Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proposed new main page · Current main page · Vote and discuss
The final election ran from 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC). Voting is now ended.
The results are 687 (support) /213 (oppose) /43 (neutral)

Proposed main page redesign

In October 2005, WikiProject Usability embarked on a redesign of Wikipedia's main page.

After numerous rounds of voting and feedback, we have arrived at a final design that we hereby place before the Wikipedia community for an official vote. (Note: the current main page and its redesign has a banner for the 1,000,000th article; to see what the main page will look like after the banner is gone, click here.)

[Read a summary of the redesign.]

Official voting procedure

The proposed new main page design is up for a vote to replace the current main page.

  • Only registered users may vote. All constructive comments are welcome, but votes cast via visible IP addresses will not be counted.
  • The issue to be decided is whether or not to replace the current main page with a new design created by members of the community. Vote Support to choose the new design, or vote Oppose if you want to keep the current main page. If you have no preference, you may vote Neutral.
  • Comments and questions may be added to the discussion section. Such participation is welcome and encouraged, regardless of whether/how you choose to vote.
  • Only one vote per person. Additional votes from the same person will be discarded.
  • The official voting period begins 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) and continues until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC). Votes not cast during this time frame will not be counted.
  • The current time is 13 September 2024, 06:30 (UTC).


Voting

Support the proposed new design

  1. Support though I would prefer article count on the top. Nice work otherwise. --Tone 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    see below: "Article count in header" --Quiddity
  2. Support. I too, miss the article count, please put it back in at the top. --Go for it! 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. After all that work, you don't think I'd oppose, would you? A noticeable improvement over what we have: even Unencyclopedia think so.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. a great improvement. --Quiddity 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. I like having Picture of the day on the main page, all week. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, a considerable amount of work was done here, and this makes everyone happy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support 110%. The redesign is much better. --- Dralwik of the Midwest Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  8. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, it looks great! Like everyone else though, it would be nice if we had the article count up the top again. (Saw comments about article count lower down the page, and agree) Will the current main page style be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page alternates? Jude(talk,contribs) 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support; it looks much better, great work. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, nice. --Conti|✉ 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. In the year since I became a Wikipedian, I've never been more proud of any achievement. —David Levy 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Looks really good, great sorting and doesn't look crowded. A good change! (PS - Wow, when I clicked to check where the article count was, I caught it at 998,000. 2000 more articles!) - Enzo Aquarius 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - I am soooo tempted to vote neutral because the search box is not here... But let's not throw away 4 months of hard work because of some stupid box ;) Renata 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I like it --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support --HappyCamper 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support It's guud. User:Silvdraggoj
  18. Support, good. Neutralitytalk 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support – ABCDe✉ 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Well then maybe I might think about trying the... Oops, I mean Support of course. Thanks to DL for keeping us on track through the many diversions. hydnjo talk 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Could be better, but what we have is worse. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Slightly. I don't know but there's just something about it that seems, un-stylish, but as long as that big ugly "Main Page" is not there I'm for it. Page Count needs to be returned and the top of the page, I see it there near the bottom, but I'd like to see page count every time I log-on to the main page, and not have to go searching for it. -Kode 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. I prefered having the additional search box, but at any rate, the new design is superior in just about every way to the old one. We can deal with further improvements later. For now, this is a major improvement. Fieari 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support It looks better. Greatigers 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Well done! Canderson7 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Chris 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. 100% Support—this is a huge improvement. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Great work. bcasterlinetalk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. I agree with and support the rationale below. But why the new background colors? -- Krash (Talk) 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    The pink clashes with the new design, and the blue is less purple to accommodate the new purple box. —David Levy 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can dig it. Pink is for sissies anyway. -- Krash (Talk) 03:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. In general, well done. Portal categorization scheme needs some work. Vir 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, and that's an issue that we intend to address. —David Levy 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support this greatly improved design. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Very nice new design. So much more information is contained on the new main page, and the page itself is only slightly longer than the old one. -Travis 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - I really like the PotD and "Did You Know" sections both included. Nice work! Peter Gawtry 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - I like it!!!! lamuk 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - Dig it. PoTD is welcome Argan0n 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Looks much better! Gflores Talk 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support and get this up and implemented in time for the 1,000,000th article! --Cyde Weys 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    That isn't going to happen, but if all goes well, we can aim for an April Fool's Day launch. :-) —David Levy 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. This redesign is an improvement, especially in that PotD and "Did you Know" are now both present all the time. I am proud to support it. --Danaman5 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Change the portals though. Mathematics is a branch of Science for instance. Keeping it simple would be good (maybe looking into university faculty systems would help? e.g. Humanities and Social Sciences, Science, Law, and Commerce; following that with Sport/Leisure and anything else not covered). But, other than that, it looks far better. --Midnighttonight 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    We do, in fact, intend to pursue that type of reform. We didn't want to force people to vote on the page layout and the portal link assortment as a package deal, so we left the latter unaltered for the time being. —David Levy 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. The Tom 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support HP465 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. I like boxes. GreenReaper 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support.The addition featured photo is good.However,the article count on the top (as in the current main page) should be there.--Dwaipayanc 08:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support.A refreshing change.XDarklytez 10:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. A much-needed facelift. --vortex talk 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Well done. Agnte 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. I love everything about except the font used for "Welcome to Wikipedia". Great work though! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support It's a good design, and a lot of work and time were spent on it. Pixelanteninja 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Looks nice. Please keep an eye on the static links to pages that are one click away from the main page, especially the ones at the top. These need to be kept up to standard as well. Carcharoth 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support, although I think not having a prominent link to the number of articles is certainly a shame. Batmanand | Talk 11:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. The boxes are seperated much more clearly and the style is very aesthetic. POTD is a very good idea. --NorkNork 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Prodego talk 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support lookin' pretty good. feydey 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Looks good. Gerard Foley 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, nice design. --Terence Ong 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Very nice!! In the spirit of improvement, if any number should be on the top section, then use the total number of featured articles. Awolf002 14:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Definitely an improvement. I would have preferred the article count near the top, but it doesnt outweigh the rest of the positive changes. Remy B 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. -Missmarple 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support, but please give a more prominent place to the article count. Gerrit CUTEDH 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support - looks very clean and accessible. Good work. GlobeTrotter 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support - To be honest I didn't like it when I first glanced at it, but after staring at it compared to the other one for a while I am convinced it is a huge improvement. Alex Krupp 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support --Syrthiss 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Looks very nice, an improvement over the current one, not too sure on colors, but it'll grow on me I'm sure. --Falcorian (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support - Ksheka
  66. Support - I really like how it looks, and should be a bit easier to navigate SonicAD 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support- The changes feel "odd" but I guess just because it's unfamiliar. Ah, well. I'll get used to it.--AK7 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support - A good amount of effort was put into tweaking the proposed design and it came out just about how I wanted it. Ziggur 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support - The new design is more interesting to the eyes. It seems easier to get around, too. Un sogno modesto 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support - Looks good to me. SomeGod 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support — yupp →AzaToth 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support - Redquark 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support -- Elisson • Talk 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support - Looks nice, except for the "featured picture" of the wolf spider. Eww. And it needs the article count. UrbaneLegend 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Warm and welcoming, agree with POTD comment by Kmf164 Djm1279 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support - Nice color scheme, the "anyone can edit" is well placed and very visible, as it should be. Good articles over many articles. --Spacebar 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support - The only thing I prefer from the current main page is the varying sizes of the links to Wikipedias in other languages; it gives a direct representation of its real size (in articles). Very nice otherwise. --Shadypalm88 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support - I'm a-lookin' and I'm a-likin'. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support - Looks good to me - No Guru 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support - I'm a fan --Nick Catalano (Talk) 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support - I like the featured picture layout. "Change for the sake of change" can be a good thing sometimes. Pepsidrinka 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support - I like the additions, looks good. Jjinfoothills 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support - Looks good to me. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support - Nice design. - Jpo 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support - Change is good, we spent a lot of time on it and it is pretty. - Ozone 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support -- Saberwyn 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support - The green part reminds me of Metamath... --an odd name 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support - I like it, but still it needs something more. Possibly a few more touches like pictures relating to wiki articles? Anyway, it's a great attempt. Random articles 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support but same as above. A welcome change though. toad (t) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Its better, could still be improved more though. Jonathan Karlsson 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Its great, I prefer the colours on the new design, much easier on the eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex.mitchell13 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC).
  93. Support – I like it. I like the current Main Page as well, but I like this one more – Gurch 22:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support - Although I think the search box really should have been included, the new design is better, although I say so purely from an aesthetics point of view.--j250x 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. The new design looks nice and clean. I like it! —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. Excellent work from all involved. Radagast 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support ... a cleaner look dml 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support I like it, the current front page is showing its age. --Measure 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support --Dv82matt 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support The new design is cleaner and easy to read. -- Lewis 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support - it separates the sections much more cleanly. SECProto 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support A thousand reasons to Support. I think Support --User:Michael Simpson
  103. Support --Midnightcomm 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support youngamerican (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support - Looks good. --RayaruB 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support- The "Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance" was definately acheived. schyler 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support - Like it. Finnegar 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support - Absolutely. My only objection is the lack of an article count, but this is hardly a reason to object to an otherwise excellent design. Rangeley 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support - great job to whomever made it say1988 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support - SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support - The new page greatly improves the visibility of the portals and other links at the top. --Constantine Evans 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support. Although the new design does not look better than the old, there are very useful additions to the front page. --Jannex 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. I like it. Zaui 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support - Great work! - L1AM (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support - Clean design, and it's nice to see the featured picture as well as DYK :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support - Good work, nice clean design, with all the useful links in clear places. Kcordina 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  117. SupportBkwillwm 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support. A substantial improvement! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support - this looks better than the old one -- Karada 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support - Looks fantastic - hopefully this gets through. mdmanser 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support Main Page needs a new face. Hohohob 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support - Very nice - cohesion★talk 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support - Looks very clean clear and crisp. An article count is the only missing element, and I know all about that issue now. doktorb | words 12:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support - A lot of work went into this design, and it shows. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support - Allthough I think the article count should be at the top -- Snailwalker | talk 13:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support - The new design is way better than the old one. However, I do agree with (pretty much) everyone else that the article count should be at the top. —OneofThem 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support - The featured picture box does seem a bit out of place, but the rest of it is lovely, much better than the current design. Shen 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support - Unlike the vast majority of proposed mainpage changes, this doesn't add anything bad (like another search bar) and actually looks nice. I would like to suggest that different colours be used for section headers in the new design though. --Improv 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support had hoped for something more interesting and less cluttery from the new design, but it's still preferable to the status quo, I think. Babajobu 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support. I was skeptical about changing the page, but looking at the proposed Main Page and the current Main Page, I'm actually pretty impressed. I like how the "Main Page" text is replaced with a box that eliminates redundancy and provides the same links in less space. --Optichan 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support. Very nice. :) --^BuGs^ 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support. Much clearer than current version. --Tangotango 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support. Clearer sections and makes better use of my big screen. Stephen B Streater 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support. Like the addition of 'did you know' and 'picture of the day'. Don't love that the page is getting longer with the new content and moving towards a more Yahoo-like include everything feel. Antonrojo 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support, slightly better than the current one. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support kjetil_r 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  137. Support wrestlenovi 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I like it, i never use the other links on the original one.
  138. Support I think this is only a slight improvement over the current design. I would suggest a continued simplification of the main page in the future. -- No Underbites 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  139. Supoort Love it!--Esprit15d 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support - great work, folks. — ceejayoz talk .com 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support. Excellent work guys! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fide (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
  142. Support --rhmoore 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--CharlesM 22:03 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--Adjam 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  145. Support Excellent layout for newcomers Siraf 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support. I hope this gets approved. - JPM | 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  147. Support I like the graphology of the new layout, the headings are very usefully bolder. The article count would be useful somewhere. The large Wikipedia font at the top is welcomed too.User:Tim_teddybear 23:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
    The article count has been relocated to the "Wikipedia languages" section. —David Levy 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  148. Weak Support. It's a bit better, and I like the POTD on the page, but maybe you could improve on the boxy look? Bratschetalk 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's possible to make them ovals, but they only display in Firefox.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  149. Support Greater clarity. Top banner much better organised. Simmyymmis 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  150. Support Very good redisign, i just hope the article count gets moved to somewhere more visible.--Costas Skarlatos 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support Very nice. Killdevil 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support I support, but not that much, the old one is good enough Astroview120mm 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  153. Support I like it. Taylor 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
  154. Week Support add article count at top --Banana04131 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  155. Support Although I think the {{MainPageIntro}} template had some helpful information; it should be at the top.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support lets give wikipedia style Spencerk 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  157. Support--Fito 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  158. Support Not perfect, but certainly better than the current main page. Boccobrock 6:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  159. Support, but keep the article count on the bottom. It is not an especially useful metric by which to judge ourselves. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  160. Support I like it, and I like the article count on the bottom. Shows that we place quality over quantity. I also like the simple and compact "banner". --liquidGhoul 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  161. Support I like the picture Howaboutadog 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  162. Support, although a search box and article count would be welcomed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  163. Support a slight improvement and the removal of the article count is probably a good thing as wikipedia itself can suffer from editcountitis and at this stage, wikipedia no longer needs to sell itself on coverage. MLA 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  164. Support Better than the existing version and its a good idea to refresh the main page every now and then. We can add back in the article count at a later date; when someone comes up with an elegant proposal. --ChrisG 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  165. Support A step in the right direction, but it looks quite like the old one, yet I believe this one is certainly better. -Ridge Racer 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  166. Support I like having ITN and On This Day on one side with the FA and DYK on the other, it just meshes better IMO. Plus, have PotD right there is very nice. Staxringold 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  167. Support I think having the In The News section in the same box as OTD is a nice touch, and nice colours. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  168. Support - Looks good. DCEdwards1966 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  169. Support, support, support! Wonderful design, extremely well put together and much more usable. -Jetman123 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  170. Support - Change is good — CuaHL 18:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  171. Support, overall better. Petros471 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  172. Support Dusso Janladde 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  173. Support —Serein 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  174. Support— I like it! Filmcom 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  175. Support- I think all the reasons have been covered. Ljlego 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  176. Support- Godlord2 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  177. Support Nice design, smoother and includes more useful links (important for newcomers). — Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  178. Support"" - Good work. zellin t / c 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  179. Support- I really like the new design, its a lot more eyecatching, I've always considered the old(current) one to be a bit bland--BoyoJonesJr 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  180. Support - I really like the new design, esp. the inclusion of reference desk links etc. Also what BoyoJonesJr said. Great work. -- Sarsaparilla39 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  181. Support --Musicofmymind 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  182. Support, simply because it looks better, especially the top part. EdGl 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  183. Support, although I liked the book-image background in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. But it's an improvement over the old page. --Darkdan 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  184. Support- i like the new one more. --Jeff 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  185. Support While the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." bar is ugly, the rest is pretty. Also, the portals are easier for newbies to work through.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  186. Support, because it looks a lot more inviting.--R.suleman 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  187. Support Looks much better. Very well done! Chairman S. Talk 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  188. Support Looks very nice. There's not much else I have to say.

