MediaWiki talk:Sidebar/Archive 1

Older discussion
I've split the "Help/Contact Us" link into separate "help" and "contact us" links. See also MediaWiki talk:Help. Angela. 06:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding a "permalink" in this sidebar. Since permanent links to the current version are now possible, I think it would be a useful addition for people who want to link to a version that they can be guaranteed is not vandalism. See meta:MediaWiki:Permalink-url. Angela. 06:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Permalink is now part of the toolbox instead of the sidebar following discussion at village pump (proposals). Angela. 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for adding the link without consulting anyone, but I think a link to a quick form (an an "add new section link" is just that) for reporting errors is something we could use - that's what the readers are more likely to edit, as being given a form to quickly fill in and click "save" in the sidebar is more intuitive to them than writing an e-mail or writing it at a talk page (where often no one will see it). If you think it's a bad idea, remove it, but it's working quite fine at Polish Wikipedia - so far people don't report bugs but actual factual errors in articles which we managed to fix thanks to that. Ausir 02:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Ausir, my apologies for removing it. I've removed the "Report an error" link because I think it is bound to lead to lots of erroneous bug reports generated from users who don't understand how Wikipedia works. Also, it just presented the user with a blank edit screen to add a section to Report an error without explaining what sort of thing the user should write there or when they should make a bug report. Thus, I think it is not a good idea to have it there; I think something better would be a good idea, however, perhaps a link to a page which explains what to do if you think you've found a bug. It probably works OK on the Polish Wikipedia due to a lower traffic volume, but I'm a bit apprehensive about having it on en. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we could always try adding it there for a short period of time to see how the readers will use it - that's what we did at pl: at first, actually. Ausir 03:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Proper, that is, well-written and correctly presented, bug reports should be filed on BugZilla. Rob Church Talk 03:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was meant not for bug reports but for reporting factual errors in articles. Ausir 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then surely the talk page would be the place to raise them? And a single page for reporting that would become intolerable with a wiki the size of en, since every POV reader in the universe would be moaning on the Report an error function about how their POV was misrepresented. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, since 71% of pages are unwatched, raising concerns on 71% of talk pages is unlikely to result in a response. We do need something like this; maybe a system similar to AFD, with subpages per day (or even per hour, if needed)? &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's why we introduced it at pl:. Ausir 03:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Community Portal
I've noticed that the menu item "Community Portal" is in title caps (both the C and P are capitalized). This seems inconsistent with the rest of the menu which only uses normal capitalization. Maybe the P could be put in lowercase simply for visual consistency? Yes, it's a very minor thing, but those count as well, right? —Michiel Sikma, 09:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "Contact Wikipedia" in the menu follows the same format. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a proper noun. The Community Portal is treated as one as well for no obvious reason.  Dragons flight 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'Portal' should be lowercase. Themindset 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the Community Portal, not a Community portal. We've had discussions about this (I believe on Talk:Main Page, though I could be mistaken. The Main Page is the same thing.  Ral315 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The sidebar redesign discussions, which went on for many weeks, favored lowercasing both. Dragons flight 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to sections
On my website exampleproblems.com in the last version of wiki I could link to a section with a pound # but it doesn't work in 1.6.3. Here's a slice of code that used to work:


 * 1) Complex_Variables|Complex Variables
 * 2) Complex_Variables#Exponential_and_Log|---Exp and Log
 * 3) Complex_Variables#Residue_Calculus|---Residue Calculus
 * 4) Complex_Variables#Complex_Integration|---Complex Integrals
 * 5) Integral_Equations|Integral Equations

Now they all link to Complex_Variables. Thanks for any help.

- Tbsmith


 * I'd suggest you'd probably have better luck asking at Village Pump (technical). Dragons flight 07:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request?
I don't know if I'm allowed to ask here, but anyway, can't you make custom sidebars? or add sidebars to userpages like navigational templates but in the left, not to waste the free space (no interwiki links)? I did something like that in my userpage by superimposing a table to a " " (space) with negative "left" value, but in different explorers has differnt distance to the true sidebar. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

All pages
I added ** Special:Allpages|All Pages like e.g. on http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar, it is more convenient than going to Special:Specialpages first.--Patrick 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Big question, who really needs this all pages after all since it is a hassle to peruse in there in search of who knows what. The nav bar is supposed to be a simple bar that helps the readers (and after, the editors) though by adding the All Pages, it just creates more confusion as to the use of the navigation bar after all. Lincher 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, see also: Village_pump_%28proposals%29. Dragons flight 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Seems like a consensus to me. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When you don't know who the articles are spelled... What do you do then? Many other wikipedias have this added to the sidebar, and it is important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jannizz (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sidebar redesign final vote!
It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself. (msg text copied from JoeSmack) --Quiddity 07:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar delay - meantime changes?
Based on an indefinite delay with the sidebar redesign (it's an enhancement, not a critical bug, hence is low priority for the devs), could we just update the Featured articles link to Featured content now instead of waiting? -Quiddity 03:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dragons flight. :) -Quiddity 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

December sidebar change
Please see Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign, we think this half-implemented update may have been a little too hasty, and might need to be reverted until it's discussed. --Quiddity 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You wager your keester it was a little too hasty! I've spent way too much time investigating the changes and reworking my personal monobook.css page to adjust, only to find it's all reverted!!! FYI, I thought the reorg was fine once I fixed my personal respacing. Now I have a big space of white between "navigation" and "toolbox", with my search field lying neatly in the lower left hand corner (default screen rez of 1152 by 768). FWIW, I think this sort of change should be announced in a notice for reg'd users that appears like the "You have new messages" alert, or similar to the fundraising "popup" at the top that appeared this past weekend. Example: "Attention, the sidebar is about to undergo an overhaul..." or something, with a convenient link for more info. This "interface change" caught me by surprise at a somewhat inconvenient time. Hoping more comments emerge going forward.  Schweiwikist  •  (t)   01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured content link problem
The title (mouseover-hover) text for "Featured content" is old, it says "Featured articles - the best of Wikipedia". I don't know where that variable is stored, but please update "articles"→"content". (per). Thanks :) —Quiddity 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash;David Levy 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About
Sandra Ordonez (User:WikiBlue), the Foundation communications person, has strongly suggested a link to About should go in the sidebar, and not just at the bottom of the page. Any objections? - David Gerard 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How worded and where? "About", maybe above "Donations"?


 * Maybe above "Contact Wikipedia". Whatever works. I've put it into MediaWiki:Sidebar, but it's not showing - could someone with more confidence in hacking at MediaWiki:Common.js please implement ... - David Gerard 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of caching, sidebar changes have a significant lag before being displayed, but it is there now. Dragons flight 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. Once updated, I'll change the redesign draft to reflect. --Quiddity 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that About is more visible, it needs to be as helpful as can be in answering people's questions about Wikipedia. With that in mind, this page was in need of copyediting.  I have made an attempt at copyediting the page, reordering sections in a more logical way, etc.  I may do more later, to think about what the most frequently asked questions or issues are and make sure those points are addressed properly.  If anyone has suggestions, feedback, or can go in and improve the page, please do so! --Aude (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hack it to death. It's absolutely GOT to be n00b-friendly. Simple sections, useful links, NO JARGON. The last part is tricky ... - David Gerard 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Before 'hacking a page to death' and making it more user-friendly, consider that there might be a more user friendly page available already. Several pages were revamped and tightened up in the past few years, and most were linked from Main Page when that was redesigned. What about Introduction? That seems the most user-friendly introduction to me. Also, don't lose the non-newbie version, as the detail of the current About will be of interest to some. It's not an either/or choice - sometimes it is better to fork between a simple version and a detailed version (article forks are bad, manual instruction summary-style simple/detailed forks are often helpful).


 * Help:Contents is already on the sidebar, and Tutorial is a subpage of Introduction. Another point is that these issues were discussed in the sidebar redesign discussion - is Sandra Ordonez (User:WikiBlue) reading these pages, and is she aware of the previous discussions? How much relate to her Foundation communications role? Carcharoth 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

capitalization
It is foolish and unprofessional to have a link capitalized differently than the title of the page to which it refers. This instance is clearly secondary to the title, so here the capitalization should be "Main Page". If the actual title of the Main Page changes, the sidebar should follow. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the (few) things that came from the two months of sidebar design discussion was a preference for the current format. If you want to argue for changing it back, I suggest you take it to one of the village pumps.  Dragons flight 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Add "Contents" to sidebar
Please see Village pump (proposals) for a current discussion about adding the link Contents to the sidebar. --Quiddity 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar Redesign, part 22.5
And another: Village pump (proposals). Feedback please :) --Quiddity 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooo, I'm so amazed that something I kicked off actually got implemented! Although, how did you come up with the idea for the header "about"? The proposal was always for "interact". Also, could you move out of the navigation box the links "recent changes" and "community portal"? Thanks :) — Jack · talk · 08:14, Thursday, 22 March 2007
 * The change was made by Eloquence. But why/where to do you want to move "recent changes" and "community portal"? – Chacor 09:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Into the new box, currently titled "about". In fact, may I go as far as to ask if Quiddity could make said box look like this(?):

interact
 * Help
 * Community portal
 * Questions
 * Recent changes
 * About Wikipedia
 * Contact us
 * Make a donation

...perhaps even putting the "make a donation" in bold? Lol, maybe not.. — Jack · talk · 09:05, Thursday, 22 March 2007
 * Well, only administrators can make the actual change, so unless you mean to ask Quiddity to make the change to his proposal, he has no power to make any change to the sidebar we all see... – Chacor 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry, I was under the impression Quiddity was an administrator. I'll alter: could anyone with the ability please make the sidebar look like this proposal? — Jack · talk · 09:19, Thursday, 22 March 2007
 * At this point I think we need to get some kind of wider agreement on one of the half dozen proposals floating around. Otherwise we are going to have alot of changes back and forth. Since the whole redesign project Featured content, About, and Contents have been added to the sidebar. Do those additions change things? Could the non-overlapping portions of Questions be merged into Contents? Alot of Community Portal overlaps with those two also... and Featured content has links to all the content sub-types which are also prominently listed on Content. Et cetera. Some overlap is inevitable and good, but the picture keeps changing and we should try to keep the sidebar links to a vital minimum. --CBD 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quiddity removed Questions from his proposal, because a link to it is already provided at the top of the Help page, making it just one level down in the menu hierarchy. The consensus currently seems to be to leave "Help" at the bottom where it is most visible.  The Transhumanist 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I removed Questions because you (Transhumanist) requested it, and I was trying to reach consensus with you in some reasonable order of time, for a change. --Quiddity 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've suggested (at the relevant talkpages) that Questions and Contact us either get merged, or at least more clearly interlinked; so far with no feedback. Merging it into Contents is an interesting idea though; I'd like to see a draft.
 * Transhumanist (aka Go for it!) keeps creating "header navigation bars" (the prevention of the proliferation of which, was the main reason I started the sidebar redesign ). Most recently WP help pages (header bar) and WP nav pages (header bar), neither of which I'm fond of. Overlap and redundancy is something he and I seem to disagree about quite strongly.
 * I still think Contents should be below Featured content. A) because Wikipedia is trying to promote quality articles over quantity. B) because Contents isn't at a consistently acceptable level of quality for my liking - many of the pages it links to (e.g. many of the "List of basic ____ topics" lists) were written by a single editor (TT), and aren't on anyone else's watchlists. I've asked him to contact the relevant wikiprojects to let them know of the existence of said pages, and he has said he will, but so far hasn't.
 * Just to clarify: 'Featured content' replaced 'Featured articles', it wasn't a new addition.
 * Its been suggested many times that we remove Portal:Current events from the sidebar, but I've never seen a reply. It's already linked in the Main page's 'In the news' section, so I resuggest its removal from here. --Quiddity 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the link to "questions", although I think "current events" should stay. "Featured content" should definatly be adjacent to "content", regardless of which comes first. — Jack · talk · 02:06, Friday, 23 March 2007

Some slight adjustments are needed
One of the main thrusts of the sidebar redesign project has been that the links in each section fit the heading for that section, and to divide links based upon their relevance to the encyclopedia vs. support.

