Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Th3darkforce (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 9 March 2006 (→‎Neutral; no preference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

[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 16 September 2024, 03:59 (UTC).


Voting

Support the proposed new design

  1. Support Both aren't that much great, but this new proposal is way better than the old one. --Saoshyant 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Not much of a change, but a change for the better nonetheless.--jp3z 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Better organization, improved readability, and the "Today's featured picture" section is very interesting. Two thumbs up. --MHowell 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support The old version looks unappealing and bland in comparison, although I must ask why the colors used were chosen .. . is it because of the designer's preference? --btnheazy03 4:18 PM PST, March 8, 2006
  5. Support Looks the same to me --Flaco 19:13, 8 March 2006
  6. Support Looking good. --Sozekai 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. 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
  8. Support. I too, miss the article count, please put it back in at the top. --Go for it! 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. Support. a great improvement. --Quiddity 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I like having Picture of the day on the main page, all week. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, a considerable amount of work was done here, and this makes everyone happy. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support 110%. The redesign is much better. --- Dralwik of the Midwest Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  14. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. 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)
  16. Support; it looks much better, great work. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, nice. --Conti|✉ 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. 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)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. Support I like it --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --HappyCamper 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support It's guud. User:Silvdraggoj
  24. Support, good. Neutralitytalk 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support – ABCDe✉ 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support of course, without reservation. Thanks to DL for keeping us on track through the many diversions. hydnjo talk 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Could be better, but what we have is worse. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. 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)
  29. 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)
  30. Support It looks better. Greatigers 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Well done! Canderson7 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Chris 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. 100% Support—this is a huge improvement. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Great work. bcasterlinetalk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. 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)
  37. Support this greatly improved design. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. 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)
  39. Support - I really like the PotD and "Did You Know" sections both included. Nice work! Peter Gawtry 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - I like it!!!! lamuk 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - Dig it. PoTD is welcome Argan0n 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Looks much better! Gflores Talk 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. 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)
  44. 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)
  45. Support. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. 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)
  47. Support. The Tom 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support HP465 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. I like boxes. GreenReaper 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. 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)
  51. Support.A refreshing change.XDarklytez 10:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. A much-needed facelift. --vortex talk 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Well done. Agnte 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. I love everything about except the font used for "Welcome to Wikipedia". Great work though! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support It's a good design, and a lot of work and time were spent on it. Pixelanteninja 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. 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)
  57. 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)
  58. 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)
  59. Support Prodego talk 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support lookin' pretty good. feydey 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Looks good. Gerard Foley 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support, nice design. --Terence Ong 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. 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)
  64. 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)
  65. Support. -Missmarple 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, but please give a more prominent place to the article count. Gerrit CUTEDH 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - looks very clean and accessible. Good work. GlobeTrotter 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. 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)
  69. Support --Syrthiss 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. 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)
  71. Support - Ksheka
  72. Support - I really like how it looks, and should be a bit easier to navigate SonicAD 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. 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)
  74. 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)
  75. 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)
  76. Support - Looks good to me. SomeGod 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support — yupp →AzaToth 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support - Redquark 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support -- Elisson • Talk 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. 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)
  81. Support Warm and welcoming, agree with POTD comment by Kmf164 Djm1279 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. 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)
  83. 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)
  84. Support - I'm a-lookin' and I'm a-likin'. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support - Looks good to me - No Guru 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support - I'm a fan --Nick Catalano (Talk) 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. 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)
  88. Support - I like the additions, looks good. Jjinfoothills 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support - Looks good to me. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support - Nice design. - Jpo 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support - Change is good, we spent a lot of time on it and it is pretty. - Ozone 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support -- Saberwyn 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support - The green part reminds me of Metamath... --an odd name 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  94. 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)
  95. Support but same as above. A welcome change though. toad (t) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support Its better, could still be improved more though. Jonathan Karlsson 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  98. 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).
  99. 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)
  100. 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)
  101. Support. The new design looks nice and clean. I like it! —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support. Excellent work from all involved. Radagast 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support ... a cleaner look dml 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support I like it, the current front page is showing its age. --Measure 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support --Dv82matt 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support The new design is cleaner and easy to read. -- Lewis 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support - it separates the sections much more cleanly. SECProto 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support A thousand reasons to Support. I think Support --User:Michael Simpson
  109. Support --Midnightcomm 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support youngamerican (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support - Looks good. --RayaruB 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support- The "Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance" was definately acheived. schyler 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support - Like it. Finnegar 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  114. 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)
  115. Support - great job to whomever made it say1988 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support - SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  117. 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)
  118. 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)
  119. Support. I like it. Zaui 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support - Great work! - L1AM (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support - Clean design, and it's nice to see the featured picture as well as DYK :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support - Good work, nice clean design, with all the useful links in clear places. Kcordina 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  123. SupportBkwillwm 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support. A substantial improvement! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support - this looks better than the old one -- Karada 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support - Looks fantastic - hopefully this gets through. mdmanser 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support Main Page needs a new face. Hohohob 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support - Very nice - cohesion★talk 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  129. 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)
  130. Support - A lot of work went into this design, and it shows. GeeJo (t) (c) • 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support - Allthough I think the article count should be at the top -- Snailwalker | talk 13:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  132. 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)
  133. 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)
  134. 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)
  135. 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)
  136. 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)
  137. Support. Very nice. :) --^BuGs^ 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  138. Support. Much clearer than current version. --Tangotango 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support. Clearer sections and makes better use of my big screen. Stephen B Streater 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  140. 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)
  141. Support, slightly better than the current one. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  142. Support kjetil_r 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support wrestlenovi 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I like it, i never use the other links on the original one.