Oppose the new design and wish to keep the current main page

  1. Oppose, I just hate it, and like the current version --Frenchman113 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Seems like change for the sake of change to me. What, exactly, is wrong with the current Main Page? --JohnO 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Our design objectives are outlined below. —David Levy 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Way too many boxes. Why does every piece of the design have to be in its own little box? This is bad web design. Kaldari 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. UGG-LEEE current interface is both better in appearance and content.  ALKIVAR™ 10:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not pulled together well. --Grocer 11:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Ugly. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Header looks worse than current header. Needs more drafts.--Urthogie 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Contains more WP:NSR violations than I care to count Cynical 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's a project page, not an article. Self-references are entirely appropriate. —David Levy 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I don't particularly care for the new design. KnowledgeOfSelf 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I can't see much difference on the new site except layers. I would really like to see the new page to be less cluttered. Maybe its just me, but I think the main page should be a little more "clean" if you know what I mean. Sagarkhushalani 11:50, 1 March 2006 (CST)
    See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, I like what we have and certainly prefer it to boxy mc-boxbox. Lord Bob 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. "oppose". Ilike the current main page. is ease reading and "discreet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeandro (talk • contribs)
  13. Oppose, It's ugly, and too boxy. BigRedPaul 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose too many boxes. Computerjoe 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose serious case of de streamlineing.Geni 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. It's too similar to the current version. We had the chance to be bold and come up with something really interesting, but design by the masses has apparently not allowed that. — BrianSmithson 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose prefer the old Arnemann 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose There isn't much wrong with the current layout, and it requires too much horizontal scrolling for me. Robmods 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    What is your screen resolution? We tried to test/tweak on all common sizes, browsers and skins.. --Quiddity
  19. Oppose The first thing I see on the new design is the huge text size for the "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too big, and looks like an amateur did that. The rest of it is good however. Mike (T C) 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weakly Oppose mainly because the main page looks great, is useful, and functional. The new page doesn't add much; if it ain't broke don't fix it, or something. Also, why so much emphasis placed on the featured picture? Semiconscious • talk 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I feel bad voting this way, because of all the work that I know has gone into it. I just like the current page better. sorry --T-rex 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose It looks ugly, far too blocky. The top bit is the worst. I think the featured picture should go at the top, it would be far friendlier (well, unless its that unspeakably notorious image). --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I much prefer the current page, as I think the gigantic WIKIPEDIA is a little silly. Also, how many featured things are we going to fill the main page with? TheConsortium 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "featured things are we going to fill the main page with?" We already have a picture, article, and Did you know selected and stocked for the current main page, and that wouldn't change in the new one. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    On the main page now is one featured box, the article. I like this, as Wiki is all about articles. For a featured pictures section to be added to the main page makes Wikipedia look like more of a photo album, albiet a somewhat professional looking one. I personally would have made the main page smaller and easer to load. TheConsortium 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    The current main page contains two featured content boxes, one of which hosts our featured picture two days out of every week (thereby displacing "Did you know..."). The new layout accommodates both features seven days a week, and it places the featured picture below the text-based featured content (with load time in mind). I agree that Wikipedia is "all about articles," but images play a major role in these articles. In our previous discussions, the idea of including the featured picture every day was overwhelmingly popular. —David Levy 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I stand corrected, informed, and still unconvinced that the new page is better. Here's to democracy. TheConsortium 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I don't like the new design. Yaohua2000 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I like the top bar, but overall I dislike this redesign. The page seems more crowded (less empty space), which is a retrograde step as the current page is already too confusing and information dense for newcomers. There should at least be larger borders between the text and their containing boxes (eg the featured article box). I don't like some of the new colours, either - I find the cyan used for the featured article particularly lurid. The old main page separated the columns using colour; abandoning the coloured box backgrounds means that this has been lost here, and it is easy for the eye to wander into the wrong column when scanning rapidly. Lupin|talk|popups 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose with a passion. I can take or leave the current, but the redesign is ugly. Sean WI 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose; way too many freaking boxes. Ral315 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    See the version without the 1 million article banner - much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose; It doesn't look aesthetically as pleasing as the current one, though I can't say why. I think it's mainly the top that's the problem. I like the objectives, though. Atropos 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose I'm with the "It's just uglier" crowd here. Xoloz 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose It's uglier, way too many boxes. Not the first thing you want new users to see.--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Too close to the current and not enough change to get my vote. And, as already mentioned, it's pretty ugly. Political Lefty 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved. --Clngre 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose I like the present one just fine. The new one needlessly surrounds things with more boxes.-Platypus Man | Talk 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose I agree with Political Lefty. Leftist 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strongly oppose. Their design philosophy - "let's throw everything in, so we don't upset anyone" - is not a good way to create a page. The current main page isn't great, but this is a monstrosity. Raul654 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    If our philosophy were what you suggest, the redundant search box, header-bound article count, extra portal links and book image would still be present in the draft. What, in particular, do you believe should have been excluded? I know that you opposed the inclusion of the links to Wikipedias with 1000 or more articles (present on the current main page) and the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, but nearly everyone disagreed with you. We included only the elements that were backed by consensus, and the fact that you happen to disagree with some of these decisions doesn't mean that they were made recklessly. —David Levy 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Ugh. The new design looks horrible, and seems to be lop-sided compared to the current page. What exactly does the new design actually accomplish that the current one doesn't? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terrafire (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
