Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal/Pretzels

Text overlap, and other comments

• "Overview · Editing · Questions · Help" Overlaps with the "explore" box.
• I think you font choice is excellent, I like the simplicity of this page and the notion of expelling what the site is in a paragraph.
• Most people including myself do not want to se a search box in two places on the main page.

futurebird (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

I'm not trying to be mean; pretend this was an FAC :D.

• Far too much whitespace at the top, and not enough in the middle. Either you're trying to be minimalist, or you're not.
• No design which omits TFA and DYK is likely to gain consensus - there is simply too much support for those processes. TFA in particular, I would say, is an integral part of our culture.

My mistake. I did not intend to omit TFA at all, I actually mistook it for Today's Featured Picture =0 embarrassing. Apologies. The idea of the dated section is to merge In the news and On this day, along with any general Wikipedia notices.Pretzels^chatters 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've yet to actually see a modern consensus against the second search box, so don't take that too seriously until we actually have concrete evidence that it is still opposed today.
• The links at the top are probably too small for users with poor vision, and get very widely separated on widescreen browsers. Remember that without the h1 header they'll be crushed right at the top of the page.

These links are now below the main header, and in a larger size - as per ScottyDude's comments below Pretzels^chatters 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• In general remember the unique formatting of the main page: in particular the white background, which will make the left column much less noticeable. Of course, that might be a good thing if you're going for minimalism... but then that will make the right column very garish. There might be problems with the colouring of the 'intro' box for users with blue-green colourblindness (links will blend in)

I agree, I haven't worked on a colour scheme yet - just using the current one from the front page section headers, which I realise is unsuitable. If the main page is being redesigned, isn't this an opportunity for it to have the same light grey background as all other pages? Pretzels^chatters 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

--Happy‑melon 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Far too much whitespace at the top, and not enough in the middle. Either you're trying to be minimalist, or you're not.

I don't agree. Try scrolling down so the page is where it would be when page title is removed as it is on the main page. You'll see that the white space is nicely balance. I agree that there will be political opposition to removing sections. However, we need to put the readers first. I think we can all do that. I like the total amount of text on the page in this one. I think it's the level we should aim for. futurebird (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The whitespace at the top is deliberate. =] Scroll down and imagine the page with no title, it gives the header breathing space. Pretzels^chatters 12:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This is one of my favorites! I really like the simplicity and the hints at the "article" theme. I think that you're going to catch a lot of trouble from people for not having the featured article. If you'd like some very nit-picky notes... I think that you should put the strapline navbar at the top below the heading, just above the content in the page so that Welcome to Wikipedia has a more clean, prominent location. I like your font choices for the heading but I really love to see the A capitalized in WikipediA when using that font. After all, that is officially how the Wikipedia logo is presented. Lastly, I think a line break is in order just before the sister projects.

Really though, Pretzel, this is a great design! Nice job. Scottydude _talk 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this a lot - you've removed a lot of the clutter and other crap that the special interest groups insist MUST be on the front page. Bearing in mind, that in western cultures we read from left to right - have you considered flipping the information boxes to the left and having the featured article and stuff on the right. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer having the narrow column on the right - it gives a better balance against the very narrow interface bar in monobook. I love the idea of recasting TFA, TFP, TFwhatever into just "our best content". Happy‑melon 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments (more about structure than aesthetics)

Very nice! Obviously you'll get some comments about whitespace and colour scheme but that's an aesthetic issue - in a preliminary review there's little point arguing about purely aesthetic matters, since the opinions of hundreds are probably needed to reach a conclusion that is any more than the imposition of one person's tastes. As a result I'll restrict myself to comments on the structural design.

Links I dislike

• The A-Z index could be removed I think. Not very functional now that typing in the search box is predictive, and fairly easy to get to from Portal:Contents (the adjacent link) anyway. This is only a mild objection.
• Link to "free" in "the free encyclopedia" is probably pointing to the wrong thing as it stands. A Wikipedia: space page might be better, perhaps explaining Wikipedia's gratis/libre philosophy. This is a slightly stronger objection.

Thanks. I've addressed this by changing the link to Free Content. Pretzels^chatters 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The "About" link on the main header also seems to be redundant, with an "About" blurb plus plenty of links right down below. I'm quite strongly of the opinion that "Getting started" should have as few links as possible, especially as each link once opened is also full of many other links! I remember when I started on Wikipedia getting juggled from one "how to get started" type page to another (what with introductions, tutorials, about pages, help pages, sandboxes, pages saying where to get more help...) until I had been to about 20 pages, and that was something like 5 years ago, since when instruction creep has only got worse!

