is a "Languages" section.. we don't need the links in two different places. --Dudemanfellabra(talk) 17:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
My underground design has them on the left and one link to the main list under "find an article", but not on the main content area. Like omitting the search bar, the intention is to guide users towards the sidebar where those links will always be.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Two featured articles

Not sure if anyone here noticed that there were two featured articles (one for each of the two main candidate) on the main page for 4 November (the US presidential elections). There was some follow-up discussion about whether this should become a permanent feature. I think it was on a mailing list. Here we go: see [6]. The on-wiki discussion that led to two TFAs washere.Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been mentioned a number of times above, and everyone likes the idea. However, after reading that on-wiki discussion you linked, it appears from Raul's comments that he doesn't wish to do this ever again, "...this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future." (though that may be in regards to doing related articles two-at-a-time?). Perhaps someone eloquent and tactful should ask him what he thinks, before we consider it any further. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I've asked Raul. I think it has become a bit of a perennial question. I'm sure there have been earlier discussions.Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The two featured articles were related to each other and to the day on which they were featured.. readers understood that. If we tried to feature 2 or more articles every day, readers may get confused and think the two articles are somehow supposed to be related as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Another issue is order. Especially with a touchy subject like American politics, who decides whether McCain or Obama goes first? If we ever do this again, they need to be two related articles with extenuating circumstances.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
On November 4, McCain's and Obama's articles were both featured on the main page. When the page was loaded, some JS code (I'm guessing JS.. no clue actually) randomized which one was displayed first so as not to show preference. If it can be done with those two, why not all others? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? I did not know that. Also, do you think we should make this section a subheader of #Goals, perhaps #Featured content?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See the code at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008. I think it was the "<div class="dshuf dshufset1">" bit, though goodness only knows how that works. I do vaguely remember seeing something somewhere about who authored that "shuffle" feature. Ah, here we are: "The reordering code was something I did for the WMF board elections two-ish years ago. I wasn't aware of the decision to run two articles until it was already live, then add in the time it took for an EnWP admin bold enough to make the change. Unfortunately the site JS is cached, so not everyone will see the random order. Fortunately (for once) IE and Firefox have dumb caching which won't preserve the cache across sessions, so I expect most of the public will get the random ordering." I'll ask Greg if he has time to explain further or point to documentation on how to use this feature. It could be useful for people here.Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul's opinion counts just as much as the next person, but not more. How many FAs appear on the main page depends on community consensus. I think it's a good idea, so if the idea has support here, regardless of Raul's comments, we should take the idea to the community. لennavecia 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Good. Let's have zero. Too many Featured Articles are public embarrassments, which have been checked for MOS compliance and footnote count, but not for clarity, accuracy, neutrality, or whether they represent their sources correctly.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe my position is towards PMAnderson, if the quantity of featured article is so great that it becomes necessary to posses two, perhaps the standards should be raised. My interpretation is that perhaps the number of FAs should be limited (to a percentat), and the rest should be rated A-class; FA are the very best, and we're getting better. Nevertheless, that is the FA wikiproject to decide. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's get everyone's "vote", even if they aren't interested in voting

We may have all heard the expression, "Actions speak louder than words." It means that people sometimes say one thing, then do another. I've heard several comments about how and whether consensus can be achieved and whether any vote or poll can or should be binding and what the "regular" user might think as opposed to those of us who spend a little more time with the Wikipedia nuts and bolts offstage. So, let's see what people really think, based on their actions. Let's useGoogle Website Optimizer. Someone, possibly someone with Main Page edit access*, would need to add some html code to the main page, based on a Google Analytics account. We then define the different versions of the main page and how those versions differ then release that to the Google Website Optimizer. A small percentage of people will be shown different versions of the main page and, based on whether those people stick around or continue to browse Wikipedia, etc. (clickthrough and retention rates), different versions will be more or less successful. I think this is a great way to see what everyone really thinks of the new designs. Are they so unintuitive that people can't find their way around and give up in frustration? Are they such great revisions that people come back more often? Let's see how people really vote, by measuring their actions. Or, because Wikipedia is so darn big and influential, maybe Google would be willing to work a little more closely with Wikipedia. Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is A/B testing. It would be very useful research, but I don't think we could ever implement it. Use of Google Analytics has previously been requested, and refused because it's not open source or something. Also probably to do with Knol.PretzelsTalk! 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Google refused Wikipedia or Wikipedia refused Google? Perhaps we should simply do the same thing ourselves. All of the stats that Google Analytics could gather from Wikipedia are already publically available. Let's take the drafts and serve them out to a small random percent of visitors and see whether the new designs are as intuitive and easy to navigate as they claim to be -- see whether they really do increase retention rate and how quickly people click through them. Banaticus (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea - similar to the 24 hour trial run above - but I don't think we're there yet. We need to refine the designsfurther as to get the best results. I'm concerned how accurate the data would be; many people go to the main page to get to the search bar and know exactly what they're looking for. How many people actually are here to use the Main Page as a doorstep, inviting them to further exploration? It's a good question, considering that's our premise in designing. Let's look at the data that already exists and find whether people's page after the Main Page was linked to the MP (indicating that they read and jumped off from it) or not (meaning they just used the search bar).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Information such as what page a visitor views after the Main Page should already be available in the en.wikipedia.org server access logs. In fact, this statement would apply to every page a visitor views on the server, not just the Main Page.BrainMarble (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An on-going concern of mine is the lack of participation in debates/discussions about Wikipedia policy, a lack which I am convinced stems not from apathy, but rather from being unaware that such discussions are taking place. I've been contributing to WP for quite a while and have only today become aware of the template below.

This touches on such far-reaching issues that I think it should be included in the design of a new Main Page and placed on the home or talk page of every editor - advertising debates can only lead to a greater involvement of editors and hopefully to more democratic decisions. ciao Rotational(talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure vs presentation

This is an important distinction to make, often talked about in web design contexts (i.e. the separation of HTML and CSS). Generally, the structure (HTML) decides what features, content and elements to be on the page, while presentation (CSS) decides how the elements should be displayed to the user (font color, background, design images/icons and, to some degree, placement). A presentation could also be described as a certain skin used to display the structure.

The point is that a solid structure can be presented in completely different ways graphically, without touching the content and functionality itself (if you're interested in this concept, take a look at CSSZenGarden for some good examples of this in practice).

I believe this distinction is important to keep in mind when discussing the Main Page redesign, because we might like the structural changes of some proposals and the graphical presentation of others. If we forget this distinction we might believe that these proposals exclude each other, when we could actually merge the structural features we like from some proposals with the visual appearance of others.

Looking at the current proposals, I see that some focus more on changing the presentation of the current Main Page, while others make larger structural changes:

Proposals #1 and #3 are very similar to the current Main Page in terms of structure, except for getting rid of some content at the bottom (replaced by a Navigate section in #3) and changing the header (#3 adds a search bar). A big difference lies in their graphical presentation which are quite different from the current Main Page.

Proposal #2 has more structural changes, such as the header with search, reduced content in ITN, DYK and OTD, enlarged images, a more extensive portals section (browse by topic), larger link lists for new users and to various resources, and a donate box. It also changes a lot in terms of presentation, moving to a one-column content layout with a thin column with shortcuts on the right.

Proposal #4 has many structural changes but almost no presentational, as it uses the same graphic box design as the current Main Page. It has two featured articles, clear headlines for FAs, dates on news items, a reduced number of wiki-links in all sections, a simplified header with search, a larger featured picture and shows recently featured pictures as thumbnails instead of text. In terms of presentation it halves the width of the Featured picture section in order to move it up on the page, and it also centers the top header.

Proposal #5 has plenty of structural changes. It includes a remade header, a short summary of Wikipedia and a developed portals section with shortcut links, and presents these high up on the page with extensive use of icons. It also presents the Featured picture by half width, using inline scrolling to view wider images.

So, we can identify a number of potential structural changes (I've put the number of proposals implementing each change in parenthesis):

  • A less cluttered header, emphasizing the name of the site (5)
  • Removing the list of Wikipedias in other languages (4)
  • A search bar in the header (3)
  • Portals moved to a separate section out of the header (3)
  • Portals removed (2)
  • Less content in ITN, DYK and OTD (2)
  • A short description of Wikipedia (1)
  • Two featured articles (1)
  • Dates on news items (1)
  • Enlarged images in FA, ITN, DYK and OTD (1)
  • Enlarged image in Featured picture (1)
  • Removing the list of sister projects (1)
  • Adding today's date (1)
  • Adding a clear headline on FA (1)

Presentational changes:

  • Changing to a centered header (3)
  • Keeping the current two-column content layout but changing its graphical appearance (3)
  • Adding icons (3)
  • Reducing width of Featured picture section (2), potentially moving it up on the page (1) and using inline scrolling for wider images (1)
  • Changing to a layout with one main column and a smaller side column (1)

Of course, the division presentation vs structure is not always that obvious, and might even overlap at times. However, at the very least, the above list is a starting point for potential changes to discuss based on the current redesign proposals. -Wintran (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is great, thanks Wintran. I'd like to see the page split into three distinct sections going down the page: daily featured content, Find an Article (with portals etc), and then community/internal/help type links. What would you think of this?PretzelsTalk! 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think--and a few others have agreed, although it might be premature to call it consensus--that talking about the community is not for the MP. We should not have WP:WELCOME on the MP because it addresses new editors, not new readers. We must maintain that all readers can be editors, but reading Wikipedia does require "payback" editing. Intro links are best left as "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Help may be more appropriate under "Find an article," leaving sister projects as the only remaining addendum to the header, dynamic content, and Find an article section. (Interwiki links should go on the left side, where they can normally be found.) But with that said, I'm all for the "divide and conquer" discussion method. I tried to do something similar with the #Goals section; see if you can integrate that into your ideas.
I agree we need to figure out content (structure) and then move on to formatting (presentation). I support myunderground design's structure (what content is has and how it's grouped), but I'm more willing to adopt another color scheme. Why haven't I changed the current MP's format? Because I have yet to see another presentation that I feel is as mature and tame (reflecting a reputable reference source) but still somewhat engaging, neither childishly bright and colorful nor too simple and boring. (I take issue with the designs, not the designers, just to be clear.) As soon as I see another one I like (subjectively), I'll let you know.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Goals

I think we need to discussion why we are conducting a Main Page Redesign Proposal. In short, I believe we need to ask the questions what is wrong with the current main page and what we can do to improve it. Below is a list copied from the original instruction:

  • The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader.
  • It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy)
  • It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles.
  • The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position.
  • Links to better-used pages should be added.
  • There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles.

