Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign

Please be kind, sign your posts, and read others' comments.

This discussion has spawned three daughter discussions: programming talk, redesign of the searchbox, and Logo change. It was felt they needed to be separated.

Summary of what we've accomplished so far
User:Quiddity came up with the idea to add the Template:Reference pages (header bar) links to the sidebar so that they would be available across all of Wikipedia. Some programmers were contacted to get them involved from the start, and notices were placed around Wikipedia. The discussion took off from there:
 * draft/example archives Archive of older versions.
 * Archive 01 (August 6–14)
 * Archive 02 (August 15–23)
 * Archive 03 (August 17–26)
 * Archive 04 (August 20–28)
 * Archive 05 (August 28 – September 02)
 * Archive 06 (September 01–13)

Reserve list of other links?
I've just noticed that quite a few links from previous versions are missing. Some I don't mind, but I expected to see About in the final list. I think it was decided that the page wasn't up to scratch yet. Could we put together a "reserve list" of links that (a) need improving before being considered for a future revision of the sidebar, and (b) people would like to see considered for inclusion in future revisions of the sidebar (or subsidiary pages)?

Looking at past versions and suggestions, my "reserve list" (including lots of the links currently on the Main Page) would be: About; Searching; Introduction; Tutorial; Statistics (I only just found this page); Village Pump; Reference Desk; Help Desk; News; Lists of basic topics; List of fields of study; List of glossaries; Quick index; Category schemes; Browse; Browse by overview; List of topic lists; List of reference tables; List of academic disciplines; Lists of topics; Reference pages; Special:Prefixindex (to replace Wikipedia:Quick index).

Please note that I am not advocating that people try and re-add these links now. I just don't want the ideas to be forgotten. It might also be an idea to summarise the rationales for why certain links were excluded, to head off any arguments. Carcharoth 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to reword for clarity/concision. --Quiddity 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When and how was decided what to include and what not to include. I just learned about the special:prefixindex which I wasn't aware of but which is a phantastic feature and should certainly be included in the sidebar (I drop my request for A-Z, this is far more better). Electionworld Talk?  14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When: The 4 pages of archives, linked at the top of this page.
 * How: By discussing, using prior experience to properly frame particular points.
 * There are all sorts of phantastic features at Special:Specialpages (which is in the toolbox, in the sidebar). But we can't repeat them all! This is one of the many uses of your userpages: Create lists of links that you find useful, and would like 1-click access to. --Quiddity 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Reasons behind the changes.


 * To be fair, I too was unaware of Special:Prefixindex for a long while, so making more people aware of it wouldn't hurt. I think many people labour under the assumption that Special:Allpages is the only such index tool, and are unaware of, or do not keep looking for, Special:Prefixindex. I do agree though that too many links is not good, and people should be encouraged to keep lists of what they find useful. As for useful tools and stuff - there are loads out there. I keep meaning to look through all of Tools, but always get distracted. I keep my useful links at User:Carcharoth/Bookmarks, and one I found recently was the Category Ladder tool (last one on the list). Another example is What links to wikipedia.org, which I requested one time, and might have even been one of the reasons behind the creation of the Special:Linksearch function (well, I like to think so anyway!) :-) Carcharoth 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Special. Carcharoth 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

References pages
Perhaps it would be useful to add this link to the sidebar? Reference pages is a sort of portal towards links that did not make it in, such as the A-Z index or the list of fields of study. By including it, you're still allowing people to get comprehensive listings of the topics that are available on Wikipedia. I feel it's a potentially very useful page that just won't get enough traffic if not included in the sidebar. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly that it should get added (and it's in the already), but then I've been trying to update that page quite a bit lately, so am very biased towards it ;)
 * (I've also been considering proposing it for a page rename, to Contents, but I'm not sure about that yet.)
 * Anyone else? --Quiddity 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My word, someone listed to my ranting that the old format of that page was terrible - and now it's almost a work of genius! Although I'd consider moving the navigation template to the top of the article. But yes, it's now in a fine state to be included! :) LinaMishima 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo changes
First, I should probably make it obvious I don't want the logo itself changed, just the way it is displayed. Is it just me, or does it seem extremely pixelated? Around the edge of the globe, particually at the bottom. I spend a lot of time on WP:FPC, and I've seen how images can be so intensly scrutinised, and yet the one image that is so highly visable it is on every page, and being a logo it is itself representive of Wikipedia, so by all logic should be subject to as much scrutinisation as all other images combined? Ok, that my argument, my proposal is simple. Replace the png logo with an svg one, eliminating pixel worries. Anyone concur? - Jack (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me, but moving from png to svg seems to be the zeitgeist so perhaps the conversion may as well happen anyway. (NB as of this post's timestamp, Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.svg is a redlink...) Regards, David Kernow 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How could we go about geting it done? I have neither the means nor capacity - Jack (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The valid distinction is not "PNG vs. SVG." It's "8-bit color vs. 24-bit color."  The advantage of SVGs is that they're scalable, but this graphic is displayed at a fixed size.  MediaWiki renders all SVGs as 24-bit PNGs, so we it would make far more sense to use an optimized 24-bit PNG at the intended size (a smaller output file).
 * There is, however, a very good reason why we use an 8-bit file for this purpose. For most users, 24-bit PNGs (whether native or automatically converted from SVGs) display without transparency.  They would see a solid background, which would look far worse than whatever minor issue presently exists.  &mdash;David Levy 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And of course, Internet Explorer doesnt natively support SVG -- it requires a plugin, see Scalable Vector Graphics -- so approx 80% of our readers wouldnt see anything at all... --Quiddity 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki doesn't display embedded SVGs; they're automatically converted to 24-bit PNGs. IE6 users would see the logo, but it would have a solid background (assuming that MediaWiki supports SVGs for this purpose, which I'm not entirely certain of).  This issue is fairly moot, however, as it always would make more sense to use a native PNG (whether 8-bit or 24-bit). &mdash;David Levy 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe I was mistaken with the png/svg thing, what my actual aim was was to remove the badly rendered pixels around the image. The logo seems designed for optimum transparancy against a flat white background, not against the dynamic tones of the website's background. Especially against the darker areas. Where is the location of the curent image perhaps if this image was imposed over the globe, and writing was replaced by acual text, for the benifit of those with ClearType enabled? - Jack (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * These would be lots of reasons to take the text out of the logo and ClearType would be around tthe last of them. The text would be scalable at different browsers settings.  (Go to View>Text Size and play around with that).  Different languages could be changed in easily.  But the cons would be the placement might flop around a bit on different browsers with different OS/screen sizes/text size/language settings/CSS support.  It would make everything a lot more complicated and therefore more likely to break.  However, I agree the logo should be placed on that blue background to get the rough edges off, but DON'T make the whole box with that blue background and no transparency.  Try the text resizing and see what I mean. --michael180 23:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no consistency in the trademark, and I think trademark law is very neurotic when it comes to exact typefaces. I would suggest getting ahold of the original and prerendering it against the background image and display that, but according to meta it's just a bitmapped 3d render. We'd need the source to fix it, because it should've been rendered against a suitable backdrop instead of a white matte. --DavidHOzAu 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you get hold of it and do that? Would you need to be, like, a sysop? - Jack (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Need I remind you that not everyone uses the MonoBook skin (the only one that contains the background in question)? &mdash;David Levy 00:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, but only two of the other six skins use the logo, and they both use it on a plain background, so they could both continue using the logo in use now, but for monobook, we need a re-do. I decided to check other Wikipedias, and the in very first one I checked, the French Wikipedia, they seem to have got their logo right. How? - Jack (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)




 * Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png is as good as it gets. As you can see below, it has noticeable failings. --DavidHOzAu 00:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just uploaded Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-fixed.png to Commons. --DavidHOzAu 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two diacritics are missing: above the И and beside the Ω. Failure of source material. --DavidHOzAu 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC


 * What the?! Why are there two versions of the globe?! The globe you used is used in the Wikipedia article, and - brace yourselves - the multilingual port...and yet in none of the site logos... This should definitly be fixed - Jack (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of fixes, those who use IE will want to look at Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-fixed-bg.png if they don't want to turn green with envy of us Firefox users. --DavidHOzAu 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just about to reiterate the fact that 24-bit color is unacceptable when you posted the above. :)  &mdash;David Levy 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this as well. If you can actually fix the matte, that would be great. It isn't very difficult if you have the source image. Myself, I'm more concerned with fixing the huge amount of graphical errors that you can see in the large version of the logo. It baffles me that nobody ever has. It makes the logo look terrible when printed at an even slightly high resolution. But I don't think that if I did fix it, it would be accepted. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things from this discussion: (1) The current image is indeed horribly pixellated around the edges and should be fixed. (2) The use of two different globe images across the various projects is unacceptable - only one version should be used. Carcharoth 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we are changing the logo, we should also consider fixing the errors in it. The Devanagari text on the logo is wrong. For details of the proposal, see this page for the proposal I created some time back. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could User:Nohat fix this? --DavidHOzAu 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I contacted him long back. Didn't get a positive reply. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The change was requested in July? Okay then, we might have to fix it ourselves.  Does anyone know where the source code is? (He made it in POVRay, right?) --DavidHOzAu 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was indeed made in POVRay. I asked him for the source a while back, but he seemed reluctant to give it. Whether this is due to the fact the logo is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation or because he'd just rather not have people mess around with his design, I don't know. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked your message on his talk page. Interestingly, he also told me "there are no plans to change the logo at this point". I don't see how he has anything to say about that, but I'd presume there's some kind of regulation that prevents us from changing the logo around too easily. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the international version, the only thing I can see is that it may require editing of the protect page, Www.wikipedia.org template. That's not too hard for someone over there with access rights to do.
 * For the english wikipedia, it requires updating the file held at /images/wiki-en.png; again, not hard for someone with access.
 * To me this isn't changing the logo because we are just squishing bugs. Not only is it rather embarrassing that the international logo is missing diacritics from the English one, it makes us a laughing stock to foreign language readers. Why are we still waiting around for it to be fixed after nearly 10 weeks?  It doesn't take that long to render an image. --DavidHOzAu 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you fixing the logo, and I've noticed that myself. I agree that we are just "squishing bugs" and we should be bold. I have sysop rights, so I can change it, but only on the English Wikipedia.--HereToHelp 18:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo of the redesign
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but the background of the old logo is transparent and the background of the new one not. I am using IE 6 which does have a transparency bug, but if the "fixed" logo doesn't work properly in all browsers surely it would be better to keep it the same. Lcarsdata (Talk) 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The image has an alpha channel, it is just that IE is borked. (seeing that it is software "feature" that is nearly ten years old.) In IEFixes.js, the alpha of the logo is corrected by setting the image's  style to the Microsoft-specific  .  It isn't done on this project page because that's a non-standard convention.  The bottom line is that when the new image used as the logo, the edges will display correctly. On the other hand, the old image has a lousy alpha channel and displays with visible artifacts, as any pixel from the original image that was white is transparent, hence the jaggy edges for colors that were close to white and didn't quite make the cut.  I suggest you upgrade your browser by visting the following link: http://www.ie7.com/. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidHOzAu (talk • contribs).
 * Or http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ (Firefox)
 * or http://www.opera.com (Opera)
 * Both of which are far superior to IE in many ways, and closer in spirit to Wikipedia (accessible and innovative) ;P --Quiddity 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, http://www.ie7.com/ is a Firefox page someone whipped up, and that must be the first talk page entry I forgot to sign. --DavidHOzAu 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! i figured it was an MS redirect (they just hit RC1), so didnt click. nice domain name snag! -Quiddity
 * I use Firefox, I was just being considerate of the people who ever can't be bothered to, don't know how to or are not able to. Wikipedia should be useable by all browsers if it can. I was using IE then because the PC I was using is 98 and cannot install the Firefox Google toolbar. And don't tell me I am... shouting because I know. Lcarsdata (Talk) 07:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (shouting quieted)
 * Hey, you might want to cool it, dude. As you can see from the above, it was all a joke at the expense of buggy Microsoft products, not you. --DavidHOzAu 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * David: I didn't realize that your proposed image still contained alpha-transparency. Can you please elaborate on the IE fix cited above?  I'd never heard of it before, and I've only managed to find a discussion mostly from January with no indication that this actually was implemented (and a comment from March indicating that it may be buggy).  Are you saying that your image would display properly (with a transparent background) in IE5/6?  &mdash;David Levy 08:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. --DavidHOzAu 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For your first question, see and . --DavidHOzAu 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