General likes with suggestions

• I like the rebranding of ITN to just the date - doesn't repeat the date up above. I know you read my contributions to the main redesign discussion, you may have noticed that I suggested that OTD and ITN could be merged. I think that your redesign offers scope to do that - the first line in your "by date" module could be used for religious festivals/national days/major anniversaries. Thoughts?
• I like the "explore by topic" added to the right hand side of the page. I especially like the fact it's quite "vertical". "Browse all portals" feels a bit misaligned. I think that this space, especially since it's vertically oriented, would be a good place to stick in a category navigator like some of the portals do. Category:Main topic classifications would be a good target. Something like this perhaps?
• I like the trimming down the number of bits and bobs on the page, although I'll probably flatly contradict myself in a moment! I think it's fair enough that the language links are relegated to the LHS/plain old www.wikipedia.org and not the bottom of the main page here, and DYK has arguably had its day - although am wondering whether "total removal" of it is such a good idea. I wonder if removing TFP was excessive? I think you'd have considerable opposition to removal of TFP. One thing I'll say in its favour is that it highlights Wikipedia's most astonishing work much better than TFA does. All that's showcased on the main page from TFA is a bit of blurb and a tiny picture, and when you go to the article they are often impressive but not especially interesting if you don't care much for the topic or can't get past the jargon. The featured pictures on the other hand, even if they are of something you don't know much about before, are very accessible, and I think their sheer quality (easily rivalling commercial encyclopaedias) really shines through. Moreover the "whole" of a featured picture can be showcased on the main page (even if at a reduced resolution) in a way that featured articles can't be. Were it not for the problem of people with images turned off or not possessing fast connections, I'd probably suggest TFP to be more the highlight of the page than TFA!

General dislikes with suggestions

• The wording on the "About" section, especially "and new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia" needs some work. I'm sure that helpful third party suggestions can be gathered.
• The "Sister Projects" links don't seem effectively partitioned from the rest of the page. A very thin border around them wouldn't disturb the "white" feel of the page but would help to make it look less "jumbly". On similar grounds I think similarly the "Recently featured.." info needs to be nested inside the TFA box.
• Bear in mind that as part of a main page redesign, the question of just how much blurb should fit into each box becomes an open one - you aren't bound to the conventions currently used. There is just too much blurb in the TFA box to match this minimalist design. Since this is basically a preliminary design stage, rather than linking to the "live" TFA and ITN, why not make your redesign proposal as static for the time being, and then you can alter the TFA and ITN blurbs to the extent that you think is suitable for this design. In my opinion, your design is well-suited for much shortened TFA blurbs, which would be a Very Good Thing. Similarly, as I mentioned above, there is scope for an ITN/OTD merger that your design would accommodate very well. But of course, there is no combined ITN/OTD "live feed" to demonstrate this with. If you want to explore that possibility, make this page static for the time being and create a sample for a particular day's typical ITN/OTD blurb.
• Is there scope to include some other components of the Main Page as (by default) "collapsed boxes" so that people can access them if they want to. I actually think this would work really well for DYK - as mentioned in the redesign page, DYKs seem to be getting increasingly dull/obscure (along with other more serious concerns about exposing "fresh" articles to the wider world), but they still do get a lot of page traffic. If it was put under hide/show box then the title of the hide/show could be made to be a "teaser-question" that is answered when the box is opened and the appropriate article link/factoid is revealed. Just a thought... (This would also offer scope to include today's featured... portal/list/whatever if there is demand for it.)
• On the other hand TFP isn't one of those things that belongs in a hidden box :-) I think I'm not the only person who wants it still in the redesign. And for accessibility reasons it really needs to go at the bottom (for people with slow connections). And because some pictures are wide, it probably needs to take up pretty much the full screenwidth. So I appreciate there isn't much flexibility in that. Your design has cut out so much stuff I'm sure there's enough space for a pretty picture :-) I'd be interested in the idea of cutting out a picture on ITN/TFA (probably not both, whichever one is at the top probably ought to have a picture for aesthetic balance) if that made a difference to the TFP loading time.
• Your redesign doesn't address some of the comments about customisability of the Main Page made on the main redesign page, with all those fancy technical things needed to make it work. Of course, this is basically a design sketch not an attempt at a technical solution, so that's not really a criticism so much as a comment about how much of a road there still is to go, and the need to get some more tech-headed people onto the case at some point.