So let's expand on it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What we tried didn't work; that we spent so much time on it is no justification. I'm creating headers as outlines of those bullet points. I invite anyone and everyone to contribute (a major factor lacking last time was transparency). However, I think we should stay on these points for the moment. These steps must be completed in order:
  1. Decide what is wrong with old MP. (Quotes above are a good start.) A little bit later, decide what specific design elements we want to use, and which to discard. (rounded corners, icons, show/hide buttons, number of columns, color schemes, etc.)
  2. Begin drafting one design as a group, using the current MP as a base and altering only what we can improve. "Improve" will have been defined by the previous step. In the mean time, no drafting please.
These are my ideas on how to best structure the redesign, round 2. If the consensus is otherwise, I cannot fight that. Without further ado, headings: --HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the home page as it stands is that it's very busy and crowded, resulting in a lack of resting space for the eye, having nothing stand out, and a long scroll for the home page. I say this as a studying web-designer. Now while it is way too big a project for me, I really think Wikipedia needs to take a slice out of that $2,000,000 they raised to hire a real professional web designer. Because as it stands this "main page redesign" is doing nothing to the wireframe and information design -- it's just putting on a new coat of paint when it needs a remodel. Althepal (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Visually appealing

The current page is bland and unexciting. It is hardly enticing to a new reader. You can discuss colors and icons soon, but please try to hold off awhile we discuss what we want colors and icons to do.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

  • The images currently used on the Main Page are miniscule and almost not worth having. It should almost be a given that in this redesign images dimensions should be increased. PretzelsTalk! 05:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
True, but do consider that many people are browsing on small displays. Another issue is whether to show previews of previously featured images. I think it would make it look to cluttered and distract from the current image, but I'm willing to look at mock-ups. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings on this. However, I do like the look of larger images for the TFA, though I do not like the look of displaying previously featured images. لennavecia 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Icons

Perhaps one of the most divisive issues. I, personally, am opposed to including icons. I think that they are childish and not becoming of a legitimate reference source. They are often inconsistent and potentially misleading or ambiguous, especially for those with bad eyesight who have never seen them at higher resolution. The suggested icons for portals (are we using portals?) are biased. Socrates for Philosophy and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for Religion both have a Western slant. Those same two are not of the Nuvola family and don't match the others. The Featured star and GA button are the only icons that are used frequently, consistently, and uniformly; using only one or two icons, though, does not look very good, either.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that icons are of little use. In most of the contexts in which they would be used on the main page, they could not be comprehended without reading the text next to them, so they add little to navigation. From an aesthetic viewpoint I find they detract. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the use of icons in the headers, but I think they add a good splash of color for the portal list, if included. It is, however, a good point, that people may not be able to distinguish the image at that size. لennavecia 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Content sections

It is outdated in parts. Some links are to pages that are rarely used anymore, or are deprecated (e.g., Wikipedia:Local Embassy). It doesn't cover much in the way of things like featured portals or good articles. The arrangement needs looking at—some think Did You Know should have a more prominent position. Links to better-used pages should be added. When discussing specific links, please make sure they are targeted towards the reader (Wikipedia:Introduction) and not editors (Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't strong support for portals, we could omit all the links between the header and two columns, instead having "Browse #### of articles by: Contents, Index, Categories, Portals, Featured Content" over to the right. Also, there has beentalk of having featured sounds along with images on the MP. That's perhaps more of a coding issue (once we decide whether it's a good idea or not - I think so), but because of featured panoramas, it needs to remain a full-width section, not in a column. I'd like to see a daily Featured List, Portal, or Topic; I'll drop by those talk pages and ask anyone interested to comment here.--HereToHelp (talk to me)17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
POTD does not, as popular thought goes, need to be full-width because of panoramas. It's not 1998 anymore, and many more people are using high resolution monitors. Those with lower resolutions will simply get a scrollbar, using overflow:auto. We've been through this before. PretzelsTalk!21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have my browser window set up to occupy as much of my 17" monitor as I can, but not everyone will have that - many laptops have 12" or so screens. I really don't like horizontal scrolling. However, it's a moot point because we aren't drafting yet. Please evaluate the sections on their merits (see also Featured content below) and we'll worry about layout in a week or two. Thank you for your patience.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You really want to start from the ground up again? It's kind of sad that we couldn't have recruited you some time ago. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the most structured discussion we've had so far. I've writtened POTD transclusion for me and Dudemanfellabra which allows for horizontal scrolling from within the image sort of like the {{panorama}} template. Currently we have "Today's featured article" "Did you know" "In the news" "On this day" and "Today's feautred picture"
  • I think "Today's featured article" could be changed to simply "Featured article"; the reason, I think, for this lengthy name is that not all of the featured content is updated daily. This and the POTD is.
  • "Did you know" was proposed to be bumped up above the "In the news"; I'm not sure about my position on that
  • "In the news" is ok where it is, we've had a discussion about it some time ago in archives concerning it with Wikinews.
  • "On this day" I think it's ok where it is.
  • "Today's featured article", I accommodate the featured sounds, I think we can merge it into "Today's featured media", or "Featured media" to keep the name short. Like the FA, it's updated daily.
ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd really love to see us take a brave step and merge In the News and On This Day. It makes sense. PretzelsTalk! 04:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I also think it would make sense to split the page into three sections: first, Featured / daily editorial content. Second, "Find an article" resources - portal lists (inc featured portal if you want), links to different topic lists, categories, etc. And last, a summary of the Wikipedia community: perhaps a signpost box, links for new users and handy reference links.PretzelsTalk! 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had been recruited a long time ago, too, but I was on Wikibreak when the project started. I prefer ITN, DYK, and OTD, in that order. Featured content is being discussed under that header; I favor an article, a picture or sound, and a topic list or portal, daily, though I also like the Beethoven idea. I think that portals may be a little too much information when we're trying to get dynamic content closer to the top. But if they are below all of that, are grouped by subject (Kollison has the right idea, though I think there's too much Geography), and don't use icons (see that separate discussion), I could go for it. I'm leaning against community links on a reader-facing page, but I'll look at how it's done and make a decision then. Another idea is to have jump-off links to different sections of the page, like a table of contents. See 88wolfmaster's proposal for a demonstration. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I am opposed to bringing the SignPost to the main page. Maybe I could be swayed on this, but it's just a bit too internal. I don't think readers care who was granted adminship this week, or what bots were approved (as if many of them would even know what bots are), or what drama our court system churned out, or what bugs they didn't realize existed have been fixed... or not. I don't think we should increase the length of the main page more than necessary, if at all. That seems like unnecessary clutter.لennavecia 05:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely on the Signpost; it belongs where it is, at WP:CP. I reiterate: please make sure that content is targeted towards the reader (Wikipedia:Introduction) and not editors (Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-description

There should be some description of the site itself. Currently there is nothing except "the free encyclopedia" and the number of articles. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Something pages will generally be more suitable than encyclopedia articles.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Past pages: Wikipedia has had an introductory passage such as thisin the past. PretzelsTalk! 05:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've experimented with this, but been convinced that a clearly visible link to an introduction is better than an actual description on the Main Page. The point of such a description would be to inform people of things they didn't already know. However, almost everyone today (even new users) know that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just as people know that Google is a search engine. To give usefulinformation would mean we'd have to explain more advanced features that might be unclear to new users, such as page history, but this is hard to do in such a short summary. Ultimately, I think the Main Page will be better off without a descriptive section taking up space in the top of the page, providing a clear link (not too many different, mind you) to a simple introductory article. - Wintran (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Streamlining the links is definitively good. I'd support dropping everything but WP:INTRO; but if possible, WP:ABOUTshould be there too.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more irritating to go on a front page which millions of people regularly use. That extract was from 2002 when nobody knew what wikipedia was. We don't need such an explanation on the front page anymore. Do we really need to change the main page anyway? Who has complained about it? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the slogan has become old and redundant. I changed it to "a one for all encyclopediadesign." at one point; paralleling from an article I read. The one for all comes from the idea that the first encyclopedia was written by one person trying to compile all of human knowledge. It was extended to a one best design, which entailed working as a team or group. And now we've transitioned to a one for all where everyone can participate. ChyranandChloe(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the slogan is great, and anyhow, it would be pushing it to get a change on that as well as the design at the same time! Dr Blofeld, look at the Main Page. It's more or less the 8th most visited page in the world. Now look at Yahoo.com, MSN.com, eBay.com, Youtube.com. These are all the leaders in their respective fields. Comparing their vibrant, inviting front pages to our wall of text is embarrassing. That's why we need to improve — this is a wiki, it can always be improved. PretzelsTalk! 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the simplicity of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''." --HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) We essentially have the slogan posted in two locations on the main page. One on the image in the top left-hand corner, and another below "Wikipedia". However I think it's ok to leaving it as it is; and changing it, I think, would be too much. It's kind of like the Nike logo. We've risen to the point where we don't need much description for people to understand what Wikipedia is. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit" has worked long enough and effectively summarises it without have to keep reading what wikipedia is and under this has seen wikipedia develop dramatically. Why change it? Dr. Blofeld(talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the slogan. As far as it being in two places on the main page, that's only true for the Monobook skin. Other skins do not have the globe of the slogan... I could be wrong, some may, but I don't recall any of them having it.لennavecia 04:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The default skin is Monobook, and I they can't exactly change it. They're the reader's we're the writers. Nevertheless, such a change would be very dramatic, and I think we should hold off on it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured content

Perhaps the primary reason for a main page redesign is allow more space for featured content.

