Wikipedia:Community portal/Redesign/Poll archive

Strategy
Currently, we are deciding on an overall direction for the Community Portal, and have three draft versions (Draft1a, Draft1b and Draft1c). There are major style and content differences between the three drafts. To show your support for which draft should be displayed as the current Community Portal, please vote below.

The design drafts
The drafts will not be protected from editing, but there should be no major changes.
 * 1) Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1a - Originated on the Community Portal page, and was there until recently when someone reverted the page to a months-ago-version. Vote for this draft if you would like it restored to the Community Portal immediately. It's been touched up a little, but is basically the same page.
 * 2) Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1b - Draft originated on User:Davidpk212/Community Portal
 * 3) Community Portal/Redesign/Draft1c - The version currently displayed on the Community Portal. Vote for this draft if you would like it to remain the Community Portal.
 * 4) Another option that's been mentioned is to style the community portal, similar to commons:Community portal.

I Support Draft 1a

 * 1) ✅ - Strong support - this draft represents a complete redesign of the Community Portal. It was carefully designed with respect to both content and style.  This was the actual Community Portal until the recent reversion.  I place my support behind this draft, and believe that it should be restored to its rightful location immediately.  --Go for it! 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) As per above user.
 * 3) Support. The most usable design, IMO. Kaldari 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Change is good. Her Pegship 18:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I find this one the most usable and pleasing to the eye (which, to a certain degree, go together). bcasterline t 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅, nice layout, but a bit too boxy at the end, I mean you gotta know what all the sections mean to be able to find yourself in this CP but I like. Lincher 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - comfortable, convenient, organized, and useful. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Go for it! has talked about each page being unique and possesing its own "feel". However, I also think consistency is disirable. This page echoes the Main Page with the colors and header, but also has many new elements. Not going to be confused wit the Main page, but not at odds with it, either.--HereToHelp 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Definitely the best layout, in my opinion. Clean, organized, attractive, and certainly better than what currently exists. - Kicking222 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. This draft is better.--Zxcvbnm 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per all of the above; however, I have a bit of a problem with how the new WikiProjects and new Portal box doesn't go well with the rest of the layout. joturn e r 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) That's actually part of the Community Bulletin Board, which is still open-editable, so you can go in there and change it right now, if you want! (Click here). After all, this is a wiki. If there are enough comments on this, heck, I'll go in there and change it myself!  --Go for it! 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, I like this one as a starting point but I'm not for immediate restauration to the portal page just yet. I'm having a real problem with any print that is of a font size less than 90% of normal as it is very difficult to read for most users/readers over 40.  Therefore, the sections that currently use a smaller font size than 90% need to be slightly magnified.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, although I seem to recall it having less Windows XP-esque icons, which I preferred. -- Mithent 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, this one has the best layout, although the colors are not something I really love. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support Contains perhaps a little too much info, but the cosmetics are definetly better. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support This one is the best except for the colors. Tarret 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support best of 3. – Tutmøsis · ( Msg Me ) 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. All of the proposals have their respective pros and cons, but I prefer this one because its not too simple, and it's the most informative. I would like to see some different color combinations, though. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Comment. I like the design, but not the colors. Gflor e sTalk 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support This one gets my vote -jj
 * Comment - I'll run a separate poll to improve the colors if this draft is chosen. --Go for it! 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The blue, purple, and green are the exact same hue as those on the main page (the tan was arbitrary).--HereToHelp 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I like this layout the best. It seems the most user-friendly. --Danjj 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The best layout, and very informative. BryanG 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, well organized and separated, and even though it is rather long the menu buttons at the top make it easily naviagable. -- Nataly a 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The design is excellent, too bad for the colors though...Qwertzy2 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Juan Scott 05:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Hallerlake 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Seems consistent with the main page and is obviously still a portal level page.
 * 8) Half Support. Nice design, but the blue/yellow combinations isn't good. --&lt;div style=&#39;color: orange&#39;&gt;&#91;&#91;User:Bdude&#124;BDUDE ..::.. &#91;&#91;User_talk:Bdude&#124;Talk to me]]&lt;/div&gt;]] 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - well laid out, all the information you need. The colours are a bit garish, but I think the design is excellent. &mdash; QuantumEleven | (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - its well laid out, and thats good enough for me! Pydos 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support – I don't use the Community Portal that much, but I use it enough to be confused when it got reverted to an old version and I couldn't find things any more. Draft 1b is also better than the current version, but this version is the best so far – Gurch 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as the best layout, but the colours need work. Sandstein 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Conditional Support: reduce the brightness of the colours and I will be pleased with the design. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support strongly. Beautifully designed. The colours could probably be optimized to be as pleasant to the eye as possible, but generally, it's great! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support strongly. This design looks a lot better, has some features (New featured content), the other one doesn't have and is easier and more convenient to use.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The following change was made at this point in the voting: I've removed the featured status departments section, because there is now a link listed on the navigation menu to Featured articles (which wasn't there when this section was created), which includes easy access to all the featured status departments pages.  And since the navigation menu is included on every screen, it makes the featured status department section on the Community Portal entirely redundant. --Go for it! 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I like the layout of the icons and such, it is very user-friendly, and makes the community portal less overwhelming to the new-comer. However, the only problem I have is the lack of the "Welcome to the community portal" portion at the very top which included the puzzle piece, but otherwise this one is superior.--24.250.154.244 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support  Nivus | (talk) | (desk)  04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Computerjoe 's talk 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Support I think this layout looks much more professional and is easiest to navigate. Kelly 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I Support Draft 1b