To fit these design philosophies, which reached strong consensus last September, the "Community portal" and "Recent changes" should be moved down to the second box, as they fit the context of "about" and clearly are not for "navigating" the encyclopedia itself. The Transhumanist 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this motion — Jack · talk · 10:16, Friday, 23 March 2007


 * Thirded.
 * I'll add that the title of "about" ought to be changed to "interact", and the title of "navigation" ought to be changed to "navigate" – to reflect the weeks of discussion we had about this, and which will better reflect this thread's requested item reordering. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Summarized, please update this page to:


 * navigate
 * mainpage|Main page
 * Wikipedia:Contents|Contents
 * Wikipedia:Featured content|Featured content
 * currentevents-url|currentevents
 * randompage-url|randompage


 * interact
 * Wikipedia:About|About Wikipedia
 * portal-url|portal
 * recentchanges-url|recentchanges
 * contact-url|contact
 * sitesupport-url|sitesupport
 * helppage|help

See how that goes. Harryboyles 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. It looks much more organized, though I thought I was losing my mind when the RC link disappeared ;). :: ZJH (T C E) 04:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the piles of discussion on any sidebar changes, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, but: please change 'navigate' back to 'navigation': this is causing many scripts to freak out, and people have had this problem before with renaming navigation. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted to "navigation" and labeled the second box "interaction" to match. Are the scripts okay now?  —David Levy 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Could you please add the village pump link to the sidebar? zero  »  04:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? Cbrown1023 talk 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * interaction section. — ze  ro   »  · 5:09:25 pm, Saturday, 24 March 2007
 * ✅ Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that addition. The VP is linked prominently at the Community portal, and at Help. Adding it to the sidebar is unnecessary, and adds to the size, which is why links such as Questions were removed from the draft - if anything else gets added to the sidebar, Questions has priority, as it also prominently links VP, and the other help desks too. --Quiddity 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, my reasoning was just that I thought it was there previously and must have gotten remove accidentally. I must have been thinking of another project. Cbrown1023 talk 19:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The "search" box
The "search" box is lower than usual on my screen and I have to scroll down to get to it after the recent work on the sidebar. It should be fixed. Matei Tache


 * The new sidebar pushes the Search box below the first screen on monitors operating at 800x600 screen resolutions. There is still a significant minority of web users that operate at that resolution, but personally I think it is impractical for us to continue to limit our navigation links to only those we can fit in that very limited amount of space.  If developers ever make it possible to move the search box higher (as per the original redesign proposal) that would be better, but for now I say we stick with things as they are now.  Dragons flight 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, what Dragons flight said.
 * Another possible remedy for people who have this problem, is to disable any unneeded browser-toolbars. Firefox and Opera in particular, allow a great deal of dragging buttons around - I've arranged my menu items, nav buttons, and address bar in a single toolbar; with that plus the tab bar, I can see the search box at 800x600.


 * (Just for a random yardstick, I checked the smallest current apple macbook 13" inch screen specs; it runs at 1280 by 800 (native), which is more than my 17" crt will run happily!) --Quiddity 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a way to move the search box? We are trying to do this at another wiki.--Mjr162006 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A late comment
I know everyone here has already reached a consensus, but I just learned where this discussion was occuring, & I have a significant problem with the new layout: I use the Classic skin & I do not have access to any of items under "interact". This affects me most because I use the sidebar to get to the Community Portal on a regular basis. (And please don't say with the Classic skin, or change my skin. I don't know CSS, & I find too many features details of the Mono skin ugly or unhelpful.) -- llywrch 18:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack! Most sorry; We often seem to forget the non-monobook users :(
 * I don't know how to fix either. Might removing the blank-line above "interaction" work? (From the code, and skinpreview, it looks like they have the same problem with missing links in the other languages. E.g. no link to Gebruikersportaal in classic at Dutch.)
 * (Just for easy checking of the problem, for monobook users, here's the English classic skin preview link.) --Quiddity 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the first sidebar box is supported in Classic. I suspect the possibility of multiple groups didn't even exist at the time that Classic was last the normal skin.  This is something that probably needs to be addressed by developers.  Dragons flight 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So does this mean those of us not using monobook have to live with this, or is a rollback under consideration? -- llywrch 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mouse-over comments
I've just been catching up on the latest sidebar stuff (as someone who was around when the sidebar redesign took place - was it really six months ago?), and I like the new sidebar, with a few minor points to raise. The link labelled "Help", which appears under the heading 'interaction' implies to me that we are asking people to help us. The other links (except 'About Wikipedia') have helpful mouse over comments. The 'Help' mouse-over is the less than helpful: "The place to find out." I suggest: While on the subject of the mouse-over text, I'll be pedantic and point out that "About Wikipedia" should really have a mouse-over - at the moment it looks like someone forgot to add one. Plus the 'Recent change' mouse-over says "The list of recent changes in the wiki. [alt-r]" - first the word "wiki" is jargon, and for consistency, the "." after it should be lost as well. The 'Help' mouse-over text ends in a period as well, so that should also be fixed. Also, the 'What links here' mouse-over text also uses the word "wiki". I suspect "wiki" is being used here as a global term to refer to all projects, not just Wikipedia. But we should tweak it to a Wikipedia-specific text if possible. Carcharoth 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) the visible link text is made more intuitive, something like "Help pages", or "Need help?"
 * (b) the mouse-over text is changed to "Wikipedia's help pages", or something.

Participation
Instead of "interaction", how about "participation"? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, never mind. I forgot "Help" is under that heading too. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And all the articles are means of participation. Anyone can participate by going to "Featured content" or "Current events" or "Random article". —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar labels
It looks like there were some issues with the recent attempt to change the sidebar. I believe this was caused by a lack of understanding about how the sidebar works.

First, the portlet titles used in MediaWiki:Sidebar are used for two purposes:


 * 1) To look up the system messages that have the actual label text (by looking up the header key in the MediaWiki namespace, e.g. "navigation" as MediaWiki:Navigation)
 * 2) To generate CSS ids in the Monobook skin (by prepending "p-" to the header key)

When the attempt was made to change from "navigation" to "navigate", it changed the CSS id of the portlet from "p-navigation" to "p-navigate", which would break anyone's script that had been relying on that. The correct way to do this would have been to override MediaWiki:Navigation to say "Navigate". This would have left the CSS id as "p-navigation", but changed the label to "Navigate". This can still be done.

The second potential issue was the change from "about" to "interaction". This doesn't appear to have caused any problems with scripts, since nobody seems to have been making use of "p-about", but it did have the side effect of "interaction" becoming the only lower-case title. The fact that all of the titles *display* as lower-case is a CSS effect; the titles in the HTML source are all title case. I've put in an edit request at MediaWiki:Interaction to change the text to "Interaction". If it is desirable to change the visible text to "Interact", it should be done in MediaWiki:Interaction, not by changing the sidebar again. Mike Dillon 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be better to talk about this at the Village pump. Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote up a more thorough analysis of the sidebar issues at User:Mike Dillon/Sidebar. I posted a link to my analysis at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sidebar issues (permalink), but I haven't received any response so far. Mike Dillon 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be ✅ :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two upload links?
I think the two upload links (one in the toolbox, one in interaction) are confusing? Perhaps changing the wizard driven one to ("Upload file wizard")? Gutworth 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, very confusing. I think we would be fine with a link only to Upload. If people want the other form they can click from there or type it in. If people don't like that, then we should at least differentiate the two links somehow. If we have to have two links maybe one could say "Expert upload" or something so that new users will use Upload. I don't really like "wizard" it's too windows-centric. - cohesion 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cohesion, (that there should be only one link) and for that link we can just call it "Upload file" (without the word "wizard" in it). Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If in a few days nobody objects, I will add editprotected to have just the wizard but call it "Upload file" and to have it in the toolbox. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Upload, but see also MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext. Just fyi, or anyone coming in late :) --Quiddity 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I didn't notice that discussion! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Two months on and it still hasn't been done? What is wrong with you people? I'm doing it. -- Tim Starling 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks :) - cohesion 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to alter the sidebar link in some kind of preferences file? It's just that I'd rather my toolbox link, linked to a tool, rather than more bloody instructions. - hahnch e n 19:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, by editing your monobook. For example, see mine.  The functionnavigation and addtoolbox links sections, the former for the "navigation" section and the latter for the "toolbox" section.   Cbrown1023    talk   19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the Special:Upload page is linked to on the Upload page, or you could always bookmark special:upload if you use it frequently and don't want to see the instructions. - cohesion 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hahnchen on this. I hope that the "wizard" makes a difference overall, because adding another click is certainly not friendly to the regulars who know that they are doing.  Dragons flight 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