Good Article
The GA is found on other language Wikipedias (particuarly the Spanish).
Featured List
Featured lists are lists of particular information, there are over 1000 of these.
Featured Sounds
We can combine this with the POTD in Featured Media, or place it in a seperate box of its own — probably next to the POTD. There 73, so merger seems to be the best option right now.
Featured portal
portals are regarded to providing attractive content along a particular subject. There are 126 right now, however I don't think its mature enough.
Featured Topic
inter-related articles that are of a good quality. There are 67, and I think it's too early to consider.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's currently under discussion under "I thought...", which I have merged in to this subheader. My response is posted there; I haven't gotten around to defending why I don't like GAs (will do as soon as someone wants to go there).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the main point of mainpage redesign was to include more of the featured parts of the wikipedia. At this point for example, there are almost half as many featured lists than there are featured articles, YET none of these five proposals EVEN consider lists... What is the point with all of this hassle if nothing new is actually brought to the mainpage?????Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on addressing that in the Goals, however we're side tracked right now. Also it wasn't just the Featured list, were to also consider the GA, Featured Portals, and Featured media as well. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not support GAs on the Main Page. However, I did post the following notice on a the Featured Portal, Topic, and List (and candidates of them) talk pages: "Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposaland I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion." That sums up my opinion - perhaps we want to have that discussion here? So far, I've seen responses from only theFeatured List crowd. The response is mixed; some valid negatives are clutter and usefulness - lists are very specific and are only useful to those who intentionally seek them out. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we have enough support to change "Today's featured picture" to "Feature media." Thus satisfying people in the POTD and the Featured Sounds. I'm on the other side with the GA, I support it. Despite this Jennavencia is in the GA wikiproject, so let's hear what she has to say.
In the matters of the Featured list, it is very specific in substance — and this is perhaps what's holding it back; so I'm opposed. A lot of the designs display the featured content in two columns, so if we want to add GA or featured list, I think we'll have to do it in pairs. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pretzels has made the point above the Featured Picture (Media) does not need to cover two columns because most people are using big screens. I disagree, but it's an irrelevant point because we aren't worrying about formatting yet. Featured lists would make up the bulk of the Featured Miscellany (we won't actually use that term), ensuring that there's always new content. No one has contested this (that there wouldn't be enough between the three of them to feature something daily), so until someone does, I'll assume it's not a problem. "Very specific in substance," though, is legitimate grounds to oppose. Still, it's no more specific or specialized than Metallica, a dragonfly, or the world chess champion - all of whom are on the MP right now.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The solution in my proposal was to merge all the featured stuff into a Best of Wikipedia section that you can do anything with day-to-day. Yes, most days it will have an article, but somedays you could add a list, or a sound, or whatever. And the naming makes more sense to readers. PretzelsTalk!23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That's an innovative idea. Though it'll take a lot of discussion to get people from the FA, GA, and so on to approve — and that's perhaps the greatest challenge with it. Also "Best of Wikipedia" seems kind of polarizing: the best implies that everything else is not as good. Is it possible to change the name? Perhaps, "Today's feautred content," or "Featured content" would be more appropriate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds awfully similar to Featured Topics. (Which could be scheduled to run on the same day as one of their articles.) Still...it could work. All featured stuff would have to be together; but there's also been strong support for ITN near the top - which suggests a two column scheme - but we're not there yet. I still advocate an article, a picture or sound, and a portal, list, or topic - but unity is a good thing. Per ChyranandChloe, though, I don't like the name. --HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Re "implies that everything else is not as good". Well, content that isn't featured isn't as good! We shouldn't be afraid of making these distinctions for our readers. Perhaps Best of / Featured in a 75% on the left, then In the News / On this day on the right, in a thin column? PretzelsTalk! 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
We should make that distinction by not having merely "Good" content on the Main Page. I think it's too early to worry about column width, but let's see how 50/50 looks before we adjust it, ok? I do support keeping featured to the left and news to the right, because that's how it's formatted now.--HereToHelp (talk to me)00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this conversation is going somewhat in the right direction. I support combining featured articles with featured lists.. I mean lists ARE articles, aren't they? Just because they're lists doesn't demote them from being an article.. Since lists are articles, a name change wouldn't really be necessary (unless we just think we need one).. "Featured Article" would work fine. I think POTD should be changed to "Featured Media" (as in my proposal) and contain not only images but sounds and video clips as well. (I mean technically it already does; I've seen video clips and sounds in the POTD box before)... so just a simple name change would suffice there. I don't think portals and topics should be in the featured boxes; they aren't really articles.. they're just links or passages to articles. I like having a portals list on the main page, but I don't think they should be featured or anything.. Good articles aren't "featured"... so why is there even discussion about this? Featured articles are the best we have; display them.... not good articles. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Lists are articles, but I want to show off as much featured content as possible, and there are enough of both to run a section daily. I support a combined Featured Media and no Good Articles. I suppose portals and topics may unsuitable. I suggest placing the lists below the media, which goes below the article, because lists have very specific audiences (though the point is to show them to a wider readership) and the picture helps break up the text.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Nergaal, as has been pointed out a few times, the five designs were chosen for design and layout. Actual features are to be determined in this phase, which is what this discussion is for. As far as good articles on the main page, this has been proposed a few times, I don't recall what, if any, position I took on the matter. At this point, I would only support a list of newly promoted articles, but even that is risky with the current way GA is run, so it would be with the caveat of a couple directors, similar to Raul654 for FAs, to determine if the articles are truly up to standards and good enough to even have the title listed on the main page. That said, there would first have to be a whole lot of discussion, change, and testing within the GA project before that could even be considered for community-wide discussion regarding inclusion on the main page. Speaking of testing, so to speak, User:TonyTheTiger has been running a Featured List of the Day for quite a while now. I support having a featured list included on the main page, though I think it should be separate from the TFA, personally, though would support it either way. If implemented, I think TTT should continue to run it. لennavecia 05:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured List, I think it's kind of awkward, can I get more explanation of what it is? My understanding is that they're articles, but the entire article is essentially a list. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. Discographies (such as Red Hot Chili Peppers discography) include a lead section followed by tabled information; similarly, timelines (for example, Timeline of chemistry) include a lead section followed by a timeline. Some lists (like List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong) include a lead section followed by a long tabled list and a lot of pictures, then lists (such as List of United States graduate business school rankings) are basically an article followed by a long list, the list being the primary focus of the article, of course. Hope that helps. To become featured, they must be complete, so I believe having them on the main page would be a great thing. Having the lead on the page with a link to view the actual "list" part. لennavecia 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have missed a lot of the proposal consideration and am not sure where to find the five finalists (if I am understanding the process). I support the following changes to the main page. Split the Featured picture into Featured picture and Other featured media. Other could be used for audio or video files. I also support adding a pair of sections split between Good Article, which I feel is more advanced than FA was when it went on the main page and Featured List.--TonyTheTiger(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to see GA and featured portals up there on main page. Accommodating featured portals are not hard, as seen onFeatured content page, all it needs is a small box, a small image, and a caption that states what portal it is. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tony, the five designs are on the project page attached to this talk page. To both you and Ohana, there's no way the community will approve GAs on the main page, or even a link to them, with the current format for GA. It would just never happen. Shady reviews to get articles listed is bad enough. Risking shady reviews to get an article on the main page... no way. There would have to be a lot of change within the GA project to make this happen. لennavecia 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that GAs should not be on the Main Page, not only because of the shady process but because they are second rate. Even if they are better off than FAs once were, our standards have increased, and GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness. I so not support splitting Featured Pictures because I do not think that there would be enough media for daily use, and it prohibits collection like the Beethoven mockup (scroll down a little). I am still flexible as to how FLs would be depicted, whether as lead (kinda defeats the list part of it...) or as something similar to Portal:Featured content, where is gives the first few entries. I do not think that Featured Portals or Featured Topics are sufficiently developped, numerous, or suited to the Main Page to be displayed there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The lack of appearance on Main Page further contributes to an endless cycle of "not sufficiently developed = no display" and "no display = no chance to gather interest for development". OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think our opinion is beginning to become very diverse. Perhaps we should bring some of the discussion to the proposals candidates and show what we mean. I think it's difficult to apply something you only merely agree or disagree with, seeing it in a proposal candidate variation makes a stronger impression. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are discussing about main page redesign, centralize the discussion for all changes in one venue. <sacrasm>Maybe we should put out one page of layout design proposal, another for the colour of the layout, another page for suggesting to include featured sound, an additional page for inclusing of GA, one page for the proposal of featured portals, yet another page for what contents we should delete off main page. And to top it off, create a page for each of them for... er... I'm running out of ideas to create more pages! Wait! I know, let's designate these pages for all the straw polls to each of the proposal!</scarasm> Honestly, making so many pages makes us hard to swallow the discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
We've only got this one page right now, right? For the design drafts, though, we need to keep discussion specific to each design, so it's not practical to do that on this page. لennavecia 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness." What a pleasant and respectful way to refer to one of the largest Wikiprojects on Wikipedia, which has the main goal of article improvement. Can you please provide a link showing where the projectimplicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness? That aside, I don't see how any featured content would not be sufficiently developed to be on the main page. If it's not fit to be featured, it should not be featured. لennavecia 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, Lara. HereToHelp should provide a link to that statement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
HereToHelp's wording is a bit harsh, but I agree that GAs shouldn't be listed on the main page. My primary rationale is the simple fact that we have a backlog of featured articles and promote articles to this status at a rate higher than one per day. Therefore, unless we begin listing two "Today's featured articles" on a regular basis, many of them will never appear on the main page. Given that, why should GAs appear instead?
Another concern is that it would be difficult to convey the distinction between "featured" and "good." —David Levy 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As noted, I don't think GAs should be on the main page either, but the lack of respect was a bit off-putting. Anyway, I like the idea of two featured articles. Two things completely different, to draw interest from different demographics, perhaps.لennavecia 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with it all, I think we can say that there is one suggestions that do not have much opposition and from which we can perhaps get a consensus on. Today's featured image to "Featured media" or "Today's feature media". So let's concentrate on that, is there anyone who would oppose changing all "Today's featured picture" from the Proposal Candidates to "Feature media"?ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea. —David Levy 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Featured Media. GAs are second-rate because they aren't FAs. I admire their drive toqards improvement but they still have much to be improved. Putting GAs on the MP lowers our standards. My other concern was that it would be difficult to sample FTs and FPorts in a way significantly different than articles. How does one condense a portal or a list of articles. I don't think the list is enough; you'd have to sample the lead of the main article, just like an FA. Besides, are there enough of them?HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit shocked by the one-sided disparagement of the GA project I see here, and the arguments used. The fact that GAs are of lower quality than FAs is irrelevant, as the vast majority of Main Page content is not featured. Some of the articles linked from e.g. OTD can just about make you cringe. Allowing GAs on the MP would in fact increase the quality of the content there, not decrease it.

GA is the most vital venue for creation of quality content on WP today. As can be seen from this chart, the number of GAs is exploding, while new FAs are dwindling. All this while GA quality is getting higher, not lower. The review process has been made more thorough and more transparent, while older, subpar GAs are being demoted at a quick rate. Yes, it’s still a single-reviewer process, and yes, the quality is still below that of FAs, but GAs are nevertheless of far superior quality than 99% of the articles on WP. There seems to be a knee-jerk response against GAs on the MP here, and I guess there’s little I can do about that, I just wanted to point out the superficiality of some of the arguments. Lampman (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lampman. In most cases, DYK are worse than GA so why do ~20 DYKs get displayed every day? HereToHelp, you're starting fires everywhere, first stating "GA implicitly acknowledges second-rate-ness" and now you said "Putting GAs on the MP lowers our standards". You need to stop these kinds of acts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The data at WP:GA/S do not give the numbers of new FAs. I've uploaded a graph of the number of new FAs and the number of removed FAs per month, averaged over the preceding 12 months. New FAs are not dwindling noticeably, but have been approximately constant (around 65/month) since the beginning of the year. This still means that we would need to feature at least two articles per month to keep up, something which the featured article director has said he does not want to do. Thus appearing on the main page should not be regarded as an entitlement for FAs. It would be even more daft to suggest that every recently created or expanded article is entitled to appear under DYK.
Instead, I would encourage editors to view both GAs and FAs as a resource to be exploited by the main page. We need to maximise the benefit of the main page to the encyclopedia, which means encouraging new and old contributors by representing our community and our encyclopedia well. At the moment we only feature our newest articles (DYKs) and our very best work (FAs). We do not take advantage of the many high quality articles in between, except by linking to very mixed quality content (via OTD and ITN).
These articles in between have a role to play, I believe, in highlighting the diversity of Wikipedia. That means we have to be selective about which ones to feature. I suggest that GAs are a good place to look for such articles, because they have had at least one editor check them, there are plenty of them, but not so many that one doesn't know where to start. But selection is absolutely essential not only because GAs vary in quality, but also because we do not encourage improvement of the encyclopedia by featuring multiple articles on (e.g.) Simpson's episodes or hurricanes. Geometry guy 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not just make DYK include good articles instead of new ones? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. Also, could we list related GAs with the FA? PretzelsTalk! 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
POTD is now "Featured media." I like that idea as well. If we really want to push it (I don't support this idea) it's possible to have two FAs and four GAs a day. That's a lot, and perhaps we need to raise our standards in the GA or FA wikiproject.ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I love that idea. It would make room for GAs on the main page while simultaneously eliminating the problem of low-quality (and possibly inaccurate or even hoax-filled) content from appearing in the section.
This, however, should be addressed separately from the proposed redesign (because it's likely to be controversial and has no bearing on the page's layout). —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mark (who has done an outstanding job as featured article director), the decision of how many featured articles to include per day ultimately isn't his to make. His role is to execute the will of the community, not to impose his own. If the community decides that it wants two featured articles per day, he'll have to accept that. If he can't handle the added workload, there are plenty of others who can (either on their own or in tandem with Mark). —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that HereToHelp's comments about GAs seem rather harsh, though I suspect that he didn't intend for them to come across this way. —David Levy 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Featured content: arbitrary edit point
Absolutely, I did not mean to insult the GA's value to the encyclopedia, merely put it in context. But with the context of DYK, I will support GAs there, because they can be separate from FAs. I oppose, but not strongly, multiple FAs. I do support having related content together (especially some lists), but we also need diversity. I propose that related content may be featured together occaisonaly in the same subsection, but content between subsections should be diverse. See Main Page/tomorrow. Is this an acceptable compromise? HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I made up a quick example of what a richer featured box as we've been discussing could look like.This one has GAs listed down the side, and a sound link. This is just to see what it would look like. PretzelsTalk! 02:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But are we going to be able to sustain that many GAs that are related to the featured articles? I like how you've done this, and I would support the plan, but having to coordinate several GAs every day that relate to the current FA would be a monstrous task for whomever takes that up. And what about Featured/Good Articles that don't have any of the other type to go along with them? Like in your example if the FA was changed to something like Priestfield Stadium (today's FA).. If there were only 1 or possibly no good articles related to that subject, how would we handle that? --Dudemanfellabra(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually Gillingham F.C. is also an FA, as are six other related ones... But I agree with you, normally it would be practically impossible to find enough quality articles that are related to TFA, and I believe such an idea would be impracticable. Lampman (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for including GAs in the DYK section, there is a discussion going on about this at the DYK talk page. The problem is that DYK is already swamped with so many suggestions that they can hardly manage to feature all of them. One solution would be to tighten the criteria for inclusion of DYKs, and I have made a couple of suggestions about this, but the people over there tend to get very defensive and negative whenever anything like this is brought up. My favourite reply would have to be "I do not like the idea of adding GAs. Leave DYK alone as it is." In short form, that one summed up the gist of most of the responses. Lampman (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels: That's not quite what I had in mind but it looks pretty good. I like having related content together but GAs separate from FAs. (A separate "Today's Good Article" would be redundant, but that can be considered independently.) My main concern is sustainability, that is, how many days can we do this for, because there are only so many GAs and fewer that are relevant. Can an FA me barred from the MP because it doesn't have companion media? Also, we're putting GAs and Featured media together in the same coulmn, are we implying equality? Is being mentioned on the MP something worth documenting with templates? Does it disqualify content from being the main featured content? It's a good idea but we need to work out a few kinks. HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that either GA's should be added to DYK, or have a smaller, seperate DYK-like section for GA's, i propesed changing the DYK criteria here and mentioned a seperate DYK for non-new articles here. An editor responded to me his propositionhere. That's the main idea that i agree with. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to have DYK GAs but there's just too much resistance ("social momentum") against it. Also per all other reasons, like too many new articles.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, too many pages that are discussing the same thing. There's one here, one at DYK, one at Main Page, one at main page redesign. I'm starting to lose track. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best to focus the discussion here. The objections to GAs in DYK seem to mostly come from within the DYK community; in the WP community at large there seems to be great enthusiasm for it. The editors of a project do not own it, however, and if the greater community decides on a change, they will have to comply. Lampman (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory. How do we amass and demonstrate overwhelming support for it? Because I support it, if it can be done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Putting really good GAs up on main page without inventing another process that is overly bureaucratic is hard, but definitely not impossible. I suggest we should have a public queue of some sort. Anyone is free to nominate any GA article provided they fall within a guideline (should we just use the existing good article criteria or establish a new criteria for GAs that will make an appearance on main page?). Unless someone opposes, that article will be on main page (at the discretion of the admin). This way, it will have more transparency to the process and not just an editor picking what articles will appear on main page.OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea of replacing DYK with GA articles instead of new articles is brilliant. Or, even better, to tighten the criteria and open it to both new and GA. That would prevent increasing flooding while improving quality. A good point was also made that a good amount of content on the main page is not of good quality. I hadn't thought about that. There was one article in the ITN section I noticed a couple weeks ago that was just horrible. Tagged for clean-up, poor prose... just a mess. So the not of quality for doesn't really fit as a reason to deny GA. لennavecia 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Instead, it's an excellent reason to replace DYK's new/newly expanded articles with good articles. At this point, should we really be blindly incentifying sheer quantity? I don't think so. Let's reward users who improve the quality of articles, even if they haven't yet risen to "featured" status. —David Levy 01:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's a choice, DYK should be retained to compromise both sides and to avoid DYK people going against this idea on the basis that DYK is removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
As I commented previously, this matter should be addressed separately from any other proposed changes to the main page. —David Levy 02:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone is as clear-minded as we are. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure how you're going to get it done (I heard that the DYK crowd was pretty opposed) but if you can persuade them, I'm for it. It brings up the quality, highlights GAs, without a "Today's Good Article" section (which should be reserved for featured).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to go is to recommend a tightening of the criteria to decrease the number of articles that qualify, then add to that criteria that it can apply to articles 5 days old or younger as well as GAs. That should, hopefully, please the DYK regulars while opening the door to articles of much better quality. Also, such a change is dependent on what the community decides, so it's not simply a matter of convincing those at DYK. My wonder is if it's better to go to DYK first and attempt to work something out there before going to the community, or just going straight to community discussion and dropping a notice of discussion to them. I think the former is probably the better choice. لennavecia 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The community has a voice, but those actively involved in DYK are the ones that make the final decisions (by definition). They are more important; persuade them first. If you prove that the process if viable is underway, the general community won't complain as much. Many don't care either way.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-goals discussion