    Our design objectives are outlined below. —David Levy 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. The picture of the day has way to much room - all the width?!?!. No article count is not good either. --HamedogTalk|@ 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    The picture has been assigned less space than it occupies on the current main page on weekends. (The horizontal orientation results in a greater section width, but you aren't considering the reduced height.) Our draft contains five features. This one is thematically detached from the other four, and placing it at the bottom is beneficial to users with slow Internet connections and/or text-based browsers. By "no article count," I assume that you mean "an article count with placement lower on the page." (Again, it's been relocated, not removed.) —David Levy 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    My main concern is that amount of width for the FP for the day. The width requries more wording to make it full - currently there is way to much room for that section. I also think that the article count should be at the top, and the welcome to wikipedia bar at the top is too empty, which could actually be turned into a plus by putting in a search bar. This is the main page of wikipedia, and is usally the first page people will click on to. The new design is no better, and probably worse. --HamedogTalk|@
    You're failing to consider users with different display settings. The featured picture's caption might not fill the entire box for you, but for someone with a larger text size, it actually exceeds the height of the image itself. Likewise, the header may appear partially "empty" to you, but it's entirely full for someone with the 800x600 resolution. The extra search box failed to garner consensus in a straw poll, so it's unreasonable to expect its inclusion. —David Levy 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. The top right is far too cluttered and busy. Fix that though and I'll support as I like the basic Idea... - JVG 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. The colour scheme and boxes around titles are simply ugly. Zocky | picture popups 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Although I sincerely appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into this, I don't see it as an definite improvement of the current design. I liked the 'clean' look of the current design, it's too cluttered now. --JoanneB 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose: The top "Welcome to Wikipedia" often overlaps into the portal section and thus looks sloppy. Also while it's a cool idea to have a featured picture every day of the week the current designated space for it doesn't seem to fit with the layout. I don't want to be overly negative since no doubt a lot of work has been put into this, but that's just my opinion. Deathawk 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    The overlapping problem should be fixed now. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. It hurts my eyes, and the old one doesn't Bifgis 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. Way too many boxes. Count me out. Oskar 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Note: without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Not pleasant to look at: I feel like everything's squeezed in. Dylan 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. I appreciate the work, but it's too crowded. Deltabeignet 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Too many boxes, and it seems like some stuff is moved around just for the sake of moving stuff around. RMG 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose Agreed with above, and I like a big, centered welcome text. -Beefnut 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose - Lose the colored boxes around the headings and then we'll talk. —Andux␅ 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Too many boxes, and the boxes are too crowded. When I looked at it, with or without the million articles banner, the first thing I thought was, "Too much text." I like the current main page too, so why would I want it changed? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Bifgis puts it well. The main problem for me is the color scheme: that greenish thing placidly dripping off the left column cocks eyebrows. Can it be changed (to almost anything else)? If it can, or if someone can give me one of those annoyingly sensible reasons why I must, despite hating it, go along with the color scheme for the greater good and all that, I'll consider changing to 'support'. —Encephalon 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Is the color scheme really enough to change your vote from support to oppose, in light of the fact that it took four months to argue out the changes? I remember seeing various color wheels and all sorts of heated arguments about slight hues... suggesting a color scheme change isn't a minor thing from my experience. Is ditching the whole design for a color really the right idea? Is the current color worth not having the POTD 7 days a week instead of just on the weekend? What about the layout? Fieari 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Hi there. You seem to suggest that the color scheme is important—critical, even, judging by your emphasis on the dicussion it engendered—but yet that I should not give much weight to it when making my decision to support or oppose. Why? Many of us (try to) make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of each element in a proposed change. In my judgement, the proposed change here is minimal—this is a very conservative redesign—and in such a scenario the relative importance of aesthetic considerations increases. In fact, since most of the changes are cosmetic and not functional (the new page doesn't actually do much more than the current one), it seems a tad odd to suggest that I shouldn't consider perhaps the most obvious cosmetic change. Yet I think I'm being very reasonable—I said if someone could inform me of the rationale for the color scheme, I'd strongly consider moving to support, if I found it sensible. Very kind regards —Encephalon 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose The top is composed of too many boxes which make it look ugly and untidy. I also feel that there is no point in choosing any because they both appear similar. I want to know how the page is affected when the template for a new Wikipedia message is introduced - - Erebus555↔talk
    See "About the redesign' below for the changes, which also imply why the changes were made. Fieari 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. OpposeAs was already stated I believe by Political Lefty, Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved. Stettlerj 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't an incremental improvement better than holding out for something better that might never come? Isn't that petty? Bird-in-hand and all that... Fieari 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. OpposeThis is cluttered, useless, buggy, and doesn't even have a 2nd search bar. Waste of time trying to totally redesign the main page, why don't we do evolutionary changes instead so it slowly gets better with extensive bug testing? Plus, make it clean, like RexNL's userpage, thats simple elegence --Weirdperson11 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Like the current version. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Too cluttered. --DanielNuyu 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose Too cluttered not as easy to read as it could be --Aaron Einstein 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose The current page is much less cluttered and visually attractive --mathwizxp 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Weak Oppose I don't really like the overall look as much as the current main page, but it's similar enough that I don't care much -Elmer Clark 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Strong Oppose Old version looks better and Easier to read. --Z.Spy 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. I dislike the big "Wikipedia" at the top, it is too stark, and I dislike the darker-colored boxes around each heading. The clearer explanation of the difference between "help desk" and "reference desk" is an improvement, though I might list "reference desk" first. Crypticfirefly 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral; no preference