  144. 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)
  145. Supoort Love it!--Esprit15d 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support - great work, folks. — ceejayoz talk .com 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  147. Support. Excellent work guys! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fide (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
  148. Support --rhmoore 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  149. Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--CharlesM 22:03 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  150. Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--Adjam 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support Excellent layout for newcomers Siraf 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support. I hope this gets approved. - JPM | 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  153. 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)
  154. 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)
  155. Support Greater clarity. Top banner much better organised. Simmyymmis 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support Very good redisign, i just hope the article count gets moved to somewhere more visible.--Costas Skarlatos 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  157. Support Very nice. Killdevil 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  158. Support I support, but not that much, the old one is good enough Astroview120mm 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  159. Support I like it. Taylor 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
  160. Week Support add article count at top --Banana04131 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  161. 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)
  162. Support lets give wikipedia style Spencerk 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  163. Support--Fito 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  164. Support Not perfect, but certainly better than the current main page. Boccobrock 6:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  165. 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)
  166. 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)
  167. Support I like the picture Howaboutadog 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  168. Support, although a search box and article count would be welcomed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  169. 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)
  170. 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)
  171. 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)
  172. 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)
  173. 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)
  174. Support - Looks good. DCEdwards1966 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  175. Support, support, support! Wonderful design, extremely well put together and much more usable. -Jetman123 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  176. Support - Change is good — CuaHL 18:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  177. Support, overall better. Petros471 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  178. Support Dusso Janladde 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  179. Support —Serein 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  180. Support— I like it! Filmcom 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  181. Support- I think all the reasons have been covered. Ljlego 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  182. Support- Godlord2 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  183. Support Nice design, smoother and includes more useful links (important for newcomers). — Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  184. Support"" - Good work. zellin t / c 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  185. 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)
  186. 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)
  187. Support --Musicofmymind 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  188. Support, simply because it looks better, especially the top part. EdGl 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  189. 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)
  190. Support- i like the new one more. --Jeff 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  191. 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)
  192. Support, because it looks a lot more inviting.--R.suleman 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  193. Support Looks much better. Very well done! Chairman S. Talk 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  194. Support Looks very nice. There's not much else I have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid Vicious (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  195. Support Nice.--Anthony 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  196. Support Junes 11:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  197. Support \alive 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  198. Support--ragesoss 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  199. Support — Trilobite 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  200. Support - Also fully support any efforts to keep the article count at the top, not at the bottom; and to increase the prominence of the search box on the left. CheekyMonkey 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  201. Support I like it. --Zoz 18:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  202. Support Hell's yea! --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  203. Support I like it, but I think something should be done with the "Welcome to WikiPedia" line. It just looks too unprofessional, the way it's worded. I don't know why, it just does to me. Robot Chicken 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  204. Support Excellent design.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  205. Support - I am Messedrocker and I approve. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  206. 200th Support! I'd support anything that has the Picture of the Day always there, but this looks really good as well. Raven4x4x 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  207. Support — Dash 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  208. Support, although I liked the version up slightly earlier today that had the colored background just in the header bars. Daniel Case 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  209. Support, Looks very welcoming in my own opinion. Better use of a front page. Pvt Mahoney 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  210. Support Not super-duper amazing, but an improvement. Richardmtl 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  211. Strong Support! It's freakin' awesome. Uris♥ 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  212. Weak Support It's an improvement over the current main page, although still way too crowded for my taste. Ziggurat 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  213. Support. Improved over the old version. Would still prefer a less cluttered verson, even if it meant less front page features. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  214. Support as I helped design it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashibaka (talk • contribs) 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC).
  215. SupportGreat job! Judgesurreal777 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  216. Support I am a fan of encapsulation, so I aesthetically approve of rectangles containing text. J. Finkelstein 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  217. Support Nitnaga 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  218. Support --- Deano252 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC): I'm all for the new design. I like have useful information right on the top page instead of huntiong around for it.
  219. SupportGood job. Looks nice, just add article count. WikiScholarChad 8:32, March 5, 2006
  220. Support. Cool, I guess. +Johnson542 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  221. Support. Very aesthetically appealing. -- Наташа ( User ♡ Talk ) 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  222. Support More coherant and better looking --Ma8thew 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  223. Support Looks much clearer and has a lot of visual appeal. Kosebamse 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  224. Support I like it.Jedi6 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  225. Support I like it. Sergio.solar 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  226. Support A new look is always good. JPGomes 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  227. Support. Looks a lot cleaner than the current one and Wikipedia needs to move on in terms of its appearance so this is good, I really like it. — Wackymacs 13:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  228. Support kernitou talk 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  229. Support Tarret 13:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  230. Support CatchacodeCATCHACODE 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)=
  231. Support--Technosphere83 15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  232. Support. I love it. Coffee 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  233. Support. The change is much easier on the eyes. bwolper 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  234. Support Looks clearer and more appealing --Jorvik 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  235. Support Very clean, the new colours and layout is much better Derf noxid 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  236. Support Good step. Fantusta 20:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  237. Support Looks Better Nooby_god | Talk 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  238. Support Definitely an improvement. --Joelmills 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  239. Support Better than the current, but needs the statistics. Nathaniel 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  240. Support Very nice (not that it didn't look good already). I like the improved organization of the news and featured article sections. Foobicus 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  241. Support - could go further. --Artw 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  242. Support but agree with Artw above. Look forward to seeing it happen. BigBlueFish 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  243. Support but it would be nice to have a little bit more "stuff" and whitespace at the top, such as the oft-mentioned article count. This will work for now, though. ZacharyS 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  244. Support I think we're ready for a change, and I like the new design. --Phantom784 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  245. Support Not perfect, but an improvement! Melchoir 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  246. Support Definite improvement. EdC 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  247. Support. It's great! With the picture of the day, beautiful! Uncke Herb 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  248. Support I like the top bar. --Tom 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  249. Support Works for me. --Mhking 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  250. Support --JoaoCastro 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  251. Strong Support Pikachu9000 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  252. Support. Sheldrake 04:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  253. Support NEMT 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  254. Support They both are the same to me. But I like the change. Can you make the number of article to the top? It's easy for at least me to see. Manop - TH 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you have any suggestions on how to do that, while still making the banner not break when viewing it in 800x600 resolution, we're all ears. Accessability is one of the goals, after all. Right now, at 800x600, there's just no room for anything else. Fieari 06:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  255. Support A lot nicer, but it's a bit cramped, could use a little