(outdent) I'm with HereToHelp that we need to convince the wikiproject involved with whatsoever section we are planning to replace before we can really implement it here. Also, I think we are getting to the point where we perhaps need proof of concept designs to put for the community, the goals sections appears to be concluding. If you want HereToHelp, please start the discussion.ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't really want to involve myself with taking on the DYKers, but I could support a "proof of concept" inquiry (notice the avoidance of the word "poll"). If I'm understanding you right, you mean a discussion about potential features and arrangements on the page (what does it look like to have a combined media portion or a featured list? which information section works the best?). Conversely, formatting and presentation (color scheme, header types, which areas are formatted alike and which aren't, and possibly icons, but they can go either way) - those things would not be up for discussion. The only way to draw attention away from those things would be to constrain everyone to use the current MP's formatting so participants can focus on the aforesaid qualities we want feedback on. No design would be turned away, provided it did not try to promote style over substance and followed the MP formatting, and there would be no formal beginning and end. Finally, we would discourage numerical voting, and there would be no binding results. If you can accept all of those caveats, I'm all for beginning a "content inquiry". If not, tell me your objections and we'll try to work something out.--HereToHelp (talk to me)21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe this is what the current group involved in the MPRP wants. Here is an outline of what I feel should be done, that is before we begin the section and achieve the current threads.
  1. Close of current MPRP candidates, we don't have enough support to run so many and promote such a radical change
    • Within my opinion it wasn't the fundamental principal that was flawed, that is I do not believe that competition mentality killed, but instead time. When the MPRP began, there wasn't any specific goals, scopes, or methods in running such an experimental method of creating a MPRP. And by the time we began formulating one, many of the contributors have already left. Time and specifics is what killed it.
  2. Copy and paste the current MPRP code, into the MPRP main page, and we can modify and correct it from there
  3. Since there is only one candidate (based off the current main page), a candidate centered poll is irrelevant; and as David, Jc37, and HeretoHelp have expressed: we will not have one until, perhaps, when we place it against the current main page
  4. We will have two discussions,
    • One over what is wrong with the current main page
    • And a second over what we are to do with it
  5. A third discussion is possible, in discussing other important points not covered by above

I'm unsure whether this accurately represents our views combined, however I'm aiming to start this proposal on Wednesday, that is if you want. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Copy and paste the current MPRP code, into the MPRP main page, and we can modify and correct it from there." You mean the MP code, what we're currently using at Main Page, right? If so, then yes, everything looks good, and we should try to get the community involved, though I wouldn't go as far as watchlist spamming. If you like, we could bill this project as the Main PageRevision Proposal, since starting with the current MP certainly lends itself to tweaks rather than overhauls. I'm also going to put in another shameless ad for my design. I can't force such changes on the rest of the community, but please review and consider (1) the reduced number of links in the header and jump-to links there (2) the order of dynamic content and grouping of featured content together (the list isn't templated yet, bare with me) and (3) the Find and article section, which has a number of useful links but as static (non-templated) content is formatted simpler. </self promotion> Wednesday sounds good. There shouldn't be a formal time limit on feedback and improvement but it's probably going to take at least two weeks.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Reducing this project to a "revision" or "tweaks" makes no sense at all, particularly from my point of view: my proposal, which was a complete redesign and shares almost nothing with the current layout, received the second most support. Just because it is more difficult to get a larger change perfect, does not mean it will not be worth it. It would be lazy and submissive to drop this project to removing a few header links etc, and these changes can already be made through Talk:Main Page. This proposal was conceived as a redesign for a reason! PretzelsTalk! 03:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
And that reason was the opinion that the current main page design had become "stale" and therefore required change for the sake of change. Instead of attempting to identify and address specific areas warranting modification, the goal was to make the page "different," without regard for the considerations behind the current elements or whether said changes would result in actual improvement. See, for example, this comment from the proposal's creator. —David Levy 04:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If there's not consensus behind changing the name, that's fine. But you're both missing the point of the proposal: that by worrying about formatting up front, we lump formatting and content together. My idea is to isolate just content, like a scientist would isolate one variable and hold the others constant. I want to see what features and content work, rather than worrying about freshening it up --yet. Once we figure out what content sections we want and which ones we don't, and roughly where to put them, then we can hold a similar consensus collection with different formatting/styles all using the same content sections that we're about to decide on. I am not opposed to changing the style, but it must be an improvement. When people vote on style and content together, it's hard to determine which one people like and dislike. David, you're being too negative. We will "identify and address specific areas warranting modification" first, and then try to change the style if we can agree on one that is better than the current one. I'm not sure how much you can do through Talk:Main Page, but I'm sorry I put in my personal ideas in my previous post, coloring your perception that this is minor change; it need not be. I should be neutral; that means starting with the current MP and running with it, implementing ideas that have have gotten good reception and removing unused portions. So please, is this "content inquiry," as outlined in the last few posts, an acceptable compromise?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
David, you're being too negative.
Actually, I'm optimistic about the new direction that appears to be evolving. Pretzels stated that "this proposal was conceived as a redesign for a reason," so I noted what "the goal was" (new emphasis) when the proposal was conceived. This criticism has no bearing on the current situation, except to justify a shift away from that type of thinking. —David Levy 08:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I'm totally in favour of deciding on the content first. :) PretzelsTalk! 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
...I'll take that as approval. David, sorry I said that you were negative. CC or I will institute the content inquiry in a few (12?) hours.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've copied and pasted the code from the Current main page into the MPRP. I am assuming good faith at the moment. However, David, if are perceiving that this change in direction as a result of competition mentality: I will be unwilling to provide to you this proposal as supportive evidence. If there is little or no discussion, then all current threads will be archived within 24-hours to improve accessibility. Lastly, when this is all over, we're archiving all proposals for future reference for the WP:2010MPRP, and perhaps we can also begin discussion for a policy or guideline to how we are to run the MPRP in the first place. The lack of scope and instruction killed this MPRP, let's not let it happen again. I'm sorry for those who had an independently developed proposal, however we do not have enough support to promote them and allow them to develop to their fullest.ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Woah. We reached consensus to start from the existing Main Page? Deciding content first means not laying it out at all; listing here, in detail, what will be on the Main Page. PretzelsTalk! 22:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good on the whole, but I'd like a summary of the consensus we have achieved to be posted someplace visible, if we can neutrality condense long discussions down to a few words. I would definitely support an outline of what we have learned for future redesigns, which are bound to happen but I don't think they should be slated ahead of time -- but I'm not against them outright. I thought that we had content down pat the last time; now we've figured out how to tweak it a little more. (Part of that is the changes in public perception and the rise of new featured content types.) As for style, I do think that we could "freshen up" the Main Page every few years, but the design must be used based on its merits, not that "oh, I don't like the old one anymore." I personally feel that the current design is the best of the options put forth so far - but we're focusing on content, not design, at this point. Pretzels: Yes, that was the idea, though you're welcome to contest it. I think we've pretty much exhausted textual discussion, though again I favor a summary that outlines clearly what we want, what we don't, and what are points of contention. If we see versions with and without icons, it may help to make a decision, so long as it doesn't devolve into a poll. Also, just because it starts from the current MP doesn't mean it has to stay there. (Well, the formatting should, for reasons I've outlined above. But as for content, have at it.) --HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Search bar