  1. Needs the article count. Also, people who vote on this should get to all be admins.--The Cunctator 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure that I understand your latter comment, but I can tell you that the article count has been moved to the "Wikipedia languages" section. —David Levy 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    See the "About the redesign" section. One of the considerations is that some people, including Jimmy Wales, think the focus should be "quality not quantity." I agree. We have just shy of a million articles already, far more than any paper encyclopedia so the article count novelty is bound to wear off eventually. --vortex talk 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Not if it keeps growing; not if its doubling time keeps shrinking; and not as long as it can be used to compare Wikipedias in various languages. Face it, editcountitis is part of Wikipedian culture. Embrace it. --Go for it! 11:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. The current version works fine for me, and David's rabid campaigning completely turned me off. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I honestly don't know what you're referring to. Could you please elaborate? —David Levy 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Part of me says shake it up!!!!!, and then another part says it looks ok now what more can you expect from the main page. Finally a third part of me says "Burritos are nice."--M4bwav 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I think it's better than the current page in that its focus is better balanced, but I really think the top banner needs something more in it (such as a very subtle image, like the site's background or even a faded version of the 'world logo') - it is the first thing the eye rests on after all. Being educational doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be needlessly proper (I say needlessly because there was a previous draft that had such a background, if I remember correctly) - Drrngrvy 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    The background image was removed when it was learned that it displayed improperly for some users. —David Levy 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree but David has a point. If we can get it to work for everyone, I'd support, say, a faded jigsaw globe behind the Portals.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    On the type of low-end monitor that I've seen, any faded background image would appear quite unattractive (and render the superimposed text less legible). I liked the book image (and actually created the latest version), but we must be considerate of the potentially affected users. —David Levy 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well if you look at the way the (current) background image for the whole site fits in, the 'focus' of it - the dark patch - lines up well with where the box we're talking about sits. I'm not suggesting making the box transparent (for obvious reasons) but if that image is taken to work fine for users, could part of it be used? Wouldn't that give continuity too? I just think that if the main page changes, that'll be it for a very long time - Drrngrvy 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - the headings look slightly clunky and unWikipedia-like. As someone said above, some part wants change, some part doesn't. x42bn6 Talk 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral both versions have too much junk that no one wants. Like anaversaies, or news. People don't come to an encyclopedia for news or anaverseries, they come for information. also, both versions omit the one thing that people actualy use to get that info. the search bar. The search bar was one of the main reasons for starting this project in the first place. How can we possibly leave it out? Especialy since it's by far the most important feature. sure catagories and portals are fine. but they're slow. to get where you want fast. Search. Both versions are terrible. Every attempt I made to have the redsign be actualy useful was reverted. Both pages are completely useless. Tobyk777 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia already has a search bar. There is also a link, Wikipedia:Searching, to help people search. There are many different ways of searching, not just using the Wikipedia search function. Also, the Main Page has to cater for those who want to browse, not just search. Categories and Portals are NOT intended to be used to find things. They are for browsing. There is nothing to stop you using the several options available to create a personalised dedicated searching interface to use as your entry point to Wikipedia. Carcharoth 10:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. neutral They both look very similar to me.--Acebrock 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Overall a slight improvement, but I miss the article count. I'm not truly happy about the background colors either. I don't see the problem with the search, the search box in the sidebar is still there. --Bogfjellmo 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. It looks more streamlined that the current design, but, at the same time, just too cluttered with so many new boxes. The featured picture receives too much emphasis — and is unbalanced, with a picture on the left and often sparse text on the right. Scrolling further down, there's simply too much boxed clutter, with a lot of empty space to the right of "Other areas of Wikipedia." Overall, I can't say it's an improvement, though I wouldn't say it's bad either. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    There is lots of empty space in some displays because we have to make it fit well in a 800x600 browser window. --Quiddity 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Anonymous votes

