Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A summary of the conclusions reached...

Results
Sponsorer Support Oppose
88wolfmaster 6 18
Alvaro qc 10 14
ChyranandChloe 7 15
ChyranandChloe 2 0 5
Combined proposal (Scottydude) 0 4
CrazyChemGuy 21 12
Dudemanfellabra 12 13
h2g2bob 0 4
Hereford 1 6
Highfields 7 13
Jennavecia 28 6
Kollision2 4 13
MindstormsKid 0 7
MindstormsKid 2 2 8
NickPenguin 8 13
Pretzels 24 14
RyRy 2 8 13
Scottydude 0 6
Wintran 16 13
Wintran 2 3 8

88wolfmaster[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. PolishName 14:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Very good ideas, which I tweaked to get this design (which didn't make the deadline...). Worry about those tweaks later; if you like the standard headers and jump-to navigation, vote for this design.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. BrainMarble (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I would put the Featured picture much higher though. -- Banjeboi 11:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. This is prob'ly my favorite of the bunch. I like the jump-to navigation and each section seems to have enough area to work. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. We don't need all the borders and doodads. Great proposal, possibly the best I've seen yet. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I think the right column is too big for the usefulness of its content. It makes "in the news" lower etc. when those things are IMO more useful than portals. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. We need better. iMatthew (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Childish icons, ITN not immediately visible. Cenarium Talk 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Horizontal scrolling at 800 x 600, and that second column is too small. MER-C 09:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Horizontal scrolling.Anaxial (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Top has too much space. There should be more stuff at the top. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I don't like the right column. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Ridiculously long, hinders navigation. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. I agree, far too long! Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. No search-box? No headline?! —Tamfang (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Too long, important sections are not in place, and icons are not very professional-looking. Good color, though. —La Pianista (TCS) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. I'd prefer the News at the top - where it currently resides. "About" box is irrelevant and occupies valuable space.--ReL (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. Too long. shoy (reactions) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. Too long, column too big on the right. The Helpful One Review 22:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. Too plain and too long. --Domthedude001 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. Too much scrolling required. - Davodd (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  17. Too long, not enough colours. Bit bland. Matthewedwards 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  18. As above Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Correct me if i am wrong, but this is the only submission that is set up like a normal page so that you can bookmark sections (I've never had to scroll down to see any section via the links at the top) --88wolfmaster (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alvaro qc[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. PolishName 14:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. --otherlleft (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support - I especially like the addition of the quote section. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. This one jumps out at me more than most of the others. I don't like the today's quote at the top, but with tweaking, this would be a good design. --Lendorien (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. I actually like the quote near the top (but it's perhaps too close). I support but recommend moving the "in the news" higher. —La Pianista (TCS) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Very nice. Today's Quote should probably be lowered a bit though. Other than that, and a few other tweaks, it looks really good! -Domthedude001 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. This is the only page I've seen that keeps all the features of the old page, and adds something new.SPNic (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Cool and futuristic, yet practical. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. I like it --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I think the right column is too big for the usefulness of its content. It makes "in the news" lower etc. when those things are IMO more useful than portals. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Nah, it's nice but again, we need more. iMatthew (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Don't like today's quote, especially so high up. Icons + curvy boxes = childish ≠ serious reliable reference source.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Right column seems a little too big, don't like the fact that the portals are pushed down below the quote. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. DYK/ITN etc. are promoted above each other in a list format. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. I think it's too 'colourful'. Chamal talk 13:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Design is too childish looking. Sister projects don't need to be so prominent. Kaldari (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sorry, but a bit too colourful! Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Add a search-box and I'll support it; as it is, I don't see even a link to one! —Tamfang (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. I'd prefer the news at the top. ReL_wiki
  11. Needs to look a little more professional, sorry (a little too colourful). The Helpful One Review 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Too gimmicky; icons overpower content. - Davodd (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. Round borders, icons. Round borders kill me; they add nothing, and confuse the eye. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. This page seems to be influenced a bit by the French or Spanish Wikipedias. I do like the colors and the inclusion of a short quote. I also like that Featured Picture is right under Featured Article. However, I think that is a bad placement for the quote. If the quote is always short, perhaps it would be better to place it along the top somehow. Also, the icons are too large in the Portal section and it seems like there's large portions of open space. This submission has some potential, but not as much as many other submissions. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Nice enough, but don't like the "Today's Quote". IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. I do not believe this represents the preferences of the people involved, however I think this can change when we are received by a larger population. Very well organized, colors are enticing and pleasing, section reorganization can be done following the RFC. It essentially follows the original instruction given at the beginning of the proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. I like how it looks, but lacks sufficient content. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Don't like the Quote, or the cartoony portal images, otherwise it's all right. Matthewedwards 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe[edit]

return to top

ChyranandChloe 2[edit]

return to top

Combined proposal (Scottydude)[edit]

return to top

CrazyChemGuy[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. Dudemanfellabra (talk)
  2. clean no waste space worth consideration Gnangarra 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Can work with this. iMatthew (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I like it! spider1224 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Anaxial (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Only flaw I see is the extra space at the top. Other than that, it's good. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I like this page except for the extra space at the top too. I like how this main page does exactly what a main page should do - (to be blunt...) cut the crap and cut to the chase. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. I like the design, and - personally - I prefer it with the searchbox. DendodgeTalkContribs 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. I like this design! :) I'm not much of a critic, I don't know how to appreciate this kind of thing. I simply thing that this design is one of the better ones by first impression. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Simple and clean. No unnecessary 'decorations'. Chamal talk 13:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. I like the title and is how it should be I think. However I think it could do with some graphic improvements and removing the unnecessary decorations in favor of more solid headers underneath Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Perfect! Although it would'nt hurt to drop the doubling of the search bar. :-) Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. I like it, clear and stragihtforward.Res2216firestar 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. I like this proposal. One thing, though. In the "Navigate wikipedia" section, Wikipedia needs to be capitalised because it is a proper noun. SpencerT♦C 20:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. First choice. Very slick, and includes all the info I'd like to see on the main page. shoy (reactions) 21:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. I think this is the only version which is better than the current main page, so I must support. It look good and is more accessible than the current version. Good job on the design! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  17. Very very nice. I'd like to see this as the Main Page for sure. -Domthedude001 23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  18. Simple, clean design, looks good. --Aude (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  19. Nice and concise. Good use of space. Randomblue (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  20. Clean design. I especially enjoy the seemingly 'effortless' use of simplicity and lack of wasted space --Flewis(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  21. I like how it has a simple and curvy feel without being too rounded or too simple Jon513 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Too much unused space compared to the current main page (on top and bottom of boxes). Also too much white IMO. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Too much whitespace in the top bar. A little too bright, also; the faded background image for each box title contributes to this. It'd be nice to have a CSS color rather than an image, for browsers who have images disabled (probably won't be many, but it will happen on mobile devices and such.) Gary King (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Not a badly put together proposal, but it doesn't solve anything. The layout is almost identical to the current, except moving portal links to the bottom of the page, and adding shiny headers. PretzelsTalk! 19:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Perhaps my ADD but just too busy to be useful. -- Banjeboi 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. The use of icons are distracting, the layout's asymmetry/symmetry transition is too jarring and both overpower the content. - Davodd (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Too much whitespace in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header, too much whitespace where the blue fades to white, too much whitespace at the portals. Matthewedwards 03:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Due to shiny headers, and the main header being too big and empty. It looks decent, with some streamlining it could be quite slick. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Where are the links to sister projects? Those are important. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. To simple, makes wikipedia look unofficial plus what about links to sister projects? -Marcusmax(speak) 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - too similar to current. Dislike the odd font, lack of sister projects, lack of intro. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Do we really need an extra search button front and center? I like the current design better. Grandmasterka 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. I find this too dense. Too much small type with thumb sizes pics. The impression it gives is that knowledge is difficult to digest and hard work. I think it will put people off having fun with Wikipedia. Lumos3 (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Streamlined reformation of the current mainpage. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. I could support this if the extra space at the top was removed. Do we really need two searchboxes? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. I do not think two search boxes are needed there. SoWhy 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra[edit]