This was a point of contention in the poll: should we include a search bar in the header? My personal opinion is no. There's already a search bar to the left, and having one on the Main Page may imply that they do different things. It takes up a lot of space. Furthermore, the point of the MP is to introduce the reader to new content they would have otherwise not seen. The search bar does not do this; it is useful for those who know what they want to find, not for those who want find out what they want to know. I'll leave the arguments in favor to a supporter.—HereToHelp (talk to me)03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the search bar is the Main Page's most important function, as most new users visit the Main Page in order to search for a topic. I've talked to many people who said it was hard to find the search bar at its current placement, at that's NOT good for an encyclopedia. First of all, and without doubt, the existing search bar should be moved up above "navigation", and we should have just one submit button instead of two. Second, I think new users would appreciate if we place a clearly visible search bar on the Main Page, especially until the existing search bar is made much more visible. I don't think the duplication itself is as harmful as some make it sound. It hurts a lot more if people are unable or delayed in finding articles on Wikipedia. - Wintran(talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. The MP is meant to promote our best content, but it also needs to help users find what they're looking for as easily and quickly as possible. A prominent search bar on the front page is a great idea and something that many readerswould appreciate. PretzelsTalk!04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a more prominent search function would be an improvement on the current page, the top of which is dominated by links to portals, contents, and indices, which are all basically useless in my view. Search is the best content-finding tool for 99% of user needs and should be given maximum visibility. Christopher Parham (talk)04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need two search bars for sure. But remember people use different skins and I and a number of others regularly use classic in which we prefer our search bar at the top rather than at the side. As long as any change in design does not affect our preferences Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I support making the current one more visible. Some people have talked about putting "finding an article" below the dynamic content. I would support it there, where screen real estate is less valuable.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a strong supporter of the second search bar. Look at google. I mean, granted, it's a search engine, but still, search box in the middle of the page is what people look for. When I first came to this site, no lie, I seriously had issues finding the search bar. I may be blonde, but I'm a smart cookie. So, it's not like it took me days to locate it, but it should be prominent. To be clear, though, the search bar is significantly higher now than it was a few years ago, so... I could probably have easily found it in it's current location, which does not require vertical scrolling. But I digress. So anyway, I support a second search bar in the header if, in the design layout we ultimately use, it does not overly clutter the header. لennavecia 05:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I oppose it in theory for reasons stated above, but if someone can make it work in practice, I'll support it. That goes for any issue, actually.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember we can use CSS styling if you think the search bar is ugly. PretzelsTalk! 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've done search bars embedded into a design, that is we can apply more stylistic effects such as backgrounds and rounded corners to make it less obvious: however that requires some CSS work, but it's possible. If we can get a design that does it well, I'll support it; but otherwise it looks too obvious in the current designs. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be prominent. Perhaps we can do something to draw more attention to the search bar in the sidebar. If only to put a bold border around it. لennavecia 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A bold border...not a bad idea. Someone needs to find where to request that, because a prominent search bar to the side means it doens't have to be so noticeable on the Main page, if it's there at all.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Tried that back in April 2006. User:Quiddity/highlight search box. E.g. Image:Mainpage searchbox1.png. No consensus. (too many options? just not enough feedback? don't know). Feel free to use the code/images there, if you want to try again. I still strongly support the idea of visually highlighting the standard searchbox (and vigorously oppose a second/redundant/duplicate searchbox within the Main Page).
One of the oppositions back then, was that our search engine was appalling. With the recent updates, that may have changed somewhat. --Quiddity (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I say no. The current search bar is already easy enough to find.  Marlith (Talk)  01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been very heavily discussed, and we've never managed to establish consensus. I personally believe that a second search box would be unhelpful, as it would distract users from the standard search box (and confuse some regarding what the difference is) and vanish after a single search. It also would appear directly above the site-wide search box for users of some skins.
I do, however, support efforts to make the existing search box more prominent. Moving it above the "interaction" box certainly helped, and moving it above the "navigation" box would help more, as would adding a special border. —David Levy15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with David, a second search box can distract users from the one in the left column. To an extreme extent it can create a poor habit of going to the main page whenever you need to do search. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
So what are we waiting for? Why isn't the current search bar moved up above "navigation"? That would be a good start, as there seems to be consensus for it. A good-looking design solution to emphasize the current search bar more could also help (though I doubt a colored border will fit in nicely with the rest of the design). Reducing the number of buttons to one would also help. People generally expect just one search button in a inline search function like this, so two might make it harder for them to identify the box. I would say, just keep the "Go" button but rename it to "Search", and put a link somewhere in the menu toadvanced search. - Wintran (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Further to your point, the Go button does a Search if there isn't an exact match anyway. PretzelsTalk! 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The search button will not be removed, it is part of the standard mediawiki interface across all our sites. Give up on that notion. (Or propose it at meta:, if you want to joust at windmills).
As for changing the sidebar, it is not part of the Main page, so any changes need to be proposed at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. It would be best to have a solid idea of what exactly you are proposing before inquiring there. Read through the 2006 thread I linked above, to see some of the options previously proposed. If you rush it, the idea will end up being lost and ignored again. Act with calm, deliberation, and Patience. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Started a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Moving search box above navigation focused on the idea of moving the current search box to the top of the sidebar. That is the most important change as I see it, and also seems to have the most consensus. -Wintran (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost press release

I want to get us as much publicity as possible. That will vet us more ideas, more support come the final vote against the current MP, and less "where did this come from?" later on. Before we go and put something up on the watchlists (if we do at all), I want to write a press release for the Wikipedia Signpost. In the interests of avoiding bias and accusations of bias, I'm drafting it publicly.

The Main Page redesign is asking for the opinions and participation of the general public. The results of a contentious straw poll had to be thrown out, although the designs themselves remain. The project is now focusing on its goals for the design; asking "What should and should not be on the Main Page?". Users have agreed not to draft designs until ideas have solidified, which is estimated to take a week or two. In the mean time, you are invited tomake your voice heard.

I am open to suggestions as far as revision. If there's still a difference of opinion as far as what became of the poll, we can put this on hold until that is decided. By the way, the agreement not to draft was my suggestion, not demand, but nobody has opposed it so I'm assuming it's been accepted. I am not enforcing a maximum time of discussion, but I think doing it properly will take at least a week.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly interesting that in the name of transparency, you've created your own version of events. The results of the poll have not been thrown out, and there is absolutely no reason not to continue drafting new design ideas. I'm quite disappointed at what you've written, to be honest. PretzelsTalk! 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It would have been un-transparent if I had sent this off already. Instead, this is exactly the reason why I put it here. I strongly insist, but cannot require, that we do not create new drafts for a while because draft-overload is what got us into the mess with the poll, the results of which are evidently still debated. But we can't decide what needs to go in the drafts without a lot of public opinion, which we can only get if we explain why we're back to the drawing board - temporarily, of course.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if anything for us to draft ideas we come up with in discussions here, grafted onto the 5 most popular designs. Out of everyone who voted, a "mess with the poll" was contested by one user, and only two others agreed with him. The results weren't definitive for anything anyway, so it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing. The old proposals are still being taken into account, hence their extended listing at the bottom of the project page. PretzelsTalk! 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
"The results weren't definitive for anything anyway" - exactly! I do not think that the results of the election are valid, but the designs themselves are useful. You're welcome to data mine and use the more popular designs, as long as the rest of us are not confined to them. I would recommend looking for ideas (this person grouped portals together and this one used hide boxes; which method do I like? Why?) as opposed to design issues (I like this blue banner with an icon and that's that), but I can't stop you. I still think we're too early for all out designs and need to focus on prototyping components. This was originally your idea from AN/I: most Wikipedians aren't graphics experts, so give them something to look at. I could understand prototyping different banners, say, with and without a search bar. Back on topic, I would like to have a universally-acceptable press release so we can get feedback, but it's not worth disturbing the nascent peace.—HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1. You've referred above to "the 5 most popular designs." I've repeatedly explained why such a determination is unhelpful. You're welcome to disagree, but I (and others) will not participate in a broken process.
2. Yes, "out of everyone who voted," one complained. But what about the editors who declined to vote because the poll was improper? I certainly did, and I was one of the most active participants in the last main page redesign.
Do you honestly not realize how many people have simply ignored this "mess" instead of actively criticising it? —David Levy 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
David, nobody is forcing you to be involved. If you truly believe it's a "broken process", I'm sorry to hear that, but it's not helpful loitering around doommongering how none of this will ever come to anything. We're totally fine if you don't want to participate, and unless you're going to engage constructively, it would be more sensible if you didn't. There's no reason we should have this argument overshadow the rest of the project, and run the risk of it escalating into something more. Thanks for understanding. PretzelsTalk! 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Translation: "Our way or the highway."
I want very much to participate in this proposal, and I want very much for it to succeed. I note its "broken" naturebecause I want it to be fixed. You don't have to agree with me that it's broken (let alone on how to go about fixing it), but referring to my comments as "loitering" is out of line. —David Levy 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This process is broken, so I'll just not participate outside of unconstructive criticism. Seriously? Several times during this process, I've almost pulled my design. Why? Because nothing was happening. It was just a mess. One day, I went to the page, hit the edit tab, highlighted my entry and deleted it. Before I hit save, I took a moment to think about it. I then backed out of the edit page, and decided to become more involved with the running of the process, to attempt to get it moving. So, David, what would have been helpful is back when you realized it was broken, to have used this wisdom from your participation in the last redesign to bring this one on a more solid foundation. Instead, you have this attitude of superiority, as if you're too good to even bother to attempt to help out with this; which is very disappointing, because I did think you had good intentions with your comments, but I'm starting to think otherwise at this point. I believe it's jc that keeps saying "the wiki-way" and you support that, no? What's wiki-like about your participation in this process?
The poll results have not been discarded. The plan to focus on goals and design from there is fantastic. But starting this thing over more than four months into it? Nah. Regardless of the bumpy road to get to this point, we have five really good designs with great potential, showing different styles and features to comment on and build from. Additionally, we have dozens of other designs to pull comments from in this phase. Everyone is welcome to participate in this phase, both in commenting and working on the design(s), but taking on new proposals and dropping the progress this far is no good. لennavecia 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"This process is broken, so I'll just not participate outside of unconstructive criticism."
How is it "unconstructive" for me to explain why I disagree with a process and how I believe it should be carried out instead?
Several times during this process, I've almost pulled my design. Why? Because nothing was happening. It was just a mess.
I know. I saw it coming, and I attempted to prevent it from occurring. My concerns were dismissed, just as they're being dismissed now.
So, David, what would have been helpful is back when you realized it was broken, to have used this wisdom from your participation in the last redesign to bring this one on a more solid foundation.
Why do you believe that I didn't try?! I realized that the "competition" was broken before it was even underway, and that's when I began expressing my concerns (and changed the name from Wikipedia:Main Page design competitionto the current title).
Have you read the archives? I count 59 messages that I posted here (mostly in vain) during the month of July. I couldn't tell you how much time I invested in this, all to no avail. What else was I supposed to do?
Instead, you have this attitude of superiority, as if you're too good to even bother to attempt to help out with this
No. I want very much to help. That's what I attempted to do in the beginning (when my concerns were dismissed) and what I'm trying to do now (as my concerns are again dismissed).
which is very disappointing, because I did think you had good intentions with your comments, but I'm starting to think otherwise at this point.
You're assuming bad faith on my part? That's unfortunate. —David Levy 09:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, David, I apologize. I was not involved on this page at that time, so was not aware. My perception since interacting with you myself has not been positive. I can understand that when you're not being heard, it gets to a point, you don't want to bother putting the effort to help in. So, I think at this point, from my point of view, it seems like it's turned to straight criticism rather than criticism and advice. It's unfortunate that no one listened to you in the beginning. I think things would have probably gone better if they had. Again, you have my apologies. لennavecia 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Guys stop bickering! As Pretzels said above "it's a whole lot of fuss over nothing". Given the number of people who edit wikipedia we are never going to decide on one main page which everybody likes. However many people like Jenna's or Pretzel's there will be people who want neither of these. Also a poll in which about 100 people are involved is hardly representative of the entirety of wikipedia users. So why not keep the front page as standard but allow a new preferences option where the editor has the choice to select his/her main page preference? So when I go into "My preferences" and select "Skin" there should not only be the option for overall skin type but underneath a "Main page skin" choice which has 5 or so options. This way everybody wins and those editors who loathe the front page can select which they want without having to worry about coding it in their monobooks as in the past.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that we need to stop bickering. I like Dr. Blofeld's idea, but there will always have to be a "default" MP for for anonymous users. Are you going to show the random Main Page every time the click in? (Not making an accusation there, but playing devil's advocate.) We need a baseline for which power-users can expand upon.
As painful as it is, I think we need to establish the official status of the poll before we move on. We need to clean up our own mess (or decide that it wasn't a mess, whatever) before we invite in fresh blood - or else, as David has been saying, users disgusted with the process will leave. I propose - and you can agree or disagree - that the five designs are to be considered in drafting, but no design will be barred from consideration. Those who like one of the five can refine it; those who don't like them can focus on another "eliminated" design and see how it compares to the five. Hopefully, we will soon be able to return to the "Goals" section above and discuss points civilly. On one hand, the Goals section seems to be garnering use and acceptance, on the other, there is obviously a difference of opinion as far as the poll. We can't call in fresh blood until that is resolved, but we also need to show that the Goals section can work, and is working.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm against reopening new proposals. When I wrote the RFC/Straw Poll I have two primary intentions, the first was to reduce the number of proposals to a workable number; the second intention was disowning the proposals from the sponsor. The first intention was pretty obvious, however the second has several implications that I believe you guys need to understand. In disowning the proposals, this entails that there is no longer an authoritative voice such as that of a sponsor in deciding on which direction the proposal will go. Therefore under consensus agreement you can change the proposal to whatever you like for that particular proposal candidate. If there is opposition, you can create a proposal candidate variation. Of course, logically less invasive changes are more likely pass.
When we (as a community) are proposing to change the main page, we need a foundation. If you start from absolute scratch, it often defaults the current main page; which severely hampers creativity and more radical redesigns. Therefore, the Straw Poll legitimizes several proposals who's foundation is not the current main page, but something more interesting. Given that they are disowned and are subject to community's discretion, if you and several supporters feel that the foundation of a certain proposal candidate is not fit: it is possible to change it to something you'd like. Otherwise you have look at it away from the idealistic highroad. Starting from scratch is very difficult, therefore the next option is to use the current proposal candidates as a foundation.
My position is that the RFC/Straw Poll is legitimate and have decided the foundation for five proposal candidates. However, I believe the former sponsors of two or three of them have otherwise left, therefore changing it should be easy. We are discussing the default main page here, if you want to change the main page for yourself, copy and paste the following code into yourmonobook.js:
if (wgPageName == "Main_Page") {
  window.location = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEW_MAIN_PAGE_HERE";
}

ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you already that David Levy is going to reject this, citing the poll as invalid and its results as irrelevant and void. I agree with that to an extent, but I also recognize the needs for progress and compromise. First: let's draw a line betweenformatting which is color schemes, box and corner types, and to an extent organization, and content, ideas that are not specific to formatting and are under discussion under the "Goals" header. "If you start from absolute scratch, it often defaults the current main page; which severely hampers creativity and more radical redesigns." True, and I'm willing to consider new formatting ideas, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the current MP formatting. Subjectively, one person might prefer one formatting scheme to another, but I don't think there's an objective reason to throw out the MP formatting, other than that it's already in use. So I'll compromise: New formatting ideas must be based on one of the five or the current Main Page, but nothing radically different from those six. Otherwise, you're enforcing change for change's sake. (Yes, no one suggested a MP design during the poll, but that failed to distinguish between formatting and content. If you're worried about stifling creativity, you oppose formatting creativity outside of the five, and content creativity is needed with the current MP as much as anywhere.) --HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't think that the entire poll should be discarded. There's no reason to ignore any of the feedback that's been received. I merely believe that the poll's format is flawed and object to the claim that its numerical outcome is formally binding. (Straw polls never have binding outcomes.) I also feel that it's counterproductive to encourage the editing/creation of five separate designs, as this continues the "competition" (at the expense of collaboration). That would be just more of the same method that's crippled this proposal. —David Levy 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll once again point out that requests for comment cannot have purely numerical outcomes and straw polls cannot be binding. —David Levy 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I wholly agree with this. (Noting that Consensus is not a "vote", andConsensus can change.) To suggest otherwise is to be contrary Wikipedia policy, as well as a Wikimedia Foundation principle.
As such, arguing whether it's an accurate statement isn't helpful, since it is policy. And thus far, no exceptional reason has been put forth to ignore it. ("It's too difficult" is simply a non-starter.) So in other words, continuing a discussion on the applicability of WP:CON (besides being a less-than-helpful venue) would seem to be simply a waste of time and resources, when (presuming that everyone here would like to see this move forward), further, more productive, discussion might be had. - jc37 07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the non-numerical, qualitative feedback is useful, but it's a chore to go through it all (that's why quantitative approval is so tempting). This issue has as much to do with the ideology of polling as it does with compromise and people skills (not implying you (David) don't posses those, just that you are more steadfast in your opposition to numerical polling). As for myself, ChyranandChloe (since you seem to be the one deciding it), let me draft from the current Main Page and I'll be happy. There's still a finite number of designs rather than an open ended "back to the drawing board" approach of my previous suggestion.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't catch it, I gave you several openings. First, there are two or three proposals (candidates 3-5), which I believe the former sponsor have but otherwise left. If you can convince a small consensus, swap it for yours. Capping the number of proposals to five is a compromise. I do not believe that a simple poll could easily terminate all competition mentality. In short, you two: HereToHelp and David Levy, have a disagreement which I believe hasn't been sufficiently promoted. (We are or was divided among the older design team and the new. Among the new, you need to see the fissures in your own internal positions. It's one reason why I try to make mine very clear.) For HereToHelp, if we combine all proposals into one: it makes it an exceedingly challenging for HereToHelp to act largely independent and propose a new designs. It is also somewhat hubris to state that I am the only one allowed to propose a proposal of my own (but I'm glad you did). For David, we have an agreement that we cannot work so independently (David calls it "competition mentality") that it cripples our efforts in deciding which proposal to take forth to the main RFC. If I constrain myself to these two arguments a new compromise can be achieved: close all five proposals but one and allow HereToHelp to propose one of HereToHelp's own. I find this exceedingly unilateral, leaning towards HereToHelp's and David's goals.
Therefore my position remains in using the results from the RFC/Straw Poll (it's never in the numerical outcome, we've already went over that) to establish the foundation of the five proposal candidates. HereToHelp, you have your opening as stated above. David, I'm sorry, but we're too diverged from your original position of an absolute elimination of competition mentality. Jennavencia, Pretzels, Jc37, and Dr. Blofeld — you really should make your positions known as well. Right now my concern is that we can't propose five, the number has to be smaller, but I think we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Concentrate on this one first, if we work on design perhaps we'll find compromise easier later on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"It is also somewhat hubris to state that I am the only one allowed to propose a proposal of my own (but I'm glad you did)." If that's how I came off, I'm very sorry. From what I gather of ChyranandChloe's comment, I am assuming that it is not The Five designs that are important, but the number five. (If that's not right, please ignore the rest of this and try to communicate your point again - thank you for trying to be as clear as possible.) I agree that we need to narrow the designs down to as few as possible, remaining with perhaps three (those of The Five with active sponsors plus mine; I intend to "convince a small consensus"). Hopefully, remaining with all designs that have active sponsors (so long as it is less than 5) will help ease the tensions of the numerical poll. Ultimately, we will (hopefully) get to a few fundamentally different formatting choices that display the same content (to be decided upon above). We will then have to choose which formatting we like (say, blue banners with icons vs. traditional blue, green, and purple). This will be very subjective, although I'd like to discuss the merits of each design as much as possible before resorting to numerical polling. In the mean time, we should 1) continue to brainstorm content ideas, above, 2) continue these discussions about how to proceed and 3) begin drafting in perhaps a few days.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify drafting? It's seems a little vague. Also, I think I understand what you mean, and the two fragments seems misleading and paradoxical (you're hubris and I like it?). I was looking for a word less harsh than hubris, however I ran out of ideas and time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Drafting: creating formatting design proposals as concrete designs with wiki formatting, rather than abstract ideas and textual discussion. Hubris: whatever. Is is hubris to replace inactive designs with one actively under developments (under the process of being drafted)? HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We should take no more than two to the community. The more options, the less chance for change because there will be those who want a change and those who don't. The ones that don't will all vote for the main page, the ones that do will spread their votes among alternative options. Our best bet is too attempt to incorporate all of the most popular and desired aspects into one design.لennavecia 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh definitely, it needs to be one design that we throw up against the Main Page in the final decision (which will probably be a numerical poll advertised to the general Wiki-public). In the mean time, we can have two or three designs that we decide between before we go straight to the final candidate.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This perfectly illustrates some of the problems with the current plan (if, in fact, it is the current plan). You state above, ChyranandChloe, that we need to have five designs at this juncture (because that was the compromise). You realize that this is an arbitrary number, right? Assuming that we should have multiple designs (which I disagree with), it could just as easily be four or six.
The idea that HereToHelp should establish "a small consensus" to swap out one of the five designs (selected via a highly flawed, policy-defying vote) for a design based on the current main page is ludicrously bureaucratic.
As HereToHelp noted, this proposal should have been based on modifying the existing main page in the first place. Working strictly toward radically different designs is an attempt to impose change for the sake of change. —David Levy15:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"This proposal should have been based on modifying the existing main page in the first place." Why? That's what you did two years ago, a few tweaks. It's time to start from scratch. PretzelsTalk! 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Because we should be determining what needs improvement and what doesn't. Throwing out good elements (change for the sake of change) isn't likely to result in improvement, let alone improvement that the community will welcome.
That's what you did two years ago, a few tweaks.
We made more than "a few tweaks," but we retained many aspects of the previous design that worked well. Why shouldn't we?
It's time to start from scratch.
Why? Many important considerations went into that design, and you want to ignore it. —David Levy 17:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The current main page is amateur. Wikipedia is the 8th largest website in the world. Our main page should look professional. That's why we're having a redesign. لennavecia 19:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how any of the five remaining drafts is more "professional" than our current main page. —David Levy 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree in theory, but everyone's idea of professional is different. Short of going for a Google-like search bar (which I do not advocate), there's no major content change that we can do that hasn't been discussed above. I might take on of The Five and format it against my design and let you judge which style looks better. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If you where here before the Straw Poll you'd understand why it is so arbitrary and bureaucratic, its purpose is to facilitate a transition away from "competition mentality" (which was developed to work towards your goals) and not to be end-all-be-all. If it never occurred, we would still be discussing how to use over twenty proposals which operate largely independent of any coordinated discussion. Your cynicism is not appreciated. I agree with your position, however, but my question remains: what do you want to do? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The solution was (and still should be) to discuss which elements we want to modify and incorporate some ideas from the various designs into a single draft derived from the current main page. The poll only served to continue the "competition" and provide potentially misleading/incomplete feedback. —David Levy 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This particular MPRP is unlikely to have a significant increase in featured content. For example there is no need for a new section such as the POTD. So a aesthetics have attracted significantly more attention than the previous MPRP. The English Wikipedia also posses the poorest visual appeal relative to most other language Wikipedias, take nlor es for example. An increase in aesthetics requires a more radical and independent approach, which has occurred. And in short, without it, the purpose of this MPRP is extremely vague and potentially weak: it is possible to state that we do not need a MPRP. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, while those two Wikipedias main pages (and others with similar designs) are flashier, they also are significantly less functional, professional and appealing than ours is. (If you're interested, I can cite specific examples of problems.) And frankly, I don't see how any of the five remaining candidates is better than (or even as good as) our current main page.
And yes, you've identified this proposal's biggest flaw: a lack of clear need. I'm sure that our main page could be improved, but we must determine how to go about doing that. This is done by analyzing each of the current main page's individual elements and thinking of ways that some of them could be better, not by creating a random assortment of complete designs and hoping that one of them (in its entirety) happens to click. —David Levy 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that the new MP should and will have more featured content. We don't need eye candy, we need professional seriousness while still being welcoming. I would love to support another formatting design but none look as good (IMHO) as the current one. My design looks like Number Four. What's the problem?HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This is perhaps our greatest disagreement. The poll does not continue the "competition." The evidence is clearly expressed on this talk page: we've moved far away from an uncoordinated design process. Otherwise our disagreement is a difference is preference. Part of application is being able to put your position into specific examples, cite what you feel to be essential to your point. HereToHelp, go ahead and start a discussion in PC4. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The more important concepts are not tied to the design: link removal at the welcome section per consensus above, jump-to links, organization and order of dynamic content, Find an article putting all the links in one place, removal of interlanguage links. Formating-wise, the colors are serious but not boring, that is, respectable and proffesional. The design is uncluttered by a bunch of extra borders and colors (or icons!), and the two collumn view allows for lots of visibility. Beyond that, it's subjective.HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

