Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal/Straw Poll October 2012

Results
Results posted 00:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Notes

Albacore
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per Sven. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks like the same as the current main page. --Stryn (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Only featured article changed, others no change.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks too similar to the current page (and too wordy). -- 03:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Basically no change at all. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above.  Rcsprinter   (chatter)  @ 22:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Change too minimal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Prefer the current page to this. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Sven. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * There's no real change in this. Any proposal that makes it to the community is going to have to deal with the inherent intractability and resistance to change of some segments of the community. A color swap isn't going to be dynamic enough to rally support behind, so I don't see this as having a realistic chance of passing.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "There's no real change in this" as User:Sven Manguard says. That's the problem with most of the subsequent entries below.  Did any of these designers study UX? Or even think about people who are colorblind? Doesn't look like it to me. -- kosboot (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashstar01
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per Sven. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --Stryn (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) -- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Basically no change at all. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Change too minimal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Sven. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * There's no real change in this. Any proposal that makes it to the community is going to have to deal with the inherent intractability and resistance to change of some segments of the community. A color swap isn't going to be dynamic enough to rally support behind, so I don't see this as having a realistic chance of passing.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It still looks too much like the current page, but I greatly appreciate that the creator has eliminated much of the article text (which I think drives users away). -- kosboot (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Avlok
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) I like that it moves the TFP up to the top, but I think the design is too blocky, which is visually straining.   S ven M anguard   Wha?
 * 2) I am disagreeable in the change in prominence of TFP. Additionally, it's not much space, which was a prime concern in placing it where it is currently (for panoramics if nothing else). --Izno (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Too tight. --Stryn (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Above says it all-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I think that the increased emphasis on portals is a step backwards. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Different, but not enough for my vote. -- kosboot (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm allergic to the pricky serif headline font. Overall, the page just looks wierd.   Fylbecatulous   talk   16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Mostly per Izno. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I actually like the font and the grey at the top, but the top bar is just way too large and wastes alot of space. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Bad font, bad grey at top - why is it grey at top? - looks terrible and, as Fylbecatulous said, weird. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Too "in your face" for me. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment

Chris G
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) I would say this could use conversation. Some might see as bland; I would tend to think, austere. :) There are other points of questionability for me, but again, the merits of this proposal should be discussed. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like this.  The top-right of the page could use some work, as it's not showing up correctly, but I love the "arts, biographies, ..." toolbar and the general formatting. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Layout looks too bland.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Bland, and the layout of the top section breaks badly in narrower browser windows. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not the worst but really far too bland. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Quite clunky. Very "bleh". The Illusive Man(Contact) 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Not quite right.  Rcsprinter   (gossip)  @ 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Too subdued and little change otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) The font is a little large for me. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I appreciate that the creator has thought that anyone coming to the front page is not looking for a specific article and wants to browse instead - and so has given primacy to places to browse. -- kosboot (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cloud668
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Awesome! &mdash; PretzelsHii! 07:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Wikipedia already has a reputation for being somewhat retro compared to the flashy scrolly shininess of facebook, forums, twitter, youtube, and even the hitherto staid Google. This dazzling visual transformation would further cement wikipedia's position as a landmark in the æsthetic development of the internet  - a landmark which everybody else passed about ten years ago. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) For the bouncing puzzle globe alone.  Powers T 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) COOKIES &mdash;  Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   16:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That was really good. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Chris857 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I have to think that this is a joke proposal.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Funny :) --Stryn (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) See above users. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Above users says it all.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Didn't Geocities shut down some time ago? --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Very bad for those with certain colour sensitivities --Murray Langton (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Like... all of them? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It looks like a MySpace reject. -- kosboot (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This is ridiculous!!! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. But only because there isn't any ing. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Surely not. This could provoke nervous breakdowns or seizures...  Fylbecatulous   talk   15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Unsuitable for anyone blessed with the gifts of sight or sanity. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Awesome... except for the seizure I just experienced. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Too loud and "unencyclopedic" (sorry) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) hell to the no! Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Too loud. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Needs more and . :) IronGargoyle (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) I sincerely hope this was a joke.  Go   Phightins  !  19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) The icons are distasteful (likely any icons would be for me) and the headers too obnoxious. However, I think a positive question that this proposal asks is the increased prominence of the "how to use Wikipedia" aspect. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like it, as a starting point. Personally I'd rather remove/reduce the section icons, and get rid of the header entirely, but the rest of the visual style is quite nice on a variety of different screen sizes. bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Good start --Murray Langton (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Nice classy look.  Automatic  Strikeout  03:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) The layout is nice without being too bland or boring, although the icons aren't really needed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I like the style, but the layout could be tweaked a bit.