more lebensraum between the top box and the feat. art. and in the news boxes. Eivind 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  256. Support Green is good. A step forward. Mercer66 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  257. Support Much nicer visual appeal and better organized. The new design highlights different parts of the encyclopedia in a clearer manner than the current main page. -- backburner001 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  258. Support I'll support the new page, but the biggest prob with both pages is that the search/go to bar isn't prominent enough. It should be done a la Google and occupy the center of the page. After all, does any one actually use the various categories to browse?? Nicolasdz 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  259. Support. Not perfect, but better than the current design. RexNL 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  260. Support I like it, it's nicer than what's there at the moment. Annihilatenow 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  261. Support It is more professional and sober look and arrangement makes it more navigable. This is Tanul | Wanna Talk 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  262. Support I prefer it, as it looks more organized, and is easier to tell what is what Slokunshialgo 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  263. Support Is it perfect and in all ways wonderful? No. Is it an improvement? Yes. --CBDunkerson 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  264. Support The design looks great. - ddlamb 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  265. Support Meh, I like it better than the old page, but I'm not sure I love it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  266. Support elizmr 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  267. Support I like it, although I think it needs to be four boxes instead of two big boxed, with some white space in between. The proposed main page is just a little busy. Hypeer 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  268. Support. It's good. However, I do think every feature is just a little too tall. A shorter summary of the main article and reducing the number of entries in the other categories would be good.--Mike Selinker 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    We're obtaining this content from the same sources used for the current main page, so I sugest that you post these comments at Talk:Main Page. —David Levy 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  269. Weakly Support Although it's hard to consider with that unflattering picture of Barbara McClintock on the Main Page, I like that the sections are no longer numbered when the "number sections" feature is turned on. It would be nice if the "Did you Know" and "On this Day" sections were at the same level horizontally. I prefer the boxes from an organizational standpoint. (on voting procedure, I think that the votes should be separated by hundreds to avoid accidental vote deletion). --RealGrouchy 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  270. Support Moving us in the right direction. JACooks 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  271. Support I was looking around at the main pages of other languages and it hit me how much better ours could look with simple tweaks. Then I remembered this project. I think the incredible amount of work and consensus that went into drafting this shows that their is not only general consensus for change, but also genuine improvements to the new page. The improvement of having both "Did you know" and "featured picture" each day is worth the change. Plus I just like the design; it feels much more personal and less bland. All in all, I don't see any reason not to replace it with this one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  272. Support I like it Eenu 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  273. Support I think the Main Page needs a change and this sure is a nice one! :) Renatta 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  274. Support would like to see "anyone can edit" changed to "good editors always welcome," but that doesn't change my support Trödel&#149;talk 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  275. Support Anshu 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  276. Support! - Looks great! --risingpower 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  277. Support. Excellent! --The Wookieepedian 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  278. Support Not perfect, but an improvement. It directs focus better: in the old design, it felt like there was too much introductory text to wade through. Wandering oojah 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  279. Support I really like it. I'm sure that it could be even better, but it's really nice. Dybeck 12:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  280. Support looks good -- Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  281. Support — Very slick and polished. Nice! — RJH 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  282. Support and let's get on with our lives. Her Pegship 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  283. Support really nice, and I like changes. Lars 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  284. Support. I thought I had seen some prettier versions earlier on the redesign process, but this is still a good improvement. Now the Wikipedia logo is starting to look dated. -- Solipsist 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  285. Support Let's go for it!! Thegoob 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  286. Support I like the POTD on the main page. The rest seems just like new window dressing. --Reverend Loki 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  287. Support Leo44 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  288. Support Nautile 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  289. Support --Alphachimp 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  290. Support The boxes look good, as does the font type Jofunu6
  291. Support I love it. Jezpuh 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  292. Support Not perfect, but better than status quo CGMullin 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  293. Support Better use of screen real estate, especially at the top... Nathan Beach 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  294. Süpport Yap --Obli (Talk)? 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  295. Support I'm always willing to give my approval on changes and improvements, and this new proposed main page is surely better than the (already good) previous/current version. --jοτομικρόν | talk 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  296. Support — J3ff 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  297. Support very pleasing design... PotatoeMasher 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  298. Support - If it comes down to with or without the article count, I prefer the version without, but support either version. Nice work! My thanks go out to those that did this work, whether it is adopted or not. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  299. Support - I like it, it's rather nice Sceptre (Talk) 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  300. Support - simply the redesign is much better. --Zayani 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  301. Support - I like the design. its much better than old. --JacobThe Quaker
  302. Surport - hasnt changed as much as I would have hoped, but its still (slightly) better than before. tooto 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  303. Support. Slightly better than the old one, I guess. Certainly not any worse. —Naddy 00:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  304. Support. looks good. Llamadog903 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  305. Support. Almost perfect Ciacchi 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  306. Support I like the new titles!, not too big of a change AlternativePlus 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  307. Support Better. Kellen T 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  308. Support Looks more refined. Lincher 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  309. Support I agree with the majority of the comments posted before me. It looks more streamlined, some slight changes which made an incredible difference. A Born Cynic 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  310. Support Looks better, and the coloured bars show better on some screens than the old coloured boxes Myk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  311. Support yeah! Terry 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  312. Support Not a huge difference, but it does look better. Geoffrey Gibson 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  313. Support Mmmmmm.... content good. Calibas 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  314. Support Looks quite nice to me. --Sheeo 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  315. Support A lot better! 99jonathan 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  316. Support I came here preparing to hate it, 'cause I love the old main page, and think change is bad, however, one look and I changed my mind. Great job! VonWoland 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  317. Support Much preferred --Stretch 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  318. Support Looks good to me --Old Coaster 09:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  319. Strong Support Really looks better! A new layout and colour scheme... just better! Hope the new page will be up soon! --Bruin_rrss23 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  320. SupportTons of info and a good look. Nice rework--Looper5920 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  321. SupportI like it--Bara_bg 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  322. Support - Seems to increase readability and navigability for new or infrequent visitors. -SCEhardT 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  323. Support It's not much of a change but it's enough that the page looks a little better than the "classic" look. BWF89 -- 16:49 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  324. Support Very nice. --ZsinjTalk 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  325. Support Perhaps a little cluttered at the bottom, but overall a good design. scotsboyuk 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  326. Support --x1987x 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  327. Support Killerofkiller 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  328. Support It's great. Snroy 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  329. Support The header is the best improvement, in my opinion. The rest of the design looks good, its not amazing, but its certainly not worse than the current design. buss
  330. Support Big Improvment! --Colin Faulkingham 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  331. Support Nice improvements. JustDerek
  332. Support Cleaner, slightly better design. Gaius Octavius Atellus
  333. Support Cleaner, clearer, funkier. I like it. Guinnog 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  334. Support Sure, why not? Looks good to me. Zifnabxar
  335. Support It looks great. Very organized, nice colors. Fantastic! ProfMoriarty 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  336. Support It's not much of a change, but it does kind of tidy the site up. It is well organized, too. zimmera 4:10 pm, 8 March 2006
  337. Support It really helps set the main page apart from the "standard" wikipedia article (no "Main Page" header at the top, much more of a custom design flare to it). I say go with it. JesusjonezTalk 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  338. Support Aesthetically I marginally prefer the old page, but from a usability perspective the new design is easier to use and improves navigability of the site. CastorQuinn 22:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  339. Weak Support I LOVE the thing that tells you how many articles there are, but there are too many boxes, and the picture of the day is too subtle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan235 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 18:00:29.