David Hozau's right, MS's buggy software isn't anyone's fault. Besides, users of Windows 98 have been officially abandoned by Microsoft, so why can't we abandon them too? Any linux distro is more up to date. oh, and firefox supports Windows 98, forgot to mention that. If you don't mind a few bad pixels, don't upgrade. --gatoatigrado 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sick and tired of encountering this attitude. Yes, IE is a crummy browser, but many people either have no choice but to use it or lack the knowledge that there are other options.  I don't understand why the notion of punishing these individuals is so appealing to some users.
 * FYI, IE6 is the default browser of Windows XP. That won't change until Service Pack 3 is released, and not everyone will install it.  &mdash;David Levy 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've written and LGPL'ed a cross-browser safe Javascript to automatically fix 24-bit transparancy/alpha-channel for PNG's on Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6. At around 3KB, it could be included in a new build of Mediawiki and would fix the logo's jaggies problem. You can test it here. Sony-youth 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "If you don't mind a few bad pixels, don't upgrade". Who's getting punished? I think you're referencing this: yes IE 7 does support it. When IE 6 came out everyone made this big compatibility fuss then found that most people actually had it. --gatoatigrado 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this what DavidHOzAu referenced above? If it could be implemented site-wide, that would be terrific!  &mdash;David Levy 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the images still linkable? I heard that people usually have problems with linking &lt;a&gt; tags around images that use AlphaImageLoader. --DavidHOzAu 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It uses the fix that DavidHOzAu mentioned. Once linked to from a page, it attaches on onLoad event that checks if the browser is IE 5.5 or 6.x and if so fixes all PNGs in the document. Yes, it can handle links - I've updated the demo site to show this. Sony-youth 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's neat! ;-) --DavidHOzAu 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * okay, this one fixes all of the images and the links? I guess that's good, but it's not 3k (anymore), it's 5 k. oh well who cares? I think monobook uses some ajax functions already. this should be integrated. Unfortunately I can't test it because I upgraded IE6 a long time ago and will never go back. I do use firefox 2.0, but ie 7 is not nearly as buggy, just less convenient because there are less extensions. --gatoatigrado 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree there should not be unilateral criticism of ie. Firefox has its partial implementations - even in 2.0 svg implementation is not complete. how terrible. it's in the gimp, but I guess the licenses aren't exactly one to one. --gatoatigrado 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Character error in Logo
I found that letter 'vi' (Wikipedia) in Kannada, Hindi and other indian languages is wrongly represented. This one should be corrected before final decision.--Raja Hussain 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with this. There's a petition around somewhere on this. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned it on the page in the section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and Petition still ongoing... —Quiddity 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

declare a winner
There's been a lot of good points brought up, and it's hard to declare one good reason superior to another, but this is what I think.
 * by the way, I didn't only vote for my opinions; I still like "Help" personally, but in the end the points made by Quiddity were better. --gatoatigrado 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

title for other box
There appear to be only three good wordings here.

Interaction
 * + covers everything well
 * + provides a contextual (and rhyming!) conterpoint to "Navigation"
 * − sounds like computer / pages interaction [debatable]

Community
 * + commonly used in open/free projects
 * − doesn't include help link as well [debated]
 * − repeats the word as part of the 2nd entry

Other
 * −/+ undistinctive, but simple

Help
 * −/+ undistinctive, but simple
 * − doesn't include other links as clearly
 * − repeats the word as the first entry