 * 7)  Rcsprinter   (message)  @ 22:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't like the green heading nor the all caps sub-headings, but otherwise I'm fond of this design. It certainly has potential. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Prefer Sven's slight remodelling, but this early in the process it's about potential and this one clearly has it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Good start-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Might have potential, but in the current version currently I'm not particularly fond of  like the icons, colour scheme and shadow effects. —Ruud 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Interesting idea, but way to much article text.  The eye is halted by all the words and is not led to explore. -- kosboot (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Prefer Sven's version. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I like the styling, but not the layout: the only content-related section that is above the fold in the browsers I checked is TFA. For comparison, the current layout puts TFA, ITN, DYK, and OTD above the fold. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most promising proposal so far (am going alphabetically) - I am not enamoured of that shade of aqua-blue. I'd go for a more blue-grey or blue-purple, and the white space around the title is a problem. Maybe the portal links on either side? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some potential, but the color of the "Wikipedia" is distracting, the blue is too pale (together creating an odd visual experience), and the text size of the TFA is too large, makes me wonder if I pushed ctrl by mistake. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ebe123 1
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) I actually enjoy the increased prominence of the other projects, but feel any proposed increased in prominence would meet in severe disagreement. I also don't see a practical way forward to integrate it better into the main page here. --Izno (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too bland.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Too much text. -- kosboot (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Bland and really rather dull. Giving TFP all the colour and then sticking it right at the bottom doesn't work either. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Overall pretty bland. I do quite like the circle though. It should be in the centre though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Pushes the information too far down the screen. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) The project links are little too prominent. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Why is the picture of the day at the bottom? It's one of the few visual things on the page and should be at the top! -- kosboot (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Erasmo Barresi
return to top Please vote for the alternative version by John123521. Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) The only real change this makes is the addition of a Today's Good Article. I don't believe that we should be showcasing those on the main page (there's a Talk:Main Page thread on that, or at least I think that's where it is), and a majority of the community agrees with me.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Sven. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No news section and bad colours. --Stryn (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Bad colour.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Horrible colour. --Murray Langton (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Again, looks like so many others and doesn't help the user navigate. -- kosboot (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Colour scheme not appealing. Not a huge change in format otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment

Evad37
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) 2nd choice after Pretzels - Evad37 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) My second choice also. Moondyne (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I think this is my favourite. I don't find the icons/headers too distracting at all. the wub  "?!"  19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) What I care msot about is the header. And this one is the best of all the proposals. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5)  Rcsprinter   (rap)  @ 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Fourth choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Having reviewed the others, I find Inkowik's superior for it's non-use of radii and non-use of icons. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too similar to the current Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  07:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Just a mix of French Wikipedia Main Page and current Main page.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I believe this design is better than the current main page. But it does not go in the right direction. The icons have little meaning for the average user, and the eye is attracted to the design - it's a distraction from the main content. A good design makes the content more attractive - which Pretzels design does successfully. By the way, I'm the author of this French main page (which was reused on the Italian main page later). Dodoïste (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I think it's overall slightly better than the current main page. But slightly is not enough to warrant a support. —Ruud 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) sigh This page looks like so many others, just changes of borders and colors. -- kosboot (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Too similar to the current Main Page, although I actually rather like this one. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I like the use of curves. Needs to be more shading and shadowing to make it not look so bland. Else not too different from current main page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) An improvement over the current main page, but falls short of a main page re-design. Per others, I would like some changes to the layout. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) No.  Just ... no.  A very offputting design, reminds me of the "futuristic" designs that have been out of fashion for the past several years.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * It's more visually interesting than the current version, but it doesn't really change contents. I'd like to see the main page shaken up a bit more.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like a bigger font for the left links in the header (getting started, FAQ, etc). Those links are very important. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

HenkvD