return to top

Note: User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox2 contains a semi-update concerning some of the errors brought up in this discussion. I encourage you to take a look at it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. clean no wasted space Gnangarra 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. PolishName 14:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Love the colour scheme, nice use of space. IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Well done, and I love the header! Xenus (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I like it. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. No space wasted. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. This one is quite good! Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. I love it.Res2216firestar 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. A good update, adds slight more colour to provide guidance and emphasis, but not overdone. Gets my vote. :- chicgeek talk 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Very nice. I like the hint of colors. —La Pianista (TCS) 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Aesthetically pleasing - nice layout, good use of colours. --Flewis(talk) 08:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Calandrella (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I like evertyhing in this idea!

Oppose

  1. Really good, but there are a few better than this. Good job though. iMatthew (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Intro too wordy, abundance of childish icons. Need to scroll down to see TFA/ITN. Cenarium Talk 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Technically speaking, the rounded corners will not appear in all browsers; I think they only appear in Firefox? Which is less tha#n 50% of browsers. I think the main page should appear consistent across different platforms. Gary King (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    1. I can see the rounded boxes in IE7. SpencerT♦C 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I think the rounded boxes are a nice touch, but I think the icons are too cartoony. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Too much stuff at the top pushing featured articles and such down. That needs streamlined or moved down before this could be viable. Featured pictures section unable to handle panoramas. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    1. Just to clarify, the POTD can handle panoramas.. it allows the user to scroll across the panorama if it extends to more than the width of the box. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Icons look too unrealistic. Per GaryKing again, we need something that works on all browsers :) The Helpful One Review 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. over-use of icons and curved corners - like many other designs is over designed and gimmicky-looking. Use of pastel headers is of no apparent usefulness. - Davodd (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Nice, but the images are a bit too cartoony, and the small DYK text doesn't help those with WP:ACCESS issues. Matthewedwards 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Davodd exactly. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Bit too white bright for me, and I don't like the small text for Did You Know. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Wikipedia is pretty well known now, so we don't need to devote so much space near the top of the page to say what Wikipedia is. And, the rounded corners are totally unprofessional, making the Main Page appear one way in Firefox and another way (no rounded corners) in Internet Explorer, which a lot of people still use. --Aude (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. I don't support putting the portals above everything else. Grandmasterka 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. I find the portal and description boxes too long, they make TFA and ITN substantially lower. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 14:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. The corners need further consideration. Ie. Inner radius should be less than outer radius to provide an even border. :- chicgeek talk 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Showing the current time and date for UTC at the top, as well as the current number of English articles, is a great idea that I wish more designs had incorporated. Also, I love the section title "Today's Featured Media" in place of "Today's featured picture". It opens up that section for animation and featured sounds. However, this page feels a bit too busy. We don't need such a long section explaining Wikipedia and the portals section could be much better placed. Featured article should be featured higher on the page. The section "This Day in History" shows the current time again even though it's at the top of the page. In response to Spencer above, I am using IE 7 but I see square corners (not rounded). Overall, some nice ideas but not one of the potentially strongest redesigns. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm disappointed with your revised version, personally. Many of the aspects which made your initial design my top choice in the first place (corners, compact header, WhatisWiki box) are now distinctly absent. If your first design in some greater part is still being considered, it surely maintains my vote. - chicgeek talk 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

h2g2bob[edit]

return to top

Hereford[edit]

return to top

Highfields[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. Love the design, and that community box is amazing! DendodgeTalkContribs 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Like it all! spider1224 01:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. BrainMarble (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. --otherlleft (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. This is one of the better proposals. Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Best one so far.Res2216firestar 17:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Calandrella (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Like the beginning.

Oppose

  1. Childish icons, inappropriate inside jokes, etc. Looks very unprofessional. Cenarium Talk 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Too close to CrazyChemGuy's, and like Jennavecia and NickPenguin's, we only need one of the same idea. iMatthew (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Portal icons are too big. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Date should have a year, the portals are spaced weird and second row lacks appropriate icons (if the two lines are supposed to be together, then the spacing's gotta be fixed). - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'm sorry, but that top bar looks horrible, as does the FP presentation on a widescreen monitor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Too long, requires too much scrolling, Icons overpower content. Visually unattractive. - Davodd (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. The "absolutely" in "the free online encyclopedia that absolutely anyone can edit." would absolutely have to go. Looks incomplete. Where are the images for the Society, Art, Philosophy, Maths, Politics and Business portals? Too much whitespace around the image. Matthewedwards 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Too spaced, too clustered, just not even enough. —La Pianista (TCS) 03:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Do not like the main header (too empty), do not like the sub headers, do not like the portals. It adds little. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. The topic icons look like they are flying through the air Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Topic icons floating in space. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Too much empty white space, and it seems odd the topic icons are missing for some topics, but not others. And yes, they do look like they're floating. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. Too much white space, and portals are too big. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. I like the idea of providing an explanation of each of the Community links, but not really the ones that you have chosen. Less is more. Unfortunately, that idea is not integral to the design (it can be used in other designs) and therefore I can't justify supporting it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. This one is certainly the best I've seen so far, but I would relocate the portal icons, try to eliminate some of the whitespace and fix the topic boxes near the bottom where the text overruns the box. Grandmasterka 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia[edit]

return to top

Note: Until around 2:45am 28 October (UTC) the wrong version of my design was linked here. Some of the concerns raised below are not an issue in the current version of my design (grayscale color and typeface, for example), and some other issues noted here have now been addressed (portal list removed, for example, with the version with the list seen here).