 * I've updated this list with formatting and additional points. --Quiddity 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think community wins here. I don't think either had great "for" arguments, but the "against" argument is more negative (and not debated) for interaction. --gatoatigrado 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me if I'm stating the obvious here, but there was an option for "other" that I suggested. The title you gave this section "title for other box" also seems to suggest that this is a natural title. People will still see "help" straight away, as that is the first thing you see below the header. Carcharoth 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or even, strangely enough, leave this box without a title! Better to have no title at all, rather than a misleading one. Carcharoth 09:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks weird without a title, like its part of the search box, or broken. --Quiddity 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is indeed the only major point left to decide, but i'd like to hear from more people before we make up our minds. Quiddity 11:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, (darn, perhaps we're farther from declaring a winner), I guess "other" is a very legitimate option. I'd like to knock out "interaction" though, unless someone can come up with a good point to refute it's negative. --gatoatigrado 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute the implied negative connotations of "interaction". It sounds fine and appropriate to me. And besides, everything we do here is by interacting with a computer, (and often with a community, though that isnt essential to reading or contributing to Wikipedia)
 * If we're going to examine negative connotations, then I think "community" sounds a bit like a closed-gate group of people, something you are 'obliged' to become a part of in order to contribute. Though this is essentially true, so maybe a good thing to imply...? --Quiddity 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, community isn't necessarily open-source community. Wikipedia isn't computer-interactive like a video game or information source where the user, now no longer just a "reader", is led into things with movies, "dynamic" content quizzes, etc. --169.229.215.32 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the rhyming is immaterial; the point of changing it from "interact" is so it is a noun. I don't see the rhyming with search in the middle anyway. The points above were supposed to be major for/against. --gatoatigrado 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The rhyming is obviously just a happy coincidence, and any connection/polarity between it and "navigation" would be basically subliminal. --Quiddity 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

About the "community portal" having "community" in it; "help" menus in most applications have "help contents" in them, so I don't see what's wrong. --gatoatigrado 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's a big issue, changing "community portal" to "Wikipedia portal" wouldn't lose any relevance in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a very large issue to me, but looking at the mock-ups below, I must say that "community" is a very nice word for the purpose. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

partial "mock up"s

commentary on title for other box
Late to the party, but the latter three options don't really convey what's in the contents. "interaction" isn't great, either, but "community" implies that the other boxes are not community-oriented, which isn't true. An "other" box should never be above anything with a more specific name, IMO. And "help" isn't really what the donations button is about, at least from a traditional perspective. I could support "other" if it was moved below the toolbox (which puts the donations link in the relatively advantageous spot of last thing to catch the eyeball). -- nae'blis 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some thinking about this and have came up with the following four suggestions as an alternative title for the help box:
 * instructions
 * information
 * manual
 * project
 * Out of all of these, I prefer "project" because all links in the help box are relate to helping the Wikipedia project. It even covers donations and community portal! --DavidHOzAu 05:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: if we can't decide what to call the help box by September 12, we will have to keep the status quo and use "help". With that in mind, this section needs to be nailed. now. --DavidHOzAu 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ? The status quo does not reflect "help" as the box title. The opinions/points seem to be in favour of community or interaction still. --Quiddity 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, okay, my mistake. My point was that people have under two (three?) days to propose alternatives; if anyone has any new ideas they wish to table, they had better start typing. --DavidHOzAu 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about some brain storming? This is everything I thought of: Further navigation (what it really is), Navigation (two nav boxes? Blasphemy!) Community & help (both), no title( I think I like this the best, and added an example above), Misc, About us, relations, interchange, guidance. After I thgouth about all of those I looked at each of the terms and thought of "category" they are in. Help = Assistance, Community portal = Community, Questions = Assistance, Contact us = About? Usually found under "about us" on websites, Donations = Assist wikipedia. These links don;t fall into one cateogry so either no term or a very vauge one are probably the way to go. "interaction" and "other" are about the same, they really dont help the use. If a specific term like "help" is used then will people not read the links if they are not looking for help? Anyways, those are just my rambling thoughts. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. One must search for a word that can be pre-pended to every one of those "categories". --DavidHOzAu 08:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "information"? Similar to when you go to a fair, or a convention. While they may have a help desk, they usually (and more often) have an information desk. (Continuing this thought below.) - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... "information" keeps with the -tion notation. --DavidHOzAu 02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how donations fits under information though. --DavidHOzAu 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. &mdash;David Levy 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At least that's one alternative removed. How many more do we have to go? --DavidHOzAu 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (My apologies for not responding sooner (had to sleep "sometime" : )
 * The simple answer is the "information desk" analogy, again. You go to a convention, and the will always have donation pamphlets, right there along with community profiles, and contact information. (Whether contact for discussion, or contact for donation, it's still contacting "someone".)
 * See below for a longer answer - 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

title for help link
There appear to be only two good wordings for "help" as well.

Help vs Help contents

Help contents seems to be more popular, used in software, and actual page title (therefore, probably already discussed). I think "Help contents" has won the argument. --gatoatigrado 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding the word "contents" provides no useful information. Of course the first page of Help is going to be a table of contents, but the table of contents isn't really what people are after. They simply want "Help". If I'm trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia, I'm going to look for a link that says "Help". When I see a link that says "Help contents" I'm going to think "WTF is that? What contents are they talking about? The contents of the article? A table of contents?" The link should just say "Help". I don't think we need a focus group to figure this out, as it should be rather obvious, IMO. Kaldari 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you read the previous, more detailed discussion; "help contents" disambiguates between a "help index" and a "contact us" thing. --gatoatigrado 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By creating something that sounds like neither? Kaldari 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my english wasn't that good. It should sound like neither because it is neither. --24.7.86.143 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with either of them. --Quiddity 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I share the same sentiment as Quiddity, although I am leaning slightly towards Help contents. --DavidHOzAu 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

what if the title of the box is 'Editing Help'? Zena Dhark …·°º•ø®@» 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More choices: Help contents → Help table of contents (seems straightforward, but too long, breaks line) • Help TOC (short enough for one line) • Table of contents ("Help" implied assuming "help" as heading, no duplication, my choice) –Rfrisbietalk 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The other titles don't reflect help, so I don't think "help" is a good choice for the navigation box. It's not a table like old encyclopedias because there are links instead of page numbers. --gatoatigrado 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the three other alternatives are 100% accurate either, so by that logic, none of the choices are good enough. As far as "not being like old encyclopedias," a table of contents is a table of contents, whether it's electronic or not, whether is has links or not. It's the functionality that matters, and that's the function of that particular page. Let's vote! :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Help table of contents is too long and won't fit in the portlet. --DavidHOzAu 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as Help. There's no major necessity in changing it at all. KISS. I'm changing the examples above, and the project page to reflect that. --Quiddity 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Help
I really think the "Help" link should be moved to the bottom of the navigation section.
 * This places it "above" search, rather than below.
 * It's been pretty well established above and previously that "Help" is different than "Questions".
 * Help is mostly about "how to". How to edit, how to search, etc. Questions is about finding information about.
 * And personally, I think it makes the navigation box "look" better.