  340. Support I like it Gleb 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  341. Support I like it, althought I would like to see the picture of the day highlighted more prominantly.--BradPatrick 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  342. Support I think it is much better. --Nofxjunkee 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  343. Support It looks marginally better. --Bishoco 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  344. Support Looks very clean and is a very nice improvement SirGrant 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  345. Support. — Seven Days » talk 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  346. Support Nice and clean, it looks good. mrbill 17:57, 8 March 2006 (CST)
  347. Support I think the old design uses up the space too much. Stevefis 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  348. Support looks good, cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.7.4 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 19:03:24.
  349. Support looks ok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.13.93 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 19:04:03.
  350. Support Personally, I'd like to see a bit more of an overhaul than that, but it definitely is an improvement. Temoshi 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  351. Support Big improvement. bobmatnyc 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  352. Support Looking good.
  353. Support Looks like reasonable changes to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.230.131 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 19:11:41.
  354. Support It allows for more content. My daily wiki activites stem from what is on the front page. It makes the feel more lively and gives more options. Big kuods to the design person/team responsible.Binarypower 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  355. Support Looking good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spivurno (talk • contribs) .
  356. Support Looks good! Easier to navigate. Mwwallace 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  357. Support I like it, especially the portal links in the header. Jon.baldwin 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  358. Support Looks great. Cleaner and less intimidating. Good work Jambell 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  359. Support I really like it! Kbandy 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  360. Support I like it. Mushroom (Talk) 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  361. Support Looks good; change is always nice, if it is for the purpose of better browsing. Raptordrew 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  362. Support It's good that the change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary -- more usable, yet people will immediately realise, ah, this is Wikipedia! --Mintchocicecream 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  363. Support Compared the two in some firefox tabs. Like the new one better, I must say. JoeSmack Talk 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  364. Support The boxes create a nice, cleaner look; the page is a lot easier on the eyes now.--BuckeyeRowe 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  365. Support The new look is really great. I like the colors and the clean up of the random looking links at the bottom. Definitely supporting. --kaorikittii 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  366. Support It's a small but worthwile improvment--Tedwardo2 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  367. Support Is there anything left to say? --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  368. Support Somewhat superior to the old design. I don't see why not. Jredwards 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  369. Support The new version is much cleaner; it is easier to organize my initial glaced readings. I suggest stronger colors: royal blue, rather than sky blue, for instance.
  370. Support Looks better - much more clarity as to where sections/articles start/end.
  371. Support I like it, nice, clean design, and i do like the colours. The Decryptor 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  372. Support I like it, more content above the scroll. Dummies102 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  373. Support Much easier to read. --Matteh (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  374. Support A lot nicer looking in general. Looks more... modern. --Itamae 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  375. Support Don't like the colors of the box headings. Like to way the sections are organized. Can see more information on the screen now without scrolling. It does look much better than the current main page. - Ganeshk (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  376. Support While the colors used for the heading aren't that great, the overall design is far better than the current main page, so it has my vote. -- rjoseph 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  377. Support It looks a little better but not that much of a change but it still looks better nonetheless Axsuul
  378. Support Improvement over the current page, but could perhaps use some more work. making the change wont hurt.--Jgstew 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  379. Support Matt13 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  380. Support I like the design. It has more color and doesn't lose functionality. Allemannster 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  381. Support This is a pretty hot redesign - KnightsHFU 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  382. Support I feel the new boxes better compartmentalize information, making the page more legible at a glance.michaelrjohnson 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  383. Support It looks like a good design to me. durin42 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  384. Support Alison9 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  385. Support GoFlyi 01:28, March 9, 2006
  386. Support --Ghee22 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  387. Support The top of the new page is easier to read. Egamma 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  388. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  389. Support It's a lot of small changes, but adds up to a big improvement. Kudos to the wikipedians who did this! Singingwolfboy 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  390. Support Liked consolidation of metadata at top of page. Liked the colors but understand the boxy complaint. Also liked the new sequence of other wiki, wiki sister and wiki language at the bottom as it seems most likely what you want most is closer to the top of the page Parabolis 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  391. Support Good to get rid of the white space at the top --EEMeltonIV 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  392. Support Jcmaco 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  393. Support New design is a more efficient use of space. Plus, it looks cooler =) Zelmerszoetrop 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  394. Support Very neat and organized, less ambiguous space, more user-friendly. Theodork 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  395. Support Ciperl 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  396. Support Like the shorcuts to categories. Android 93 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  397. Support More structured than the current page. It makes better use of space and is better looking as well fuscob 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  398. Support why the hell not? Nortelrye 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  399. Support Although I like the old design. The new design is good too and change isn't a bad thing. Ikariotis 21:17, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Conditional Support

  1. I would support if a page count was added to the top of the new design.--God Ω War 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like it, but it should include the "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,883,293 articles." from the old version, or at least the number of articles. The linked Portals will also need to be carefully watched and maintained. the wub "?!" 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    A slightly modified version of text in question is included in the "Wikipedia languages" section (where it's contextually relevant, because other Wikipedias are listed by article threshold).
    With the exception of Portal:Featured content, all of the linked portals were taken straight from the current main page. Did we improve their visibility to such an extent that you noticed them for the first time? ;) —David Levy 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ah yes, so it is. It seems fine down there, especially as the article Wikipedia is now a more prominent link. However I'd still like the article count at the top. As for the portal links, they used to be categories on the old main page, and I never really noticed the change over there, since they still said exactly the same thing. the wub "?!" 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Conditional Support per God_of_War. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Conditional Support i'd like to see a page count and perhaps a tidy up of the top banner the welcome to wikipedia looks particularly ugly, i like the rest of the page though. Discordance 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Now the whites gone and theres an article count i like it more but last niggling issue for me is welcome to wikipedia, its still ugly, if that gets changed ill switch to support. Discordance 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Conditional Support again per God_of_War. Cerebrus13
  6. Conditional Support I support a redesign, but I know you guys can do better than this. Jaxshores
  7. Conditional Support if we have the article count up top. Anyway, I think the new redesign is okay, but not exceptional -- its still to cluttered. P-unit 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. I'd support if (A) the white background behind most of the content (background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252)) was eliminated (it should be transparent there) and (B) the design was recoded to use div elements and not tables. Come on. This is 2006. {{User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just to clarify - (A) the off-white (rgb252) is only used in the header box. What do you mean by "it should be transparent"? that it should be pure white(rgb255)? (B) The code is actually fairly well structured xhtml 1 transitional using mostly divs. The tables remain present to support the visual layout in older browsers that are still widespread throughout much of the world. --Quiddity 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Conditional Support I like it, except for the bar at the top. It would look much better, in my opinion, if "Welcome to..." was centered, with the other stuff below it, kind of like the current version. Clarinetplayer 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Slightly better. Progress. nice work.User:Ozten 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Conditional support as per God of War.