Support

  1. dont like the fine lines in the header box, has definite potential. Gnangarra 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Update, I supported this prior to the error being identified the change doesnt have the fine lines in the header so continued support Gnangarra 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Definately can work with it. iMatthew (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. In addition to Cenarium's comments (below), the About Wikipedia needs to be moved to the side. No portals, and using the the Hoeflr typeface for anything but Welcome to Wikipedia looks a little odd (and isn't vertically centered in the box for me.) I like the potential for color--we're looking for something serious and simple but not austere. But it has enough potential that I want to keep it around.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    Update: I still don't like the serif typeface. I also favor portals and info about Wikipedia in some form, but there's lots of potential.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sprinkle some color and this is a serious competitor. Much better now, but what's with the random double line in the top box? It's a bit too distracting to be a separator. MER-C 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I really like this layout, only thing is that the stuff at the top should have less open space. Should also mention the language and the article count. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. I really like this design. It cuts to the chase with just the right amount of color and icons before it feels too cartoony to give off the wrong impression that Wikipedia's for babies... - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Don't like the portal links at the top but overall it's a nice design. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Looks okay. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Looks nice to me. VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Great design. I LOVE IT! Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Niiice! Xenus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Wonderful! Res2216firestar 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. I like it. I'm a sucker for color, would rather like to see each heading a slightly different color, not sure how I feel about the blue frames. But overall it has a lot of potential. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)s
  14. I really like this design. If the whitespace below ITN or DYK is a problem, more items could be added, I think. SpencerT♦C 20:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. I had no real opinion on this yesterday, but with the revisions, it's rather nice.Anaxial (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. I like it too. It's very hot and try to make round corners the it'll be über hot :) --Mixwell!Talk 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  17. I like the top, but the "bars" between the sections are a little bland, IMO. J.delanoygabsadds 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    EDIT I liked it better with the portal links/icons on the top. J.delanoygabsadds 06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  18. Great design! OSX (talkcontributions) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  19. Looks good - • The Giant Puffin • 10:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  20. This design is well-organized and looks professional. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 14:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  21. Great design :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Simple top of page looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC) moved vote to stay within limit of five
  23. Support I like. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support It srtikes a fine balance between traditional and modern.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Beautiful... Jonathan (talkcontribsam I wrong?) 12:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  26. Actually it has grown on me. Personally I'd rather a dark border than pale blue but it actually looks rather good overall. Why though is there no right hand border?? Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support I have to say that I like the small tabs on the portals and it's a change whilst retaining a subtle quality about it. An improvement whilst not being too flashy. BigHairRef | Talk 15:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  28. See comments below. While it is very similar to previously, it is a change all the same. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Those icons at the Portals section are a little distracting. macy 00:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Icons are kind of distracting, but they do add color to what is otherwise a fairly colorless page. Too much grayscale colors. I also don't like the box titles all in capital letters; words are easier to read when capitalized correctly. Gary King (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. This is almost there, but too much unused space at the top, and the too-saturated image of the puzzle pieces on the right of the header bars of each section are distracting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Overuse of unneeded icons ruins this for me. I like the colors, but with no visual focus, it leads to a very busy layout. In the end, not an improvement over current page. - Davodd (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Border style and colour choice seems possibly too casual and old fashioned for a dynamic site such as Wikipedia. I'd rather see the two columns independently 'push up', with any inevitable whitespace at the bottom instead of halfway up the page. Whitespace in header is distracting, especially viewed widescreen and could be used for good! :- chicgeek talk 00:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    If this design is adopted, there will be no whitespace in the middle of the layout. DYK and ITN would be rotated with enough bullets to fill the space as is done with the current design. As for the whitespace in the header, I'll work on changing it, possible more like what the current header looks like as far as icon distribution. لennavecia 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Too similar to current layout, and lack of intro. Not particularly user/reader friendly. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Consensus was against the intro. The rest of your comment needs clarification. How is it not user/reader friendly? لennavecia 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm thinking for readers. It doesn't really say a lot about Wikipedia (I understand if people don't want an intro, but I think there should be something.) See for example this design, which I supported. Lots of useful links. Plus, I feel it's too similar to the current design. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh in my comment; your work on this is of course very much appreciated! It's just not for me. Hope this clarifies. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't realize I'd left out those links. I've added them. لennavecia 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree about the intro. Most regular wikipedia users would find it highly irritating to keep reading what wikpiedia is on the main page of an encyclopedia which is known by millions of people. Everywhere you look is "The Free Encyclopedia" so this is an effective summary in my view. Besides this the word "Wikipedia" will be linked so anybody in the chance they might have have there head sin the clouds on the web and had never heard of wikipedia it is linked plainly for them. I'd be more concerned about portal/topical navigation links Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know about you, but I rarely actually look at the main page. I think the main page is more for readers than for regular editors. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    Switching to support, now that my main concern is addressed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Don't like the thick blue borders around everything, which is too bold. Meanwhile, the background colors in the section headings are too faint. Also, don't like how the DYK and anniversaries boxes all line up. A much simpler, clean design is needed. --Aude (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. DYK hides content improperly in IE7 Hazelorb (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Childish icons, intro too wordy, but not enough to oppose at this stage. Cenarium Talk 17:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. I liked it more with the portal icons. Currently the header is too big imho with not much information offered in return SoWhy 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    The option with the portal links is linked above. Greater input from the community is needed for it. Some people say it shouldn't be there at all, some say without icons, others (like you) like it the way I had it. So it's not gone forever, necessarily, just depends on what is ultimately decided. This poll just determines potential, really, then we'll take the best from each remaining design and attempt to create a design that will please everyone... ya know, as close as possible. :p لennavecia 12:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Use a grey border rather than a pale blue and I'd support. The layout and title design is excellent, I;d suggest though changing the colours to a grey border and possibly a light blue for the headers rather than beige. At present it looks too feminine, but that is understandable!. Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Gray was pretty much overwhelmingly shot down. I'll test gray with blue, though. I didn't think about that. لennavecia 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    I would also suggest lowering the font size of "Welcome to" and largening the "Wikipedia" word slightly and possibly placing a break between Welcome to and Wikipedia. The layout and color underneath has actually grown on me now except for the pale blue border which I'd change to a slate grey/charcoal color. Just needs a bit of playing round with the main title section to perfect it Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Nice. A bit too pretty, though, but my favourite so far. Matthewedwards 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. This design has potential - I like the spacing, but the clipped wikiglobes in each section's header are distracting from a graphic design standpoint.Dialectric (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I don't like the icons, I don't like the blue borders that much, and the lines in the header are weird. I do like the general layout. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm confused. Which version are you viewing? The current version is the one linked to the section title, it does not include the icons or the lines in the header. :/ لennavecia 12:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, never mind, I'm dumb. I'm not particularly fond of the whitespace in the header (or the choice of fonts/colours, but that can easily be changed), but otherwise it is nice. Not sure whether or not I want to +support it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    No problem. I'm going to get with Krimpet and see about tweaking the header. Perhaps moving the text to the left and adding the portals to the right, as it is on the current main page. I think that would please many, as this is something that several people have brought up. Thanks. لennavecia 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kollision2[edit]