Based on the "above and below" the search concept, If "Questions" stays, then I suggest moving "Questions" to the top of the "other" box, and adding "About".

(And "information" as the "other" box's header, as noted above.) - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorporating:

I think the first column more fully embraces the "simplicity" criteria.

Personally, I like the first column because this makes the info box about the same size at the search box (and the same size as the toolbox on special pages). The whole thing just looks much more appealing to the eye. - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The top box is a list of encyclopedic-content navigational pages. Hence, "Help" does not belong there. The rest of your suggestions are repeated above, Please consider archiving this thread immediately. --Quiddity 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And "help" helps you navigate : )
 * (talking about the first column) this also makes the "other" box very concise.
 * What are your other concerns? - jc37 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Help does not help you navigate. It's been discussed many times before that Help:Contents does not direct people directly to articles, it leads them to help pages, and therefore is not a navigation tool... it is a help tool. --DavidHOzAu 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was too concise in my response. In any case, from your response, I presume you understand what I meant, that by using help, one learns "how to" navigate. It "helps" one to navigate.
 * But semantics aside, if we ignore the "navigate" criteria for a moment, are there any other concerns about Help being in the upper box? (I really like the change in "sense" that removing help and questions does for the "other" box. they become links wholly not about wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but about the people behind it's operation.) - jc37 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me say that "information" is a great header, and I commend you for being able to logically separate items. However, the help link in the navigation box would have to be Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia.  I think you'll agree that Help:Contents covers more than just browsing, such as Editing, Account settings, etc.  That is why I think Help:Contents should stay with Community portal under information. --DavidHOzAu 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But let's look at it from a point of "division". If we have a grouping of all the links in both boxes, how do we divide them?  As you know, I suggest a division between information about wikipedia/wikipedians (the community and it's needs) and Wikipedia, the online encylopedia that anyone can edit.
 * Given this, Help would belong in the upper box.
 * As I mentioned above, this then makes the "other box" an information booth "contact us" box.
 * As a compromise, we could add a divider in the upper box between random and help.
 * Or perhaps even have help displayed in another fashion. For example, as a part of the "search" box, since "Help" is more closely related to that. (You can search through the whole of Wikipedia, and you can see the help contents about the whole of Wikipedia.)
 * "Help" is rather different than everything else (due to the makeup of "contents"). Perhaps it should have it's own unique location. (It could even be placed in the lower part of the toolbox.)
 * Anyway, appreciating your thoughts : )
 * Be back later tonight - jc37 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The top box is for navigating/browsing encyclopedic content. The box under search is for meta information. Help belongs in meta information. It's as simple (and unchangeable) as that. All your other suggestions make everything more complicated or less intuitive. --Quiddity 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was so snippy, it's been a long month, with much going over the same points! See Sidebar redesign#Reasons behind the changes for the condensed-rationale behind the design. And thanks for your ideas :) --Quiddity 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand (and apology accepted : )
 * I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, and why.
 * I did read that link (it's how I found this page in the first place) I was just responding in a single subsection to several of the questions above (such as should "Questions" be added, what should we name the "other" box, where should we place "help", and what to do about it, etc.)  Yes, there have been discussions about these things, but I would presume that another opinion  is not a "bad thing". : )


 * To respond to your former statement, I believe you are operating with a false assumption. Portals, Categories, and even the main page list more than just name space links (what I am presuming you define as encyclopedic content).  In my opinion, "Help" fits right in.
 * I also think "Questions" doesn't need to be listed, for several reaspons, including because it's not only at the top of the main page, but also at the top of community portal.


 * I see below that the only difference between the versions you have listed is only a question of box titles.
 * I would like to add "G" as an option for others to discuss for all the reasons listed above. And I think comparison is a "good thing". - jc37 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

presenting to community
is it time to have people come and vote on this? let's get it moving. I don't think there's a lot of things being discussed anymore. --gatoatigrado 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We should probably check out if the search box redesign has reached consensus yet. --DavidHOzAu 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely the search box is a different matter, if the redesign of the sidebar links and layout is done can't that just be done while the search box is finished and them implemented seperatley. Lcarsdata (Talk) 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant that if they have reached consensus, we can incorporate what is decided there into this proposal. If not, then sure, implement them seperately. --DavidHOzAu 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with it all. And thoroughly exhausted. Do what thy will. --Quiddity 17:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me when you're done so if I am taking a break I will start working on the programming again. Thanks. Nice job so far, although I think there's probably an even better word for the interaction/community/other/information box. --gatoatigrado 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Navigation to Browse
Oh yeah, that other idea: We could retitle the "navigation" box to "browse", both to signify it's change of context, and to better cover the new content. Would match with "search" and "interact". Thoughts? --Quiddity 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or it could simply be "navigate" instead of "navigation", if we wish to stick to the more conventional term. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 10:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "browse" and "navigate" don't follow the same parts of speech as "toolbox", would be my concern here. -tion structure seems fine. -- nae'blis 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(f)

browse
 * Main page
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Portals
 * Categories
 * Random article

search 

interact
 * Help
 * Community portal
 * Questions
 * Contact us
 * Donations

toolbox
 * [ Cite this article]
 * [ Permanent link]
 * [ Printable version]
 * Related changes
 * What links here
 * Recent changes
 * Special pages
 * Upload file

mockups by letter
VOTE! (the only differences are in the titles (or content, in the case of G) of the 1st and 3rd boxes)