protected edit request
The recent changes to this and MediaWiki:Mainpage now cause both the logo and the sidebar link to point to Main page, which is a redirect, resulting in the redirect text being displayed at the top of the page. This is undesirable. Please revert the changes to MediaWiki:Mainpage; if you want the sidebar link to display differently, create a new MediaWiki page with a different name, add the text "Main page" to that and edit this message to refer to that – Gurch 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel more comfortable expressing my agreement here than actually performing the change. Dekimasu よ! 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of issues that must be examined before making any changes. All the links are working now. Do you want to change the label (not the link) back to be "Main page"? --- RockMFR 06:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best - to be consistent with the others. <b style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;">Greeves</b> (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the text of the link was intentionally made "Main page" rather than "Main Page" to correspond to the capitalization of the other items during one of the Main Page redesign proposals. The only secondary word not lowercased in the sidebar is "Wikipedia" due to it's being a proper noun.  Please restore it to "Main page".  Dragons flight (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal. The 'mainpage|mainpage' text here defines Mediawiki:Mainpage as both the link to go to (the left 'mainpage') and the text to display (the right 'mainpage'). Thus, changing Mediawiki:Mainpage to 'Main page' would display the correct text in the sidebar, but link to Main page... which would redirect to Main Page but display the redirect message. Moving the "Main Page" to "Main page" would resolve the problem, but I'm not sure how feasible that is. Alternatively, we could change the sidebar markup to something like 'mainlink|mainpage' and create a Mediawiki:Mainlink with 'Main Page' in it to link directly to the right page while showing 'Main page'. However, there are various things throughout Wikipedia, such as the logo, which expect the Main page LINK to be at Mediawiki:Mainpage, thus those would either have to all be tracked down and changed to look at 'Mainlink' or they would get the redirect message. Just putting 'mainpage|Main page' on the sidebar as someone did previously breaks the internationalization - it prints 'Main page' for all languages rather than using Mediawiki:Mainpage/de and the like. --CBD 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obviously a hack for both the link and text describing it forced by Mediawiki to be the same. And frankly, I consider breaking internationalization an acceptable response to that hack.  Incidentally, you could have left it mainpage|Main page and put internationalizations back in by hand as (Mediawiki:Main page/de, etc.), which is of course also a hack.  So I guess the ideal solution would be to fix Mediawiki, but that would surely take some doing.


 * I do have one possible suggestion, though. What happens if one changes Mediawiki:Mainpage/en?  I noticed that ?uselang=de renders mainpage|mainpage as Mediwiki:mainpage | Mediawiki:mainpage/de, so is it possible that the default can actually be expanded as Mediawiki:mainpage | Mediawiki:mainpage/en?  (I really have no idea if that would work, or whether it is even possible to consider the default space as seperate from the en space.)  Dragons flight (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I tried using Mediawiki:Mainpage/en, but it was reverted back to 'Main Page'. Dunno why. --CBD 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Internalization standards at MediaWiki:Sidebar
Dear friends; as far as I remember it is recommended that the right site for the lines in MediaWiki:Sidebar should be Mediawiki messages. This way the international users selecting another language in special:Preferences can have a clue about what the page is about.

I thing Wikipedia:About|About Wikipedia should be replaced with Wikipedia:About|aboutsite to fulfill this request. See also MediaWiki:Aboutsite which contains exactly « About Wikipedia ».

Best regards

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done <b style="color:darkblue;">Harryboyles</b> 12:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Newpages
In the sidebar there is already, recent changes and random page. However, for the new pages patrol, it would be easier to have a link to Special:Newpages. <em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk 17:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (I haven't tried it but) see Tools/Navigation shortcuts to add personal links to the sidebar, or the more specialized User:TheJosh/Scripts/New Page Patroller (both seen at WikiProject User scripts/Scripts). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They work fine, I think the sidebar items should be more for readers, editors can alter the interface however they want to suit their specialized requirements. - cohesion 05:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the search bar
A proposal to move the search bar was brought to proposal village pump and received about 2/3 support. With 37232, it's now possible to easily move the search bar without JS or CSS. I propose moving the bar between interaction and navigation as a compromise between moving it all the way up and keeping it where it is. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -- Tim Starling (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The higher the better. --  John Broughton    (♫♫) 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it where it is – why exactly should we move the search bar in the first place? { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with basing a decision on opinions such as "I like it where it is" is that this isn't just about what you as an editor like - it's what makes most sense for the millions of readers of Wikipedia. And - as can be seen at virtually all high-volume websites - it makes sense to make the search function prominent - not buried off to one side.  --  John Broughton    (♫♫) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's what I was asking for. :) { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Between "navigation" and "interaction" was where almost everyone involved in the Sidebar redesign wanted it, so count that crowd as supporting it too.
 * If any more reasons are needed: one of the Foundation board members (iirc) was commenting somewhere that people she met at conferences often couldn't see the search box on their small/short notebook screens. This will also hopefully head-off the folks who want a second (redundant) search box in their Main page redesign. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, for the Main Page we can probably use a trick to disable the usual search box and just put a big inputbox search bar front and center. { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This idea has consistently been rejected on the basis that it would confuse and mislead incoming users (who should be shown where to expect the search field to appear throughout the site). —David Levy 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This will be a major improvement. —David Levy 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had code to do this in my .js for months; fully support. Then we just need to agree to recolour it... :D <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully support moving it to the top. Helps the readers. --Dschwen 02:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, support. Thank you if you can please move it to the top or as high as possible. Saves a look around for it. —SusanLesch (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very top (under globe logo), please! It's so important and not just for new users. I note that the Norwegian main pages (here and here) already have implemented this change.

I can't see that it needs a new size or color, if that's what's being suggested. But the new drop-down suggestion list should expand horizontally as needed. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I support. It will even get higher by removing the search title: put into Mediawiki:Monobook.css. ( see nn:) -- Hogne (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it looks better where it is. Both navigation and interaction are navigation links and should be kept together so I don't think it should be between them. Putting by the globe wads too much whitespace together. It looks wonderful now. <b style="color:red;">1</b><b style="color:green"> != </b><b style="color:red;">2</b>  15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved the search bar up one section. That seems to be the option that currently has the broadest amount of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I hope this sticks. Although I had to do a double take when I saw it, as I wasn't sure what had changed. Perhaps a notice on the Community Portal should be posted? BigBlueFish (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * . --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be better directly below the logo. Seems odd that en is making such a big fuss about it, while the other projects are just quietly doing the right thing(tm). --Dschwen 23:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, top is best. I looked for any accessibility or mobile standard or even standard-to-be that would say a search box must be lower in page order, and found none. I don't have all their books and reports but no order is specified in Nielsen/Tahir's Homepage Usability nor in Alertbox as of 2005--one thing there is the box is too narrow (something for another day). So, it's not a usability rule either. So, I'm curious, why is it where it is? —SusanLesch (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it being in any of the three positions, though I do think that having it at the top makes the most sense. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  03:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, would like to see it moved to the top (though I'm happy that we've finally moved it up this much). —David Levy 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous reasons mentioned for keeping it between "navigation" and "interaction" include: avoiding excess whitespace at the top; visually emphasizing/separating the blocks of text; drawing the eye downwards to increase curious click-throughs to our community pages; placing it right above the link to About.
 * Possibly there are more. (I prefer it between). -- Quiddity (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current location looks the best, but recent comments have persuaded me that it would be helpful to our readers (especially new ones) to place the search box at the top of the column. I am, however, happy with this compromise.  —David Levy 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

&#8592;hrm... I'm not sure if I like this or not. I think that, while the previous version is redundant, it is also more self-explanatory. I don't really care what it says, but I think the other way is better. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855; 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is a test to gauge the community's response (at the time when it's the least disruptive). It was discussed a while back (along with the rest of the sidebar redesign, including the search box move), and the consensus within that group of editors was unclear.
 * In addition to the redundancy, it simply doesn't make sense for "Go" and "Search" to fall under the heading of "search" (and the addition of the auto-completion feature makes this more true than ever before). Both are methods of finding articles, so I strongly feel that the the "find" label (already used in the Cologne Blue skin) is the most logical choice.  —David Levy 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think "find" is unintuitive given the predominance of the word "search" online. I've reverted the change to MediaWiki:Search by deleting the page (which restores the default "Search"). I don't see why "find" would be preferable; when you suggest that "both [Go and Search buttons] are methods of finding articles", it, to me, begs the question: are not both the buttons also methods of "searching for articles"? { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 03:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, "search," while possibly redundant, is a pretty common term on the web. I also noticed that MediaWiki:Search controls the h1 title on Special:Search. Mr.Z-man 04:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that, but I'm sure that it could be adjusted via custom code. —David Levy 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  I really think "find" is unintuitive given the predominance of the word "search" online. 
 * The word "search" continued to appear as the larger button label. Frankly, we could remove the heading entirely without confusing anyone.
 *  I've reverted the change to MediaWiki:Search by deleting the page (which restores the default "Search"). 
 * ...which I would have done if the change had proven unpopular after a few days of discussion. But I suppose that it was unrealistic of me to think that we could give the community an adequate opportunity to evaluate even the smallest interface change (which merely duplicated an element contained within another MediaWiki skin).
 *  I don't see why "find" would be preferable; 
 * Because the default setup (with "Search" as a sub-element of "search") doesn't make sense?
 *  when you suggest that "both [Go and Search buttons] are methods of finding articles", it, to me, begs the question: are not both the buttons also methods of "searching for articles"? 
 * Not in the sense that the "Search" button conveys (a search of the articles' text). —David Levy 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about "look up", which is also in common parlance in the context of encyclopedias, and is also exactly what the Go button does, hence making "Go" and "Search" more understandable. I know it's two words rather than one but I think it would be an improvement. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Look up" is an idiom that doesn't make sense to many people for whom English isn't a primary language. —David Levy 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonder if I can interest you in "The search input field should be wide enough to contain the typical query; if the box is too small, the query will scroll and diminish usability." Emphasis is the author's (source holds as of 2005, mentioned above). Here is visualization. —SusanLesch (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on what you propose. Could you please elaborate?  —David Levy 05:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely. Here's the sketch again. Can you see the red box in the upper header? The red's there just so it shows up. Just to the right of the logo. No label needed (and I can look that up for you but I think Dr. Nielsen advises no label). Also, do you happen to know what MediaWiki page that is? (The one that holds the username, talk, prefs, watchlist, contributions, log out, and then page, discussion, edit this page, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I'm happy now that search moved up a section. Because only a handful of usability rules for search exist (that I have access to) I thought maybe it would be a good idea to think this one out too. —SusanLesch (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where the anon-donation-banner is (log out to see) in monobook. Can't put anything there. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Logged out, six links go away: username, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, and log out. Pages only say "Log in / create account" in the upper right in monobook. There's plenty of room for the banner. Usable search is even worth nudging the whole page down half an em (although it's not necessary, it could be done). I trust moving the bits and pieces is easy to do. It's only a matter of whether people see its value. Free research: "more than half of all users are search-dominant" (1997) followed by, "Web users are growing ever-more search dominant (2006). I'd be willing to guess that Wikipedia must be higher. —SusanLesch (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page link
Hi. Can the link to "Main Page" from Main Page be removed? Or changed on that one page so the sidebar stays in position. —SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stays in position? I'm not following. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More than just this one link, I see now. Can every link in the sidebar go away on its page (Main Page, Contents, Featured content, Current events, About Wikipedia, Community portal etc.) Normal-weight font is fine if bold is too scary. (Then, if there is text holding its place, to try to answer your question, plus or minus any given item in the sidebar wouldn't send the sidebar text up and down.) —SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that that feature is currently possible. I imagine the reason is that the intention is to heavily cache this page for better performance. You could try filing (or searching) for a bug at the MediaWiki bug tracker. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bug 8383 mentioned caching and that red links aren't possible, but, what the hey, 14796 added just in case it is possible. Thank you! —SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hey! who toke off the recent changes on the sidebar? it be on the sidebar always cause it should have a shortcut and well we all need a shortcut so thats why we need it on there so that to see if someone vandalized a page but you have to quick so yeah it should be on there. Demon Hunter Rules (&mdash;)  20:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's under "Community portal" where it's always been. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tooltips
3 of the sidebar links do not currently have tooltips: Featured content, About Wikipedia, and Cite this page. Perhaps some meta-link got broken somewhere? Not sure where/how to fix. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These tooltips are defined by system messages, using the part after | in MediaWiki:Sidebar. Existing tooltips were lost after this and this edits. MediaWiki:tooltip-n-Featured-content should have been moved into MediaWiki:tooltip-n-featuredcontent, and MediaWiki:tooltip-n-About-Wikipedia → MediaWiki:tooltip-n-aboutsite. I'm not sure what system message is used for "Cite" tooltip. —AlexSm 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on this now. Likely going to break something. --- RockMFR 06:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the cite tooltip should logically be at MediaWiki:Tooltip-t-cite, but it doesn't work. Hmm.... --- RockMFR 07:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14854. --- RockMFR 07:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