  12. Conditional Support It needs the article count at the top of the page. H-BOMB 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Conditional support. Needs article count... somewhere. I realise that this vote isn't going to make any difference, because it's already been fixed, but I'm not voting support otherwise. --Mark J 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    The article count is included "somewhere" (the "Wikipedia languages" section, to be specific). —David Levy 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Conditional support. The gutter between the boxes should be larger. Gutter between boxes (between "Today's Featured Article" and "In the News," and also above "Today's featured picture.") should be maybe twice as large as the margin inside the box between the border of the box and the text (or inner box). A little more air, and variation in air, will make it feel less "boxy." (Also, I favor article count at top.) Still A Student 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Conditional support. As above. I think a greater space between the boxes would make the page seem more "streamlined", so to speak. Allthesestars 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Conditional support I like the way that the new front page design makes it easier to pick out the categories by boxing them out. The major criticism I have is that there is very little white space on the page and the eye can't rest as a result. This page doesn't invite me to read the detailed content or make me want to read any other page. The eye must be allowed space to relax and pick out details rather than be overwhelmed.  (aeropagitica)  22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Conditional support It's OK, not an improvement yet. For me to support it, I really want that ugly Welcome to Wikipedia changed. Maybe italicize it, or bold it, or something; it just looks like someone's geocities page to me. And a bit more spacing would be nice, like after the header, and perhaps inside the boxes, just to make people feel less overwhelmed when entering the site. I also really liked the light red color, which is a nice contrast to the blue links.--mets501 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Conditional support I like it, but I would like ot see the Welcome to Wikipedia centered just a bit more. I understand the purpose of seperating it form the portals. I recommend we center it in the space between he Portals list and the left end of the box. I don't care for it on that left edge of the box. --Arobie 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    For someone with the 800x600 display resolution, there is no extra space between the portals list and the left end of the box. If we force the welcome message over to the right, we'll mess up the page for these people. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Conditional support. The design is quite good, but I'd like very much to see a change in the navigation at the left of all Wikipedia pages -- it needs either more whitespace or more focus on aesthetics. The "Welcome to Wikipedia" is rather distracting compared to the Wikipedia logo in the top left of the page, but the portal navigation on the top right is excellent and so are the headings in the content area. Webdinger 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    We have absolutely no control over the sidebar. That's a part of the MonoBook skin, not the main page. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Conditional support It's too wordy to say Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages. Please consider changing the latter to plenty of languages, as it is better grammar. It sounds better. --Cumbiagermen 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just how is "plenty of" less wordy than '"many other'"?? And, as for grammar, there is absolutely no difference. "Many other", though, is stylistically vastly superior to "plenty of". -- Picapica 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    You know, you could always say Wikipedias are also being written in other languages...You know, I'm sure people will get the "many" part from the fact that languages is plural. They're reading a encyclopedia, so they can't be totally inept. -Noneloud 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Conditional support. We've passed the milestone; if we have the article count under Wikipedia languages, we don't need it at the top. Also, "Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages" is better said as "Wikipedia is also available in many other languages" or something to that effect – it's not in the passive voice, so it sounds better. Lastly, a bit more white space would be nice. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Conditional support. Don't like it there is too much stuff I like it the way it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediarules (talk • contribs) 2006-03-08 19:03:40 (UTC) (User's first edit)
  23. Conditional support I disagree with putting the article count at the top. I also agree with Athelwulf in that we should rewrite it to be "are also being written". Furthermore, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" link looks pretty horrible. Sayhar 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Conditional support banner at the top is ugly. I'm for it mostly otherwise though. What would be nice is an overhaul of the navigation system, maybe a whole new theme for the wikipedia. --Jason 01:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Conditional Support I really think you would do better off with only a few minor changes. The boxes on the header titles are unneded since the fonts are big and bold anyways, so I really think you would be better off without them...That would help I think; however, I think the main thing that is throwing me of is that everything on the page is adjusted left, yet that "Welcome to wikipedia" banner is centered, yet not in the middle of the page. It makes the page very uncomfortable to look at because it causes a tension due to the offset. I think that's also why this example is more bearable because you can't tell that it's centered as much...You could even keep the counter by removing the dashes on the right side (like "— 1,012,649 articles in English") while having it adjusted left with the rest of that text. -Noneloud 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Conditional Support When I read new design, I thought..'wow! they are really going to make it less cluttered now'. But it is just the opposite. I will support a redesign where you have less text on the homepage and more links. How about putting a search field in the center , sans google, and adding a tree-like diagram showing where the users can navigate to. And maybe we can have a language selector on top right corner, maybe a drop down menu (or better). The idea is, put less text on the homepage. We can put links to different child sites (wikimedia, wikinews etc.) --Prnay
  27. Conditional Support I like the new design, mostly, I am not entirely crazy about the shade of green and i'm also unsure if pre-empting the normal title in the way that they are is a good idea. But, beyond this, i think it's a good impovement, and an improvment in the right way (incremental, not too drastic of a change) Kudos to WikiProject Usability AdamJacobMuller 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    one small suggested copyedit "Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages" -> "Wikipedia is also being written in many other languages" The latter has a much more natural language flow to it AdamJacobMuller 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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)
    That was the version I was looking at. Kaldari 06:45, 4 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)
    Is it better or worse than the current design though? Being too bold turned far too many people off. Obviously, you're in favor of being bold. Is the proposed page MORE bold, or LESS bold? I think it's more bold. Is the fact that we didn't go as far as you would have liked a reason not to at least step in the correct direction? Fieari 17:29, 4 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? Terrafire 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
    Our design objectives are outlined below. —David Levy 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see why we need to change the entire page in this way - if extra features need to be added surely they can be added to the existing main page. The new design looks lop-sided and boxy. Terrafire 13:04, 7 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)
    Sorry, I didn't realise you were accounting for people who like to enlarge the text to compensate for there eye sight. I do have a suggestion to fix this problem - make the Featured picture the same size as the Did you know section and place next to it a featured portal. Also, bring the article count back to the top. I can't see why "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 1,004,185 articles" can't fit anywhere up there.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    I would support if the top of the page had the extra search box like here:[1] and you fixed the picture problem.--HamedogTalk|@02:17, 6 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)