Those are my 6 cents (3 sections worth of 2 cents). If it looks like dislike/critical commentary is greater than positive comments, it's not a fair reflection of the positive vibe that I definitely have for this redesign. Thanks for putting the effort in! TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Topical links in the "Explore by topic" box

As I commented at your other proposal discussion, how about having the links in your "Explore by topic" box go to Overviews sections? You could use the topical overview links I added to this diff. :-) RichardF (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Period

Is a period needed after the "... in the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? It's like that on the current main page. Spencer^T♦C 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Spencer, but in my opinion it's not a sentence, therefore it doesn't need to follow sentence rules. =] There is a very long discussion on this topic on the main proposal talk page. Pretzels^chatters 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the "right now" in that non-sentence. Why not make it into a sentence by starting with "There are"?

The welcome line stands alone nicely - could be a bit bigger. --Hordaland (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

format broken

the 'best of wikipedia' box doesnt surround content, just about half of the image for REM (which is also not surrounded by text). this image might help see what i mean [1]. i have FF 3.0. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this - that section has now been adjusted and should look goooood. Pretzels^chatters 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

on another topic, i would say that the 'best of wikipedia' box is a good idea, although i'd rather see it above the news at the top. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I quite like it where it is =] Pretzels^chatters 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Slightly less extensive comments :)

• I think there's a strong argument for culling the TFA picture. It might be my browser, but it misaligns for me (as do a couple of other things on this page, but that can be corrected by more technical folk - I appreciate it's the design principles we're discussing here). And with TFP back, it feels a bit "crowded" with the OTD/ITN picture also at the top.

Done! Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest trimming down the "recently featured" list.

Gone! Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure I like the "Random article" (interesting idea though!) - the Main Page should really be linking to specifically selected content (either due to its quality or a particular relevance/topicality). The key question is what else would fit in that pretty valuable screen real estate? Not sure I have a killer suggestion for that.

Gone! Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a "How to read/use Wikipedia" (not as an editor but as a resource) guide somewhere that we can link to? There probably ought to be. I'm thinking of something like WP:10 although that's in mid-dispute at the moment. Something that explains how to find an article, what it means when a page has a warning notice on it, how to reuse Wikipedia text and images (e.g. on your website or in a community newsletter, two of the commonest queries), an overview of whether it's appropriate to cite Wikipedia, what the "Featured article" designation is, how to check on a talk page to see if there is a dispute or even to report a problem or make a suggestion. Something like that would be a good link in the "Getting started" section, to balance out the more editing-oriented "How to edit" and "Help".

Can't find anything suitable... any suggestions? Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like the facts of the day (not sure about the colour schemes but that's a taste and aesthetics issue, it's the idea that counts) and really love the new right hand side. The cut-down "About" section is much better and the portal links and "Find an article" bits are good too. "Fact of the day" needs a link to go somewhere, where e.g. archive and suggestion box can be found. A link to "DYK" would probably do for now.

I've added a "more facts" link. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• However, I really don't get "Find an article... By topic". The "By topic" seems just to be a duplicate of "Tables of Contents" and the examples are unhelpful. I strongly suggest you change it to "By category" and link to Portal:Contents/Categorical index (and possibly Category:Main topic classifications). The "Search" feature, portals, tables of contents and A-Z index are all important ways of navigating to articles but so are categories, so I think they should be included too.

Done! This has been adjusted per your comment below. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• The portal links, with icons, are nice. Perhaps there should be a link at the top to Portal:Contents/Portals as an explanation of what those pretty icons do - it's not even clear to an established Wikipedian whether they are links to Wikipedia articles, portals or categories! Something like "Browse Wikipedia portals" as a heading? Or even integrate it into the other navigation methods listed above? (Since Portals aren't great for finding a specific article, if you did that I'd suggest changing "Find an article" to something like "Navigation" or "Navigate the encylopedia").

I'm still not happy with this section. It needs work. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Putting POTD back is good. Ideally an alignment needs to be found that gets POTD up to full page width. One possibility is having "Explore Wikipedia" removed from the right hand side column and placed horizontally below TFP and above the Wikimedia project links.