add to navigation
Since I have never found the Featured Portal ideal for browsing good articles unless one has a field in mind, and is not lazy, and since the Random article is unsatisfactory for the reader in throwing up stubs and poor articles, I think the addition of two more links will greatly improve reader experience of Wikipedia.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php — Random Featured article

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-good.php — Random Good article

These are tools by User:Dapete. Let's make this happen. 86.44.22.174 (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think these belong in the sidebar. The would be valuable additions to WP:FA/WP:GA or Portal:Featured content, however. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The logic for their being on the sidebar is the same as that for Random article, except for readers who only want genuinely informative articles. 86.44.22.174 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead, why not change the "Random article" link to only link to featured/good articles? I suppose editors would find the existing link useful for randomly picking a new project to work on. SharkD (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I normally don't get involved in meta discussions on enwiki, but as the author of these tools, I think can make an exception... I don't think these functions are important enough to link them in the sidebar. They are not even linked on Portal:Featured content or the pages on good/featured articles at the moment, and I anything I think it would be better to include them there. -- da pete disputa! 11:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "all random articles" option is valuable - it gives editors a much better sense of what typical Wikipedia articles look like. And for someone looking for an article to improve, limited the selection to good or featured articles is exactly what they don't need.


 * Having said that, perhaps something like this might be worth considering:


 * Current events
 * Random article:
 * Any | Good | Featured
 * Any | Good | Featured


 * That makes the box one row lengthier, but that doesn't seem like a major issue, since we're not adding a new function, just expanding an existing one. -- John Broughton    (♫♫) 15:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Superb. I especially like that the different levels of article review are intuitively detectable from the order (none to most rigorous). 86.44.19.55 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in full support of any tool to improve the functionality of Random article. Two thirds of the time I (and presumably everyone else) press random article, I wind up at a two-sentence stub, never an interesting quality article. The newest sugestion by User:John Broughton is both practical and aesthetically pleasing. Calor (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I too am intrigued. Only concern would be: Is the toolserver it is running on going to be reliable/happy with thousands of extra hits per day? Apart from "Donate..", all the links in the sidebar lead to en.wikipedia.org currently... Should the scripts be imported somehow? -- Quiddity 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that importing the scripts would be a trivial matter, providing Dapete would be happy with that. But I'm not qualified to make presumptions in this area. Perhaps techincal people will weigh in.


 * Putting these links on one page as opposed to the sidebar, as Happy and Dapete have suggested, loses their functionality. The link is no longer availible once one clicks it. I currently have both these links as bookmark buttons on my browser bar. Because Good and Featured articles conform to WP:Lead, one is confronted each time with a few paragraphs accurately summarizing the topic, and the ToC, all of which one can read before deciding to either continue with the article, or click again. It's a really good experience of browsing Wikipedia.


 * Currently I personally can see no incentive for achieving the Good or Featured article stamps outside of interwiki recognition, and the feedback one receives at candidacy. However, the idea of increased readership by readers like myself interested in sourced and structured articles, seems a real incentive. 86.44.16.244 (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What links here
The name of the tool "What links here" on the sidebar is unclear and even its tool-tip, "List of all pages that link here", is ambiguous. Maybe something along the lines of "Referring pages" or "Pages linking this page"? "Back-links" and "Reverse links" are not great either, but at least they don't convey vagueness as an expression with the words "what" and "here". 217.132.92.40 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I think "What links here" is quite obvious: "What links here" is an easy way of saying "What [group of pages, places, on this site,] links [to] here[, this page.]" Certainly the use of pronouns and omission of the preposition "to" after "links" don't help, but it's the shortest way to convey the meaning without significantly compromising it—it would be much longer to say "this page" instead of "here" and longer to say "List of all pages" than "What". As one does not know what links to the page before clicking the link (where one understands the label), "what" is appropriate. The tooltip could be improved: I would suggest that it be changed to "List of all pages containing links to this page" to clarify by avoiding the use of "link" as a verb, which I believe is the source of the ambiguity you suggest is present. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You described how *you* interpret the "What links here". For you, it's obvious and easy. I found it buffaloing and explained why I might not be the only one scratching their head. It's interesting that you find the word "link" to be the source of ambiguity. I saw the vagueness in "what" and "here". It seems every word in this tool's name is causing confusion. :-) I think this merits a fix. 217.132.92.40 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tooltip (at least in Monobook) is in fact 'List of all English Wikipedia pages that link here'. If someone does decide to edit it, it's over here. Algebraist 23:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Nihiltres, I think it is self explanatory as is. Deamon138 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also find 'referring pages' incomprehensible and 'pages linking this page' too long. I see nothing wrong with changing the tooltip to 'List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page'. Algebraist 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tooltip is a lesser problem, if at all. The "What links here" name is the problem. 217.132.92.40 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the tooltip with the version Algebraist and I came up with; I'm unsure how the main label can be improved without sacrificing brevity—the function of the page is, after all, relatively abstruse. If someone can come up with a viable alternative, I'm open to suggestions, otherwise "What links here" is acceptable, if not ideal. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Placement of "advanced search"
What if it was moved up to below "Featured content"? How would that be? Emesee (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point of placing the Advanced search link at the bottom of the "navigation" box was that that is the closest to the search box. The most logical place would be inside the search box, but that looked ugly. And placing it right below the search box, inside the "interaction" menu was not a good option since that menu has other purposes. See the original discussion at Village pump (technical).
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Search link
Where is the page for editing the search box? It looks like it is transcluded into the sidebar somehow.

It would be nice if there was a search link in the search box area. I would like to be able to right-click that link to open up a new page or tab with Special:Search.

There seem to be objections to naming the link to that page "Advanced search", so why not just name it "Search"? That word is already in the search box area. So making it into a link would solve the problem. Or put that link just above it in the navigation section links. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Advanced search is hard to find
Note: This discussion was started at Village pump (technical).

I did not notice right away, but advanced search is at the bottom of the regular sidebar search results. Could a link to "advanced search" be put in the sidebar of all pages?

Or at the very least, at the TOP of the regular sidebar search results too, and not just at the bottom. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitting the "Search" button (next to the "Go" button) takes you to that page; a link already is on every page. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but very few people know that, I believe. I have been editing Wikipedia almost 3 years and have over 14,000 edits and did not know that until now. I have always entered a search term or phrase and then clicked either button. I don't remember clicking either the "go" or the "search" button without entering search terms. Or it was so rare that I did not remember where it sent me too.


 * Most of the time I use the Google toolbar to search the Wikipedia site anyway: the "Search only the current Web site" button. I would have liked to have used the advanced search more since there is more specificity in what it can search for in some cases. But I disliked the extra steps I had to take to hunt up the bookmark. So this is good to know. Many other people would probably like to know this.