Discussion
Recent mockups have been lettered A-G to aid discussion. If we're going to hold to the arbitrary deadline of Sept. 12th, then we need to start narrowing the choices quickly. Personally, I'd prefer D or E at this point (but I can live with A -- nae'blis 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)). I don't know whick one David says was "eliminated" above, but maybe he can shed some light now that we have (I hope) some additional clarity. -- nae'blis 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He didnt use the word "eliminated". However options G and H are eliminated.
 * Cool. Feel free to strike the {g) and (h) tags, that'll make things simpler. As for "eliminated", I guess now that I look he said, "that's one alternative removed". I assumed he was talking about (e) though, which doesn't make sense in reading the discussion. -- nae'blis 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was talking about (e). --DavidHOzAu 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The other choices differ only by the title of the "interact" box (except 'choice F', which changes the navigation box title to "browse". the interact box can be anything in combination with this).
 * I like F. --Quiddity 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll be going for A. --DavidHOzAu 08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going for E. A is a close second, although "Donations" has nothing to do with 'interaction' - kind of a one-way street (you--->money--->WMF) JoeSmack Talk 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Read info about how to donate, 2) Send in the money, 3) Get an encyclopedia on the screen. Interaction :-)
 * I'd prefer information (E) over interaction (A) only because information is more inclusive, and therefore covers non-interactive help. But "information" is inclusive because it is such a general word, which makes it vague – I mean (cue Kim Basinger) eeeverything in the sidebar could be put under the heading of "information", couldn't it (except Upload file)? I still think help & interaction would be better ... (sorry for the nagging ...) --83.253.36.136 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If and only if (a) or (e) are not suitable per later discussion, I will shift to (d) because "project" is another name for "meta" in this case. After all, wasn't a title like "meta" what we originally wanted but we ended up discarding it because not everyone would understand what it meant without reading about it? In my opinion, "project" is a suitable alternative in case (a) or (e) are not suitable. --DavidHOzAu 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, but also because it was confusable with meta: ;) --Quiddity 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. A word that includes the Wikipedia project itself and how people can contribute to the project. --DavidHOzAu 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I mean ;) --Quiddity 06:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like (d) isn't an option now; I think I'll have to revise my vote. --DavidHOzAu 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this has gotten a bit confusing. Of the choices above, I support design A (and not design E). I do, however, like the idea of using the term "browse" (à la design F). Combine that label with "interact," and this is my favorite. &mdash;David Levy 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's kinda what I meant by F (and is how I archived it). That's my preference too, I just wasnt getting enough feedback in the section above, so I dropped it. Maybe I can just update option F... --Quiddity 06:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * F (in its current form) is my first choice. My second choice is A.  &mdash;David Levy 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... nothing against "browse", but I prefer the -tion notation myself. --DavidHOzAu 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I think "interact" should be "interaction" in F. As for "browse", my opinion is that you can take it or leave it, but I think most people will prefer "navigation" instead of "browse" purely for historical reasons. (i.e. no reason at all.)  --DavidHOzAu 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "interact" strongly implies that "Help" is about helping, doesn't it? --83.253.36.136 10:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but semantics are important. "interact" != "interaction", ok? --DavidHOzAu 11:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Search" and "interact" would match "browse" (if we were to go with that) because all three are verbs. Why do you feel that "interaction" (a noun) would be preferable?  ("Toolbox" is a noun, but it makes sense for that section to stand out from the others.)  &mdash;David Levy 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is the type of verb being used. I'm not sure which one it is because English wasn't my strong subject at School. ;) --DavidHOzAu 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The main reason for changing at all, is that the purpose of the box itself has changed completely, and a new title would help to make that obvious. --Quiddity 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then, forget my vote; I'm happy to go with whatever layout you're happy with presenting to the community. I trust you to make the right decision, Quiddity. ^_^ --DavidHOzAu 00:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * E is my first choice, for the name of the box, as all the items in each box are the same. --Ancheta Wis 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like "navigation" and "information" for the box titles. (No titles at all, would be fine too.) As probably is obvious (smile), I prefer option g for content. - jc37 01:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to rethink that statement about option g having more content. --DavidHOzAu 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said "more" content, I meant that I preferred the content, and location thereof. - jc37 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: option 'g' might not count because it was already eliminated per existing discussion. I'm sorry, but the differences between (g) and other options are domain changes that are largely frowned upon. --DavidHOzAu 12:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Presuming you mean the removal of "Questions (which already exists at the top of the Community Portal, and the Main Page), and the moving of "Help" up to encyclopedic content, as opposed to contact information...
 * Look, my goal isn't to "rock the boat". I realize that you all have very likely been through the "wringer" as far as discussing and debating various concepts.  And an "11th hour" addition is likely to be frowned on, just because it's "different" at this point.  I understand.  That said, I would like the idea at least to be discussed.  Besides personal preference, after reading so much of the archives, I don't see what the concerns are.  G is just as intuitive as E, each just has a different set of fundamental criteria. etc etc etc.  I don't want, or plan to "bang my head against the wall" : )   I just would like a "fair hearing" for the proposal, rather than just a clipped dismissal.  thank you for the discussion at least : ) - jc37 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So ummmm, this is off the community portal notices. Does that mean this is going to have a straw poll or something? If so can we have the choice between the top 2 here and no change? JoeSmack Talk 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Can someone take over command of this proposal please? I'm tired of strong-arming the decision every week, and I see no consensus developing between options A/E/F.
 * What do we do next? Are Dragons flight and Rob still following along? I presumme we need programmer's-approval before community approval.  Are we putting this to a community-vote, or just implementing it like the 'featured articles' link was?  Are there enough admins on board that we actually know what we're doing?!  It's not my fault! *twitch* *mutter* --Quiddity 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, calm down now Quiddity. Most of the leg work is done, stick with it. If it's only down to A/E/F, then i'd suggest making a subpage somewheres like this: User:JoeSmack/sandbox. I made this in 3 minutes so it could be prettier, but basically just a page that has the basic elements of: what the designs look like, including the original, a place to vote, and a place to talk/complain/flame. JoeSmack Talk 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Setting up a vote page/section is no problem, but getting the choice down to original vs 2 options has taken over a week, and people keep suggesting new variants everytime I try to call a "final" vote. As Calvin says, "a good compromise leaves everyone mad", but I'm hoping for a better result than that. Option 'A' seems to have the least opponents, but the weakest overall support; vice-versa for options 'E' and 'F'. Approval voting (like the ongoing logo votes) would almost certainly result in 'A' winning, but that doesnt seem like an optimal selection process. Hence my call for someone with longer experience here to take over, or at least suggest further options. --Quiddity 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not looking for compromise but consensus. Be bold, we all understand you're acting on good faith here. This project has gone too far too long for it to end here; now i haven't been following ever letter of this thread, but i'll try to make a decent voting page for this. We'll see where it goes from there. Hows that sound? JoeSmack Talk 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a simple voting page I made in my sandbox. Feel free to edit the code and place it where ever it would be most appropriate. After this is through, hopefully we'll have the clearest picture to either present on a wider scale to the community, or simply implement if everyone gets a chance to see/vote. JoeSmack Talk 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote discussion
Final draft vote.