I understand a lot of people like this box to be full width, but a panorama will look fine in the 70%ish width it has atm, and it's only meant to be a preview anyhow - any interested user will click the image for full-size. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've said here that you are integrating OTD/ITN. While I can see that this is your intention, you've not altered the ITN blurb to include any hint that OTD has been included (not even a Wikilink to the date itself). Could you just pull one of the news items and include an item at the top that acts as a cut-down OTD? Something like "July 10 is Independence Day in the Bahamas (1973), and Silence Day for followers of Meher Baba." (Can't see offhand any really good anniversaries for this particular date - something like "and the 50th anniversary of Whatever" would fit well into such a sentence, while "and the 212th anniversary of Gauss' discovery that every positive integer can be represented as a sum of at most three triangular numbers" doesn't really cut it! Maybe pick a different day with a rounder anniversary available as your example, so ignore what I am saying until tomorrow... "and the 30th anniversary of the Los Alfaques Disaster in Tarragona, Spain" perhaps?)

I will customise this section more soon. Added links to the day's article in the header, as a start. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Best of Wikipedia" -> much clearer name than currently for visiting readers! I wonder if some clearer distinction needs to be made between the featured article and picture, because with TFA blurb reduced so that it seems similar to that for TFP, I don't think a casual visitor would be able to tell that REM and Hoverflies are not the day's two featured articles! Not sure what the best way to do this is, but as it stands at the moment there is not a link to WP:FA or WP:FP. Perhaps links could also be used as headings, like you have over on the right? Similarly, it doesn't seem to make much sense to have the big list of "recently featured" , archives and "more featured pictures" without having anything like that for FA. Probably some pruning is in order with the FP-related links and a limited addition is in order for FA ones.

Done! I've moved around this bit so they now have their own headers. Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overall I continue to be impressed by the design ideas here and think that the appearance is both "cleaner" and also much more oriented towards all users rather than just editors.

TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your extensive suggestions. V useful! Pretzels^chatters 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More words of encouragement

Just a couple of words - I really like what you are doing here - this is page for readers not for editors, something you've grasped in your use of language. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Thanks a lot Pretzels^chatters 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemandtando has a good point, about this design being oriented toward the reader. This is a very nice layout. BrainMarble (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Pretzels^chatters 14:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple more suggestions (take it or leave it!)

I'll second (or third or whatever!) the comment that this page has been really well-designed around the needs of readers rather than editors. Here are just a couple of suggestions, take them or leave them.

That wide search bar with predictive input is incredibly useful. I wish the search bar was that wide in the side bar. However, there does seem to be a strong argument, maybe even a consensus, not to have one on the Main Page. While I like what you've done with it, there is an alternative design possibility which is to move the Portal links to where you currently have the search bar. That would free up some space on the right hand side of your design, allowing TFP to occupy the full width of the page, handy for panoramic images or for just increasing the size of the image. Would be interesting to see how that would look as an alternative.

I don't think it has predictive input at the moment, but certainly that's functionality that we should have on this search box. I am trying to find a workaround of setting a watermark of the wikipedia logo as a background for this box. Pretzels^chatters 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Best of Wikipedia" looks good with multiple articles (I presume the idea would be that they would "scroll" as new ones are added, since the rate of production is under 3 per day?) - and I think that "Best of Wikipedia" is a well-chosen title, and that not having pictures in it reduces clutter. However, that box definitely needs an "Archive" and "More featured articles" link like TFP has.

I heard complaints that there should be more featured per day, is 3 too many? There was discussion that there was a backlog building up that had not been featured on the front page. Pretzels^chatters 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The "By topic" section in "Find an article" continues to confuse me - it seems to duplicate the link for "Table of Contents" while "Parties, Spinning and Efficiency" seem utterly random links. What about "by category" instead of "by topic"? Something like -

Find an article

Advanced Search »
Find articles matching your keywords across the whole of Wikipedia.

Table of Contents »
Listing of all articles, including by lists, glossaries, portals, indices and timelines.

By category »
Articles organised into categories, such as Arts, Geography, History, People and Science.

A - Z index »
All articles organised alphabetically.

You could change (probably reduce) the example categories added, and I'm in two minds whether it's useful to link to Category:Main topic classifications as well as the categorical index, but I think that would be a lot better than the current "By topic", which I (and I suspect the typical reader too) really struggle to understand the point of.