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) This is a radical proposal. I'm not sure I agree with the colors, and I don't see the value in the "share this" (who would share the main page...?), but otherwise a good alternative for discussion. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like this radical proposal, in spite of the influence of Google.  Colors are mutable and not so important.  The main thing is that the thousands of words are eliminated in favor of only the most important links.  By eliminating so many choices you make it easier for the user to navigate. -- kosboot (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Fine with the colors and concept, not the "share this."  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking at each one, this is the only change to the main page I would support.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Seriously ? The "Share this" section is bad, the colors are bad, the links are useless without explanation, the search section is redundant ... --Nouill (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Colours... --Stryn (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Same as above...and colour is too retro.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) The pastel colours alone kill this idea for me. Plus I'd actually like some content. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Interesting idea but not this version. Needs radical makeover to make more aesthetic. Still I do think it is an interesting direction. I'd agree about different colours and removing the "share this" bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Choice of colours doesn't work with Wikipedia's main skin. Also, way too little content and too much space unused. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Clever, and I like the centrality of the search bar.  Otherwise, per Calisber. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Not enough content. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) Use sensible colors and ditch the "share this" section, and a Google-style front page might work. --Carnildo (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the colours and I like the font. I like the layout. A lot. (Hey, I guess I'm retro...) Dislike the search section. But truly we can't remove all the front page text, in favor of just links.  Fylbecatulous   talk   15:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

HenkvD Version2
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) I don't like how it flows visually, but I just plain detest the "Share this" section.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too many columns, straight up. The main page can only support a one-column or two-column layout in the content space. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) So white. I don't like columns. --Stryn (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) -- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Needs very wide window to view without horizontal scrolling --Murray Langton (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Interesting proposal, but would still need a lot of work. Currently too tight. —Ruud 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Too wide, it's impossible to read. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Even with my widescreen, the three-column layout just doesn't work. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Too many columns.  I can view them all on my screen with no problem, even then, it feels too crowded. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) The columns and the width are not to my liking. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * In this version's favor, I like how the gray area guides the user to the important stuff (though I don't like that dark a shade of gray). -- kosboot (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some interesting ideas here. I do like the middle grey bar (I'd make it paler and use more shading/shadowing), but it is way too long. I think this one has potential. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Inkowik
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) For it's non-use of icons, it's non-use of radii, and it's used of gradients. Improved color scheme over the current main page. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Same problem as Evad37, the eye is attracted by the pretty blue gradient in the headings, instead of being attracted by the content. Dodoïste (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Nothing is really changed, and header is too tight...nice colour scheme, though.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) As Evad37. —Ruud 20:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Just like Evad37's design, I could grow to like the colour scheme (although grey text on blue background...?) but feel a bigger change is needed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Good choice of colours, but not enough of a change. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Better than Evad37, but not by that much. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) The gradients are not to my liking. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * It's more visually interesting than the current version, but it doesn't really change contents. I'd like to see the main page shaken up a bit more.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Header looks bad, so I'm not sure if I can support...nice colour scheme, anyway.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A less garish colour (beige/buff? grey? coffee?) but I do like the shading. Content not addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

John123521 (alt. version of Erasmo Barresi design)
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Third choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Per my oppose of the original.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too retro --Nouill (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) It's basically the current design. --  tariq abjotu  00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I'll also oppose here per Sven. --Izno (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) As others. --Stryn (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Basically the current page with less colours. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Colour scheme not appealing. Not a huge change in format otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Even if we went with only minor changes to the main page, this wouldn't be my first choice - other "light" proposals have a better choice of colouring. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1) I do like the addition of the "About Wikipedia" section. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroopower
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Dodoïste (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like it. I'd like it much more without the quote.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this moves us too far toward Wikia (I see the credits at the bottom mention it) and would personally de-emphasize a number of elements (the collaboration box at the top as well as the quote, in particular). And not everything needs the over-the-top pictures at the bottom. But another solid mockup. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like it but the quote and the space for the quote should be smaller.  -- kosboot (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Great design and it causes the user to focus on the content. But the quote has to go. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 20:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  Rcsprinter   (babble)  @ 22:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm somewhat fond of this design, although it needs to be scene integrated into Vector, there is a lot of space wasted at the sides, it is unlikely DYK will be scrapped, and the quote at the top doesn't fit-in well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Very different, but I actually like it!  The quote (I assume DYK goes there?) should be substantially reduced in size (increase Featured Article a little for balance with the size of Featured Photo) and Commons and Meta should be added to the box on the bottom-right of the page.  It'd also be good to know how it would look in Vector and Monobook.  I'd also rather the portals were either "featured portals" or randomly chosen from the 8 currently on the Main Page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) This definitely has potential.  « ₣M₣ »  22:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe
 * 1) I like it, but I would like to see it embedded in the Vector skin first. —Ruud 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Promising  -I'd lose the quote and it is a big box with just four items in it where space is a premium. More 3D shading would help too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) DYK and fonts are problem.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Maybe it'd look different within the Wikipedia interface, but it looks too plain, and the font proportions are a bit strange. I'm not sure it's a step forward, which is what we're looking for here. --  tariq abjotu  18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't like the gutting of the DYK section. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Good, but hard to embed. --Stryn (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't like the bottom part. The remaining of the version is not exceptional (the description of the picture is much longer than the featured articles :S. --Nouill (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) TFA too small, TFP too big.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Not a fan of either the bottom part or of not linking to other projects. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Dislike the look generally, and the omission of key sections. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * My F-Secure blocked the page at the work :(... Maybe I'll see it when I'm at home. --Stryn (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but i'd like to keep the Wikipedia globe --Murray Langton (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Outstanding, but DYK and fonts are problems.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I scrolled down, the bettter I liked this one. Promising. But, there's a lot of wasted space (at least in my browser).  Fylbecatulous   talk   15:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mattbr
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) I'm not sure about the line colors, but this is easily one of my favorites.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Uneven columns spacing could see problems from a tech standpoint (see concerns of smaller resolutions/mobile). Should be considered though. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Well worth considering --Murray Langton (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The best. Saint Johann (ru) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Would need some adjustments of the colours and perhaps slightly thinner lines, but I think this is a decent improvement over the current main page. —Ruud 20:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I really like this one. Even the uneven columns spacing was a layout design I learned in journalism and am still fond of.   Fylbecatulous   talk   15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) This one deserves further consideration, if only to fine-tune the colour scheme (blue is nice, pale yellow not so much.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Love this one. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) My favorite. Smaller lines would be nice, though.  David  1217  What I've done 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC) modified 01:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) My favorite too. It separates the sections better than many of the others. The absence of any icons is a plus, and I like the colours too. I like how the 'about'/'contribute' section is close to the top.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) First choice! - add a bar between "About Wikipedia" and "Contribute", though.  If we could align the "Welcome to Wikipedia"/"Explore" columns with the "TFA"/"About Wikipedia" columns, that'd be best.  (As I said above, love the "About Wikipedia" section.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) First choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe
 * 1) I'd fine tune the colours and maybe introduce some 3D shading. Has potential. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Another outstanding idea. Colours is a problem.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Poor visual flow: two panels becomes one column with a sidebar becomes two panels becomes one panel. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed with Carnildo - my eye stop (and glaze over) at the amount of text. -- kosboot (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) In my opinion, the thick section borders detract from the content, and the information in the right-hand column is too scrunched. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I like the prominence of an editing/contribution section, but the lines with lots of different colours don't work for me and per Carnildo, the orientation of the columns give poor visual flow - the content on the right needs to be less squashed or moved elsewhere. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) hardly a change, but colors are coming on much stronger, which is not good Hekerui (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm afraid once formatting and etc is taken care of, its just too similar to the main page. Hardly a redesign.  « ₣M₣ »  22:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1) I like the "About Wikipedia"/"Contribute" section. This section could be used in a better design. (I finally put it on my version) --Nouill (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mono
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Minor differential from Pretzel, but Pretzel is a good starting place, so we should talk about this. --Izno (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe
 * 1) The layout I find quite aesthetically appealing. Needs fine tuning, just not sure how yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Needs definitive lines between columns, especially on narrow screens --Murray Langton (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) It's like reading a newspaper dense with print. -- kosboot (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Having compared this to Pretzels, I'm going to agree that the lines make the difference. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) As 1Forthemoney-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Holds an appeal, but the layout just looks a little too disorganized. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Too empty and fake-moderny.  Nothing for your eyes to latch onto and follow. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Too squished. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * My comment is same as Izno, I just can not decide whatever to support. -- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nathan2055
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) I support this style. It could use an advanced search option, and maybe a few more plain text links, but it's style is exactly right for Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want this as the main page, but I think people should be given the option of eliminating article text and seeing a clean page. -- kosboot (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Empty and useless page. The search section is redundant, the portal links are useless. --Nouill (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Nouill. --Stryn (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I think a per Nouill is in order. --Izno (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Too simple-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I can't support designs that are devoid of actual content. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Fundamentally misconceived. It apes the style of Google, but misses the point that Wikipedia is not a search engine. The Main Page needs to be a content portal, not a search box. Prioryman (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) No - sterile and too similar to original www page....which I never use. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Needs some actual content and too boring with colours. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Making the search bar central could be good; making it the only thing is not so good. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) No content. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment

@Prioryman, add some plain text portals, then. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nouill (alt. version of Pretzels design)
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Dodoïste (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --Izno (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --  tariq abjotu  07:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) It's simple without being bland or dull. (Maybe I just like text too much?) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I like it. It's purdy and and straight to the point. I'd prefer to have the 'about'/'contribute' section where the 'news' section is.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) The two columns need to align better with each other, and perhaps a little bland. However, I found it more visually appealing than Pretzel's design and I think it flows better, but I would like about Wikipedia to be on the top right. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) support, simple, less reliant on borders, classy Hekerui (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe
 * 1) Good start, but About Wikipedia is a problem. Need to discuss.-- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Way too much text and not enough to guide the eye. -- kosboot (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Too bland an unappealing for mine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Better than Mono, since it does guide the eye, but it's too bland. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Too boxy. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Prefer this to Pretzel's design. The sizing of the columns is too uneven. But these starting places are good. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I kind of miss some of the revolutionary elements in Pretzels' design (e.g. what he did with Picture of the Day and the stuff at the bottom of the page). This alternate version seems a bit conservative in not going too far, but it does improve upon a few things in relationship to Pretzels' (e.g. with the images and size of the sidebar). I was also a bit worried about how POTD in Pretzels' would work with pictures of different dimensions. So, I'll cautiously say I like this one more, but perhaps prefer something in between. --  tariq abjotu  07:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretzels
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Evad37 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --Stryn (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Dodoïste (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Moondyne (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I like it, but the in the news images are too tiny to work.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Really like this.  Theo  polisme  14:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Prefer Nouill's to this, but it's a starting place. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) -- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Nice AIR corn  (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) A new eye-opener :) --Hydriz (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I haven't looked at all of the options here, but I can't imagine how any of them could be better than this one. --  tariq abjotu  06:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Better than the rest! However, the background is totally white and some other light color would have been more eye-catching.  EngineerFromVega ★  15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) -  Blethering   Scot  22:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) - Sadads (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) I loved this when I first saw it, and I've still seen nothing that comes close. Rd232 talk 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Very nice ideas here. the wub  "?!"  19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Yes — ΛΧΣ  21™  17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC
 * 19) This one is not my first choice, but it's a move away from the current page I can actually enjoy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) If the about Wikipedia section emulates the content in Mattbr's then this would easily be my favorite. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 20:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Very clear; easy on the eyes. --Noleander (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Agree with Sven and Rd232. Outstanding work that makes the current Main page look dated.  « ₣M₣ »  22:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Better than existing - would be OK, but not as attractive as the Sven/Blofeld draft to my eyes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak support - best I've seen so far and only one in its current form as presented would be an improvement to what we have. My ideal would be something different but given we've been logjammed on this debate for years, and this is the only one we can find consensus on, I'd be (relatively) happy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 25) Easily the freshest and best of the options. I'd tone down the letter spacing in the section headings a bit, and wouldn't use Linux Libertine in the title - serif mixed with sans is messy - but those are minor quibbles that don't detract from the overall value of this proposal. Incidentally, I agree with  below that DYK should be replaced with TAFI blurb and short editing instructions. &mdash;  Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 26) I like it; seems to be of this century and the web rather than a left-over badly done newspaper page. I would move the picture of the day up and DYK down, but I think this is pleasant and navigable. -Fjozk (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe
 * 1) I could live with it, I guess, but I still like Sven's the best. Go   Phightins  !  19:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) (Note: this page looks much better after you click the "view without header" link.) I like some individual aspects and the layout, but overall this really isn't doing it for me. The colours, serif fonts, shadows... it's a strange mishmash. I don't think it fits well with the overall design of the Vector skin and rest of Wikipedia's interface either. I'd like to see slight more toned down/consistent version of this proposal, perhaps incorporating some aspects from Mattbr. —Ruud 20:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Gosh, I'm surprised so many people like this.  Why is "from the best of Wikipedia" promoted almost to the exclusion of everything else?  There would be no reason for news.  Too much text!  It makes the eye stay in one place.  Awful. -- kosboot (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) ITN is squished and TFA is colored? No way. I'm also surprised everyone loves this.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Fragmented visuals. Lacks the visual coherence of current version, Mattbr and Blofield et al variants. Consistency in font between the different sections is critical, and missing in this version. Other versions have more prominent information about contributing, which is a plus. Why does no-one experiment with ditching sections altogether, esp. OTD? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) It doesn't flow well for me, and per Hamiltonstone, fragmented visuals. I would also like greater prominence of editing. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per others and because it still has this fake-modern look that is just visually unappealing.  It's all white and off-whites, except where there are pictures.  Some color, please!  Also, the lines have trouble directing vision b/c they are so very very faint. POTD is just jarring - it's just a solid color w/o no border or reason for being solid.  This is probably my least favorite of the "serious" redesigns. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I dislike the assortment, the content is pressed into columns that are too small Hekerui (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Too boxy, odd color for the POTD. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * This is broken at 1024x768, and other non-widescreen sizes (ie, most of the world, plus most portable devices). The entire right-hand column is far too thin, and the POTD doesn't work with landscape images (it almost works with portrait orientation images, but even that breaks badly at smaller window sizes). Aesthetically, I like this proposal, but the code needs drastic work (IANAWD). —Quiddity (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * mobile devices get http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ by default anyway. But coding issues are secondary, this poll is about design. Rd232 talk 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. This is, after all, a mockup - this code would never be deployed to the Main Page. Unfortunately, I'm limited in what can be done as I can only use inline CSS here. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I worry about the size of the sidebar on the right side and text in it, but I get the general idea. If this is selected as the one for moving forward, it can be improved upon then. I see people have already started thinking about that, considering there are two designs that build upon this one. I think dropping the images for ITN and OTD are a good idea (as noted in Nouill's proposal). --  tariq abjotu  07:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One matter of notice: Main Wikipedia portals are nonexistent on this page. I'd prefer that they exist for users as a click-through option. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Stryn (alt. version of Pretzels design)
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Dodoïste (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Prefer other Pretzel designs due to the color scheme of this one; tan neither fits in with Vector nor with Monobook mainspace pages. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --Stryn (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) One to consider, although tan/yellow does not fit the default skin. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This is the only one I really like, but I don't like the colors and think DYK should be replaced with TAFI blurb and short editing instructions. 70.58.12.95 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Worth to consider.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 04:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I would like the columns to align with each other better, but I think it looks better organized that Pretzels' design in my opinion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Way too much text - might as well read DBpedia. -- kosboot (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Less streamlined than pretzel. Prefer the latter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) As with other Pretzel designs, too boxy. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment

Sven Manguard (rearrangement of Dr. Blofeld's design)
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Obviously my first choice.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) -- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --Stryn (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Sadads (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Very similar to Blofeld's, which I liked also. Automatic  Strikeout  03:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Looks good.  Rcsprinter  (post)  @ 11:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7)  " Pepper "  @ 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) The changes are very good. This is definitely one of my top choices. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Like this one as well... but I'd definitely like to see Mattbr's about Wikipedia statistics included. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  essay  // 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) The best with editor recruitment instructions. Paum89 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) The best suggestion - but the content text should be reduced (shorter TFA, fewer DYK and ITN, etc.