How's that?

And are we allowing multiple votes per person? that should be stated on the page.

And should I go leave talkpage notes for all the prior contributors to this redesign? --Quiddity 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. I'd say multiple votes. Talkpage notes would be good too. :) JoeSmack Talk 04:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also say that once the vote page is the best you feel it should be, to put it up on the notices' board on the Community Portal. JoeSmack Talk 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you know what needs done, go do it :) I'm a project starter, not a project finisher... --Quiddity 05:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I put the pull time on the community portal notice for the 22st. My talkpage notes were pretty, uh, spunky. It's just the mood i'm in I guess. ;) JoeSmack Talk 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you. I'm distracted in RL, and really appreciate the assistance :) --Quiddity 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs some color Zena Dhark …·°º•ø®@» 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not for the default, that we keep minimal. You can add all sorts of personalization to anything using User stylsheets though :) --Quiddity 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful this vote, but what are we going to do with the. Electionworld Talk?  07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We're going to copy it to the sidebar talkpage, I assume? --Quiddity 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Languages
Dunno where to mention this, but it looks like a sidebar issue to me... I've just noticed that it says svenska in the language bar. This is wrong. It should say svensk. No letter 'a' on the end. Marcus22 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? We are talking about the word for the Swedish language, right? Because it's Svenska on the Swedish wikipedia... -- nae'blis 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not going to argue with the Swedes! I guess they'd know what they're talking about.  But it says 'Svensk' on Swedish dictionaries and, in the sidebar, it says dansk and norsk for the danish and norwegian.  So I guess it must reflect context or usage or something... Marcus22 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Swedish stops at "bork", but if you want to inquire over there and get something more informative, I'd be curious to hear what the answer is, too. Good eye, though! -- nae'blis 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Full custom, please
Sorry; I know you've all worked hard but I'm totally unhappy with all of it -- the process, the proposals, the poll, even the original sidebar.

Do you all understand that I see something completely different in my browser? I use Cologne Blue skin. It's personally unimportant to me what the Monobook sidebar looks or works like. I have only a hazy idea of the dependency -- if any -- between my sidebar and the changes you are proposing here.

My least favorite outcome will be any change at all to the existing sidebar. I'm used to it, difficult as it is. I don't see anything in any proposal to appeal to my needs as an editor. My second choice is just to leave it alone.

But my first choice seems like a slam dunk -- everybody wins, even casual anon users. Why can't we customize our sidebars? Just about anything else can be tweaked -- why not this most vital tool?

The way I see it, there's a default sidebar for Monobook users; another default for Cologne Blue users. Then, any registered user can edit his own personal User:John Reid/Sidebar. This can contain any wiki markup but also needs to permit special placeholders ("$1") where appropriate. Hey, a little documentation would be nice, too.

Is this so tough? The current sidebar, or at least a piece of it, is stored on MediaWiki:Sidebar. So hard to give me a userspace page to override? John Reid 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting suggestion. However, I think (for various reasons) that Wikipedia should retain control of what is displayed in the "upper" box. However, if the "other" box was customisable, the questions about what to include would likely disappear. Especially since adding that box will require a change to the version of media wiki (I presume?). (For the example below, I used Quiddity's initial proposal as an example of how the "other" box could be customized):

In other words it really doesn't matter what goes in the "other" box, except to decide what the default should be for those who choose to not customise, or choose not to sign in. (As User:John Reid said above, the software would just check for /Sidebar. If it doesn't find it, then it goes with the default. Example: User:John Reid/Sidebar or, in my case, User:Jc37/Sidebar

I really like this idea, and it gives more usability / adaptability to other users of the engine.