As I probably noted before, the OTD and ITN box have effectively been merged (I think you wrote that yourself in the description somewhere) - would be good if the first line of text in the box was OTD-ish in nature, to emphasise the dual purpose. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Out of all the "full redesigns" your proposal is the only one that i really like. But here are some comments:

• The banner text is too large.
• switch birthday's with recent deaths
• have the sister projects in a bar (something like this).
• use icons in the Best of wiki section to distinguish GA from FA, etc.

--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow Pretzels a lot has changed. I still believe that (aside from mine) your proposal is the best. Love the new sidebar. Since the redesign isn't going so well I would love it if you took proposed changes to each groups (POTD, ITN, etc) page and try and make changes there. --88wolfmaster (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

• You have extra space between the top of the page and your banner
• I still think that your banner text is too large
• I don't really like using the thumbnail for the featured picture.
• Why does Featured Article boxed but not the others
• I like how you treated ITN, ONT, POTD
• Love the sidebar as always
• Still think you should redo the Sister Projects section

--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Gosh, no comments for a month? Well, here are some in no particular order.

• Top right says 250 languages. Top middle says how many articles right now. Ambiguous. Should specify if top middle means just in English, or the whole shebang.

I have added English to the slogan. Let me know if this is an improvement. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, now it could mean English as in England. I'd change it to 'English language'. Looks like that would break nicely, too, with 'English language' on the end of one line, 'free encyclopedia' on the next. --Hordaland (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The basics · How to edit · FAQ · Help" are almost invisible top right and could as well be added to the bottom of the box entitled Explore Wikipedia. Starting out editing here is an exploration! Anyone interested in doing so won't mind scrolling down that far, and a dab of additional text to each of those links wouldn't hurt.

That would certainly be the next best place for it, but I think it fits well as a place to go after reading the introduction, for new users. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Additional advantage: top right and top middle will be better balanced. As it is now the one has little text, the other is crowded.

This is intentional - the whitespace draws attention to the main header. It may not display perfectly on some resolutions however, it is difficult to code such a specific design to stretch for different sizes. If it is particularly bad by all means please post a screenshot! Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Welcome to WikipediaA" ought to be a couple font sizes larger. I like the font.

I'd love to have it larger but it upsets the 800x600 display. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Would you believe: I actually use the language list down the left, and will miss it.

These design proposals don't have any jurisdiction over the global left sidebar. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Especially nitpicky: I don't care for Thursday 21 / August 2008 on two lines divided that way. Can't the day get one line, and the date another, please?

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Do you mean there should be a line break after the day? At the moment it is on one line. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. I use a larger text size than you do, and for me it breaks illogically into two lines, where "Tuesday 2" is on the first line and "September 2008" is on the next. I tried the smallest text size, and it is then indeed all on one line. --Hordaland (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the code so it should stay on one line whatever happens. Does it look right for you now? Pretzels^chatters 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the "featured" star (icon) should be at the beginning of the titles of those two boxes. That's because we see that star when we click on a featured image and when we run into a featured article. A casual user may have no idea what that star means. (Mouseover says featured, which means nothing to a new user. Clicking on the star at an article does give a good explanation.)

Thanks for your idea. I have added a short note explaining featured articles on the Best of Wikipedia module, and added Featured Picture to the Picture of the Day footer. I hope this resolves your concerns. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I really like your "short note" explaining what "featured" means. Perfect! --Hordaland (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, I wouldn't bother nitpicking if I didn't like the page a lot. Take it all positively, please! --Hordaland (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to comment, it's hugely appreciated. Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - Since it now is possible to move the search box in the left panel to the very top of that panel (right under the logo), I wish you would. In fact I wish it were moved thus on all encyclopedia pages. Look to Norway (here and here); they've done it. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can't change that! Thanks anyhow! Pretzels^chatters 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. But that's the impression that your redesign gives. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8 does have a point here. I wouldn't mind, either, if the Best of Wikipedia box were up top. --Hordaland (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world do you have two links to "Featured pictures", in the same line, no less? One of my problems with the present main page is duplications of links, leading the user on a useless chase. Often, as here, with not quite the same text -- so that one thinks one is going to get something different. --Hordaland (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies. I overlooked this. Many thanks. What do you think of the rest of the design? Pretzels^Talk! 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)