return to top

MindstormsKid[edit]

return to top

MindstormsKid 2[edit]

return to top

NickPenguin[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. essentially the same as Jennavecia version, same issue about lines in the header box Gnangarra 17:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. PolishName 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. BrainMarble (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Looks okay to me. But the overuse of the serif font is a little too "antiquated," if that is the right word. —La Pianista (TCS) 03:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I really like this design. It's the best, IMO, of them all. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. Gray is in tune with the navigation bar and you seem to have simplified the content on the page bottom. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Calandrella (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Looks profesional.
  8. Very classic colors and box structures, but too many topics under welcome to wikipedia --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Same as Jennavecia, those icons at the Portals section are a little distracting. —macy 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. This isn't against NickPenguin or for Jennavecia, but we only need one of these designs. iMatthew (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Horizontal scrolling.Anaxial (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree with above. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Uh... Another Lara design in gray I guess? - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. The same as Jennavecia's design. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. - Sloan is back!! (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Do not care for the top menu - looks messy. The use of color for no reason is a drawback, too. - Davodd (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. I agree. Top menu is excessively bloated and unattractive Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sorry, I prefer Jennavecia's version. Xenus (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. The top menu is a waste of space compared to current main page. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. The top is overloaded with links. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. The thick borders work so well, and making the DYK and anniversaries boxes line up doesn't look right. Something cleaner and simpler is needed for the main page. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Looks like Jennavecia's, but in grayer (subtler, professional-er?) colours, like the use of the Wikipedia font. Matthewedwards 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretzels[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. Dudemanfellabra (talk)
  2. Scottydude talk 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. --Maniacgeorge (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)- a really exciting proposal
  4. Nice work. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. bold, Gnangarra 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Randomblue (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. iMatthew (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Excellent. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. BrainMarble (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. WOW! I really like how this design just stood out. Bravo! This one's awesome. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. --Shahab (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Great! Mario1987 10:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. Nice and clean. I like it! RockManQ (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. The only addition I'd like to see is the book design in the title like Highfields and Chem's version and temove some of the icons at the top in favour of full header strips instead. What about Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Dr. Blofeld? Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. I like having a design that is outside the box. All the other designs are just rehashing what we already have. Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support I like this design the most out of the candidates that include what I feel is the most important improvement to the new design, a search box at the very top of the page. --Strikerforce (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  17. I like it. The only thing I would add is giving the DYK section the spot next to TFA. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - looks good but too much whitespace to the right of ITN, DYK etc. JMiall 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  19. Ditch the icons - they are distracting. - Davodd (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  20. Fantastique! Only one suggestion - shrink the icons by a few px. —La Pianista (TCS) 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  21. See comments section. I don't know; as I look at it again, I grow more positive feeling towards it. There is room for improvement yet, but I'm enjoying it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  22. What I've always wanted to see. Chubbennaitor 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  23. Aye: As per my comments below. could we also get rid of the navigation pane on the right? That would really set us apart from other wikipedia.a similar format on all pages would bring welcome consistency. Kushal (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    With only that change, this. I don't know. It looks quite nice, but having a one column layout makes it a bit spartan. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  24. Excellent! – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Hate to be the first one to oppose, but I just feel this should not be the Main Page design for Wikipedia. I find it unattractive, and it might not attract others to visit Wikipedia more often. Also, no Did you know? Did you know is a rather popular section that gives interesting facts to readers of the Main Page. This makes me have to oppose. – RyanCross (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    Hey Ryan, just letting you know that Pretzel's been working to get DYK in, so it'll be in soon. iMatthew (talk)
    Thanks, but I still think this is unattractive. – RyanCross (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    YesY Done Did you know is now included. I'm sorry you find the design unattractive. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make it work for you. PretzelsTalk! 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ehhh...more or less well done, but the headers seem to be annoying to me. If given choice between existing Main Page and this one, would select existing. IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Arbitrary difference between TFA, POTD, ITN/OTD, and non-existent DYK. Overboard on icons. And a donate button - we don't need to abase ourselves by asking for money as we're trying to put out a good first impression.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    I don't fully understand your first sentence, but DYK is now included. Is the donate box really a reason to oppose the entire proposal? Other proposals have donate links / text. PretzelsTalk! 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    Why is TFA in a grey box (and not a standard template), the middle three are formatted one way, and the FP has a larger typeface? I oppose anything with a donate button or icons (at least to the extent that they are integral to the design, which I suppose they aren't). I find 88wolfmaster's design to be just as simple, yet has jump-to navigation and better link and icon control - at least potentially. I feel both ideas will need a little more color, though.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    The sections are formatted differently to break up the page. Visitors to the current main page just get a wall of text, all the same size, no visual hierarchy to follow. Using different sizes and borders prioritises our content and gives the user a path to lead their eye down the page. As for the donation button, it's an interesting idea to think about. Some would argue we should be more proud of the fact the site is ad-free. Thanks for your thoughts. PretzelsTalk! 03:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that the wall of text is not desirable. However, "Best of Wikipedia" makes no mention that you are specifically talking about articles. It doesn't use a dynamically updating template, and Featured Pictures are at the bottom of the page in an arbitrarily different format (bigger typeface, centered) from the previous three sections, imply that they are not Wikipedia's Best. Also, that particular template does not have "Recently Featured" links. The icon for FP focuses too much on the brush; it's used fittingly at {{RetouchedPicture}} but does not belong here. The Featured Star is used with articles, again implying that they are the only type of featured content. Some of the other icons are better but I'd like their number reduced to almost nothing. Other issues less integral to the design: I'm willing to let the donate button pass for now so it can be properly debated (and hopefully rejected) later. The portal icons are often too small to discern if you've never seen them at high rez, and may be biased. (Socrates for Philosophy and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for Religion both imply a Western slant.) I prefer grouping portals (though not with the exact execution of that design, which still includes icons and probably has too much geography). Also consider your links are meant to face the reader, not the contributor (that's what WP:CP is for). Welcome to Wikipedia makes the immediate assumption that the reader is an editor, implying that we expect all reader to contribute (which would be nice, but isn't true). One final comment: one of things I like about the current design is that it uses different formatting for dynamic (changing) and static (permanent) content. See if you can differentiate those, and keep features on the same side of that divide tied together.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    YesY DoneBest of Wikipedia -> Featured article