So, having said that, what does everyone else think? And are there negatives to this idea? - jc37 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm running at 1280x1024, and that is taking up nearly all my browser window. Some people still run at 800x600. --DavidHOzAu 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because I added so many things to the middle box. The point is that if the middle box is customisable, then you could have less or more, at your preference. (perhaps even having the box disappear if you set it to have no members).

Compare this to the current sidebar:

Customising means that whatever is in the "other" box, or even if the "other" box is displayed, is a preference settable by each user. - jc37 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Full custom should definitely be investigated as a potential future option, But not as part of this proposal. It would be an entirely more complex path to take, requiring way more developer time, and as it's non-esential would be low priority.
 * Also, it should be possible to do it yourself, with a little effort? See Gallery of user styles, he's added a box above navigation with the user toolbar links and a sandbox link. Just hide everything you don't like, and create everything you do. --Quiddity 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not sure I see how it would be "complex", since all it's doing is checking a preference line, and checking for a sub-page, and using the information from that sub-page for the "other" box rather than MediaWiki:Sidebar. And this could even be planned for when designing the "other" box in the first place. Have a MediaWiki:Other which holds the default content. etc etc.


 * Second That aside, did you compare the latter example to the existing side bar? It has everything that the current sidebar has, with all the "fixes" garnered by the discussion, but with none of the "other" box additions.  I went through all the previous suggestions, and I don't see anything even close to this. - jc37 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * if you have a good browser, the js / css should let you edit it. I am personally not interested. --gatoatigrado 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is a bit outside this proposal. --DavidHOzAu 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't use js / css, it would force the programmers to cache the sidebar for every user, which would take up too much memory. As Quiddity mentioned, some have already done it. Here's an idea for how to code it

document.getElementById("p-navigation").innerHTML = "your sidebar code"


 * When we add the interact, we will make sure to add an "id" attribute so you can do the same. --gatoatigrado 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar changed!
It looks like they changed the top two boxes (with minor differences), but left the bottom box (the toolbox) unchanged. I seem to recall that some people said something about technical difficulties in doing changes to the toolbox. Anyone have links to where the final implementation discussion took place? Carcharoth 10:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know. (Nobody tells me anything!) It wasn't at the bugzilla page or here though...
 * The change moved the searchbox quite far down too, which we specifically hoped to avoid. It's below-the-fold (offscreen) at 800x600 now. Hmmmm.
 * And the logo hasn't been updated yet either; but Centrx might be doing something about that? -Quiddity 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think R. Koot just decided to update MediaWiki:Sidebar by himself. --Quiddity 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THAT is all it took?! JoeSmack Talk 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all it took to implement this, but we apparently cannot do anything below the search box without developer intervention, and it looks like there are problems with the skins, all of which may possibly be fixed with some mucking around in MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So am I the only one who heavily relies on that link to Community Portal? The new version removes it for people like me who uses the Calssic Skin. I find that link far more useful than a generic one to Portals. BTW, this is the first I heard of this proposed redesign. -- llywrch 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (demonstration) JoeSmack Talk 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Was that directed at me? Whether it was or not, JoeSmack, I don't understand your point. -- llywrch 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He was just giving those of us using monobook skin, an easy way to see how the page displayed in Classic skin. :) --Quiddity 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why I was confused: all I saw is was that page in the Classic skin. -- llywrch 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity, up above, has spotted that the redesign was 'implemented' by someone seemingly acting on their own after seeing the vote. Is there a way to find out whether any work has been done by the developers on implementing the other stuff, and whether this was a unilateral action or not. And to get an explanation if it was. I'm all for WP:BOLD, but I'm not sure whether that was too bold or not. Carcharoth 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto on the too bold. I'll mention this thread at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar... -Quiddity 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Theses problems are unacceptable. For the time being, I've reverted to the previous layout. It should appear shortly. &mdash;David Levy 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, wasn't aware of those technical problems (got a bit too exited when I saw this redesign, should have wondered a bit more why it wasn't even partially implemented...) Are there any more problems except this breaking other skins and the searchbox appearing too far down on 800x600? —Ruud 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 more: (diff in question) The "Recent changes" link remaining in the navigation box kinda spoils the division we had made between content-related and meta-related information. Second, I'd meant to add the below proposal here a while ago. :) -Quiddity 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot about this completely. I hope you can still implement it at some point. :)  function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void  06:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Redesign update proposal - portals/cats replaced with contents
Proposed change to redesign plan: Replace the links to portals and categories with a link to Contents, per below example. The link wording and placement-order could be changed, please suggest. --Quiddity 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC) navigate
 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article


 * Good idea! I suggest a link labeled Contents in the same location.  &mdash;David Levy 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Quiddity 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's approach to the issue
I think the sidebar is getting overly cluttered. About link is already on the bottom of every page. I think we should remove entries from the sidebar and not add. When was the last time you clicked "Current events"? We are not wikinews and current events are already on the main page. -- Cat out 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is about the proposed redesign. For current implementation, see MediaWiki:Sidebar. --Quiddity 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make sense to discuss this as a part of redesign? -- Cat out 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is low-traffic, and the re-design is currently awaiting a dev with spare time, so you'll get a much faster response at the Mediawiki page. I update the proposed design here, to match any of the current implementation's changes. --Quiddity 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One last time... ASAP re-redesign?
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Sidebar redesign and comment on a possible immediate implementation of the no-developer-required Re-Redesign. Please and thanks! --Quiddity 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if that's too hard, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar seems to have sprung up — Jack · talk · 07:52, Thursday, 22 March 2007
 * Archived at this diff, for future reference. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)