 * No offense, but nerds who work a lot in an area (for example the Wikipedia sidebar and interface), tend to lose sight of how others perceive that area. They don't realize how unintuitive some things are. I have my areas I focus on in nerdlike fashion, and fresh perspectives have been very helpful at times. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to say I second the suggestion to add a Special:Search link somewhere in the sidebar ("toolbox", I guess). Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea to put it in the "toolbox" section of the sidebar of wikipedia pages. I hope it is named "Advanced search" since that is a search tool name people are familiar with. So the link could be in this form: Advanced search. That is also the name used on the submit button on that search page. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too would like an Advanced search link in the toolbox since I want to be able to right click it and choose "Open link in new tab", and I can't do that with the [Search] button.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If this doesn't get implemented generally, anyone who wants it can easily do it with personal javascript. Algebraist 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If whatever you search for doesn't exist, the "Advanced search" thing is at the bottom of the search results page. Mr.Z-man 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the OP said that in his first sentence. The issue is whether it should be more visible. Algebraist 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Best solution would be to make the word "search" (above the search box) link to Special:Search rather than adding it to the bullet list. — CharlotteWebb 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I was wondering why there were 2 buttons, one labeled "Go" and one labeled "Search". I think one of them could be removed. Then a simple link labeled "Advanced search" could be put in its place. A link, not a button. A link can be right-clicked as David Göthberg suggested, and the advanced search page can be opened up in a new tab. I dislike having to open it over the original existing page. That wastes bandwidth and time if I have to go back to the original page. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They serve different purposes. "Go" (a.k.a. "I'm feeling lucky") loads a page with a title exactly matching your input, if one exists, and "Search" will give you a list of pages containing text similar to your input. I'm just suggesting that we change the text above the sarch box from: <label for="searchInput">Search to <label for="searchInput"><a href="/wiki/Special:Search" title="Advanced search">Search</a> — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. That would work. Not sure that everyone will understand that the box below the link is not for advanced search though. But this idea of putting the "Advanced search" link just above the search box is much better than before. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear no! The Manual of Style explicitly states that section headings in articles "should not normally contain links", since most editors think that is ugly. So please don't link the box headings in the interface. Also, renaming that box heading to "Advanced search" would be misleading about the box content, and not renaming it would be misleading about what the link means.
 * The advanced search is mostly for us editors who want to search other name spaces. (Well, and for experienced readers who want to right click and open a new tab.) So put the link in the toolbox. There are plenty of vertical space in our sidebar, since most pages are far longer than the boxes in the sidebar. (And I have a very slow computer but loading and rendering some extra text is no problem, so it's not a performance issue either.)
 * And keep both the [Go] and [Search] buttons. They are both useful and I have seen my non-geek friends use them and understand them without problems.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only hope your appeal to the MOS is a sarcastic one. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Maybe if the "Advanced search" link was put at the top of the "interaction" section then it would be close enough to the search box to be noticed right away by people who want to do a search. Or better yet, put the link at the bottom of the search box below the "go" and "search" buttons. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CharlotteWebb: No, I don't use sarcasm. I know the MOS doesn't apply to anything but articles. But it is still a good reference for what many Wikipedians think is good style.
 * Timeshifter: You got a point that it would be nice if the Advanced search link is put somewhere close to the search buttons. I tried it in my image editor and it doesn't look that good in the search box (below the search buttons). So I suggest either at the top of the "interaction" menu, or perhaps more fitting at the bottom of the "navigation" menu. (And adding it to any of those two menus is just a simple edit to MediaWiki:Sidebar, while adding it to the search box is probably more complex.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sole commonality is the coincidental use of a  html tag for each, so comparisons are tenuous at best. — CharlotteWebb 16:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the bottom of the navigation menu sounds good. Search is definitely a navigation tool. And the "Advanced search" link would be directly adjacent to the search box. I have another problem. When I enter a search term into the search box the popup suggestion box that drops down covers the "go" and "search" buttons. This makes it almost impossible to actually do a search! So putting the "advanced search" link above the search box is better. This allows people to go some place where they can do a less-encumbered search. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter: When you type in a word and don't want to do an actual search instead of just clicking one of the alternatives that pop up in the drop-down list, then all you have to do is to click anywhere outside the box (on the page) to close the drop-down list, then you can click "Search". The word you typed will still be in the text field.
 * Everyone: It seems most of us want to have a link to Advanced search in the sidebar, and that some of us think the best place is at the bottom in the "navigation" menu. So I will add it there now.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! SharkD (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - The Advanced search is now in the "navigation" menu in the sidebar. If you don't see it on a page you visit and feel impatient then you can purge the page. About a week from now all pages will have timed out in the cache and will have re-rendered and then everyone (including IP users) will see the Advanced search link on all pages.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see it. Is there a way to make the dropdown menu (the one with search suggestions) open up so that it doesn't cover up the "go" and "search" buttons. Maybe make it open up a little to the right? Also, could the search results for regular searches open up in a new tab? --Timeshifter (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to add hotlinks for some of the more advanced function, like there is on edit pages? Or, at least provide a short key/legend? SharkD (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which advanced functions? —AlexSm 04:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I oppose this addition. So far I saw two arguments: By the way, a little tip: if you want to search in one particular namespace, just type it as a prefix, e.g. typing "wp:apple" and clicking "Search" will look for "apple" in "Wikipedia:" namespace. —AlexSm 04:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) some users never find advanced search fieldset. Solution: add a jumping-down shortcut to MediaWiki:Searchresulttext which is displayed above search result
 * 2) some users need a direct link to advanced search. Solution: a bookmark in your browser.


 * SharkD: I don't know what you meant by "hotlinks". But do you mean that on the Special:Search page you want to add some more explanations how it works? I looked around and there is at least the MediaWiki:Searchresulttext which seems to be the message that is placed at the top of Special:Search, so seems we can add more text easily.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the question was about insertable characters (aka edittools)? Certainly possible as a gadget. —AlexSm 04:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AlexSm: Your first suggestion above is good. I checked the rendered page code and there is an id at the advanced search box at the bottom of the page, so yes, we can add an anchor link from the message at the top of the page.
 * Your second suggestion does not help people who read or edit from public computers. And does not help people who don't know the link Special:Search in the first place.
 * Your third suggestion does not help the millions of people who don't read this Village pump page.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want more of an explanation of how it works on the search page itself (a terse cheat-sheet with examples should suffice). And possibly the insertable characters like can be found on the edit pages. SharkD (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Benefit to readers?
I don't see the benefit to non-editors. The only people who really care about namespaces other than the main namespace are editors. If I was a casual reader and saw "advanced search", I would assume it was actually more advanced than the normal search in a way that actually matters to me. It's not. --- RockMFR 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, the "Advanced search" isn't really useful for non-editors. In fact, calling it "Advanced search" at all is somewhat misleading. All it does is search namespaces that aren't the default one, or what you have set in your preferences, other than that its the same search, it really doesn't give any advanced options like Yahoo's or Bugzilla's. The only real advanced options (Boolean search and category intersections) are available via the normal interface. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The main benefit is to be able to get to the search page that has some options. I don't really care if the link is labeled "Advanced search". Just labeling it "Search" is fine with me. Maybe the options aren't all that advanced, but they are helpful, and are better than having no options. The search box in the sidebar has no options. The sidebar search form also does not have room to see more than 2 or 3 words without scrolling. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The most beneficial feature for readers is the ability to search Wikipedia using Google. Algebraist 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I dislike the addition too. It doesn't seem special enough for its new shiny home. Ian ¹³  /t  15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you guys noticed that the Special:Search has a drop down box where you can choose to do a Wikipedia site search with Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, Wikiwix and Exalead? And there is much more to Special:Search than most people know, read all about it at Searching. What that page currently lacks is some added explanations of all the advanced options there really is. Anyway, since the advanced search at the moment does not come with a proper explanation then you guys are right that it is mostly useful for our editors.
 * So, how would you guys feel about if we only added the Advanced search link for logged in users? (Disregarding the fact that many of our editors edit as IP users.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because some people don't see a use for advanced search is not a reason to remove it for those of us who see a use for it. Many people will use it to search talk pages, or images, or help, or categories. A very big benefit is that it allows people to right-click the link and open a search page in a new tab. Many, many people will use it just for that reason alone. Especially dial-up users who do not have the time and bandwidth to use the regular search. Regular search opens up in the same page, and one has to use the back arrow and reload the page to go back to the page. Over time many more people will use Wikipedia's search tools if there is an advanced search link. If you don't like calling it "advanced" then just use the name "search". The point is to make it easier to use search. Right now it is very difficult for many people for the reasons I discussed earlier. And how can people navigate the site best without search? So the search link belongs in the navigation section of the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter explains it very well. And using a less strong title for the link is probably a good idea. But to differentiate it from the "search" heading I suggest we call it for instance Extended search. That is not as a strong name as "Advanced search".
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, since the WP:Manual of Style does not apply to the sidebar we can go ahead and make "search" clickable. This way we are not adding more text or more length to the sidebar. I read all the relevant guidelines at WP:MOSHEAD and WP:ACCESS and none of it applies to making the search heading clickable in the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, if the whole section title is one link then it doesn't interfere with screen readers, thus it isn't an accessibility problem. And technically the Manual of Style only applies to article content, but it reflects what many editors think is good style. So just because the MOS does not technically apply to the rest of the interface doesn't mean we should add bad/ugly style to the interface. And yes, many of us feel very strongly that linking headers is VERY ugly.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a header in my opinion. It's a less-indented sidebar link followed by a searchbox. In fact, an asterisk can be added in front of "Search", so that it fits in the same indented format as the rest of the sidebar links above it. I often see sidebar links in nested tree form. I am a webmaster myself, and my sidebars have various lists of links in various indentations depending on the need. As for the name of the link I am happy with any name. Another thing that might help is to put the search box inside the table of the navigation section so that it truly is part of that section, and the search link then becomes truly just another navigation link. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Move search form to top of page. Keep search link in sidebar

 * Another possibility is to move the searchbox to the top of the page to the left of this stuff at the very top of all my Wikipedia pages:


 * Timeshifter - My talk - My preferences - My watchlist - My contributions - Log out


 * I am using the default monobook skin. On my 17-inch monitor screen all the links are on the right half of my monitor screen. This leaves the left side open for the searchbox and search buttons in one line:


 * [Search box] [Go] [Search]


 * This way a search link in the sidebar is totally separate from the searchbox at the top of the page. I like this option best of all since it allows more room in the search form for more search terms. Also, the dropdown menus of suggestions and options would not cover the go and search buttons. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Log-out, and look at the space you suggest - the donation message is there. It also would break horribly on smaller/portable displays. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Later note. Today when I log out I don't see any donation message blocking the very, very top of the wikipedia page on the left. If the logo was moved down a quarter inch, the top left half of the page has an open line of space going across most of the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be used on logged-in user pages. That might actually get more people to register and log in. Searchbars are very popular. The top line could be made to break anyway we design it to. I am a webmaster and I understand making pages that wordwrap well with laptop screens, etc.. The top line could be made to simply wrap. First "log out" and then "my contributions", etc.. It's not a big deal. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A picture may help. Here is how it might look at the very top left of Wikipedia pages:
 * |_________________| Dropdown menu. Search. Go.
 * The dropdown menu could be combined with "Search". This is how it is done in the Google Toolbar. See Special:Search to see the dropdown menu to be used. This idea shortens the search form even more. This is how it would link:
 * |_________________| Search. Go.
 * This search form is so short there would be no breaking problems on small laptop screens, etc.. The "Search" button would have a downward-pointing arrow on it, to make it function also as a dropdown menu. The Wikipedia logo at the top of Wikipedia pages could be pushed down a little bit to provide a little more space for the search form at the top of Wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper consensus?
I don't really think there is much use for it either, and I'd to get some kind of consensus from a wider audience. Per above, it seems only useful to editors who need to search for something they've lost in the Wikipedia namespace and such, not much use to the majority of our visitors. If we could have some discussion of what the community actually thinks of this, that would be perfect. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 12 editors who have commented:
 * AlexSm
 * Algebraist
 * Byeitical
 * CharlotteWebb
 * David Göthberg
 * EVula
 * Ian
 * Mr.Z-man
 * RockMFR
 * Sardanaphalus
 * SharkD
 * Timeshifter

Opinion seems to be split on naming the link "Advanced search". I haven't heard any objections to naming the link "Search". See the reasons for it higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter: That is not entirely correct. I for one have objected to just call it "Search" since that naming would collide with the existing search box. Since some think "Advanced search" is a too strong name for it I have suggested the name "Extended search".
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy with any name. I just want a link. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Byeitical explains it quite well: this would be more useful for editors than readers. Editors can quite easily tweak their own interfaces using Tools/Navigation shortcuts and other scripts from WikiProject User scripts/Scripts.
 * Personally, I'd oppose any additional link-lines, or making the searchbox header into a link (for reasons mentioned above). The search-results page could use some tweaks, but I'm not sure if this is the correct page to discuss that; (where is?). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most people use search to find anything on the web. Why would Wikipedia readers be any different? In the "navigation" section of the sidebar are far less useful links:


 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article


 * Search is far more used by most people. I very, very rarely use the other links in the navigation section. I am not sure I have ever used "Random article." Couldn't that be moved to the main page, and an "Extended search" link be put there? Something actually useful to most readers. Probably hundreds of millions of people have Google or Yahoo searchbars at the top their browser. They both have extended search features. People love those extended search features. Why such negativity to such a logical idea? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would readers need to search the Mediawiki or Template namespaces (for example)?
 * And if they do want to (implying they know of those namespaces' existence) they can probably work out how to do so. (but again, I do agree that the search-results page could be improved).
 * Our current search setup works fairly well for the vast majority of readers. (Any deficiencies are due to the search engine itself). Adding more links to the same search-page will potentially just confuse more people than it helps.
 * Tangentially: I use "random article" a lot. It's also a core sidebar link in almost every mediawiki implementation. That has nothing to do with search though. This isn't a space concern, it's a redundancy/confusion concern. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am repeating myself. Special:Search is where one can search for images, categories, and help. People are interested in those types of searches. Also, Special:Search does not open up over an existing article as the current sidebar searchbox does. This wastes time and bandwidth if people want to go back to the article they were reading.


 * The current searchbox is severely flawed. Its suggestion menu blocks the go and search buttons. People oftentimes can't figure out how to get rid of that suggestion menu. So many readers do not use search. I did not use the sidebar search for that reason. Also the search results open up over the article one is reading.


 * A lot more people would use the "extended search" link versus all the other current links in the navigation section except for maybe the "Main page" link.. If we can't get rid of one of the other navigation links, then we can add the "extended search" link to the current list of navigation links. It is worth a link. Plus there is discussion of making Special:Search even more useful. See MediaWiki talk:Searchresulttext. People liked the idea of a sidebar search link for various reasons. See the previous discussion for more details. Why block this? I don't get it. What is wrong with an "Extended search" link in the sidebar? --Timeshifter (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving search box above navigation
I know this has been mentioned before but I think it's time to put it into action. Judging from current and previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal there seem to be a broad consensus for moving the search box to the top of the sidebar above navigation under the logo, as has already been done at Main Page and Main Page, as well as the three largest Wikipedias after English: Main Page, Main Page and Main Page.

The arguments for this are quite obvious: The counter-arguments I can think of are the following, and I consider them very weak (see my indented responses): Are there any other counter-arguments or obstacles worth discussing? If not, how do we implement the change? - Wintran (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The search bar is without doubt the most important and well-used feature of the sidebar. Thus, it should be given the most prominent position.
 * It'll make the search feature much easier to identify for new users, both because of a visually more emphasized position and because users expect to find the search bar on an emphasized position because of the nature of the site itself (even though they locate it now they might doubt it's the actual search function because it's given such a vague position compared to its importance for using the site at all). Compare to the search bar placement of other online encyclopedias, dictionaries or heavily search-based sites.
 * People are used to the current position.
 * The move is very small, so people will easily locate its new position and quickly adapt their habits. Especially considering the new position makes more sense.
 * Making the search feature more visible means increased traffic and costs for running Wikipedia.
 * Yet, we should never limit Wikipedia's accessibility on purpose in order to save on traffic costs, should we? That's never been a part of Wikipedia's agenda as far as I know.


 * While the general goal of making the search feature more prominent is acceptable, I am unconvinced that moving the search feature up past the navigation will have much effect: it is already the second-top box and it is placed conveniently at eye level. Further, I find the change to be aesthetically displeasing: in my mind, at least, it imbalances the page to put the small search bar immediately under the logo. This is, of course, completely ignoring the semantic coherence of having the search below navigation: the current layout makes sense as, if a user does not find what they are looking for under the navigation section, they may then, eyes scrolling down, use the search feature which is immediately below. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the implementation of the change is as easy as moving the "SEARCH" item of this MediaWiki-namespace page up in the list. That isn't a reason, however, to endorse the change: it's even easier for an admin to blank the Main Page. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the discussion.
 * I disagree about the eye-level, there's a more obvious and attractive line going through the titles of articles (h1), which the search feature would come closer to if we move it up, thus making it more prominent. There is just as much coherence, if not more, if we move the search up, because the link lists will come after one another and not be cut off by the search box in the middle. Furthermore, the semantic coherence you speak of is not really that obvious, as "search" is not a sub-section to "navigation" but rather a side-by-side section, in the same fashion as "interaction" and "toolbox".
 * You state that it makes sense that users scroll through the navigation section before finding search. I disagree here as well. As the search feature is the users' main navigational tool it should also be the first one they're presented with. The other navigational links should be used in case the search is not what they were looking for, and not the other way around. By moving the search box up to the top we would order the sidebar's features by importance/popularity, which I believe makes the most sense.
 * I don't see the purely aesthetical problems with the move that you speak of. I like being met by the search bar after seeing the logo and reading the site title and slogan, as an encyclopedia is really based on searching, from a reader's perspective. It also feels good to have the search box stand out separated from the other sections in the sidebar, as it has such a different look. Also, without any insolent tone whatsoever, consider the possibility that it's because you're used to the current placement that you find the change aesthetically displeasing, a reaction that new users might not experience.
 * - Wintran (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wintran here, having the search box at the top is more logical. But since this is mostly a matter of personal taste, I added the "Support" and "Oppose" sections below so we can see how many users prefer which option.
 * But note, before we do any change here we at least have to announce this at the Village pumps. But I think we can keep the discussion here instead of on the Village pumps, since they get archived too fast. And after all, this is the talk page for the sidebar so any consensus about its looks should be documented here.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh . I still think the box being in the middle is preferable, but I figure I might as well just settle the issue for myself  permanently by getting rid of the problem. :p { { Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In your diff: did you use your preferences to add a link to the sidebar? Was it a link to Special:Search? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My change, specifically, removes the search box and adds a link to Special:Search at the bottom of the navigation section, all using my monobook.js page. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a matter of personal taste, but a matter of usability. We're not dealing with purely aesthetical graphic design here but with interface design, and I believe it seriously hurts Wikipedia's accessibility having the search box at its current position. The reason being that new users expect to find the search bar at the most prominent position possible, as it's Wikipedia's most important navigational tool, but that's not where it's placed now. Just take a look at any other online encyclopedia, where the search bar actually stands out and is not hidden in a cluttered link list far down in the sidebar. Of course, existing users will have to get used to the new position, but that's a minor and passing problem. It hurts a lot more if new users are unable or delayed in finding articles on Wikipedia. - Wintran (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that, as the proposal stands, it will substantially improve usability. If there is no substantial increase in usability, then it is an issue of personal taste. Pending a new version of Monobook (which I'm considering might be an interesting option; a new skin would allow for other improvements), I think the search bar should stay where it is right now. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If readers overall end up using the search box more due to its "in your face" location at the top of the sidebar, then putting the search box there is increasing usability. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent)The current location I feel is easy enough to find, it also brings prominence to the nagivation and other links which we may be inclinded to subtly promote, in order to encourage its usage. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That assumes that people are finding the search box easily where it is now. I disagree. Also, I don't think we need to sacrifice the increase in the number of users of the search box. If more people are using the search box in the new location at the top of the sidebar it might actually increase the number of people using the other navigation links. Because many more people will be more frequently in that area of the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Under "my preferences" one has a variety of "skins" to choose from each having a different set up perhaps one could create an alternate "skin for those who dislike the current set up as in where the search bar is. Some of the "skins" change around the Wikipedia set up substantially. Wouldnot this make every one happy at least while logged in? --Zaharous (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only registered users could do that. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is to have the search box under the logo as the default skin, for both unregistered and registered users. - Wintran (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my summary of the discussion so far:

The strongest argument against the move is that people are accustomed to its current position. There's also an aesthetical objection to the move, which I believe is heavily influenced by the fact that people are accustomed to how things look now; People used to the current position react when the search box is moved to the top because it suddenly stands out. What's important to remember is that making it stand out is also the purpose of move, based on arguments of increased usability and accessibility. I've heard no other good explanations why the move would reduce aesthetical quality, except that the overlinking in the sidebar becomes more obvious, which is already a separate problem of its own and should be dealt with separately.

The main argument for the move is that searching is without doubt the main navigational tool for browsing Wikipedia, and thus the sidebar's most important functionality. So, we should make the search box the most prominent of the sidebar sections, which is done by moving it to the top (ordering the features of the sidebar by importance), because the tools at the top stand out more and are easier to reach than those underneath. There are also obvious aesthetical qualities to this that make the aesthetical objections to the move relatively weak. If the move would cause no obvious gain in usability and accessibility, the fact that people are used to the current position would be a serious obstacle, but as the gain in usability is quite obvious as I explained above, and the move is not very big, I see that this objection falls as well. That's why I still give strong support for move, until someone can phrase stronger arguments against it. - Wintran (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I also add that my argument is as good as any one else's, I pity the fool who non not find the search bar where it currently is. I doubt that puting the search bar up a little will cause any revolutionary gain in users. In reality or not on Wikipedia there are more important Issues and ill admit that the only big reason I dislike this proposed change is I am used to it (how ever illogical it may sound). I see no gain at all in moving the search bar. On Wikimedia the Search bar is much lower than on English Wikipedia, I dont know why however I can find it easily. If we really care about bringing more people to Wikipedia why don't we make the top part of the front page one big search box, that would look bad maybe it will bring in a few extra people who are blind to small thigs. This debate is nothing but a differance of opinion my opinion included, maybe we should just accept the status-quo. --Zaharous (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support
Move the search box up so it is between the Wikipedia logo and the "navigation" menu. Feel free to comment too.