 * 1) Support Very nice clean design, which also incorportaes similar features to that of the Main Page, meaning there is a certain continuity between the pages. Simply much better than the other 3 proposals. 1a appears to child like with its design, and the 1c option is rather boring. --Wisd e n17 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Missmarple 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - even though this draft was not ready, I'll support. Davidpk212 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Your draft was placed here because it exists, and deserves to be seen. But the reason I called for this vote was to oppose the reversion to the months-ago version (Draft 1c, below), and to ask the community to restore the version that was on the Community Portal at the time (Draft1a, above).  --Go for it! 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. per Wisden. Gflor e sTalk 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Would support inclusion of some of the additional content from 1a, but this is clearly the superior aesthetic design. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, kind of like this one too, not sure I agree it's totally superior over 1a though. Both however need to keep in mind that not everyone around here is a teenager or in their 20s.  So small fonts are going to knock both out of the running as far as I'm concerned unless changed to at least 90% of normal.  --Mmounties ( Talk )  [[Image:pawprint.png|20px]] 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, when we've finished designing it... It's still in the first stages of design. The vote was prematurely called by Go For It. --Quiddity 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I called for the vote to oppose a reversion of the page that was already in place, and for a restoration of the Community Portal to the version that was there before the reversion. --Go for it! 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, the darkened headings make the sections stand out nicely. Also much more visually appealling than the heavily colored alternatives. TheArmadillo 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support- Osbus 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, for the visuals this one is definetly the winner. per layout I don't have much preference between 1a and 1b. I would like it if people didn't support 1a just because it has pretty icons now btw. Remember that 1b was not finished. The fact that someone started a vote on drafts, while only the users own draft was ready ANNOYS me btw. It's not the first time Go for it! does something like that. It invalidates the entire vote in my eyes. - The DJ 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Comment. Already taking into account comments and feedback here, I have started a revised version (User:Kmf164/Workshop) of draft1b that is without the top white box (the top of the page will say "Wikipedia:Community Portal" anyway) and adds a few icons. Also, Quiddity is putting together one styled on Commons - User:Quiddity/sandbox2.  In all, this is a process of iterative feedback and collaboration, towards a consensus design. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, this one is the best of the three, but not extrordinarily good. Can't point my finger to what could be better -- Snailwalker | talk 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Comment. This draft is a work in progress and was largely incomplete when the poll was initiated.  Nonetheless, all the feedback and comments provide useful input for moving forward with a revised draft. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support with the same reservations as Mmounties about font size. I'd like Wikipedia to be easily accessible for people with less-than-perfect eyesight.--HJMG 07:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I Support Draft 1c - the version that was displayed at the time this vote was called for (the reversion)