    My issue is the difficulty of any one person changing any one tiny little detail. Basically, I'm saying that for consensus to get anywhere, massive work has to be done to please as many people as possible. Just look here for how some of the color schemes were chosen. Everyone has opinions on aesthetics, but basically, what needs to be chosen is that which is least offensive to the most amount of people. Every issue was hammered against a large number of votes, and every issue had both supporters and dissenters. In many cases, strong supporters and strong dissenters. Pleasing both is massively difficult. Basically, I'm asking for give and take here. If you can't have every little detail the way you'd like it-- because what you would prefer I garuantee someone else is strongly opposed to... can't we at least find things that most people at least don't mind all that much, and then add things in that most people do in fact find as an improvement? I'm voting support mostly because I love the new organization of the featured stuff on the left, news stuff on the right, and also the inclusion of the featured picture every day. I think these are major improvements that vastly outweigh minor aesthetic concerns. In order to get these, I'm more than willing to compremise on colors. Does this make sense? Fieari 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    This conversation is taking on an unfortunate hue and I'm not especially keen on continuing it much further, Fieari. Please note:
    • I think the color scheme of the proposed design is very poor, poor enough that I'm unable to see that the few benefits of the design justify it. The things that you suggest are benefits are themselves simply cosmetic changes: eg. placement of the "featured stuff" on the left and the "news stuff" on the right. You appear to believe this is a "major improvement" that "vastly outweigh[s] minor aesthetic concerns." You are certainly entitled to that view, although I'd point out that the improvement you speak of is itself an aesthetic concern. IMO, a poor color scheme very substantially reduces the appeal of having a couple of paragraps a few centimeters to the left or right of where they used to be.
    • I'm perfectly happy to respect your right to your views on this issue, and while I certainy don't share them I'll not suggest that you are being unreasonable to hold them. I'd like to ask that you be as considerate of your fellow Wikipedians who have voted to oppose. To imply that I'm insisting on having "every little detail the way [I]'d like it" is odd. Not only did I choose only to voice one objection, I also stated that I'd move to support even without any changes if someone could provide a compelling rationale for the current scheme. I'm not especially impressed with some of your remarks to others. Suggesting that User:Stettlerj is being petty strikes me as decidely impolite, and I don't particularly care for the tone you seem to be addressing Taxman with. I understand that you must feel quite strongly about the redesign, Fieari, but do be more careful with how you address opposing views. Very kind regards —Encephalon 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that the most compelling rationale behind this color scheme is that it was deemed acceptable by more users than any other. I respect your right to dislike it, but changing it would generate more new opposition than support. If you personally believe that the cons outweigh the pros, you're correct to oppose the redesign. As for this discussion, I don't think that Fieari intended to insult you. —David Levy 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, David. I had just wondered if there might be some sort of technical or graphic design rationale for the scheme that was lost on this non-expert. It's really not a bad piece of work at all, frankly, and you guys are right to feel proud of the effort you put into it. Tell you what, I'm gonna see if it grows on me in the next few days, and if I start being able to stand that green and purple (!) I'll plonk down a support vote. ;-) —Encephalon 22:59, 6 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)
  61. Strongly Oppose While some new elements are quite nice, not having the article count at the top of the page is a deal-breaker. We should be talking billions of articles, not millions. Jimbo is wrong in that regard. Just because printed encyclopedia's have natural limits doesn't mean we do. The quality of an article we don't have is zero. Lastly, if we lose, why couldn't choice of homepage layout be a preference? I suppose I could write a script to fork the homepage, but I'd rather spend my efforts on articles, not coding around the new homepage. Someone said this isn't a democracy; it most certainly is a democracy of dollars donated.Marktaff 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    If the article count was included at the top, would you support? Is that your only objection? Would you be willing to go the compromise of accepting this design for now, and then starting a new vote as soon as this one is done to place the article count higher on the page? If there's enough consensus for that, I'd imagine that one change could be made pretty quickly... Fieari 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose Current page seems much cleaner - new page does not increase usability QmunkE 07:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose I feel that the old version is cleaner. The new page is a little too cluttered and I'm not sure about the Welcome message.10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Gaspode the Wonder Dog
  64. Oppose for reasons outlines in opposing votes 62, 2, 9 and also 58. Greentubing 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose First, the "Welcome to Wikipedia". The Wikipedia looks very bad, because of the centering and it being bold within not bold text. Second, it doesn't look that much different from the old page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman1126 (talk • contribs)
  66. Oppose on aesthetic grounds (and yes I am looking at the one without the million articles). I also agree with the sentiments expressed by a few people above that the proposed replacement is surprisingly similar to the existing page. As a brief overview the only change seems to have been to make it slightly uglier and to shoehorn a "Featured Picture" box into a row of its own where it looks like an afterthought (and is off the bottom of my browser window). PeteVerdon 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. I personally see no problem with the current main page (and yes, I have read the objectives and the opposition to the current main page). However, if a redesign is a must, I would vote for anything but this one. I absolutely despise this design. It feels too boxy (both with and without the million article banner). I also feel that the picture of the day box looks like it's an afterthought (I agree with whoever said it above). Also per QmunkE and Gaspode, I feel that the old version has a cleaner feel to it. This one just seems cluttered. --^demon 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Awful lot of work for a worse outcome, sorry. It looks worse, and Did you know, in it's current incarnation highlights completely unverified claims in new articles. Not the type of thing we should be highlighting, but looking worse is the problem. I think it's the box around the welcome that's particularly displeasing. - Taxman Talk 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    How is the proposed "Did you know" worse than the current one, which, you might note, is IDENTICAL to the current one, except in the proposed draft, has been moved to the left instead of the right. If you want to remove our "Did you know" section, is this really the place to do so? Wouldn't the village pump be a better place for such a campaign? As for looking worse... well... everyone has an opinion. I guess I can let you have that one. I, for one, find the proposed page much, much, MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the current one, by leaps and bounds, and think the current main page is the ugly one. You can't please 'em all there. Fieari 17:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. I feel that the new design is incredibly boxy, and doesnt improve significantly on the current design. --Deemo 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. Looks more cluttered than the current page. Proposed page is too long and requires too much vertical scrolling (which I usually don't do) to see it all. --MarkS 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose. I've changed my mind; this one is too boxy. Fredrik Johansson 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. The new design is boxy, brings nothing we don't already have and is frankly just plain ugly. Wikipedia is one of the Internet's biggest websites and it and its users deserve much better. --Hn 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding the page's appearance, but how can you possibly claim that it "brings nothing we don't already have"? —David Levy 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. Too square and pointy. Graphic design should be friendly and inviting, and the sharp corners here make it cold an unwelcoming. I like the addition of the featured picture, but the design just doesn't scream "Hi!, come on in and set awhile." pschemp | talk 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose Too many boxes. If you're going to change anything put an article counter at the top The Bread 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Preferred some of the earlier drafts; believe this is too clumsy. Everyone has tried to include every possible thing you could have on the main page, which isn't what we want. Harro5 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose Its ugly, and makes me jump. (Or maybe its just that its new.) -Reuvenk[T][C] 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. Too boxy! SushiGeek 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose. I see two issues. First, the colors used for the left and right sides are too close making them difficult to distinguish. Then, I don't like the top box (police, ....). Poppypetty 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose. I think the current design is much more elegant and suitable for Wikipedia. --Tail 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose.--Lkjhgfdsa 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose. This seems as others have noted change for change sakes. The largest item on the page (the Wikipedia on top) is a link to another page. C'mon. Also, I have to admit reluctance at seeing the "anyone can edit" moniker made more prominent. It's a heightened invitation to vandals. Jtmichcock 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    As a wiki, isn't the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone one of its most prominant features? It should be one of the first things a visitor sees. bcasterlinetalk 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, the most important thing for the user is that it is an Encyclopedia covering a broad array of topics. Second: it's free. That people can add to the information is noteworthy, but not the most important thing. Jtmichcock 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose its less attractive than the current one, could you not just add the links on the new page onto the current one, instead of redesigning it? Philc 0780 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose it doesn't seem to work on my explorer. JASpencer 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Could you please be more specific? What doesn't work? Can you post a screen capture? —David Levy 22:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose The new header looks awful (too many ugly blue links!). Other than that, the other changes just seem like minor aesthetic improvements. ~MDD4696 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose While it would be great if we could get the 'picture of the day', and 'did you know' sections on the main page all the time, this new redesign simply isn't the way to do it. imo, of course.-Laplace's Demon 07:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose. Like the old version beter. SYSS Mouse 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose I don't think this actually improves usability at all--and the page count is missing. The boxes are not very attractive. Also, the words 'Welcome to Wikipedia' look very ugly for some reason.Yorick 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose. The differences in content aren't that apparent to me, and the top bar is just horrendous. It's so neat and tidy as to be almost medically sterile. --Cantara 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  90. Strong Oppose The current page serves it's purpose well enough. - Bladeswin 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose - I see no reason to change it at this point. Danthemankhan(talk) 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Oppose Whilst the overall layout is generally pleasant, the colour scheme is so utterly hideous that I cannot attach even conditional support to this design. The colours are incoherent and the green is particularly offensive-looking. By comparison, the present Main Page – although severely lacking in several respects – has an elegance that is lost here. That said, I do believe a design suitable for Wikipedia will eventually emerge from this endeavour. --cj | talk 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  93. OpposeI agree with the "too boxy" argument.--Theloniouszen 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  94. Weak oppose, in the end I don't particularly care. gren グレン 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  95. Oppose Too much of clutter. The current page is very pleasing to look at. Nivus 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  96. OpposeI saw some good proposals earlier, but this is not one of them. Sabine's Sunbird 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  97. Oppose The new "Welcome to Wikipedia" header looks good, and I like the layout of "In the news" "Did you know" etc and the inclusion of Picture of the Day, but the rest of the changes seem to be unnecessary. The colour scheme is ugly, and the overuse of boxes to contain material and indicate headings gives the page a very heavy feel. White space is a key element of web design, but this design clearly seeks to obliterate it. The bottom half of the page containing the other areas, sister projects, and languages actually expands the clutter instead of cleaning it up, and most of the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" are duplicates of what's already available in the navigation sidebar. Instead of listing every language under the sun, there should be a single link to a page with all the languages listed in alphabetic order. If the design used the old colour-scheme and only used boxes where the old boxes were, I suspect half the opposition would disappear. --NormanEinstein 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  98. Oppose Don't like the new colors and the excessive boxes. Also don't like the changes in font sizes and headers for the other language Wikipedias. The current page is simply more elegant and there is very little functionality improvement in this change. The header links at the top are fairly minor and could be adjusted without a vote like this. Tfine80 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  99. Oppose Don't like the small 'Welcome to Wikipedia' at the top. Don't like new font settings and the only thing that has been changed apart from that really is layout, which I am not all that keen on either. UKWiki 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  100. Oppose IMO, it should have a larger picture of the day and isn't worth doing without it. --Locarno 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  101. Oppose this change for the sake of change. The main page could certainly use an update, but this ugly, cluttered variation on the current MP isn't it. Apologies to the folks who have worked on this, but a group-think approach to design seldom succeeds (especially when most of the group aren't design or usability experts) and this is a perfect example as to why. Jgm 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  102. Oppose. The current seems better, easier to use, and more user-friendly. --daunrealist 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  103. Strong Oppose. Eww. It's just plain ugly. The current one is much better. The Kids Aren't Alright 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  104. Weak Oppose per cj Brian | (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  105. Weak Oppose. Too boxy, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header at the top just doesn't look right to me - I think it's because the welcome message isn't centered like in the current version. I agree that change is necessary, and I like several of the changes made here, but I'd much rather see some of the concerns of oppose voters addressed before we make a change. There's no reason to rush into a major decision like this - it's not like the current page is totally broken. BryanG 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    To be clear, no rushing has occurred. This design wasn't thrown together overnight; it's been in the works since October, and it's the product of countless discussions and debates. We're trying to please as many people as possible, but we can't please everyone. Among those voting to "oppose" on this page, some feel that the page is too drastic a departure from the current main page, while others feel that too few changes have been made. No matter what we do, someone will object, so we have to strike a balance. We've aimed for a viable compromise, and I believe that we've succeeded in finding it. —David Levy 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I realize that this has been going on for a while, and that many people put a lot of work into it, but I think