    YesY DoneToday's featured picture now matches other sections, icon changed
    YesY DoneFeatured star removed twice, now only used on Featured article
    YesY DoneWelcome to Wikipedia makes no assumption they are an editor, it introduces them to the concepts behind the project
    YesY Done Cut down on icons - PretzelsTalk! 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    (Un-indent) Your heart is in the right place, but it's not quite what i had in mind. The new FP icon is better but still not really very good; there's only one FP but two images in the icon. (Can we get the previous one without the paintbrush?) The Featured Star for srticles still implies that only articles can be featured. For this reason I oppose the icons for the subsections, and portals for reasons described above. I was actually OK with the header ones you removed. Welcome to Wikipedia served a useful job as it was; what I meant was change the link to, say, Wikipedia: Introduction or Wikipedia: About. Previously featured lists are a good thing; put them back and add them to FPs. FA still does not use an auto-updating template. Positives: I like the consistent formatting for FP (though I'm still not sure why FA gets special attention) and Featured Article header. Don't just try to pander to my ideas - read them, digest them, improve them, implement them.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the best FP icon I could find. It's not that important just now.
    • "The Featured Star for articles still implies that only articles can be featured." — that's why I had the featured section called "Best of Wikipedia". Also note the link "more featured content"
    • There is a link to Wikipedia:About. Any more newbie links would be overkill.
    • Previously featured is irrelevant old content, accessible by the More links anyhow.
    • More icons will be removed soon, it just needs careful thought and I won't rush it.
    • The page doesn't auto-update because there are only the current templates for each section, which I have redesigned as part of redesigning the page.
    • FA gets special attention as aforementioned, the page needs hierarchy or it's alphabet soup all round. PretzelsTalk! 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'll give you a reprieve on the icons so you can figure out what's what. A core issue is that you're modifying the templates. That's not necessarily as bad thing, but I personally do not agree with the removal of previously featured links or the new format of FA. (I have always found it annoying to have to scroll over the image for the caption, but the box handles it too clumsily.) The other fundamental difference is that insist that FA deserves special treatment. I agree only so much as it should be placed prominently, but it does not deserve special formatting. (Are you a regular at FAC, by any chance?) I personally frequent FPC, while I'm still placing it low down on the page, we need to let all our featured content shine. I'd support some way to allow featured sounds, lists, topics, and portals a chance to be on the main page, provided there was enough content and reasonable groupings (a topic or a list a day?), if someone would champion the cause. I also think that your portals should be grouped, "New Users" should target "New Readers," and the donation button needs to be gone. But those aren't integral to the design. Ultimately, I think we've hit a basic difference of opinion. I suggest - as your edit summary says - "sticking to your guns" while I'll look elsewhere. Thank you for patience and consideration.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Too simple, too much whitespace at the bottom Gary King (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    YesY Done There should be no whitespace issues now DYK is in place. Many thanks PretzelsTalk! 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Xenus (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Per HereToHelp.
  6. I think this mainly shows the fissures in preference between the two of us. The POTD is centered leaving blanks space at 1280 and above. The "ABC" icon in the header makes us look very childish. The search bar is essentially redundant and unaesthetic. In icons, I would sit in the middle. Donate isn't a bad choice in design, but it would have implications that can reflect badly on us. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I really, really don't like the way the featured article is handled on this one. "Best of Wikipedia" sounds a bit... I dunno, wrong. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Fair point. I've reverted this to Featured article. Hope this addresses your concern, PretzelsTalk! 09:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. ITN/DYK/OTD/FP are promoted above each other in a list format. There should be two sections beside each other, similar to the current main page. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Why? Many people have argued correctly that the two even column format does not work well on smaller screens / mobile devices, and this would be a more sensible option. PretzelsTalk! 09:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Far far too colourful! Really not happy with the icons. Sorry! Sloan is back!! (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    What would you say to something like Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Dr. Blofeld without the icons? Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry Blofeld, I don't really like lenth of yours. Everyones designs are very creative though, it's been really interesting to see the many different ways we can have the main page! :-) Sloan is back!! (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. In general I appreciate the generous spacing, it perhaps can be reduced slightly? And I too, object to the font size different for the FA. (Additional concerns about rendering in Google Chrome relocated to comments section, addressed and repaired.) :- chicgeek talk 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Bland and boring. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. The WMF projects section is too boring. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. The contents and A-Z index icons don't look right, against the background. Also, there is a huge amount of white space at the bottom of the page, making the page look odd, as well as requiring too much scrolling to see all the features. The way that the current main page, and some of the other designs here, have FA, DYK, anniversaries, and news in two columns, makes better use of the space on the main page. --Aude (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. Sorry, but I think it is way to big letter size, "Featured article" is named "Best of Wikipedia" (instead of "Featured article"), the design is quite... childish, I do not really know, but I think that this not is a good front page to an encyclopedia.... Too much color. Calandrella (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Screenshot version looks a lot better, but I like the total revamp aspect of this design. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Childish icons, ITN too low, unneeded links. Not enough to oppose at this stage, though. Cenarium Talk 17:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    1. What's wrong with childish icons? I love them. Kushal (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. In this proposal at present, the picture in the DYK extends below the grey line denoting the next section. This is a small error, but you should probably look into getting that fixed. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    1. The problem is now solved. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I absolutely love the childish nature of the new home page. Well, I like pretty much everything except for the font and font size of the featured article. Could you reconsider that, Pretzel? (BTW, I have to remind you that I am just one person and might be wrong. You might not need to worry about my whining.) Oh one more thing, how does the new page compare on low-bandwidth users like dial-up? While we are at it, could we consider automatically detecting the bandwidth of the transmission and sending bandwidth hogging stuff only to people who either ask for it or to people who we know have high bandwidth. Kushal (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I am almost ready to say "Support". The wider community needs to see this (Image version). I like the idea of a total revamp. Of course, we might not be able to do it right away, but the design [1] is very good! My only concern now is how it handles dial-up and other low-bandwidth users. Pretzel, is there a way we can find out how the loading speed of the is going to look like on 48 to 52 kbps dial-up? Thanks. Kushal (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think you need to really worry about loading speeds yet :) the code is a work in progress so is messy and not optimized, so a test would be unfair anyway. Also, icons would likely be combined into a sprite to save HTTP requests. Nevertheless, don't concern yourself with technical issues atm. PretzelsTalk! 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Seems to be a rendering problem in Google Chrome, with far too much whitespace on the left of the right sidebar. (FF produces same result as screenshot provided.) Seems to be a rendering error, though perhaps other browsers emulate this exaggerated margin? Maybe take this to browsershots for a test run and troubleshooting.  :- chicgeek talk 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm working on it. PretzelsTalk!
     Done This is fixed now. PretzelsTalk! 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I'm almost ready to support this. It looks really cool and nice under Featured articles. I just think that, however, that the banner is a bit childish, and the Featured articles part isn't looking too good. --Domthedude001 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. I like the large images and it looks good in thumbnail form. I think the icons are a major problem. In the header, they're a problem because they're placed on top of a graphic. In the sidebar, they're too bright and distracting. And I agree with the above comments that FA styles shouldn't differ from the rest Dialectric (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Is "Best of Wikipedia" going to rotate between all the Featured content? I'd like that. I think the overall design is too vertical though Matthewedwards 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. It needs cleaning. Namely, I hate the header bar. A couple proposals here have it closer; I really don't mind the way it is now on the actual main page - small, simply, useful, and without the awful background image. The FA box stands out far too much, with overly fat borders that don't fit in well with the overall minimalism. Otherwise the design is pretty dang agreeable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Pretzels/Etc is kind of what I'm talking about here. The general idea at least. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    I love the header bar. I don't understand why you would vote to have it removed. Kushal (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Having looked at it now, while actually awake, I can now say with certainty that I don't know why. I actually like it. The layout may be a bit overly vertical, and I'm not sure about the icons in the header or the search bar in there, but overall I like it. Adding a +support. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Imho, without the icons and search bar it looks nicer. That may just be me. Not sure what can be done about the verticality. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. The images don't appear aligned or even more or less equally sized on my computer (Mac+Safari, latest versions). Randomblue (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Curious, Safari renders it fine for me. Which images? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    All of them actually. The storm picture is too low, so all the ones below are also too low (the lines cross the pictures).Randomblue (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Weird. Any peculiar settings? I'm seeing it as [2], and resizing the window/text doesn't change it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Problem persists. Look at screenshot here [3]. Randomblue (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. Boring, donate button looks stupid and out-of-place — Wikipedia is not a charity. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    Wikimedia is. PretzelsTalk! 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. The donate button is out of place on mine. Nearly all the space to the left of it is white space. I also don't like the double horizontal lines near the bottom. Perhaps a slightly thicker horizontal line would work, if that is possible. Psychless 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RyRy 2[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. a format that works well, could change to this by being bold no need for a RFC Gnangarra 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Love it ;) iMatthew (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Me like! I like this design better than my own. Xenus (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I like the colour scheme. It doesn't distract you from reading the page and does not appear childish, even though a lot of colours are used. Chamal talk 13:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Really good! Basically just an updated version of the current main page. Which is all it needs really :-) Sloan is back!! (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Simple, looks good. --Aude (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I like the changes. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. Nice work. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Header is too bloated; exacerbates the current problem of link overload. The reason the stuff below the POTD isn't in boxes is to emphasize its lesser importance and static (nonchanging) nature.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. As it's almost an exact copy of the current main page, I am forced to compare the two. I like the current main page better, primarily because the top is longer in this one. Gary King (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Horizontal scrolling.Anaxial (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I too like the current Main Page better. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Again, I think the colored bars are distracting. Sorry. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sorry, I like the current main page better, which is nothing against this design as I actually like the current MP better than every other suggestion on this page ... ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Too similar to main page, and the main page wins out. RockManQ (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sorry, but no. This is too similar in colour and design to the current main page. (And I'd hate having to scroll to see ITN). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Too similar to the current main page! The Helpful One Review 22:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Too similar. We need something fresh. —La Pianista (TCS) 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Not exactly the most ambitious change is it? Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. There's not much point in changing if it's as minor as this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. I could barely tell the differences. The main page needs a bit more redesign than this. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. I don't really see that much of a difference between that and the current main page. Garden. 06:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RyRy 2/About. – RyanCross (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. ITN not immediately visible. It's a deal breaker for me as it would dramatically reduce the visibility of articles related to current events and considerably reduce the number of visitors in the long term. Inversing ITN and DYK would solve this. I won't oppose at this stage, though. Cenarium Talk 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
     Done Thank you for your comments, Cenarium. – RyanCross (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Need to tone down the vibrancy of the pastel colors a little - it looks like the Spirit of Easter threw up on an otherwise strong design. - Davodd (talk)
  4. Don't see much difference. I see that at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/RyRy 2/About you had DYK displayed more prominently than ITN. I would have liked this. There's Wikinews for news stuff. Matthewedwards 03:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottydude[edit]