24-hour trial run

Assuming that one of the five will be the new Main Page, why not give them a day in the sun to give the readers a chance to comment? Starting at 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC), each page will serve as the shell to host the content on the Main Page for 24 hours. The order of appearance can be chosen by a random process. -- Suntag ☼ 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. First, I don't think it should be The Five, it should be whichever of those still have active sponsors plus whatever latecomers can garner support (what have we here?) So we need to establish which designs are really on board. But in pinciple, once we clean them up a little, it's an idea.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I would give it more time; however I think it's an interesting idea. Swapping the main page for a day for each design will definitely attract a lot of anonymous users than a watchlist-notification or even a site-notification. To HereToHelp: I was referring to reopening new proposals, not swapping them. One method of overcoming votes being diffused is to ask for two pieces of information: whether they want the new main page or now; and if so, which one. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Designs do not need sponsors to continue. They have been disowned. Why are we now, after we've already said we weren't, going to reopen new proposals? We've been at this for months already. HereToHelp, your design isn't a redesign. It's the main page with some swapped features. You can make those suggestions on the talk page of the main page. This process is to revamp the main page, to make it look more professional. Can we please stop with the constant questioning of the process and just get on with the plan? We have the five chosen designs, we're discussing goals and such. Let's determine what is wanted and what isn't and start designing. Once we've got the designs polished based on these comments, then we can choose the best and go on to the next phase. Let's get this moving. لennavecia 04:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No, those of us who realize that the poll is highly flawed and violates policy will not cease our "constant questioning of the process" simply because you say so. You also need to realize that the length of time spent on this proposal doesn't somehow legitimize it. If it's broken, it's broken, and blindly marching forward (on the basis that all of the efforts leading up to this stage—no matter how ill-advised—must stand) won't fix it. You're welcome to dispute he assertion that the proposal is broken, but it's unhelpful to demand that people who disagree with you shut up and follow your plan. —David Levy 15:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It's you and HereToHelp trying to take over. He wants his design, which is just the main page with some tweaks, added to the list, and he wants to drop any designs that no longer have a sponsor. That doesn't even make sense. We were just told a week or so ago that we needed to disown the designs, to eliminate ownership and work on them collaboratively. And now we're supposed to drop designs that the community chose because they don't have a sponsor? No way. That directly contradicts what was advised and agreed upon a week or so ago, and is a slap in the face to the designers and the editors who supported those designs. None of the designs have a sponsor. They're open for anyone to work on. If HereToHelp wants to keep the current main page and make little changes to it, he can do that now, without going through this redesign, by just making his proposals on Talk:Main page. لennavecia 19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No one is "trying to take over." That such a concept even seems possible to you conveys a belief that you currently are in charge (and that you somehow possess the authority to conduct a policy-defying poll and deem its outcome sacrosanct).
I'll note, however, that I don't understand HereToHelp's point about sponsors. —David Levy 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Archive 2#Signal to noise ratio. (We're 3 months into "option 2", and nowhere near halfway done...) I've been saying it's broken from the beginning too.
I don't see anything "professional" in any of the draft designs offered up so far. For example: Proposal 1 (sorry) has 5 borders around the FA section (dark blue, light blue, yellow, white, yellow). Aside from that, it just makes a few little changes to the contents of the header-box of the current design, and removes the bottom language box.
Most of the proposals are little more than tinkering with box layout, and colour choices, and seem to be based on an "I would like ...." selection. 3 of them include the redundant search bar that so many people have expressed strong opposition to. None of them are very different from those already found at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives. I like a few of the original elements (as said before, I think the intro paragraph idea is good, and many people like the idea of 2 FAs a day (has anyone asked Raul yet?)), but the prettifying/restyling is utterly subjective. Styling is not the same thing as Designing (repeatx3). Proper professional Design is what Kaldari and David Levy and I and others are asking for. We left notes about the criteria/rationale behind the current design, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page#About the redesign. It would be good to see something better than that.
I'll say it again: I like the idea of a few tweaks and changes to the current design. I haven't seen any compelling reasons or designs that suggest a complete overhaul is wanted or needed. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. One, the whole "swap a design for one without sponsors" was an idea I took from ChryandChloe; evidently, I misinterpreted what he meant. I totally agree with Quiddity, styling (formatting) is not the same thing as designing (content). My design is primarily an exercise in content, not formatting. Focus on: links to subsections, Find an article, and grouping of content. Just as important is what I left out: icons, search bar (the first item under "Find an article" tells the reader where to look). Also note that the formatting differentiates between static (constant) and dynamic (changing) content. If there's support for minimal formatting change, I offer my design up for the community's support. If there is not, than please study it and incorporate the ideas it embodies into the designs that depart further from the current formatting style. I am not opposed to a new way of displaying the content that I have set forth in my design, but it's up to you to produce something better.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In discussion over how we are to conduct a straw poll or otherwise when it comes time to place our proposal against the current main page: we can cross that bridge when we get there. Once again I am in agreement with David, that the poll violates policies and that the proposal posses fundamental flaws. However, you are once again failing to state a definitive plan to how we are running this proposal. Almost all your comments circulate around the point that this proposal is flawed, and I agree with you, but your comments never posses the substance for any alternatives. Same applies to you Quiddity. My position is simple: you have a good amount of support, use it, and tell us what we should do rather than how we are wrong. HereToHelp and Jennavencia, I think we're redefining "sponsor" to simply a person endorsing or supporting a particular proposal. I do not think we need a complete overhaul in content (we have a section above discussing this), but if its a design we can offer then let's go by that. There are discussion pages for each proposal candidate, use them. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Strongly desired:
  • Intro paragraph (like in proposal 5, and asbriefly discussed last month).
  • Featured Media replace Featured Picture (would remain primarily images, but include occasional video and audio).
  • No icons, No Searchbar, No featured lists/portals/topics.
I don't have time to draft designs, sorry. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for all the newcomers, there was also a Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Survey in August, that may provide some rough/condensed idea of what has already been discussed. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the consensus under the approriate Goals section that most people know who we are by now, making an opening paragraph unnecessary. I do not think we need an overhaul of content beyond the Goals section ( which I tried to implement in my design), and that we might be able to find a better formatting design--but I have yet to see it.HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
From my own experiences, about 90% of the people I mention my involvement with Wikipedia to, and encourage to try out, are surprised that anyone can edit. That includes lawyers, bookstore managers, doctors, and environmental scientists, as well as janitors and privateschool teachers. We have a lot of educating to do still... -- Quiddity (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Then say so.HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time! If I did, I would have been trying to help with the drafting. Now that you and other people are bringing a wiser eye, I hope to spend even less time watching over things here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons between proposal candidates

This is a descriptive comparison of the content of the five current Wikipedia 2008 main page redesign proposal candidates. This comparison mentions both similar elements and distinctive elements, though not exhaustively and perhaps with a mistake or two. Reading this comparison should result in an improved awareness of the similarities and differences between the proposal candidates.

All five proposal candidates have identical top-of-page elements: a "log in / create account" link; tabs for "project page", "discussion", "edit this page", "history"; the title of the page; a line saying, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; and a link saying, "< Wikipedia: 2008 main page redesign proposal".

All five proposal candidates have an identical bottom box with logos for "A Wikimedia project" and "Powered by MediaWiki", a modification notice, license and trademark notices, and links to "Privacy policy", "About Wikipedia", and "Disclaimers".

All five proposal candidates have a thin left column the length of the page. Four of the five proposal candidates (#2,3,4,5) have five elements in the thin left column: the globe and "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia"; a "navigation" box with links to "Main page", "Contents", "Featured content", "Current events", "Random article"; a "search" box with a text entry line and two buttons, "Go" and "Search"; an "interaction" box with links to "About Wikipedia", "Community Portal", "Recent changes", "Contact Wikipedia", "Donate to Wikipedia", "Help"; and a "toolbox" box with links to "What links here", "Related changes", "Upload file", "Special pages", "Printable version", "Permanent link".

One proposal candidate (#1) also has a sixth element in the thin left column: a "languages" box with 51 links.

Under the identical top-of-page elements, all five proposal candidates have a banner area spanning across the page to the right of the thin left column. Four of the five candidates have the words, "Welcome to Wikipedia" prominently displayed in the banner: proposal candidate #4 differs by prominently displaying the single word, "Wikipedia". Four of the five candidates have the words, "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit": proposal candidate #2 differs by interjecting additional words in the expression and splitting the expression across the banner. Four of the five candidates have an article count in the banner: candidate #4 does not.

Under the banner area, and to the right of the thin left column, the proposal candidates have a set of boxes in various layouts. All five candidates have box titles similar to: "In the news" and "Did you know". Four of the five candidates have box titles similar to "Today's featured article" (#2 instead has "Best of Wikipedia") and "On this day" (#5 instead has "This day in history"). Three of the candidates have box titles similar to "Today's featured picture" (#1 instead has "Picture of the day", and #5 instead has "Today's featured media").

Distinctive box titles include: "Other areas of Wikipedia" (#1), "Wikipedia's sister projects" (#1) and "Sister projects" (#4), "Best of Wikipedia" (#2), "Browse by topic" (#2) and "Browse" (#5), "New users" (#2), "Resources" (#2), "Donate" (#2), "Navigate Wikipedia" (#3), "Other languages" (#3), "Categories" (#4), "Wikimedia Foundation" (#5). Proposal candidate #2 has an untitled box.

Within the boxes are sets of common links.

The banner area near the top of the page contains links to: "anyone can edit" (all five candidates); "encyclopedia" (#1,2,5); "A-Z index" (#1,2), "Categories" (#1,2), and "Wikipedia" (#1,5). Distinctive banner area links include: "Contents" (#2), "Editing" (#1), "Featured content" (#1), "Help (#1), and "Questions" (#1).

Boxes about "in the news" in all proposal candidates contain the same three links: "more current events", "recent deaths", and "Wikinews".

Boxes about "did you know" have links to: "archive" (all five candidates), "nominate an article" (#1,2,3,5), "start a new article" (#1,3,4,5), and "newest articles" (#2,5).

Boxes about today's "featured article" have links to: an archive (all five candidates), email (all five candidates), more featured items (all five candidates), and three recently featured items (#1,3,5).

Boxes about "this day" have links to: an archive (all five candidates), email (all five candidates), more anniversaries (all five candidates), and three events (#1,4,5). Some of these boxes also contained a time stamp (#1,5).

Boxes about a featured picture or media have links to: three recently featured pictures (#1,3), an archive (all five candidates), and more featured media (all five candidates).

Four of the five proposal candidates (excepting #3) have boxes of links to an identical set of Wikimedia Foundation projects including: the Commons, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, and Meta-Wiki. (Associated box titles include "Wikipedia's sister projects", "Sister projects", and "Wikimedia Foundation". Also, the untitled box in #2 includes these links.)

Portal links appear in #2 (22 links in the "Browse by topic" box), #3 (8 links in the "Navigate Wikipedia" box), and #5 (15 links in the "Browse" box).

Proposal candidate #1 has a distinctive "Other areas of Wikipedia" box, with links to: "Community portal", "Help desk", "Reference desk", "Site news", and "Village pump". (The last two of these links also appear in the "Resources" box in #2.)

Proposal candidate #2 has multiple distinctive boxes: "New users", "Resources", and "Donate". The new users box has links to: "Welcome", "Overview", "How to edit", "Questions", "Cheatsheet", "For students", and "For parents". The resources box has links to: "Village pump", "Department directory", "Site news", "Goings-on", "Site map", "Mobile access", "Other languages", "Contact us", and "About Wikimedia".