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Good layout, prefer over Blofield original because of increased prominence of text on making contributions. Recommend ditching the white-on-blue text for somethign closer to current page for accessability / readability issues. I think some other proposals have too little text overall. But I do think fontsize should probably be consistent (rather than feature article getting alrger text than other categories. Suggest drop OTD altogether, but maybe that was outside the competition rules? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) One of my favourites, for the same reasons I like Dr. Blofeld's design. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Second choice, after Mattbr.  It'd be nicer if the text for TFA was a bit smaller, though it's not hitting me as badly as it did on Doc Blofield's for some reason. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) My first choice. Nice job.  Go   Phightins  !  19:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) My favourite. Reading many (bar about four) I simply hated them, in my gut. They felt old, or clunky; pointless, or just urgh. But this one I could go with. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Fifth (and last acceptable) choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe
 * 1) as per Blofeld - change blue, I think a bit less text, but I think I prefer Pretzel....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Way, way too text-heavy for the eye.  Maybe if you kept text down to 3 sentences to each article. -- kosboot (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I seriously hate those blue headers. They make an otherwise decent design look cheesy and dated. --  tariq abjotu  19:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Too much text, and I don't like DYK, ITN, and OTD stuck at the bottom and rarely seen. Takes a lot of incentive out of writing DYKs.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) Good wording in 'How to edit' section --Murray Langton (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the idea very much, but way, way too much text.  Should be limited to 1 paragraph or maximum 3 sentences for each box. -- kosboot (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Anome
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Dodoïste (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe
 * 1) It's funny...I am not enamoured of the individual changes as such, but it somehow comes together quite nicely....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Too tight. --Stryn (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Another good looks, but nothing is really changed...-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Too much text! -- kosboot (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not a bad concept, but I'd actually like some colour other than black or white. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Too bland and not radical enough. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I'd support this if it wasn't for the serif fonts. We don't use those anywhere else in the interface either. —Ruud 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wer900
return to top
 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Too barren.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too simple. --Stryn (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure that this one ever got off the ground. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Stryn. -- John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Need some info on main page to interest folks. --Murray Langton (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Lack of design is still bad design. -- kosboot (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) There's practically nothing there. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Not appealing, and too small. Not enough content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Same problem with the one that was just a search bar.  Simplicity isn't bad, but you've got to leave something! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) No content. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment

X!
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) I'd tone down the blue filler in the boxes, but I like this arrangement.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This is my second favourite. The layout makes me happy and so do the colours. Very nice.   Fylbecatulous   talk   15:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Surprisingly agreeable, though I don't know about the text in the "about WP" on the right side. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I like the concept, though the colours need more discussion (perhaps a bit paler?) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Like the shading-boxes. I like the look overall but is pretty similar to what we have. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Not highly radical, but has some appeal and an interesting layout. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I very much like the layout - both in the arrangement of content and in the unassuming format.  Third choice after Mattbr and Sven Manguard. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) I find the shadows in the borders unappealing. Also, it looks too much like the current Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Too similar to existing - not a substantial improvement.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) this is too top-heavy, the Wikipedia explanation is not needed/too detailed Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Too boxy à la Pretzel. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) If the "Welcome to Wikipedia" were a single line with a search box, this would be my favorite. Clean looking. How would it look on mobile with the boxes, though? -Fjozk (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Colors is too retro, rest are fine.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I could support this if there was less text in the featured article. But it's still too similar to all the other so-called redesigns. -- kosboot (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

jsjsjs1111 (copycat version)
return to top
 * Support
 * 1) Not bad, even though it is a copy. --Stryn (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Sadads (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly a reasonable design but I'd support shrinking the icons. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe
 * 1) I like the top box, I must say. Needs some tweaking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) A good design to copy! Although, I agree that the icons need shrinking. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this one, though not quite as much as my other support.  Go   Phightins  !  19:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Doesn't seems to work since it is a copycat of Chinese Wikipedia Main Page.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The right idea, but way too much text: If you have to scroll down to see content, then the page is not good. -- kosboot (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Prefer Sven's similar idea. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment