Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/All votes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposed new main page · Current main page · Vote and discuss
The final election ran from 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC). Voting is now ended.
The results are 687 (support) /213 (oppose) /43 (neutral)

Tally as of 2006.02.02 (support minus oppose):

  • A:15
  • B:28 (1 comment)
  • C:27
  • D:23
  • E:9
  • F:4
  • G:42
  • H:24
  • I:23 (or I revised)
  • J:9 (J.2)
  • K:0
  • L:13
  • Current:10

See Draft A[edit]

  1. There's too much work involved with redoing the second feature, and we don't even HAVE a sixth feature. The page takes way too long to load and bogs down old machines. Remember the KISS principle. Ultimately, there's no need for those extra features, but everything else is fantastic.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. The second feature being the combined Did you know (on weekdays) and Today's featured picture (on weekends) will be easy to redo, and can be split off into two fully supported features with no problem. The picture is already produced daily, while the Did you know team has reported that they are ready to support weekends anytime we're ready for them to. --Go for it! 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with everything that HereToHelp wrote, and I'll add that we haven't even begun to discuss the logistics of expanding "Did you know..." to the weekends (let alone creating a brand new feature). —David Levy 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. The Did you know team has informed us that expanding to weekends would be no problem, and they look forward to the additional exposure. So, limiting the Main Page to 4 features is unnecessary in that regard. --Go for it! 20:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    2. I think we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner. I like the POTD on the main page, but its too long with 6 features. I'd like to see POTD remain but to shorten the page we would have to remove something. The community section is a great idea as newbies need a lot more help/introduction than they've been getting, so i think the only other option is to remove DYK. Again, too many people are heavily invested in that feature to just chuck it, so I don't know what to do. I think if we want the other features of the new page we'll have to accept the loss of the POTD for now. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. It's not too different from the current main page, but the improvements it has are good ones.  Run!  19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I think it's the best out of the choices presented. I'm not a big fan of the section titles though, slightly misaligned and the bright aqua blue coloring doesn't fit with the rest of the page.   freshgavin TALK    23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you're referring to the misalignment of the "Today's featured picture" and "Did you know..." section titles, that's a temporary technical glitch (caused by the manner in which the features are being transcluded). This would be corrected in the final version. —David Levy 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Per Run!, plus this version wastes the least space. --James S. 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Picture of the day would be a nice addition. -- Rohit 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Draft A keeps things simple and straightforward. The formatting of the columns is even, and overall I just find that most of the other drafts look cluttered. However, I think we should replace the aqua with the yellow from Draft C, or something else to make it 'pop' better. LordAmeth 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Like this draft best. Keeps things simple; rather lightweight compared to the others. Ikh (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I'm a big fan of Draft A. It's small and still has the nice "highlighting" of feature names. Of course, small comes with a price - no featured picture that I noticed. (I noticed a reference to featured picture above. If so, where would it go? There's already four features on the draft.) Kimera757 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Draft A uses the least space, is thinnest and readable, and doesn't have the spread out and wasteful pics for the sections. We don't need them, and the site flows much better without them. David 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Looks like puffed up (B) is favored by more as between the two. Inclusionism makes load time important and modesty best, which is Draft A. Metarhyme 21:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Easy access, light. --Gogino 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, looks the best of the choices to me, has everything that I think is important to include on the main page. - Bobet 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, I like this one best. --michael180 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. My favorite of the bunch, if not by much. The only thing I don't much care for is the wording "948,593 articles that anyone can edit", which seems to indicate people can't make their own. Sarge Baldy 09:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support --Tone 11:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft B[edit]

Design elements include:

  • Margins problem in Internet Explorer has been fixed.
    • In IE, the green column's heading bars don't reach the right-hand border, and the blue column's right-hand border is absent. —David Levy 08:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't figure this out. Someone please help. --Go for it! 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This version is fully operational: all features automatically update
  • It can be used right away as your main page, by setting it as:
    • your browser's home page
    • a button on your browser's tool bar
    • or by transcluding it onto your user page, or a subpage of it (ask for help below if you need assistance with this)
  • The Did you know team has pledged to expand their project's coverage to seven days per week

Thank you for your participation.

  1. Since this has the Today's Featured Picture and Did you know, both 7 days a week, I love this one. --Go for it! 02:56, 21 January 2006 (

UTC)

  1. My eyes are glazing over so I'd better choose. Both are excellent and congrats to y'all for your patience diligence. I do prefer Draft B but I'll sleep well with whichever achieves conensus. hydnjo talk 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    "sleep with"...riiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhttt.....--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    To rephrase, I'll not lose any sleep whichever, A or B, is chosen... arghh nevermind.  ;-) hydnjo talk 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think Draft B is best... not sure if I like all those icons on Draft C, too busy. - JustinWick 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Draft B is good, slightly better than Draft A, but the portals list, frankly, looks terrible. Too boxy, too square, too lined-up-with-the-In-the-News-box-below-it. I would prefer a search box. Is it redundant - sure? But so is the list of portals (there's a portals link right above it), so is the second box in the page you get when you search for anything... Searching (or "go-ing") is the dominant way to access information on the Internet and in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't deny that fact just to conform to the "Browse" and tree-diagram categorizing that may seem standard. Zafiroblue05 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I like Draft B best. The layout is definitely more balanced than the current page, and it seems better balanced than A or C. Moreover, the more vertical layout of the "Wikipedia community" box and slightly bluer background is superior. (I am not simply opting for "all columns"— straight text lends itself to such treatment.) I was going to opt for some "eye candy" for it, otherwise. normxxx| talk email 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Of the three drafts, I seem to like draft B most. However, I feel that this can be improved and my suggestions for the same are given in the intended section. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. I like this one because it has both Picture of the Day and DYK, has no formatting issues (at least on IE), and all in all looks pleasant. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  7. Definately my favorite. It's nice to have the Picture of the Day every day. It's also great that there are some community things on the Main Page. Jeff8765 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    The Wikipedia Community feature was actually meant to fill the space until we thought of a new feature. I expected this draft to flop, but it's really popular. Go figure; I wouldn't have seen it coming. Then again, I would have sworn the Indianapolis Colts were going to the Super Bowl.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    I feel that Draft B which is currently been nominated for Main Page Redesign is wonderful. Becuase more artwork is done with all the features and beautiful and neat tables and one special thing more colours. I think Draft B deserves the true vote of the new Wikipedia Main Page Redesign. Mastermind 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. This one looks pretty slick. I'm mostly voting based on "look and feel" (so I wouldn't be at all disappointed if Draft A were chosen), but I've felt for a while that POTD deserves Main Page exposure 7 days a week. It's one of my favorite features. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Very nice. --Black Carrot 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I too like draft B. Clean, interesting, and simple. I think that the POTD on the main page is good. Needs a little cleaning up to become more eyecatching, but they all do. Also, the bar at the top is a bit annoying, but that is in most of the designs in one way or another, and the ones that don't have it have other problems. --Reuvenk 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. I vote for "Draft B", but the message "the free encyclopedia" should be brought back. JP Godfrey 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. (What's a wiki vote without bolded terms?) I like having POTD and DYK every day, and I like the colors of this one better than those of Draft C. — BrianSmithson 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - I love the seven-day featured picture and in general its the most visually pleasing. - Cuivienen 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Great eye appeal! --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, though I think "the free encyclopedia" should be back, and I think that DYK should be moved up above TFP. C has too many boxes within boxes, and I hate the portal pics. The Italian portal is just plain scary. Ral315 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. I like it :) Bart v M 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. support... looks good and includes Pic of the Day as well as DYK without nasty gaps. UkPaolo/talk 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. My favorite. I like the softness of the colors and the simple, clean organization. Easy to navigate, and appealing to the (my) eye. I dont really like the portal icons or colors of others. I like the ordering and organization of this draft. It would make me feel relaxed if i was researching a topic the night before its due :p Chumbleslode 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, imo this is the best of all of them, simple yet informative. Stormscape 10:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. I like how this one gives equal billing to both POTD and DYK and doesn't store either of them hidden at the bottom. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. I feel confortable with this one, not too hard on the eyes, and I will certainly use most of the features proposed. -- Tribaal 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. This gets the featured picture its own space every day, which is my primary criterion for a new Main Page. It also avoids what I think is the mistake of too many portal pages and foreign-language main pages by not going hog-wild with the background colors (which I think is way too distracting). If we have the POTD on the main page we probably need background colors, but maybe not even that much. Daniel Case 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, I like them all, but I think this is my favorite. VegaDark 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support I love this one, much better than any of the others. TestPilot 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Minor suggestion for improvement is here Trödel•talk 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Comment The welcome banner looks rather messy on 800x600 --24.26.178.224 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. My favorite of them all. Gflores Talk 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Nice design, easy on the eye and not too much confusing text Pjcard 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft C[edit]

To those of you voting here, Draft C has changed? Hopefully it will not have swayed any positive votes thus far negatively.. as I think it is a definite improvement. Improvements:

  • Fully operational, with automatic updates of Featured Picture, In the news, Did you know, etc. So it's ready to be set it as your home page or placed on your browser's tool bar.
  • Excessive blue buffer space at top has been reduced
  • switched out for a less space-consuming header.. but still nice coloration and "completeness"
  • Moved from 4-feature layout to 6, though this could easily be changed back.
  • Added a white box for the reference section at bottom.
  • Added "free" before "articles" per comments about the original "slogan" (welcome to wikipedia! the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) being removed from this style of header

Thanks all.. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. I like the four features on Draft C, as six are overwhelming. Four features were fine, but I'm okay with six features, so long as they work well for others with smaller screens. The colors on Draft A are somewhat too bright, and I would prefer colors more mute like those used on Draft C. These browse icons also work well in this particular context. I liked the browse icons in this context, but am more indifferent to how the header is designed. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I didn't like Draft A for sure. I was just going to write down that I like Draft B but then there came the Draft C. I like the features of Draft B but I like the outline of Draft C at the same time. The spaces between the boxes and the portal icons look nice. The colors, I don't know, don't matter much. Draft C is somehow unfinished but still is the best I think. PS: I never though we could be this far. Conguratulations all! --Quinlan Vos 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I like C or E best. A and B seem somehow empty and unfinished at the top; there seems to be some strange white space. I like having the portal icons easily available. Even with them at the bottom that's good, but I like them accessible at the top. Browsing is fun :-) I really don't like the last option, with all the colours and tiny icons.Skittle 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I love this one. --^BuGs^ 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. The C is the most beautiful and comprehensive, so, I support this one. It will be even better if the icons (like the featured article icon, and the In the news icon) used in the Draft G were also included. Carioca 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Great colours, most attractive. Functional too, not too cheesy. Harro5 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. C just looks better that the other drafts, and is most useful, but even C still needs a few improvements (if were not past that point), like alot of blank space around POTD, POTD links are also much smaller than others (i.e. archive link). The community box is excellent, other version of it are much too large.Boccobrock 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. I voted for B also, but I really like the version of C with six features. Jeff8765 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Looks good, but the community section could use something to make it a bit more attractive; or the descriptions could be shortened.--nixie 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Apparent blank space appears to be more when compared to A or B, still it's the best looking out of the lot. Xedaf 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. I like C best. In my opinion, functional and most attractive. John C PI 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. I didn't initialy like 6 boxes, but this version shows that while the page is long, it's not too long. I also like the header. Oh, and I prefer the orange over the green box. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Draft c is the best, it has a little bit of everything, it even has picture of the day, and it just looks more neater than everything else.--WikiJake 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. I tend to agree. Banez 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. This design is pretty tight. I like it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. This is my favourite. Neat and functional. --Eleassar my talk 10:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. The use of colour has definitely worked best here. Erath 10:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. The colours are quite nice (I dislike the geenish tint of Draft B), provides alot of information, but still quite compact. 132.231.1.201 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. This is my favorite main page, I find it elegant wile keeping all the important info. João Correia 12:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. I like this draft the best, it is stylish yet packs a lot of information into a small space. TheGoob 1304, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. I enjoyed Draft C the most. It has great colors, a great layout, and I like how everything is arranged. -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per nixie. The Wikipedia Community section needs something-thing-or-other. Also, the margins need to correspond. Other than that, great!--cj | talk 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Draft C for me. --Anti-establishment 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - looks great. Dmn Դմն 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. The best one of them so far. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support My favorite :D - cohesiontalk 06:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Great usability and fits smaller screens, too. - Samsara contrib talk 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - Love this page. Not so sure about the "free." I like the header better without the free. Also, POTD is not working properly right now. (someone changed maybe?) Dislike all options with icons in the header. All too busy.
    — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
  28. Support. My favorite by far. I do agree with Wtwilson3 that the free doesn't look good, though. Rory096 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft D[edit]

  1. dab () 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Best so far, though I'd still like to see the community feature got rid of or changed in format, per comments below, and box separation per comment below. BigBlueFish 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I really like this one (though I agree with BigBlueFish on the changes to the community feature). Very nice work. Jweed 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Many of the others have problems with the text being set in the boxes incorrectly. Ingoolemo talk 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I like how the POTD is below. it reminds me of draft 6H, but somehow I like this better. The header seems more tidy. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 10:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. I like the current version, but from all new proposals this is surely da best one. - Darwinek 11:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. I like this one best. Though, I wish we could make it so that clicking the images on the main page would bring the reader to the article, and not the (confusing) image description page. That's what readers are used to from other websites. Shanes 11:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. This is easily the best one.
  9. The best candidate, by far. It offers a compromise, and has the POTD.
  10. I'm not that fussed, they all (and the current one) seem fine to me. However, I'll vote D. Thincat 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. This one looks most pleasing and readible. The layout is most uniform contentwise, with chronology in one column, articles in another, and a not-so-huge featured photo at the bottom. I hope to see D grace the front page soon! --KHill-LTown 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. My favorite has photo but not overwhelming--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, this is my favourite out of the current crop from a visual standpoint. Easy layout and not too much stuff happening. Just right. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. The picture of the day box at the bottom is very nice, and everything else is well-balanced. The layout is less jarring than the similar draft H, as it flows from narrow to wide from top to bottom.--ragesoss 03:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. I am going with this one - I like the format of the current 4 features being on top. Also on my screen all 4 features appear and are clickable without scrolling - a big plus. Trödel•talk 12:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. --Missmarple 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. SUPPORT Perfect, classy, and those icons are scary. -WAZAAAA 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Icons, and the Wikipedia block at the bottom being in boxes, make me angry. Also, I must have the language list. This one is the best so far. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Very easily navigated through design of the main page. Icons are classy. But featured picture must have more significance I think. 83.237.113.59 10:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. This one seems good. Let's go for it. Chick Bowen 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. This one and G are the best. I lik ehte simple layout. 71.125.142.200 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Yeah i like this one.71.68.23.70 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support this is the best proposal for a new main page thus far. Rmpfu89 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft E[edit]

  1. i prefer draft E it has a little bit more than C Jakken 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like the look of E, including the icons at the top. --Doradus 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I prefer Draft E == I like the links on the top of the page to allow users to go to specific parts of the site; it's clean and organised and i think it's very clear. Thanks: Tom
  4. I like Draft E and I, mainly because of the icons for the portals rasmusdf 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I like Draft E because of the icons, and that it resembles Draft C
  6. I like Draft E because the header is symmetrical. -- Mwalcoff 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. I like this draft; it's concise, clear, and visually pleasing. --Revolutionary 25 Jan. 2006
  8. Support. I like this version, it's the best I've seen. It's very professional. --Mb1000 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I agree with Mb1000 it looks very professional. I fully support it. --TripleH1976
  10. I like this one. It's nice with colors in the background, you can se all the headlines even on a small screen and the pictures are nice for an encyclopedia Lajm 04:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft F[edit]

  1. I like the browse icons to be findable but not obtrusive. Otherwise I would vote for A. Metarhyme 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't like the header of drafts A and B. (Also this is my draft :) Ashibaka tock 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I like the heading and The Wikipedia Community as a section. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is the best draft combining the right information in the right order. I recommend adding `Today`s Featured Picture` section just like Draft [6]D.

See Draft G[edit]

  1. I like how the search is more prominent at the top. This should be a feature in all of the new Main Pages. -Travis 20:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. The search idea was deemed redundant in the discussion last week.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      1. (i suggested back in november [1] that) it would be nice if we could highlight the sidebar searchbox with yellow, on just the main page. --Quiddity 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        1. Reference desk contributors get irritated regularly with the amount of fools that don't use the search box first. So what if it's redundant? It needs to have a big deal made of it, otherwise nobody will use it, and more fools will pour into the reference desk asking questions like "wut iz wikipedia lolz" 12.72.243.78 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
          1. Why not put the search box on the Reference Desk page, with a strong suggestion to use it before asking any questions? --Go for it! 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    The font is much smaller than the others - this is a serious issue. Trödel•talk 12:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think this design is classy and not boring, as a couple other drafts tend to be. Aside from a couple of technical mistakes, it is excellent. I especially like the color and font scheme. (Some other drafts are similar.) I wish the spacing would be cleaned up a bit. - ElAmericano | talk 22:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I like this design as it is very colorful and plasing to the eye. It also has a very interesting layout. Tarret 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I also would prefer the draft.... G, because i like the colors and that """new""" fresh desgin--Topfklao 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I like draft G because the colors are very bright, and the home page has an appealing look to it. --WriterFromAfar755 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. This is by far the best of the drafts. Just becuase a few people said the redundant searchbar is bad doesn't mean it's so. The most used feature on wikipedia is the search. On the main page, it isn't that obvious on the side. It is the best and fastest way to find what you need. Just becuase 2 or 3 people don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of people who use wikipedia should have a harder time finding the info they need. Also, this draft is the most atractive visualy by far, and looks the most sofisticated. It is very neat and organized too. Tobyk777 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. No doubt in my mind that this is the best draft by far. --8shq8 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Beautiful and functional. —Nightstallion (?) 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Easily the best draft for the home page i have ever seen! You have to be crazy not to vote for this one! It is stunning, and meets the eye beautifully. If i had to describe this in one word, it would be... Grand. Simply class. M cappeluti 10:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. This version makes the best first impression on newcomers to this Wikipedia. This one gets my positive vote. --Infobacker 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Very nice, but it would be ideal if columns had the same length, just for the sake of avoiding "hanging" whitespace. Otherwise it's got my support. -- Run<font color="#339900">e Welsh | ταλκ 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support I liked this one the most. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. This is by far the best, and the only one that seems different enough from the current Main Page to be noticably "new". Angela. 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, attractive, colored and likely to draw in visitors. I would like to see this format used on the ordering in Draft B, though. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, this is certainly the best of the candidates. It is refreshing, very colourful and it promotes and focuses the searchbar. Just great! --DMichel 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. As I went through all of the drafts, this one immediately popped out at me and grabbed my attention. It's not ugly, it's noticably different from what we have, and I really enjoy having the search bar at the top of the page. Mo0[talk] 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support, marginally, over the current main page. On balance, I do like this one, and it seems like it would get the job done. Lord Bob 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, Draft G not only keeps the structure of Wiki Main Page, but also brings Wkipedia in 2006, with a new efficent, modern, simple and functional design.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.237.230 (talkcontribs)
  19. Support, but I hope to god that the snowflakes on the bottom of all those nifty boxes change with the seasons (otherwise, it'll look really stupid in August). User:Cernen under the ip 12.72.243.78 at 21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support with reservations. I like the colors pretty well, and I like how the separate boxes look, but I prefer the white box at the top of Draft A, and leave off the ridiculous category-by-letter box at the bottom. The categories link at the top is enough. Also, I would agree with Cernan that the snowflakes at the bottom of the boxes should change with the seasons, except that this is NOT a northern-hemisphere Wikipedia. A significant part of our consumers live in Australia (not to mention English-speakers in many other countries in the southern hemisphere, like Zimbabwe, for example), where the seasons are reversed from those in the northern hemisphere. Because of this, we should leave the snowflakes off or choose another non-seasonal gif. Also, some reworking of the boxes so that they line up better (avoiding excess white space) would be highly recommended. But overall, good work! --Cromwellt|Talk 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. My vote: I personally like 6G best, but I think Featured Picture and On This Day In... should be swapped. --Kitch 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, for helpful use of color, and prominent search bar to help orient new visitors. --Krubo 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. throwing my two cents into the fray and casting my vote:: I like DRAFT G - Why? It appeals to me. JessanDunnOtis 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support with modifications. I like the overal content but i think the header and portals should be taken from Draft 6I.2 (revision) Askewmind | (Talk) 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support with SLIGHT modifications - I absolutely love the color scheme and the ability to slightly theme (based on the season or perhaps specific events,) but there is a bit of blank space that is somewhat annoying below the "Second Feature" space... Don't know how to fix it, but the color scheme wins all. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support- it's so well designed and user friendly. I like the search box at the top and the very sophisticated look, something the current page doesn't have--M W Johnson 12:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Best looking design; like search box at top as well. --TomPhil 23:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Most different and I think appealing to new users (and I think that's what we're going for). A few things to change before the final vote (white header, two columns line up, footer a generic pic and perhaps not orange, maybe blue footer colour) - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. --Randy 03:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. I especially like the colors on this page. I'm not too keen on the white space under Did You Know? But this is still far and away my favorite. — Lovelac7 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Good selection of colours & content placeholders. The topic bar at the topic looks too cramped on 800x600, but could be fixed. --PamriTalk 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - nice, colourful, well-designed appearence. Definitely my favourite -- 217.35.96.167 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. Sorry, that was me... odd, I swear I was logged in -- Gurch 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. This one gets my vote. It has a neat layout, and also has both "Today's featured picture" and "Did You Know? From Wikipedia's newest articles on the same main page. Search bar at top is a nice touch. Just rename the Did You Know? box from "Second Feature" to something else, like placing "Did You Know?" in the title section, and "From Wikipedia's newest articles" right below that, and it will be perfect. --G VOLTT 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Clean, attractive design. Likely to draw in new visitors and enourage them to explore. I like the inclusion of "Today's featured picture", too. Lan3y 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - well-organized, nice colors. I would support it more if the icon portals were added.- JustPhil 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, but the "Biz" and "Math" should be changed to their full form. —siroχo 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Comment That big area of white space in the right hand column is not the best feature of thsi draft. Batmanand 09:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strongly Support By far the most attractive design, in my opinion, especially with the search bar in the top-right corner. I disagree with JustPhil, I think adding the icon portals would make the design too busy. -Chairman S. 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support I like it alot! The colors make it alot more interesting, less dull and boring. Marcus1060 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Not perfect (white space, On this day seems to be in the wrong place), but by far the best design apart from the existing page.Gareth Aus 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I voted for Draft C, but would like to commend this one to be available as a template in user settings - it is a very nice design, but may be too colourful for some. - Samsara contrib talk 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support This design is by far my favourite. Font size is a tad small but I guess we have to put up with a smaller font size nowadays because of the increased amount being packed into one screen. --Spaceman85 18:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support just a little over the current main page. It's not cluttered, eyecatching, and the colors look fine. The only thing that might be strange would be how the "on this day" section is now crammed at the bottom, but that might be just me. Hurrah 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support The only thing I don't like about this (and I mean the only thing) is the lack of icons for the categories. However, the practicality and class of this design wins handily. --Jm woltjen 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support By far the best layout. I prefer categories without the Icons
  45. Support More colourful and bright! Hohohob 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support I thank it looks cool.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 07:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Looks great! --WS 01:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. To bright and incoherent. Tacky. Kevin Baastalk 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Agree with Kevin Baas. Also, the font is far too small. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose- make the font bigger guys!--Urthogie 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose ugh... per above. Mikker ... 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Too colourful. The empty space to the right of today's featured picture looks bad. The font is very small. vedant (talkcontribs) 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft H[edit]

  1. Support my own design (well, not really my own, based entirely off others). Zafiroblue05 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) EDIT: My reasons for liking it are how it uses both the Portal approach—in a away that people will see elswhere— without taking up too much space for icons. It also has the search box featured prominently, which though redundant, is a great advantage of a computerized source. It reatins the classic tagline, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", while also having the number of articles featured without taking up a whole line. It presents five features without making it feel large or unwieldy. Also, the stuf that gets updated is in one type of box and the stuff that's static in another. All around a great idea. However, the POTD needs to be updating. --HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I guess I can get behind this. Ashibaka tock 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 02:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I like this one too.--nixie 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. OK by me. POTD below and clear c&lc portal links. Metarhyme 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. I like this one, too. Solves the problem of having to fill the sixth area by eliminating it entirely. Plus, adds the search box up top, which will save the folks at the Reference Desk a lot of grief. — BrianSmithson 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Good except for the colors. - ElAmericano | talk 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support I think this is the best so far, and has the best chance of keeping people from winding up at the reference desk instead of searching. Black Carrot 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong support I love this draft!--Fito 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Good This one is very good, becuase it has the searchbar. That is by far the most important thing. The Italian based one is a little better though becuase of the colors. However, this one is layed out better. Tobyk777 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong support This one is the best one. The categories are spread out and do not stand out on the page like the rest of the drafts. sikander 12:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. I like this design best. I think the arrangement of the 4 sections is best, the list of subjects at the top is on 1 line which keeps it unobtrusive and requires less scrolling, and the search feature is also at the top, which as someone else mentioned, is better too. The colors are fine (colors are minor and can always be altered later anyway). The current main page is decent, but i think H improves it. SpookyMulder 12:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support My favorite version, for reasons above.--Joewithajay 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Very nice, althou I think the categorizations should somewhat be changed. Health is un-necesary. Foant 14:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Definitely the most aesthetically pleasing draft, I feel. The placement of sections and colours means that no one colour gets repetitive. It's genuinely nice to look at. Kupos 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Looks much nicer. Couldn't be simpler. Hohohob 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support In my opinion, they all look good but this is the best one. — Ilyanep (Talk) 12:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong support Absolutely the best in the batch. I like the Search bar, the colours, the minimalistic header boxes, all. One point: what would it look like without the Main page draft interlinks and the headertext? I'm afraid the boxed search thing might not look ideal if it's stuck at the very top of the page. -- Ec5618 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's a draft that didn't have the links... Zafiroblue05 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I still can't tell how much whitespace would be left at the top, and how the banner at the top would look together with the 'article', 'discussion', etc-bar at the very top. -- Ec5618 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - the best of the bunch. Clean layout, nice use of colour and fits in a lot of info without becoming cluttered. Spanning the two columns at the bottom for featured picture is a good idea, allowing enough space for a decent size picture to exist with the text if needed. The addition of the Community links below that are also good. My only suggestion would be to add some complementary colour to the bordered welcome / search box area at the top (in the manner of Draft 6G), or de-border it and centre the welcome message and search box side by side over the links immediately below. Nice entry.--Cactus.man 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support This is by far my favorite, clean and simple MechBrowman 17:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support All of the features I like, none of the features I hate. I particularly like the more streamlined browser bar. Microtonal 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Extremely impressed with this draft. It makes the most sense to me, seems streamlined and professional, as well as open to more possibilities. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support This was easily my favourite as I liked its layout. Other reasons mentioned above are also relevent. --HamedogTalk|@ 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support -nice searchbox.--Urthogie 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support ---Mister D 01:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - for reasons, see discussion pages about the drafts. Carcharoth 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft I[edit]

Draft I.0[edit]

  1. Very nice, We love it! Wikipedia community is very well done and we're very influenced by how that is served up. hydnjo talk 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like Draft E and I, mainly because of the icons for the portals rasmusdf 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Nice mix of the best features of all the rest. -- Rmrfstar 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support -- I also like Draft I; I think you should add the picture of the day at the bottom as in Draft H. --FeanorStar7 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Really great template. Particularly refreshing on the eyes and user friendly. --Peter McGinley 11:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Wonderful template Kevin. To me this is the most aesthetically pleasing as well as the most informative and easy to use. Definite support. Jombo 11:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support The best template, adding a picture of the day would make it complete. Drafts like this one make 'sense', ones that have some content colour boxed, and some just plaintext left justified at the bottom (Draft A for example) just looks scruffy and half finished. Good Work. SFC9394 12:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support this one, I like the icons for portals and overall looks. Sabine's Sunbird 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Good design. Lots of useful info and links, well organized. Elwood00 T | C 13:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support , Great, user friendly design. It looks professional, and easy to use. Great design Keeperoftheseal 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Combines the best of all the other drafts. Whitetigah 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support All other drafts had something letting it down. This one seems to take all the good things from the other ones. The ultimate draft in my opinion - Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg • Dussst • T | C 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support I support this draft in that it is more modern and asthetically pleasing, while at the same time keeping the features that I know and love (news, featured article, Selected Anniversary). Although I have to admit I have some concerns on any of these drafts in that I don't know if they would compensate well enough for the loss of speed in page loading that dial up users would face. User:AllPeopleUnite 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Nice and modern design, seems very usable. Hugus 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support - A good combination of the best elements. Solar 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - I really like the icons for the main portals, plus the colors.- JustPhil 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - I love this one, much better than any of the others. --Aaron Einstein 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - Good design-- provides quick access to portals and featured articles, as well as to community pages and to other Wikipedias. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - I like the boxes' bold titles, and the general spacing. Terrific contrast and style. qartis 20:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - Attractive design and good graphics. I found it the best among all other drafts. vedant (talkcontribs) 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Draft I.2 (revision)[edit]

But Today's Featured Picture only appears on weekends rather than 7 days per week 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Strong Support - Best one in my opinion, I like the category pictures at the top, the design looks nicer than the current one, it looks more rounded off, easy to distinguish from normal pages, the layout is better, there's more space for the individual columns, and there's a pic of the day. --NorkNork 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd rather the FA were on the left, since otherwise it seems that news is the main feature of the site --Joewithajay 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

support best of the lot i think, we should definitely change the main page its really dull at the moment

  1. User:Vanderdecken/StrongSupport Best so far, good improvement on I. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, I'm not to fond of the colors. Broken S 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - Great; tasteful colours, layout and icons. Greg carter 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See Draft J.2[edit]

To see what this concept looks like with more boxes and portals, see the draft's talk page.
  1. Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC) self-vote moved again.
  2. Support — Nice design, works perfect for a 1600x1200 screen depth. AzaToth 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support this excellent design. hydnjo talk 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support for this draft as well. It has a more modern look, which I think is more appealing to the casual (non-contributing) user of Wikipedia. --JACooks 03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Tobyk777 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I am a 'casual user' and I like it! It is newbie friendly, very visually attractive. The link 'Learn about Wikipedia' would really help newcomers out, furthermore it has 15 main portals; and recently featured articles are on the top instead of bottom so that it is more easily found. WOW! What a make over! 24.43.51.199 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support i like it. Mlm42 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Real nice, although I would move the categories towards the mid or bottom section. VMajander 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support This is nice! I think it will go a long way to get people to start using a category search. (User:Narkstraws 08:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
  10. Support I spy with my little eyes a good draft design. Pseudoanonymous 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See Draft K[edit]

I have gone through all the comments and suggestions on this discussion page, and have made an attempt towards a "consensus" draft design, with five features, browse icons and a search box, with green and blue/purple colors, and have revised the browse bar items (got rid of "glossaries", "overviews", ..). and added some different items. Please comment on it, what do you like or dislike about it (or 'vote' if you want). Or, if so incline, take this design, tweak it and come up with something better. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on a similar attempt, but I was planning to wait until after the discussion period had ended before posting it. To be honest, I think that you've missed the mark on a few elements:
1. While many users support the inclusion of icons, the voting (especially that of previous rounds) has made it very clear that many users oppose this element.
This is an attempt to accommodate both the browse topic links and the search box, and provide a different mix of elements. My tally so far shows 84 prefer the search box, while 95 the simple browse links, and 56 for the icons. If people don't like it, then that's fine with me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
2. We reached consensus a while back that the positions of "On this day..." and "Did you know?" should be swapped.
These can easily be swapped. They're interchangable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
3. There is clear support for the inclusion of "Did you know?" and "Today's featured picture" every day, and a five-feature layout appears to be the best solution, but I haven’t seen any support (aside from yours) for a non-uniform number of features per column (which necessitates the removal of text-based content). Conversely, numerous users (including former proponents of both the four-feature and six-feature layouts) have supported the inclusion of a separate box for "Today's featured picture."
Actually, I didn't remove any text-based content. Though, I slightly expanded the amount of "Today's featured article" text. I just want to put this 5 feature solution out there, for consideration. Though, I'd be just as happy with yours. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You omitted most of the text from the "Today's featured picture"/"Picture of the day" section. —David Levy 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. It seems from the discussion that we should aim for five features, and include both the search box and portal links. This is just a different way of working all these into the same space. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The crazy part is that the draft that I've been working on (which I haven't uploaded yet) includes the same gray headings in the bottom section (except that I've used a hexadecimal value of #eeeeee). —David Levy 20:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I was somewhat reluctant to put up yet another option. Though, I would like the added feedback on this mix of features. I'm not really into making this a competition, though and prefer moving us all in the direction of consensus. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
One of the key things here is the browsebar items, and getting rid of "glossaries", "overviews", ... and making these links more useful. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I took your concept and took a stab at a better browserbar here: User_talk:Kevin_baas/main_page_proposal2 Kevin Baastalk 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't reflect the results of the straw poll above at all. Over 117 votes were placed for drafts without portal icons, and many of those mention this specifically as their reason for voting on their favored draft. Also, the icons were available in near identical drafts when they placed their votes. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that icons were consensus? Also, you've reverted all the changes to the browsebar/header, even though expanded link coverage was shown wide support in the poll above. Why are you trying to take us a step backwards? --Go for it! 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is strong interest for both the search box and browse links. This is an attempt at providing both, as is Draft J, Draft I.
      • If icons are out, then I suggest we go with something like Draft H. Though the browse topics might be overlooked...
      • If we choose the browse links, as in Draft A, Draft B, Draft C, Draft D, then where do we put the search bar? or do we omit it?
    • As for the browse topics and links, let's discuss further below. I have attempted to summarize the discussions and votes into tables, User:Kmf164/Workshop and posted here at the bottom, summary of the portal topics and links. I think we need more discussion about this. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I like "Participate in Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 1,000 articles". Can we make a separate portal for beginners? And also for kids? --Gogino 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See Draft L[edit]

Suggestions[edit]

This is just a modification of Draft E and I, knowing that probably the creators wanted to keep their Draft intact I just created a new one.

My intention was to replace the icons with the Nuvola, but I did not manage using the Click template. I will replace them in the near future, as soon as I have the time to do so.

Federico Pistono 11:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the icons with Nuvola and Noia. Now all that remains is to find an appropriate one for the health section. I really like the society icon, black and white hands together.

Federico Pistono 12:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, smaller icons and change colours. Which ones do you suggest? Federico Pistono 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. I like it. I like the splash of color. However, I think the icons should be smaller, ideally fitting on a single line, as people will most probably look at the recent news and featured articles. Aaronwinborn 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I also like it, primarily because of the colorful icons at the top and the Picture of the Day. I like the colors.Tom 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Best so far. I like the category pictures and the inclusion of the POTD frame. Well done, and have my Strong Support. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. You know, this is the best so far. I really like the color icons.
  5. This is definitely the best of all of the proposed options. Strong SupportCuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. I agree to the others, this is a nice design. I appreciate the "XP-style" icons. --Rev-san 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. very user friendy,we should get of this DOS-like mentality the general public isn't using it anymore for a reason --Technosphere83 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. AOL --84.202.50.75 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. I like this one. Although I'd prefer to have the search box yellow (make it even more visibile -- it may blend in with the page), this is a fine draft. The Did You Know? boxes are very clean cut, concise, and otherwise snazzy and sharp. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Very nice design, clean and not to much information to confuse people. I think the majority of other designs have too much small text which makes the pages confusing and a little ugly. Pjcard 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. This one just stands out. Fully support. --^BuGs^ 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Looks good.-- JustPhil 13:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Like it, good use of color EAi 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Very nice UI strong support. hcsron

Oppose[edit]

  1. Frankly, I don't like anything about this one. In the past polls, many have disliked icons and I tend to agree. Those for the Portals are inconsistant, and those for the features need work (you repeat the news and are missing one for the Wikipedia Community). The gold and purple colo scheme is less popular, and so is the form of the header you used. I think the dynamic stuff should have a different box type than the static links. There is no POTD. the "Wikipedia encyclopedia languages with over 1,000 articles" on white while the rest is another color looks bad, though that isn't your draft alone. For your Society icon...perhaps you meant a unity between blacks and whites? The terms are misleading: people are never fully black or white, rather brown or pinkish orange.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In the last minutes I have modified a lot the draft, so most of your comments need to be revised. Regarding the icons, I just proposed what i liked the most, I know most of the polls do not agree. As for the society, you must take what I said in the large sense, of course people are NEVER either black or white, it was symbolic. Thanks for the suggestions though, I'll work out a better solution. If you want to, you can edit what you think should be changed, and I'll see your contribution. :-D Federico Pistono 13:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I still don't like it.--HereToHelp (talkcontribs) 13:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See the current Main page[edit]

I have to admit that those attempting to load Wikipedia over dialup would highly prefer a minimal start page. Between the high latency of the last mile, to the well-loaded Wikipedia servers, less is probably more.

Would it be a better idea to create a set of links that would go to each feature or section? I understand that the "navigation" pane is intended to be generic for any wiki using Wikimedia software, but some customization there - possibly by the addition of a Wikipedia features menu - might solve the whole debate.

Then again, one could cookie the user's browser to let them choose the sections and features they want to see at startup. That shouldn't take too much bandwidth up, though I am no expert. Thanks for listening this long! 12.202.229.218 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a minimal start page already. See Main Page (text only).

A page with links specifically to each feature/section would be easy, and could be maintained as an alternate entry point users could use on their second visit and thereafter.

The cookies thing sounds like a programming issue, and goes beyond the scope of this project. There is a page in the Village Pump, I think, for suggesting changes to the software.

Go for it! 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Like the current version. Change is necessary. Current version is most transparent and nothing can be better. - Darwinek 10:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The drafts are pretty good, but not quite as nice as the current version in my opinin. Amaurea 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I like the current main page, and see nothing requiring redesign. Redesign for its own sake will only confuse occasional visitors, and their typical navigation links will move around between visits. I'm a frequent critic of UI redesign for this very reason. I support keeping the current main page. --Llewdor 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. To me all the drafts look a bit too stuffed, unlike the main page we have now. --Gwaur 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I Like 6F, but Keep the Main Page: Of all the drafts, I like 6F the best. But my vote goes for keeping the old Main Page. What's wrong with it? I like it! Change for change's sake is bad. Juan C Nuno
  6. I vote to keep the old page. My second choice would be 6A, but I believe that the current layout design is fine. -Hoekenheef 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. I like the current Main Page. If it has to be redesigned, then a totally new concept would be much better. Not just tweaking for tweaking's sake. --JohnO You found the secret writing! 04:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. I also prefer the current Main Page. It's pretty clean and usefull. Just adding more portals should be enough for now. Mark the Echidna 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. I prefer the current version.--Jusjih 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Draft F is good, but I like the current version best, I like none of the others, as they split the header, and it definitely shouldn't be split(except draft E, which I also don't like:the double header is too cumbersome). Prodego talk 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. I prefer the current page better than the draft. It's a clean and good design. Also, the drafts seem a little more cluttered too.Toonmon2005 02:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)