return to top

Wintran[edit]

return to top

Support

  1. I liked this one the best. The only thing I wish it had is a brief "About" section at the top. I also think that one featured picture is enough, and that there should be more emphasis on articles than pictures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. many good features, inc 2xFA and multiple images in TFP box(though size of box concern) Gnangarra 17:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Great use of space, and good cuts of material that isn't that useful. But see my comment lower. Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Header needs some work, but I like the featured pictures and in the news sections. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Randomblue (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Very clean, well organized, love the use of lots of pictures. This is definitely my favorite design. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. Switched from oppose. Sloan is back!! (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. This design is by far the best. The header immediately presents the reader to a clean search interface, and having dates on the "In the News" section is essential. I love how "Wintran 8" shows recently featured pictures by a thumbnail image instead of by title or date. This is piquing the reader's interest. In my opinion, the FA box needs more content, but that's just a small thing. Great design! Mac Davis (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. This has a lightness and sense of balance about it. I like the range of picture sizes and the prominence given to other projects at the foot. Lumos3 (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. While I still like the current main page the most, I agree with Lumos3 in that it has lots of balance. Jock Boy (t-c) 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. very visually interesting. - Davodd (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. I like the direction this is taking the front page in, though its not there yet. The dated news looks much better than the current, and the double search makes sense to me. Dialectric (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. You had me with the clean dates - MDCore (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  14. I like the simplicity and how this blends the sections together to keep it short. the pictures also look good and the search at the top makes it easy to find out where to find stuff Mikeboatlake 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  15. I'm not completely sold but I do think this design has potential and would like to see it move forward. My favorite parts of this design are the recent featured photos; streamlining the page into one long green, one long blue, and the purple boxes; and adding dates to In the News. I prefer the ITN date system in version 8 over version 11, especially now that ITN is on top of adding something every day. However, version 11 does include the six links and number of articles in the top right corner to help with the white space issue. Could the six links' bullets be lined into two columns instead of zig-zagging? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    Additional comment: one of the things I'm not sold on is having two Featured Articles. The idea of two different FAs to draw attention is interesting, but I think the longer introduction for one FA works better to draw folks into the articles. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comments and support. Yes, you're right that version 8 news date placement makes more sense than version 11 if we generally see no more than one news item added per day. The six bullet links in v11 should look better now (was a bug in IE). How do you like version 11's FA layout compared to version 8? I've included more article content in it. I personally don't think reducing the length of the FA summary (say, by 50%, as in v11) will reduce the number of FA readers. Rather the opposite: The point of displaying FAs on the Main Page is not to make people stay on the Main Page and read them there, but to catch their interest so they visit the article itself. Too much text at once risks detracting user interest, as it'll make visitors less likely to begin reading the FA summary at all (because it feels too "heavy"), especially by users not attracted by the FA topic at first glance. I believe this is the case with the current Main Page. I've also enlarged the links to the FAs and made them into headers, to catch more visitors (current link is easily missed by hasty and unexperienced visitors). By presenting two FAs on the main page we also reach a wider audience as those articles together will cover a wider range of topics. - Wintran (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  16. I don't like the more than one featured article but I like most of the design... I like the general layout. I still prefer the current main page but this is the best one offeredRedSkunktalk 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Compared to the current main page, this one is a step back. iMatthew (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm a little worried on how this design's balance will go when the sections are actually updated when it reaches the Main Page. DYK would get less hooks then it normally would. The sections should really be even. Also, I think the FA section should explain more about one article more rather than a few sentences of it. – RyanCross (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment. Check out this variation for a possible improvement to include more sentences from the multiple FAs, to show the potential of this idea. Not sure I agree about the balancing issue; how would updating be a problem? I've purposefully moved down DYK in favor of POTD. The exact size and number of items in DYK and On this day could of course be tweaked easily. - Wintran (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Too much distraction, like more than one featured article and picture. The dates for each individual day is unnecessary; I think it's better to say that these are "recent" events rather than these events happened on a particular day. Especially when a lot of the events span more than one day. Gary King (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. News notices without dates are confusing, it's really standard with dates on news items on the web today, and most people expect to see that. An event spanning over multiple days are generally connected to the event's starting day. Check out this variation for another way of displaying the dates. About distraction, I personally find the current Main Page's FA with redundant content and misleading linking (it's easy to miss the link to the main article in the sea of wiki-links, which is also true for ITN, DYK and OTD) more distracting than my two FAs or POTDs. In addition, this variation also moves the FA-image to the right side, to remove it as yet another misleading element (people clicking on the image expecting to be sent to the FA, but are sent to the image instead). Of course, I respect your opinion if you don't agree. - Wintran (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. We only need one featured article; and the current placement of POTD could cause problems with panaramas. Columns are unbalanced, and will shift dramatically daily. Also needs some info about Wikipedia - you could use this to offset the columns, but I prefer different formatting for static and dynamic material.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why would the balance of the columns on this design shift more daily than on the current Main Page? Panoramas, however, are a problem, and I believe we'll have to make a decision on how important they are compared to the possibility to move POTD up on the page and reduce the width of its box (100% is used on the current Main Page which I personally find problematic). I've experimented with a welcome text before, but decided to continue without it as I believe its disadvantages outweighs its advantages, considering that most people today already know what Wikipedia is about (just as Google doesn't need a welcome text). - Wintran (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. POTD too small. MER-C 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still larger than the standard POTD of the current main page. Can be made bigger. - Wintran (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ...except when you get landscape/panorama images. In area terms the box is less than three-quarters of the size of the one currently on the main page, yet you pack more in there. MER-C 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. FA article now looks insignificant. Too much space at the top. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. While I like how this design uses the space and cut some of the stuff that wasn't working out too well, I think it takes the focus off of the Wikipedia being an encyclopedia with squeezing two FAs into an already squished FA box (I love the idea though). Featured image gallery is awesome, but I wouldn't mind that being on Commons as much. Also, "In the news" has almost twice the space as FA does, but that's what WikiNews is for... All in all, I liked the idea, but the layout needs work. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 04:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. DYK is at the bottom of the page, rather than equal with ITN or OTD. Also don't like having two FAs as it detracts from the recognition of both articles. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Don't really need two search bars do we! Sloan is back!! (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course we do :) Until we move the current search bar someplace much more visible I find it necessary to include a clearly visible search bar on the Main Page. I believe it's the Main Page's most important function as most new users visit the Main Page in order to search for a topic. I've talked to many people who said it was hard to find the search bar and I don't think the duplication itself is as harmful as some make it sound. It hurts a lot more if people are unable or delayed in finding articles on Wikipedia. - Wintran (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm, I never looked at it like that. Thats a very good argument Wintran! Since that was my only real issue with your otherwise very good design, i'm going to switch to support! Sloan is back!! (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. Position of the start bar, etc. I don't see any improvement from the existing start page. It's less concise. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. I like the header. However too many images and no details on article count or any other useful navigation links Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  11. Too basic. Don't like lack of info. Two FAs seems a bit odd. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  12. I like that the design isn't radically different than what we have now, but there is too much white space at the top of the page. Also, I'm not thrilled with two featured articles, as they are presented here. --Aude (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  13. I feel this design to be a step back on the one it is based on. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Two or more featured articles is a great idea which I support. Some of the white space in the top heading needs to come out (top of page is too valuable to have much empty space even though it looks nice on paper). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. I think the "navigation" should be kept at least in part, I also think a short description ok wikipedia woulb be good. In other word a header that would be more like the current one, but with less portals and more navigation (see Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/MindstormsKid (2) but I would prefer on the same line as the "main title" (i.e. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Pro bug catcher (talkcontribs). 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Wintran 11 - A variation dealing with some of the issues mentioned above, just to show that my design's main features (multiple FAs, dates on news, less misleading linking and clearly visible Google-like search) are flexible and have room for improvements. - Wintran (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. I actually like the idea but not if it is missing article count and basic navigation like index etc. I would advise you only have one featured article too. What were you thinking? Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. I like having more than 1 featured article, the rest of the design I'm not so keen on, so neither support or oppose overall. JMiall 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. An interesting idea, having two FAs, but how about making one of them a FL? I like having ITN datestamped. Also like seeing previous Todays featured images, rather than just a link, and having all the Featured stuff together. Don't like that DYK section is reduced. Matthewedwards 03:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wintran 2[edit]

return to top

General comments[edit]