 * 1) Support. This design is quite basic, but I like the clear coloring i.e. Help is the yellow box, To do is green etc.; it helps to navigate easier IMHO. Draft1a is quite boringly monochrome, although the design is modern (better). feydey 21:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Right now I like this the most. I will change my vote to 1b if they remove the silly white box at the top. Ashibaka tock 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Comment. I'm open to removing the white box.  Just a simple introduction/welcome message like draft1a might work? Or, do you have any suggestions on what to replace it? --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You could use the Contents box from 1c and the short introduction from 1a. Or whatever way you want, what matters to me is that gives a text introduction instead of a Main Page-style headline. Ashibaka tock 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. On the Main Page, the top heading - h1, has been hidden.  But here, it will say "Wikipedia:Community Portal" at the top.  So the white box is a bit redundant.  On User:Kmf164/Workshop, I have draft1b without the header.  It needs a TOC, though. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion. A vote is premature at this point

 * 1) A vote is premature at this time, let's please continue the discussion.  There are some elements of each draft that I like, though I favor keeping the CP more concise as Commons has done. A discussion can consider each specific aspect of the drafts (which content items to include and design?), and perhaps combine aspects of them.  --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A new discussion will no doubt take place after a starting point is chosen from above. --Go for it! 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But, I like some aspects of your draft, and some aspects of the others. A vote is more decisive and doesn't leave room for compromise and integrating the best elements. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Like all pages on Wikipedia, whichever starting point is selected, it will be subject to further revision. Wikipedia is always changing.  Once the page is in place a new redesign effort can begin.  --Go for it! 16:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely premature vote. Go For It is trying to derail the design process again. We were in the middle of discussing options for the communal effort. Not the unilateral design you have been undertaking, and continually criticized for. Instead of shuffle-shuffle-archiving all the criticisms on your talk pages, why don't you answer/read them? --Quiddity 21:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm at issue with the reversion, because the design I had worked on was COMPLETE. I called for this vote to stop a derailing of an already completed design.  --Go for it! 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you are just attempting to confuse the issue by claiming you had reached a "finished" design, when you know full well you were in the midst of trying to break the CP into subpages. --Quiddity 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave up on that, since there was major opposition. As I explained clearly on the Community Portal's discussion page (now in the archives) my method was to keep those changes that didn't get opposition.  That's how the page has been adapting over the past couple of months.  Some improvements "stuck" and some didn't.  I really liked the subpage feature though (because it worked so well for the help menu design), and so I fought a little harder for it, but then I backed off from it and worked with what was left.  The subpage design wasn't any different than the page as a whole, except that it was in chunks.  Though it was in pretty bad shape the way it was tossed back together, but after the clean up, the page looked pretty nice.  And then the whole thing was reverted back several months.  And so I called for this vote to overturn that reversion.  --Go for it! 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You called a design draft vote giving the alternative participants about 5 hours notice, PURELY so that your old design would be replaced, despite all the complaints about it on your and its talk pages, which you have been blatantly ignoring. This is a completely deceitful use for the voting process. --Quiddity 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there is an inherent process bias in the talk page system that promotes (or at least caters to) complaining. Browse around and look - there are far more complaints on talk pages than there are compliments and praise.  The only complaints I ignored were those that told me not to edit.  That seemed anti-wiki-like to me, as the page was unprotected, and this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  But the main point is that draft1a was the actual Community Portal until it was reverted.  I simply called this vote to reverse that decision.  A straightforward use of the voting process to directly oppose a decision I didn't agree with. --Go for it! 