 * Support - Yes, having the search box at the top is more logical. And I made a screen dump and edited it in my local image editor to see how it looked, and it looked okay. --David Göthberg (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - If Main Page and Main Page can do this why not us? All the meta and commons pages now have the search form at the top of the sidebar. I suggest also making the search results page open in a new browser tab. The main reason I don't use the sidebar search much is because the search results page covers over the Wikipedia page I am reading. So I use my Google Toolbar site-search option instead to search Wikipedia. It shows results in a new tab in my browser window. I suggest moving the search box even higher up. Above the logo. This way the search and go buttons could be placed more conveniently to the right side of the search form. This would also allow a dropdown menu, under the "search" button, with an arrowhead pointing down. Like the dropdown menu listing other search engines at Special:Search. Combine the "search" button and the dropdown menu. As is commonly done in many other search boxes on the web. Here is a picture:
 * |_________________| Search. Go.
 * This would also stop the suggested-searches menu from blocking the search and go buttons, as it does (annoyingly) now when the buttons are below the search entry form. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meta and Commons are totally different types of projects, you should be comparing this to other Wikipedia editions. _ Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Their page formatting is similar to that on Wikipedia. Sidebars, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course they are comparable, especially Commons which is also a heavily search-based site. However, it's worth mentioning that the three largest Wikipedias after English have all moved up their search box above navigation: Main Page, Main Page and Main Page. - Wintran (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if I were more active on the German, French, and Polish projects than I already am, I would have argued against it there, too. :P EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - For the reasons given in the discussion above. - Wintran (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: I use WP:WPTB anyway, so I don't have any strong feelings, but this seems more logical. (I mainly use WP:WPTB because the search box is so far down the page). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">dodge  Talk Contribs 10:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This change won't affect me, because I use a feature of Firefox to do my searching, but I always get confused when I try to find the search box at first when I try to do it the real way. If this would help out me, it would probably help out unregistered users a lot more. - NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  21:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - finally! Per all the reasons above. And FTR, I do use the search bar on a regular basis.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I rarely use the links of the navigation bar, but uses the search a lot. It'll be more visible for readers which is, especially in view of the recent improvements to the search, beneficial for Wikipedia's navigability. Cenarium <sup style="color:#000090;"> Talk  21:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- make reader's life easier. Renata (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Will make Wikipedia a little more user friendly. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Although Wikipedia is not mainly a search engine, the search facility is of utmost importance. It is the first element that people usually look for. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. لenna  vecia  14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and have since July. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support positioning 'search' as a key navigation feature and moving it to wherever a high quality web design would place a key navigation feature that we wanted to give high awareness to. FT2 (Talk 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Support Yes, it looked strange for a minute the first time I saw it of frWP without expecting it, but after about 5 searches it seems perfectly logical. The key function of an encyclopedia is searching--random browsing, though very important, is secondary.  DGG (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support it would be easier to find on mobile devices and look more aesthetically pleasing that way. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, to make it easier to visualize here is a mock-up of how I would like it to look:
 * [[Image:Mock-up of search box at top without caption.png|300px]]
 * —Remember the dot (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * support moving it to the top. Helps the readers. Seems odd that en is making such a big fuss about it, while the other projects are just quietly doing the right thing(tm). --Dschwen 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the neutral section, so take my comment for what it is, but I've never found the suggestion that moving the search box "helps the readers" to be remotely valid. I find that the vast majority of occasions when I use the search box are when I'm reading an article or page and find something I want to know more about (usually not linked). I then have to scroll up to find the search box. Moving the search box even further up the page will not help me as a reader, and will actually make my life a few seconds more difficult. The current position, IMHO, strikes a good compromise between prominence on the page and usability. I could understand the argument about the readers if we were only moving the search box on the Main Page, but we're not. - auburn pilot   talk  01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the search box is moved to the top of the page, then an easy way to get there from anywhere on the page is to click the "home" key on one's keyboard. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never use the search bar at its current placement. Even though I know it works well it just doesn't feel right. How come? Because its current placement doesn't signal that it's the main search for an encyclopedia, in which searching is without doubt the most important navigational tool. To me, it just doesn't feel like it will take you to the encyclopedic content, because it's placed under a bunch of, in comparison, seldomly used links. If the search bar's current placement makes it unattractive as the main search of an encyclopedia then we would definitely be helping readers by moving it up. I don't think that people generally use the search bar after reading through an article. Rather, I think they generally go to the Main Page or to a specific article (by writing it in the browser URL field), and then start searching at once. Thus, a position closer to the top would be more helpful, closer to their mouse pointer if it's located in the URL field, which is quite likely. - Wintran (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * support, as it stands this is a no-brainer. However, the search box also nicely separated two of the three group boxes. Might there be a way to fold the "Navigation" options into the search box itself? Combobox style maybe?
 * I would really like to see a separate discussion about the rest of sidebar content. What should actually be in there? There are many links that should really be renamed or removed, or replaced by something better. Also, the separation between "navigation" and "interaction" is not clear at all, and in my opinion causes more confusion than it helps. - Wintran (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support P retzels Talk! 01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense this way.  -- Jake Wartenberg Talk 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Most commonly used tools to top! LeeVJ (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
Keep the search box at its current position between the "navigation" menu and the "interaction" menu. Feel free to comment too.


 * Weak oppose—I do think it's better-placed in the middle, but then I don't really mind too much anymore … { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Ditto above: It helps break up the long block of text links where it is, and is logically a subset of "navigation". I'd prefer to see a color highlighting, to draw the eye to the standard location (as proposed in the original idea (archived at User:Quiddity/highlight search box) eg yellow background or blue border). Options to consider. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not do both? Highlight the search box with a color background and move it up? Moving it up highlights it even more. I don't see a problem with the sidebar links being too long. They are broken up into 3 boxes: Navigation, Interaction, and Toolbox. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because 'It helps break up the long block of text links where it is, and is logically a subset of "navigation".' :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 04:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not move the search box up, and also put a link to "Extended search" in the navigation section of the sidebar?: Extended search - A link in the form of Extended search --Timeshifter (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I'd care much either way, but I prefer it where it is now over where it is located on commons (at the top). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you use the search box much? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, and sometimes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not really an answer... —Remember the dot (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above, I do just use the search box to go to articles though, I find google far superior for searching wikipedia for what I want. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you approve of adding Google search of Wikipedia to an options dropdown menu for the sidebar search box? As at Special:Search, except the dropdown menu would be combined with the "Search" button (with an arrow that when clicked shows the search engines menu). --Timeshifter (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Definately, I find the wiki search (when an article isn't found) pretty poor in comparison plus doing so would probably save on server load. As far as the position of the box goes though, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, if they're not "scanning down the sidebar", they're probably not looking to search the site, meaning that they don't need to search, meaning... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If a user isn't noticing the search box when it's second element from the top, they're not going to notice it if it moves up one space. It's in the first screen you see when you open any page of the site. We shouldn't bend backwards to accomodate people who can't use their eyes. - Mgm|(talk) 23:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we try to help people? Its current location is not intuitive. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mgm's point appears to be more along the lines that moving it up will not make a noticeable difference for end-users, not that we should not help people. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote: "We shouldn't bend backwards to accomodate people ...." I ask why not? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I quote: "If a user isn't noticing the search box when it's second element from the top, they're not going to notice it if it moves up one space." Your argument is a straw man as I see it. Mgm's point, insofar as I can interpret it, notes that any improvement to usability is negligible: he says that we shouldn't accommodate people "[…] who can't use their eyes"). In a situation where the gain for others is negligible, it's entirely reasonable to value our preferences. While the argument may be weak on the point of altruism, it is reasonable as a counter-argument to the proposition of moving the search box up, which is what this debate is about. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it hinges on this: "people who can't use their eyes." Maybe it is not that they "can't" use their eyes, but more like they didn't happen to look farther down the sidebar. So Mgm is ascribing intent to what may actually be happenstance or luck. Therefore it makes sense to put the search box "in your face" at the top of the sidebar in order to accommodate people who don't normally or randomly scan down the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about screen readers (for those that literally can't use their eyes), they read the content of the page without the benefit of CSS, which is the only reason that the search box appears anywhere near the top of the page. Semantically, the left-hand navigation is the among the last of the content on the page (install Web Developer in Firefox, then load any wiki page and view it with all CSS disabled to see what I'm talking about). Espousing the virtues of this change for those with non-traditional browsers is, in effect, wasted breath; there's no net benefit (or at least, not one even close to what you're possibly imagining).
 * I wasn't talking about screen readers. I notice a lot of "if" and "probably" in your reply. It's really not complicated. People notice stuff on top more. That's why advertisers prefer their ads at the top, top left, or top right. Read up on the latest ad placement discussions at Wikia.com for example. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nihiltres pretty much caught what I was trying to say. Previous attempts at making things more visible, like the "This page is for questions About Wikipedia" at the top of the help desk have clearly shown that even if you put something in bold red letters of a massive font size, it does not improve on the amount of people reading it. The searchbox is already highly visible and moving it up will provide no improvement. Then there's also the aesthetic issue of actually having a link to the main page on top of the menu being a good thing. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. macy 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? The search bar is a way of searching the encyclopedia!! Without the search bar, readers are reduced to playing six degrees or hitting "random article" until they stumble across what they're looking for a few weeks later :D . The search bar is probably the most important part of our mission as an encyclopedia. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that we should have the navigational bar in the top because other projects like Commons or Meta do it; and you misunderstood me, I said "this is an encyclopedia, not a search engine" but I did not said "remove the navigation bar" . macy 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you didn't and I understand that, but the hyperbole served a purpose. This is not a question of 'being able to find the search bar' verses 'not being able to find the search bar', there are infinite degrees of ease that we are really considering.  My point is essentially that the search bar is an utterly integral part of "being an encyclopedia", as it facilitates pretty much any use of the site.  As such, anything we can do to make the search bar more easily accessible should be done.  We shouldn't be moving the search bar "because other projects have done it", we should be moving the search bar for the same reasons: that it makes for an improved browsing experience for our readers. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think it is fine where it is.  It stands out better when it is between two boxes of text links. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry; I don't care how callous this sounds, but if you can't see the search box where it is now, you're either blind or stupid, and no amount of relocating will make it more apparent. It's still well above the first-page threshold for scrolling pages, and by moving it up above the Navigation box, you'll have three similar boxes (now they are broken by the Search area), which will make it very, very boring there. Besides, on pretty much any page, you can just hit tab and *bam* you're in the search box; you don't even need a mouse. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a black-and-white issue about either finding the search bar or not finding it at all. It's about user experience, how easily the features of Wikipedia are identified and utilized. We want to reduce friction and distraction, and create the smoothest user experience possible. Just because changes are minor doesn't mean they shouldn't be made, or that they don't make a difference. This issue is about fine-tuning Wikipedia's user interface, and should be about discussing details.
 * Your main objection seem to be that the other features of the sidebar (the links) will be harder to identify if we move search up, because the search box currently functions as a separator. I don't agree, because it could just as well be seen as a distractor, giving uneven visual focus to the links closest to it. Even more importantly: the major problem with the sidebar links is that there are too many of them, and that they're badly organized from the start, which makes the link list cluttered and unattractive, and this has nothing to do with the search box placement at all.
 * In either case, you must acknowledge that the search feature itself is the most sought-for feature of the sidebar, and thus must be prioritized. Moving it up above navigation will without doubt give it a more prominent and easily-identified position visually, as it's placed on top and not in middle of the sidebar content. Also, it should place it closer to the user's mouse location after loading the page, which is likely to be close to the top of the page (yes, most people do use the mouse, and such things do make a difference in usability). - Wintran (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I dont like change 220.239.47.163 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I feel that there is some discussion left to be desired. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks great just the way it is it would look odd at least to me being otherwise. --Zaharous (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would look normal in the new location after awhile to most people. More and more Wikipedias in other languages have been moving the search box to the top of the sidebar. If there were serious problems then this would not be happening in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I prefer having it lower down so it is still visible when I have scrolled down the page a little. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not use Alt+Shift+F to jump straight to it, and not have to scroll at all? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current position makes more logical, organizational, functional, and aesthetic sense.  Search functions should logically come after navigation functions -- the latter should be the primary means of interaction and the search only used if none of those functions satisfy.  I also believe the search box is much more visible situated as it is between the "navigation" and "interaction" boxes; placed directly under the logo, the search bar stands out much less.  Powers T 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose per Mgm, if people can't already see it I don't see how moving it up will help.-- Patton t / c 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, people with mobile devices for example need to scroll past the navigation box to get to the search box because their screens are so small. As Happy-Melon and Wintran pointed out, it's not a black-and-white issue about being able to find the search box vs. not being able to find it. We are comparing infinite degrees of ease. Since the search box is used far more than all the navigation links combined, it makes sense to put it at the top where it is very visible even if you are browsing from a device with a small screen. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?

 * Don't really care either way where the bar is, but if you do intend to move it, you need to advertise this discussion far more widely. If it gets suddenly moved with only five or so people weighing in, people will be upset. This is an obscure talk page. Please use the various noticeboards, village pumps, and CENT, etc. to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to weigh in here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks. I left a note at Village pump (proposals). I also linked here from Template:Cent. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe a watchlist notice ? It's a considerable change. Cenarium <sup style="color:#000090;"> Talk  15:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I left requests for additional input at:
 * Village pump (technical)
 * Village pump (policy)
 * Village pump (miscellaneous) --Timeshifter (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm ambivalent, but I echo MZMcBride's concerns. Although the Internet is all about change, users get accustomed to pages looking a certain way and certainly being navigated a certain way. I've seen changes made to other sites -- often without consultation -- and it often causes discomfort for users who are used to doing things a certain way and finding things where they're supposed to be. IMDb changed its navigation format a few years ago and I'm still getting used to it, and some of the Wikia sites have had "improvements" done to their layout that often are seen as nothing of the kind. I'm not opposing nor supporting a revision regarding the Search function, but whatever is done should be done with wider consultation. The Watchlist notice is a good idea -- especially if the option is given for users to state their opposition, should there be any. 23skidoo (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the decision was mine, the search bar wouldn't move, but I can't really oppose for pure aesthetics (I truly hate how things look with the search bar just below the logo). If somebody will point out how I can code my monobook.js/.css to keep the search bar where it is now, I'd appreciate it. - auburn pilot   talk  04:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There probably could be a gadget made to fix that. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  05:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That actually raises a good point; would there be a way to use a Gadget to set the search box's position on the page? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can move the search box with javascript. For example, I use this code to move it to its time-honoured position between interaction and toolbox:
 * We can easily write gadgets to move the search bar to different places, if there's consensus that we should. Algebraist 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean time honoured?211.30.109.24 (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where it was for the first several years of my wikipediaing. Algebraist 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to say Oppose (though I'm not terribly concerned either way), since I prefer its current position - plus thought it might cause accidental logo clicking. After clicking on the commons link Rjd0060 - opposing - provided, I'm neutral. If you do move it though, please use Javascript (or whatever) to make sure the cursor is in the search box when you load the page, like Google/Yahoo! Mail etc; neither Wikipedia nor Commons do currently. Whitehorse1 08:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a proposal that often returns and has been repeatedly denied. I don't think anything has changed to gain any sort of consensus since then. - Mgm|(talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the the search function's recent improvement? As I recall, much of the opposition was based on its poor quality.  —David Levy 15:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not mentioned as a reason at FAQ/Main Page or at 1864. Algebraist 15:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked the shift in discussion topic. (I was referring to the proposal to relocate the search box.)  Comment struck.  —David Levy 16:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regrouping of options
The new 'books' menu adds another unecessary group in my book :( ... Time to regroup I think ...!

Propose to regroup the actions in a more 'categorised' way, not sure how it will look but will result in a sligthly aesthetically pleasing 5 elements per group per section - which seems less cluttered... Suggested groupings and possible headings could be..
 * Search
 * Explore (Navigate)
 * Communicate (Interact)
 * Delve (Toolbox)
 * Recent changes
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Reproduce
 * Printable version
 * Permanent link
 * Cite this page
 * PDF version
 * Create a book

It makes sense to me, but is it any good? LeeVJ (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "toolbox" is generated based on page content, and the "create a book" is inserted by extension. You can sort-of control the positioning for these portets but you cannot move/add/remove the links inside via the Sidebar interface message. You can only do that for the ones actaully created by the Sidebar. --Splarka (rant) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Search results open in new tab
Can the search results be made to open in a new tab? I don't use Wikipedia's search much because currently the search results open in the same tab and cover the Wikipedia page I am looking at. So I end up using the Google toolbar (for those browsers that have it) for many site searches of Wikipedia. I would prefer to use Wikipedia's search engine more for some things.

I use multiple browsers (Internet Explorer, Opera, Firefox, and Google Chrome) depending on the moment and my needs. So I can rarely remember the correct keys for each particular browser to force Wikipedia's search engine results to open in a new tab. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there is no javascript or html attribute for "open in new tab" (though a draft CSS attribute is in the works I hear, but that could be years off, and more years until it is standard enough to use). There is only "open in a new window" which some browsers can intercept and force into a new tab, but not all. Forcing this on everyone would break accessability. You could do this for yourself in your js with something like:


 * --Splarka (rant) 08:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will check it out. I did a Google search. Was this what you were referring to:
 * http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-hyperlinks
 * Does section 3.3 of that page provide any help? I don't understand this stuff. My experience is with very basic HTML, and not CSS, Javascript, etc..


 * In Gadgets there is "Open external links in a new tab/window" Could a gadget be added just for the search link?


 * Is there a way to be able to right-click the search button and get a context menu as with regular links? Then I could open in a new tab?


 * I pasted in the code you suggested, cleared my cache in Opera, and search is now opening in a new window. Thanks! What does example 1 mean here?:
 * http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-hyperlinks/#the-target-new
 * Can I apply this somehow to make search open in a new tab instead of a new window?


 * The Google toolbar (Internet Explorer and Firefox) has preferences to make it open site search results in a new tab. I love this feature and miss it in Opera, my latest favorite browser after Firefox 3 ruined Firefox bookmark use for many people. Since Opera does not have a simple site search function built in, and Google toolbar can't be installed in it, I have been going back to Wikipedia's search engine. If Google toolbar can make its search results open in a new tab then I don't understand why Wikipedia can't have a gadget that does the same thing with its search engine. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot debug your browser for you, Wikipedia cannot do what a browser plugin can, and CSS3 is useless to you for probably another 10 years. This is the wrong place to have this discussion anyways. --Splarka (rant) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. After more reading and experimentation I see that Opera is different from Internet Explorer and Firefox in how it handles submit form buttons. I have a Google search form on my web pages. It is set to target="_blank" which causes the search results page to open in a new tab in Internet Explorer and Firefox. Opera opens the page in a new window. So I see now what you meant by "some browsers can intercept and force into a new tab."


 * So I guess I will have to hold down Opera's shift key when I click the sidebar search button. See . For those who are interested I also found some custom Opera site-search buttons for doing Google site searches via Opera's built-in Google search. See . Holding the shift key down will open the results in a new tab with this too. I am in the process of writing some of this up at Searching. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Search and go buttons above search form
Can the search and go buttons be put above the search form? It is not intuitive for many readers how to get rid of the search suggestions in order to be able to see the buttons in order to be able to click them.

I did not know how for the longest time. It is simple once one knows how. But then so are many things on the web.

Intuitive web design basically means going along with what people actually know, and not assuming they know something. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They possibly could, but not by editing the Sidebar. --Splarka (rant) 08:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where would I go to ask for this to happen? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bugzilla, but be aware of 13941. --Splarka (rant) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I left a comment at 13941. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"create a book"-box
As a result of this post the box was moved below the toolbox (change). A valid argument was made, that for editors the toolbox might be more important than the book-box and therefore should be always visible, even on smaller screens. Readers who try to build and export books probably see this contrariwise. They don't want to scroll if they want to add an article to their books and might wish the toolbox wasn't there. Choosing a reasonable default positioning for the box seems hard if one wants to satisfy both groups of users. But then there is a slightly difference between those groups: Editors have the means to move or hide the box while the majority of readers don't. Therefore I propose to revert the change and move the "create a book"-box up where it was. --He!ko (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the time being, the "create a book" box does not even show up for unregistered users. It's also debatable whether or not "create a book" is more useful than tools like "printable version" and "permanent link". —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal to move it back. It is at most four links, two for most editors, so it really doesn't bump the toolbox, while it does give more visibility to the new feature. Perhaps once the feature becomes established, and its tool options expand, we can move it down.


 * This would all be moot if there were an easy, standardized way for users to customize the sidebar - perhaps using async js.--Cerejota (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being new is not a good reason to make a feature prominent. You are free to use JavaScript to move the box around. For example, this snippet will move "create a book" above "toolbox":

<pre style="overflow:scroll"> addOnloadHook(function {   document.getElementById("column-one").insertBefore(document.getElementById("p-coll-create_a_book"), document.getElementById("p-tb")) })
 * —Remember the dot (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. This is what I referred to when saying that signed in users have the tools to move the box. Providing this as gadget would make it even easier. Then again, visitors to the site will not be able to move the box. Therefore once this feature is available to all users the box should be repositioned. I'd like to get consensus on this before this is opened to the public; not having to debate this issue then but rather be able to launch with a working solution. I second your comments about "printed version" and "permalink". Shifting them to the top of the toolbox might improve the usability, but this is a different topic. --He!ko (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to add more links.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to revive the discussion: Would it be helpful if the order of boxes in the sidebar would depend on the signed in status of a user? --He!ko (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)