Comment from Jc37[edit]

These are so diverse, and yet each has something positive (and negative).
I find myself in a contradiction of opinion.
First: I like the vertical listings of the sister projects. (However, I'm not sure if perhaps having a "small column" which is semi-reciprocal to the sidebar just makes the page look "busy".)
But on the other hand, I like the 4-square versions. (I like Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/Highfields the best of those.)
I wonder if we could have a "4-square version", but below that, have the reciprocal right-side-bar. - jc37 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi jc37! Thanks for your thoughts. The top five proposals from this stage will be combined and worked on, so it would be in your interests to Support the proposals with features you mentioned. Best wishes, PretzelsTalk! 10:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note.
Last I checked, while straw polls may supplement consensus, they shouldn't replace it.
So, I am happy to allow whomever closes this to please take my comments here into consideration concerning the above.
Incidentally, I also like the "headers" which appear in several versions above (including Highfields and CrazyChemGuy). - jc37 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question from Sloan[edit]

Is there an option to keep the main page as it is? Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi John, at this stage we are just narrowing down the possibilities for replacement. When we have settled on one definite proposed design, that will go to a vote against the Main Page. Updating the Main Page has been discussed at length before this proposal was started and there are many strong arguments for an update - see the archives of Wikipedia talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal if interested. Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Pretzels :-) Sloan is back!! (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Dr. Bloefeld[edit]

What is clear about virtually all of these proposals is that there is consensus to boost the title "Wikipedia" and the main header which I'm sure many will agree has been too small for such a long time. Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tamfang[edit]

I oppose any design without a search box near the top. —Tamfang (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, why would we need two search boxes? Sloan is back!! (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
A second search bar was pretty much shot down. The images of the designs do not include the sidebar, but it will remain with the searchbar near the top, under navigation. لennavecia 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanket oppose from DS[edit]

I oppose all these designs because they're all based on the Monobook skin, which is ugly. I like Classic. These are all worthless. DS (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I tested my design in various skins and it doesn't change. In fact, the Classic skin has a beige background which is very similar to the color used in my design. I think it looks quite nice, and your comment here is unnecessarily rude considering the work that so many have put into their designs. لennavecia 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Question from Banaticus[edit]

None of the designs seem to feature a sidebar. Does this mean that the sidebar (including the search box and the wikipedia title/logo) are being removed in every design or that every design is taking it for granted that the sidebar will remain? Thanks. Banaticus (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the screenshots are just of the page design. The sidebar will remain as normal. Instead of the image, try viewing the actual proposal; this will give you a better idea of what it would look like in the Wikipedia sidebar. PretzelsTalk! 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The only major difference between the proposal pages and what it will look like on the main page is the background color. Project pages have that odd bluish background. The main page has a white background. لennavecia 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Jamesontai[edit]

I think everyone who attempted this did a great job testing out innovative ideas. I think what we need to focus is combining what we like about these designs and figure out how to make the page aesthetically appeasing without making Wikipedia seem like it's for pre-schoolers. I'd stress on elegance, conciseness, good whitespace usage, and no overpowering icons. I like Pretzel's idea, but I would really like to see a combination of Jennavecia's content layout in Pretzel's design, but with Pretzel's right column merged into the left navi-bar instead. "Info for new users", etc links are already in the toolbox or interaction. A simple merge of these links would suffice. I may need to do some coding of my own to show what I'm talking about. Perhaps after class I'll see what I can whip up. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your comment, that's actually the plan. The top five designs from this poll will move on. The positive and negative aspects from each will be discussed and one or two designs will be created based on what the community most likes. Then that one (or those two) designs will go against the main page. لennavecia 20:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Fmmarianicolon[edit]

I am confused because I see only eight designs, but they are followed by approximatley 20 proposal comment sections. I just found out about this RFC so I probably missed something. Are we just discussing the eight designs shown or should the other designs be here? -fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

12 designs have been eliminated. If you're new to commenting, comment on the eight remaining proposals. Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
People are still commenting on the original group of designs at Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Could / Should we surround those conversations with "This discussion is archived" boxes like the ones used at old RFAs? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My opinion on this would be to possibly put something to indicate that each of those designs has been eliminated, however, I think discussion should be allowed to continue as valuable information may be added that would help in the construction of the future collaborative designs. لennavecia 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from ChyranandChloe[edit]

Please do not achieve anymore proposals. Declaring that a proposal will not make it is: speculative and presumptuous — it it does not reflect any specific consensus and is no longer in alignment with WP:SNOW (see discussion). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I replied on your talk page, I've used the formula "Support - Oppose =" the ones I have archives have been -4 or less. I originally archived per WP:SNOW with the proposals that had zero support and four or five oppose after the poll had been open for a few days. Otherwise, that's the formula I use. iMatthew (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Open and closed[edit]

Yesterday when I voted I noticed some closed discussions with approximately as much support as one that was open. So I wonder who closed them--I had assumed the editor making the proposal did. No? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew closed them. If one proposal had 4 supports and 9 opposes while another had 4 supports and 5 opposes, the former would be closed while the latter remained open. لennavecia 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments about formats[edit]

Will we also have the option of voting for the current format? I really like the current format better than these proposals, except that I liked the idea of showing two featured articles in a shorter format, like the last proposal. Also, I think that the logos of the sister projects could be smaller, and the stuff in the last couple of inches of the current format (about the language versions) should be minimized/simplified. However, the current format shows all of the information in a more efficient way than most of these proposals. I felt strongly that the side-by side (two column) approach is much better than stacking the sections one on top of the other. I also think that there should be lots more emphasis on articles than on pictures. I liked the idea of having a brief "About" section at the top. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We're narrowing down these proposals and getting comments, such as you've just provided, to then take the best aspects from the top five designs to create one or two options to go against the main page in a final community poll. This poll is basically to determine potential. لennavecia 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are these skin-specific?[edit]

Some of us (okay, me for sure & maybe one or two others) are not using the default skin. To be specific, I'm using the Classic skin. How do these redesigns look under other skins -- or will the rest of us not see any difference? -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All skins were optimized for Monobook because it is not only the most widely used skin but, more importantly, it is the default skin and the only skin for non-registered users. However, all designs should also look good in all other skins, in all browsers, and in all resolutions. That said, if you view the actual design pages (by clicking the username in the respective section headers) it will display in your skin. How it looks there is how it will look if put on the main page. If you see issues with any given design in the skin you use, if you can screenshot it and link the image to the designer, it is possible that issues can be resolved to display properly in all skins. لennavecia 01:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.