Comments

  • Comment - I'd like to mention that the process for obtaining concensus on each little tiny niggling detail was long and arduous. I would reccomend that people vote simply on the consideration of whether the proposed main page is better or worse than the current page, not whether the new page is perfect in their minds. Other improvements might be possible with further work, but I think those niggling details should be proposed and hashed out elsewhere, perhaps at the village pump. Unlike a FAC, where objections are easy because A) We want it to be perfect and B) Fixing a problem is a simple matter of clicking "edit", any suggested changes will probably require a few extra months of "politicing". So please... yay or nay, is the proposed change better than the old main page? More or less better, that is. Given "These are the only two possible choices", which is better? I know it's hard for most wikipedians to accept the fact that an aspect of wikipedia isn't modifiable at a moments notice, but changing the main page is slow and hard to do. 24.116.38.54 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I have with what you say is that since this change is so time-consuming, it's not likely to happen very often at all. Deadlines are good for motivating us all, but overrunning them costs us nothing: no money, no users, no reputation (since how do you label an ever-changing mass?). It's best to get it right first time, imho - Drrngrvy 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia languages All of the forigen charaters slows down my web browser if I scroll over the Wikipedia languages section. Not really a big deal. --Midnightcomm 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you experience this issue with the current main page? —David Levy 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This is, in fact, an actual design element (in most skins). It wouldn't have to be carried over (if it were to prove unpopular), but it is a part of the current proposal. —David Levy 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you mean here. Are you saying that this is part of the layout of the Monobook skin? I understand that, but the point I am making is that people are currently comparing apples and oranges - they don't see "WikiProject:Usability/Main Page" at the top of the proposed replacement. Unless we really are proposing to suppress the top-of-the-page "Main Page" part of the Monobook layout on the Main Page only. If we are, that should be added to the summary of the differences on the voting page, so people are clear about this. Carcharoth 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that we plan to suppress the text in question (which works in most skins). I suppose that we could add this to the list, but it seems like a somewhat separate (and optional) deal in my mind. (If people don't like this, we can add the text back.) —David Levy 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One thing that I really do like about the new design is that it has the "Today's featured picture" seven days a week. If the vote turns out being "Oppose", I suggest that at least the "Today's featured picture" be permanently added to the old Main Page. —OneofThem 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the search box all the way down at the bottom of the page? And what happened to the tabs at the top of each article? I can't tell if this has to do with the new changes or whether it's just the site not loading properly on my computer...but if it's the former, please, don't move the most important things down to the bottom of the page. It's not only inconvenient but the whole site looks totally unprofessional now. I'm confused though, because the "current main page" and articles also have this layout. --130.126.67.39 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be describing an alternative skin. Were you logged in when you saw these changes? —David Levy 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, it appears to have reverted. Stayed for 2-3 days, despite F5-ing, and then suddenly reverted back to the old 'layout.' Here's a screenie of what it looked like, if you have any idea what happened:
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2484/untitled1ed1.jpg
And no, I was never logged in.
--130.126.67.39 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, you were seeing the "MySkin" skin. I assume that this was some sort of glitch, and it was unrelated to the proposed redesign. —David Levy 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion There has been some controversy about the text 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' I think it should be capitalised and have the full stop as this shows the encyclopedia is wrriten in proper English. --81.104.37.81 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not a sentence. The sentence is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Our current draft includes both the comma and the full stop. —David Levy 16:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me that this vote is biased towards the people that already have spent plenty of time developing the new main page, and so of course they'll prefer it. For such an important change, the vote page ought to have more visibility. Maybe a link on the real main page, or a mass email, would be a good idea. -Beefnut 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how widespread the coverage of this vote has been. There was some discussion with a list of places it was suggested to announce this vote at. Can someone please make a list of the places that the vote was announced at. I agree with those who think that an announcment should be made on the Main Page itself (if I was a reader only, and not an editor, I'd still like to be able to consider contributing a vote, though how do you let readers without accounts vote in an election like this?). Carcharoth 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Main Page Banner announcing the millionth article is likely to be in place for at least the next couple of days (I think the idea is for it to be there for a week after the event). This is already affecting some of the votes, though Zafiroblue05 is pointing out the differences. Can the links to the two pages being voted on (at the top of this page) also include links to the pages without that Main Page banner? Carcharoth 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count