you misunderstood my point. It feels like (to me anyway) that now that we have a "final" design, some people have decided that regardless of any further objections raised, we should approve this design no matter what objections are made, because it's better than nothing. I'm sure that some of the opposing voters have been complaining throughout this process, and will never change their opinion, but others (like me) weren't really aware this was going on until now. I hope you won't discount their suggestions just because they weren't involved up to this point. BryanG 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not discounting anyone's opinions, but most of these suggestions already were tried at some point along the way (and proved unsuccessful or unpopular). What some people want is the exact opposite of what others want, so it's impossible to implement everything. This is the combination that drew the most praise and the fewest complaints. —David Levy 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  106. Oppose The new design seems to be too boxy, and I'm not too fond of the new colors and font. Personally, I prefer the original design --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  107. Oppose Too boxy, top of page looks terrible comparitively. Sticking one box right under the tabs gives me a gut reaction that this page just isn't aesthetically acceptable. All of the rest of the proposed change is kind of nice, but really just "change for change's sake". Gspawn 17:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  108. Oppose The new design doesnt look as sophisticated and the extra boxes only exist to make the page look less professional, keep the original design. 19:51 07-march-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPaul1066 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
  109. 'Oppose The proposed design is too compact - i.e text per pixel density is too high on the first part of the page. Also it is a bit too symmetrical for my taste. --Denoir 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  110. Oppose, too less space between header and the two boxes below of it. Also, the current layout is "cleaner" and easier to read. --Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  111. Oppose, i think the old one just plainly exhibits information better; new one is squares ville man--zachjones4 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  112. Oppose Too many squares, the colors are too "cold" (unlike the warm glowing colors of the current version), there's not enough whitespace (too dense), and the "On this day" and "Did you know" don't line up.--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  113. Oppose. The new proposal looks perfectly wretched... and people are used to and can function with the old mainpage. Don't change just for change's sake. Thesocialistesq 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  114. Oppose. As already mentioned, the new layout doesn't add much to the existing design. Also, there are too many boxes.Yeu Ninje 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  115. Oppose. The proposed change is huge! Twice as long as the original. More links and buttons don't make for good design. Compare Yahoo to Google. It's called SNR. GIVE ME WHITESPACE OR GIVE ME DEATH!!! Meekrob 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  116. Oppose. There are some good aspects to the redesign, but the way to improve the main page is to reduce the number of links and amount of colored boxes. The page will be perfect when there is nothing left to take away. Symptomatic of the problem: the continued existence of the utterly useless "start a wikipedia in another language" link. What fraction of visitors to the english main page need to start a new wikipedia in another language? One in a million?? — brighterorange (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  117. Oppose - Although I do quite like the some of the former frontpage candidates, I prefer the original to this one. I like the clean centralised top part of the original main page, and that's lost in the redesign. - Hahnchen 13:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  118. Oppose it is just ugly ILovePlankton 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  119. Strongly OpposeThe immidiate response to the new design is revulsion. The page is too crowded, and the colors are unappeling.Eyeballcancer 19:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  120. Oppose. I don't really see where it's an obvious improvement over the current main page -- it's different, not better. Sahasrahla 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  121. Oppose Too boxy/square. Mikeee 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  122. Oppose Too much stuff, I dont look at main page in the first place, I want a page that wil load quickly and not cause browser problems.
  123. Oppose The Current is simple and clean the new one just doesnt really add anything and breaks up the clean look
  124. Oppose I too like the current design better. Patrick Gill 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  125. Oppose First impression of the page is ugliness. Too cluttered and compartmented with ghastly multicolored boxes. Also 5 pictures of roughly equal size means nothing has prominence. I don't think we should change until we have something demonstrably better. Meersan 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  126. Oppose Although I would love a change, this is not what I wanted. -- WB 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  127. Oppose This new one is a slight improvement in terms of colour and clarity, but the boxyness and amatureness of it all are very un-wikipedia like. Sorry! -- User:StaticFish 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  128. Oppose Agree that the new one is nicer color and clarity, but disagree strongly about the boxes. Looks like a circa late 90's web look. -- User:flxstr
  129. Oppose The new design looks absolutely aweful. Though a new design may be in order, this definatly should not be it. -- YourParadigm
  130. Oppose I like the current design. Why change?--Byron 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  131. Oppose This design is just not different enough, it's change for the sake of change. It's not clean and organized enough. 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  132. Oppose I don't see much difference. It needs to be cleaner, simpler, and more effective. Sturmur 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  133. Oppose, Wholeheartedly and Passionately The old design looks cleaner. --Err0neous 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  134. Oppose The added clarity is unnecessary and unsightly. --Iscariot 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  135. Very Weak Oppose I don't really like the way the WP:The Free Encyclo is centered but not really centered. I don't really like that header much at all, actually. Can't really describe it. Otherwise good work. This may change as I think about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worthawholebean (talk • contribs) .
  136. Oppose The old one is fine; leave it alone.Realkyhick 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  137. Oppose Keep it simple and functional and leave it alone. Thatbox 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  138. Oppose I hate it for all the reasons mentioned above. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I am great. Imav 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  139. Oppose Too cluttered. Theccy 01:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  140. Oppose Not really a difference. Harder to read. Praetorian42 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  141. Oppose Way too complex. Like the simplicity of the current design. Menuet 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  142. Oppose Not enough of a re-design to merit a change. Anyways, the old design looks cleaner and simpler. --Mikm 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  143. Oppose Maybe I'm just attached with the old one but I prefer it -- Tawker 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  144. Oppose It's too cluttered and harder to read, and not a change enough to have my vote. -- Flibuste 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  145. Oppose The colors are still need work, and the header is distracting and awkward looking. -- MonoNexo 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  146. Oppose Like simplicity and clarity of current page. This one is too busy and cluttered, overwhelming as a home page Augustz 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  147. Oppose The new design is not a big enough improvement to justify the change of the now-familiar front page. However, I do like the Draft L. Anyone else agree that it is better than the currently proposed version? --vekron 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  148. Oppose The new design is a little to cluttered with the top right nav. Also not really digging the color scheme

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page&oldid=42906427"