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The deceitful introduction and "artificial look of concensus" you created in the intro to the vote you called (see Strategy at the top of this page) is deceitful to everybody who read it. You keep attempting to create a feeling of official-concensus behind your opinion in everything you write on talk pages. You do not have any sort of ownership or special control of the direction this page and Help:Contents take, stop using language to imply that you do. You are using the ability to wield language that you have gained through the study of philosophy to convince people of things that are simply not true. Political spin doctoring. --Quiddity 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't design this page, Kmf did. I didn't even think of calling a vote until she set this page up -- because it reminded me of the Main Page Redesign polls.  It hadn't occurred to me until then that I even had the option to do so.  I tried to write the poll from scratch but she wouldn't let me, so I integrated it into the page in a way that she would let me. It was an interactive process.  I try to be adaptive and accommodating within the framework of my progressive approach -- it's not easy.  :-)  --Go for it! 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will re-raise all the questions you ignored on your talk pages if you really can't understand why i am upset by your actions. --Quiddity 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You made yourself perfectly clear, and I understand you fully. But that doesn't mean I agree with you, or your approach.  The page was completed with the help of Heretohelp, and I simply want it restored.  Any draft design effort that continues after that is fine by me -- I heartily encourage it.  But the page was in place and then it was reverted, and that is what got to me.  But I wish this to remain civil, and so I merely await the outcome.  Bantering back and forth isn't getting us anywhere.  Sincerely, --Go for it! 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Before any design is restored, it should take into account some of the comments above. (e.g. different color scheme, and reduce information overload.  For example, we don't need "Main page departments".  These are available on the main page, and redundant here.  Also, "Featured content" section can likely be incorporated into the "Featured articles" page that's now in the left navigation bar.  And, Tip of the day takes up too much room here.  I'm not sure if belongs on the Community Portal at all (it fits better on Help), but at least it could use a more compact format on the Community Portal.  Also, I've looked at the coding, which needs to be cleaned up and made accessible.  I also looked at it with my stylesheets turned off &mdash; it's a mess and a problem for users with screenreaders.  All these issues, particularly accessibility and coding, must be addressed before your version of the community portal is restored. Please take these suggestions as constructive feedback.  --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the above
The community portal need not be so overwhelming. All proposed versions are all drastically ugly as well. One thing to consider is a tabbed approach, much like the Preferences page here at the Wikipedia. Otherwise, create a main system with links to subpages. These are way too massive. drumguy 8800 - speak? 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Draft 1b isn't quite so overwhelming. Go for it, your draft needs to be streamlined.  I like the icons at the top, but the colors you've chosen  (orange green and purple i noticed were on the page.. those three colors are notoriously ugly together because they are all secondary) are quite a turnoff.  drumguy 8800  - speak? 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, just dropping the green and making it a near-white color (bright) and then making the main yellowish border color a bit more golden would probably do the trick. (very slight adjustment to the yellow.. probably tacky of me, but I have the yellow/purple combination on my version of the main page redesign in mind.)  and i was wrong, there isnt any orange on the page..  drumguy 8800  - speak? 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Drumguy8800's first comment.Lcarsdata Talk 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A tabbed approach is brilliant, however I would have to go with the  color-codedness of design 1c, and the navigation bar at the top like in design 1a. --Xhin 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I like all of the drafts just fine, except for one thing - the colors. Many of the background colors are too strong or a bad hue for the mass of bright blue link text. Some of those purples and oranges are just plain awful. This is an elementary principle of web design, guys.

Choices would be 1) a colored bar at the top of div's (or a colored border, you could really get strong colors with a border), using the standard buff background behind the text; 2) lightening the colors considerably; 3) supplying readers with free Tylenol. Also, shades of red are notoriously hard on the eyes as a background for bright blue text.  Personally, I would like to see something like 255-255-235 behind all text.  Lacking that, the peach and aqua are acceptable on the current page, but the aqua need lightening. Apollo 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)