Proposal candidate #3 has a distinctive "Other languages" box. (A list of languages appears in the "Wikimedia Foundation" box in #5 and in the thin left column in #1. A single link to a list of languages appears in #2.)

Proposal candidate #5 has a distinctive "What is Wikipedia" box with links to: "help out", "About", "Help", "Current projects", "Pages needing attention", "Welcome", "Tutorial", "Policies and guidelines", and "FAQ".

Commentary: There are many common elements among the five proposal candidates, and some distinctive elements. Links in certain places in some candidates appear in other places in other candidates. Some boxes having similar content differ in their titles. Some boxes having similar titles differ in the specifics of their content. Some candidates have notably distinct content organization or layout. I have no doubt inadvertently left out some notable content items: please correct me and add to the discussion!BrainMarble (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort in sifting through the proposal candidates. I think we would greatly appreciate your help in the#Goals section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait. The thin left column with the tool box, search bar, navigation box, etc. In this summary, it says that design #1 (originally mine) is the only one with the language navigation. That's the sidebar present on all Wikipedia pages. It should look no different on my design than on any other page. لennavecia 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Strange. Yours is the only one with the interwiki language links down the side. That's done withTemplate:MainPageInterwikis. I suggest the other designs should have this added to them, unless omitting it was a feature of those designs? Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I added it a while ago. A lot of users forgot to add that; the transclusion is {{MainPageInterwikis}}.ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
My design (Proposal 5) PURPOSELY left them out.. Having a language section on the left side of the page is redundant when in the design there is a "Languages" section.. we don't need the links in two different places. --Dudemanfellabra(talk) 17:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
My underground design has them on the left and one link to the main list under "find an article", but not on the main content area. Like omitting the search bar, the intention is to guide users towards the sidebar where those links will always be.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Two featured articles

Not sure if anyone here noticed that there were two featured articles (one for each of the two main candidate) on the main page for 4 November (the US presidential elections). There was some follow-up discussion about whether this should become a permanent feature. I think it was on a mailing list. Here we go: see [7]. The on-wiki discussion that led to two TFAs washere.Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been mentioned a number of times above, and everyone likes the idea. However, after reading that on-wiki discussion you linked, it appears from Raul's comments that he doesn't wish to do this ever again, "...this is an extremely unusual thing that I have absolutely no intention or desire to repeat in the future." (though that may be in regards to doing related articles two-at-a-time?). Perhaps someone eloquent and tactful should ask him what he thinks, before we consider it any further. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I've asked Raul. I think it has become a bit of a perennial question. I'm sure there have been earlier discussions.Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The two featured articles were related to each other and to the day on which they were featured.. readers understood that. If we tried to feature 2 or more articles every day, readers may get confused and think the two articles are somehow supposed to be related as well. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Another issue is order. Especially with a touchy subject like American politics, who decides whether McCain or Obama goes first? If we ever do this again, they need to be two related articles with extenuating circumstances.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
On November 4, McCain's and Obama's articles were both featured on the main page. When the page was loaded, some JS code (I'm guessing JS.. no clue actually) randomized which one was displayed first so as not to show preference. If it can be done with those two, why not all others? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? I did not know that. Also, do you think we should make this section a subheader of #Goals, perhaps #Featured content?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See the code at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008. I think it was the "<div class="dshuf dshufset1">" bit, though goodness only knows how that works. I do vaguely remember seeing something somewhere about who authored that "shuffle" feature. Ah, here we are: "The reordering code was something I did for the WMF board elections two-ish years ago. I wasn't aware of the decision to run two articles until it was already live, then add in the time it took for an EnWP admin bold enough to make the change. Unfortunately the site JS is cached, so not everyone will see the random order. Fortunately (for once) IE and Firefox have dumb caching which won't preserve the cache across sessions, so I expect most of the public will get the random ordering." I'll ask Greg if he has time to explain further or point to documentation on how to use this feature. It could be useful for people here.Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Raul's opinion counts just as much as the next person, but not more. How many FAs appear on the main page depends on community consensus. I think it's a good idea, so if the idea has support here, regardless of Raul's comments, we should take the idea to the community. لennavecia 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Good. Let's have zero. Too many Featured Articles are public embarrassments, which have been checked for MOS compliance and footnote count, but not for clarity, accuracy, neutrality, or whether they represent their sources correctly.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe my position is towards PMAnderson, if the quantity of featured article is so great that it becomes necessary to posses two, perhaps the standards should be raised. My interpretation is that perhaps the number of FAs should be limited (to a percentat), and the rest should be rated A-class; FA are the very best, and we're getting better. Nevertheless, that is the FA wikiproject to decide. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's get everyone's "vote", even if they aren't interested in voting

We may have all heard the expression, "Actions speak louder than words." It means that people sometimes say one thing, then do another. I've heard several comments about how and whether consensus can be achieved and whether any vote or poll can or should be binding and what the "regular" user might think as opposed to those of us who spend a little more time with the Wikipedia nuts and bolts offstage. So, let's see what people really think, based on their actions. Let's useGoogle Website Optimizer. Someone, possibly someone with Main Page edit access*, would need to add some html code to the main page, based on a Google Analytics account. We then define the different versions of the main page and how those versions differ then release that to the Google Website Optimizer. A small percentage of people will be shown different versions of the main page and, based on whether those people stick around or continue to browse Wikipedia, etc. (clickthrough and retention rates), different versions will be more or less successful. I think this is a great way to see what everyone really thinks of the new designs. Are they so unintuitive that people can't find their way around and give up in frustration? Are they such great revisions that people come back more often? Let's see how people really vote, by measuring their actions. Or, because Wikipedia is so darn big and influential, maybe Google would be willing to work a little more closely with Wikipedia. Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is A/B testing. It would be very useful research, but I don't think we could ever implement it. Use of Google Analytics has previously been requested, and refused because it's not open source or something. Also probably to do with Knol.PretzelsTalk! 02:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Google refused Wikipedia or Wikipedia refused Google? Perhaps we should simply do the same thing ourselves. All of the stats that Google Analytics could gather from Wikipedia are already publically available. Let's take the drafts and serve them out to a small random percent of visitors and see whether the new designs are as intuitive and easy to navigate as they claim to be -- see whether they really do increase retention rate and how quickly people click through them. Banaticus (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a good idea - similar to the 24 hour trial run above - but I don't think we're there yet. We need to refine the designsfurther as to get the best results. I'm concerned how accurate the data would be; many people go to the main page to get to the search bar and know exactly what they're looking for. How many people actually are here to use the Main Page as a doorstep, inviting them to further exploration? It's a good question, considering that's our premise in designing. Let's look at the data that already exists and find whether people's page after the Main Page was linked to the MP (indicating that they read and jumped off from it) or not (meaning they just used the search bar).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Information such as what page a visitor views after the Main Page should already be available in the en.wikipedia.org server access logs. In fact, this statement would apply to every page a visitor views on the server, not just the Main Page.BrainMarble (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

An on-going concern of mine is the lack of participation in debates/discussions about Wikipedia policy, a lack which I am convinced stems not from apathy, but rather from being unaware that such discussions are taking place. I've been contributing to WP for quite a while and have only today become aware of the template below.

This touches on such far-reaching issues that I think it should be included in the design of a new Main Page and placed on the home or talk page of every editor - advertising debates can only lead to a greater involvement of editors and hopefully to more democratic decisions. ciao Rotational(talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure vs presentation

This is an important distinction to make, often talked about in web design contexts (i.e. the separation of HTML and CSS). Generally, the structure (HTML) decides what features, content and elements to be on the page, while presentation (CSS) decides how the elements should be displayed to the user (font color, background, design images/icons and, to some degree, placement). A presentation could also be described as a certain skin used to display the structure.

The point is that a solid structure can be presented in completely different ways graphically, without touching the content and functionality itself (if you're interested in this concept, take a look at CSSZenGarden for some good examples of this in practice).

I believe this distinction is important to keep in mind when discussing the Main Page redesign, because we might like the structural changes of some proposals and the graphical presentation of others. If we forget this distinction we might believe that these proposals exclude each other, when we could actually merge the structural features we like from some proposals with the visual appearance of others.

Looking at the current proposals, I see that some focus more on changing the presentation of the current Main Page, while others make larger structural changes:

Proposals #1 and #3 are very similar to the current Main Page in terms of structure, except for getting rid of some content at the bottom (replaced by a Navigate section in #3) and changing the header (#3 adds a search bar). A big difference lies in their graphical presentation which are quite different from the current Main Page.

Proposal #2 has more structural changes, such as the header with search, reduced content in ITN, DYK and OTD, enlarged images, a more extensive portals section (browse by topic), larger link lists for new users and to various resources, and a donate box. It also changes a lot in terms of presentation, moving to a one-column content layout with a thin column with shortcuts on the right.

Proposal #4 has many structural changes but almost no presentational, as it uses the same graphic box design as the current Main Page. It has two featured articles, clear headlines for FAs, dates on news items, a reduced number of wiki-links in all sections, a simplified header with search, a larger featured picture and shows recently featured pictures as thumbnails instead of text. In terms of presentation it halves the width of the Featured picture section in order to move it up on the page, and it also centers the top header.

Proposal #5 has plenty of structural changes. It includes a remade header, a short summary of Wikipedia and a developed portals section with shortcut links, and presents these high up on the page with extensive use of icons. It also presents the Featured picture by half width, using inline scrolling to view wider images.

So, we can identify a number of potential structural changes (I've put the number of proposals implementing each change in parenthesis):

  • A less cluttered header, emphasizing the name of the site (5)
  • Removing the list of Wikipedias in other languages (4)
  • A search bar in the header (3)
  • Portals moved to a separate section out of the header (3)
  • Portals removed (2)
  • Less content in ITN, DYK and OTD (2)
  • A short description of Wikipedia (1)
  • Two featured articles (1)
  • Dates on news items (1)
  • Enlarged images in FA, ITN, DYK and OTD (1)
  • Enlarged image in Featured picture (1)
  • Removing the list of sister projects (1)
  • Adding today's date (1)
  • Adding a clear headline on FA (1)

Presentational changes:

  • Changing to a centered header (3)
  • Keeping the current two-column content layout but changing its graphical appearance (3)
  • Adding icons (3)
  • Reducing width of Featured picture section (2), potentially moving it up on the page (1) and using inline scrolling for wider images (1)
  • Changing to a layout with one main column and a smaller side column (1)

Of course, the division presentation vs structure is not always that obvious, and might even overlap at times. However, at the very least, the above list is a starting point for potential changes to discuss based on the current redesign proposals. -Wintran (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is great, thanks Wintran. I'd like to see the page split into three distinct sections going down the page: daily featured content, Find an Article (with portals etc), and then community/internal/help type links. What would you think of this?PretzelsTalk! 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think--and a few others have agreed, although it might be premature to call it consensus--that talking about the community is not for the MP. We should not have WP:WELCOME on the MP because it addresses new editors, not new readers. We must maintain that all readers can be editors, but reading Wikipedia does require "payback" editing. Intro links are best left as "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Help may be more appropriate under "Find an article," leaving sister projects as the only remaining addendum to the header, dynamic content, and Find an article section. (Interwiki links should go on the left side, where they can normally be found.) But with that said, I'm all for the "divide and conquer" discussion method. I tried to do something similar with the #Goals section; see if you can integrate that into your ideas.
I agree we need to figure out content (structure) and then move on to formatting (presentation). I support myunderground design's structure (what content is has and how it's grouped), but I'm more willing to adopt another color scheme. Why haven't I changed the current MP's format? Because I have yet to see another presentation that I feel is as mature and tame (reflecting a reputable reference source) but still somewhat engaging, neither childishly bright and colorful nor too simple and boring. (I take issue with the designs, not the designers, just to be clear.) As soon as I see another one I like (subjectively), I'll let you know.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Archive_3&oldid=1220068370"