Among those commenting on the "missing article count," I have to wonder how many realize that it has been relocated to the "Wikipedia articles" section (where it's contextually relevant), not removed.

Either way, many people would prefer to see the article count back in the header, and this is an issue to which we've dedicated a great deal of thought. If anyone has an idea of how we could go about integrating such an element with the new design, please let us know! —David Levy 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We've tried that too. In my opinion, this was the best attempt to date, but it still was far from ideal. We don't want to give up the traditional tagline or imply that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts. Such wording also fails to consider the fact that users can author new articles (instead of editing existing ones) and contribute to the community by editing pages other than articles. —David Levy 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How about under the top box, like so?

æle ✆ 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The two sets of links consume just the right amount of space for the line to display properly at the 800x600 resolution (without wrapping or horizontally scrolling). Any significant amount of additional text would cause one problem or the other. —David Levy 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote counting for the math impaired

Because I had to sit and think about this a moment, I thought I'd pass on this to the rest of you. In order to see which side is winning at any given moment, multiply the SUPPORT votes by three, and the OPPOSE votes by ten. Right now, at 173/51, the modified tally is 519/510, a very close match, narrowly winning on the support side. Fieari 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

??!Intriguing math. What is the basis for this algorithm? Surely we are at (173+51=) 224 voters therefor 173 ÷ 2.24 = 77% support. ? --Quiddity 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: I don't know the general policy about this, so what is the threshold for the redesign to win? 50 percent? 70 percent? Redquark 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. In addition to the vote tally, the quality of the arguments presented is major factor. —David Levy 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The raw algorithm in use here is:
The quality and substance of each vote is also taken into consideration and provides for a more precise analysis of the voting community's intention.
hydnjo talk 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

About the redesign

The proposed main page design:

  • Improves the prominence of the portal links.
  • Clearly divides the header's article navigation links and project-related links.
  • Includes both the Picture of the day and Did you know... on the main page, seven days a week.
  • Adds a section containing descriptions of Wikipedia's important non-article areas.
  • Swaps the positions of "Did you know..." and "Selected anniversaries" (renamed "On this day..."), thereby establishing a left-hand column that highlights our most polished articles and our newest articles (which hopefully will receive similar treatment), along with a right-hand column that highlights current news stories and news stories from years past.
  • Swaps the positions of the links to our sister projects and the links to other languages' Wikipedias, thereby eliminating the need to use extra-small text for the latter.
  • Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance.

Issues considered in the redesign process

  • Second search box: With a vote of "no consensus" on including a second search box in the design, we have omitted it. We are considering options for tweaking the MonoBook skin to make the left search box more prominent and noticeable.
  • Article count in header: The proposed design provides no elegant means of including the article count in the main page header. It is, however, included in the "Wikipedia languages" section. The one million article milestone will have come and gone by the time voting on the main page redesign concludes. Beyond that milestone, many in the Wikipedia community, including Jimmy Wales, have discussed putting more emphasis on quality than quantity of articles. Displacing the article count from the header is consistent with this.

Future issues

Subsequent issues to be considered after this vote include:

  • Drive to improve quality of the portals and topic organization.
  • Improve visibility of the left-navigation search box in the default MonoBook skin. Perhaps, an orange-colored border (as used on the active tabs at the top)?


Main page development discussion


Draft archives


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page&oldid=42163300"