Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 02

If you actually ask...
...you may receive. Right now, this page is a hell of a mess of "what if" and "we can/we can't". You want, I think, a page like MediaWiki:Sidebar, but which produces stuff underneath the search box, above the toolbox links, right? That's fairly simple to implement without harming anything.

The appropriate place to put the request is on BugZilla, and forward me the bug number. I'll even suspend my development break to do it. -- Rob
 * If you look at version 12, it's more radical, suggesting that the current navigation sidebox be changed. other proposals also suggest adding the new navigation features above the search box. As there is not a strong concensus for any idea yet, we are probably not ready to begin getting them implimented. I suspect we have reached a point on this page were we really need to start whittling down the number of ideas somehow into something workable. LinaMishima 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi look, what rob has said is basically the best way forward for making changes to enwiki. If you want to make changes like those in version 12 it involves issues that need to be addressed on meta as they are software issues that really need implementing across the board.


 * I think your very best bet would be to take Rob's advice and file a bugzilla request for the creation of pages like MediaWiki:Sidebar, one for above the toolbox and one for below it. And possibly then for one that adds the ability to edit the toolbox (and search box if need be). That way the edits you propose will be easy to make on any wikimedia wiki whilst not actually afecting any of them outright (that is if the upgrade gets rolled out to all the wiki's). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please go look at the german and italian wikipedia sidebars before making comments that version 12 is not possible. Version 12, appart from the linked box titles, is similar in changes to these two. Any other change would, in my opinion, result in a conflicting and confusing interface, lacking in a unified system for navigation. They would also add significantly more ertical content, which would hinder usability. We are not looking for a quick fix, we are wanting to significantly improve the sidebar navigation tools. If the german and italian wikipedias are somehow significantly different and something prevents similar work here, please explain. LinaMishima 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, why go that far. Just have a look at Wikinews. Tito xd (?!?) 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, please post a link to the bugzilla page if you post it. --gatoatigrado 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Software modification ideas

 * 1) The initial idea was to put a second menu box underneath the search box, with the ref links in there.
 * 2) Adding the capability for a menu box below the searchbox would entail modifying the mediawiki software, but Rob has volunteered to implement this, if we make a formal request on Bugzilla and send him the request number.
 * 3) To save room, the suggestion was made to have two links on a couple of the menu lines.  "Basic / Topics" was one pair, and "A-Z / Category index" was the other pair.  We still don't know if this is doable or not.
 * 4) Another design point, the feasibility of which is also uncertain, is to have the menu box headers (the terms that sit on top of each box) linkified.
 * 5) The last software change, which is also still up in the air, is to move Recent changes and Random article down into the toolbox.

Here is a version of the mock-up with all of the above features in it. We need to get Rob to take a look at this and let us know if he can implement these:

Layout 14

reference pages
 * Main page
 * Basic / Topics
 * Current events
 * Featured content
 * Fields of study
 * Glossaries
 * Portals
 * Tables
 * A-Z / Category Index

search 

community portal
 * Help
 * Overview
 * Questions
 * Tutorial
 * Contact Wikipedia
 * Donations

tools
 * How to cite
 * Printable version
 * Permanent link
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Random article

Link placement

There are two basic design options here:
 * 1) Initially, the ref page links were to go in the second box, and some contributors here still support that option.
 * 2) But then the discussion expanded to rethink the whole sidebar rather than just do a tack on.  User:LinaMishima suggested rearranging all the links amongst all the menus, and to dedicate the top menu to navigation via the reference page links, and use the second menu box to consolidate all the wikipedia community links.  See layout 14 above.

Rob found this talk page a jumbled mess, and only spotted one of the design points. Before we can go any further, we need to get clarification on whether the other software modification ideas (listed above) can be implemented. Then we'll know exactly what we have to work with. I'm sending him a message to ask him to have a look at this summary, and to ask any questions he might have. Feel free to add comments below if I missed anything important in the above summary. --Nexus Seven 09:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree! Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 11:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I approve of version 14! Good work! And well done on a very useful summary of events so far! LinaMishima 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Community portal? I'm using that link very frequently. For an example, that's how I found THIS discussion


 * The Community Portal link is there. Unfortunately it has been renamed and moved, which is probably what caused your confusion. I think (see below) that the link should keep the form "Community Portal", as that is what people look for. Also, people don't always think to click headers. They look for things under the headers. The Main Page redesign considered having links from the headers (this seems to be an idea that periodically recurs), but there is some Manual of Style thing that discourages this in articles, and the Wikipedia Sidebar should probably avoid it as well to avoid giving people bad habits. I would suggest NOT linking from headers and putting the links under the headers instead. Carcharoth 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a space saving device: by linking 3 headers we save 3 lines.  On the sidebar, space conservation is a major issue.  The next best approach would be not to have any headers at all, but the headers are informative.  I agree with you concerning "Community portal", for the sake of familiarity - the whole term should be used. --Nexus Seven 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the community portal link (and have bolded the community part to show it is also the theme of the box). The reference page links have been updtated to point to the pages of the matching set. See also this bar:

--Nexus Seven 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! I bolded the "portal" part of "community portal" because it looked weird otherwise. But I now think that this implies that all the things under the header are to do with the Community Portal, some of which aren't. I think the "do not link from headers" (as also suggested below, with a link to the MoS guideline) is the best issue, despite losing the space-saving 'advantage'). People are really not used to clicking on headers, and this really is discouraged in Wikipedia articles, so the surrounding links should not encourage it. Carcharoth 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's good, but I can still see a few things wrong with it.
 * Scope: The last four items in the toolbox shouldn't be in same box as the other toolbox items because they are global items that do not relate to the page being viewed. I understand that they are listed in a certain way due to appearance in the source code, however, these particular items should really be seperate:
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Random article
 * To fix this, either
 * add code can be inserted that closes the toolbox ( stuff>) and creates a new box for these items (hard)
 * use a  tag inside the box (easy)
 * Naming convention: Some headers and titles could be shorter or should use a different word. (For example, look at the menu bar on your browser.) I suggest:
 * "browse" rather than "reference pages" (user interface convention)
 * "community" rather than "community portal" (shorter)
 * "donate" rather than "donations" (singular, verb)
 * "Categories" or "Index" rather than "Category Index" (line doesn't wrap)
 * "About" rather than "Overview" (overview is ambiguous; overview of what? editing? browsing? the site?)
 * etc.
 * No linking headers: See WP:MOSHEAD. The following are suggestions for the plain text heading, and a suggested location of the link currently used as a header:
 * "browse", add Reference pages or Navigate or All lists above "A-Z / Index"
 * "search" leave as-is, or integrate with navigation box.
 * "community", add Portal as first item in list
 * "toolbox", add Tools as first item in list

If there is some previous discussion on the above that I have missed, please indicate where. Thanks. --DavidHOzAu 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially about not linking from headers. I disagree about the "community" link, as the "Community Portal" link should be named as such, as people are used to looking for this exact phrase. When using a link that already exists, you should keep the old name unless there are overwhelming reasons not to. Similarly, I see no reason to favour "donate" over "donations" - the latter is what is already used and sounds less abrupt and less rude. "Donate" sounds like an imperative order. Carcharoth 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree too (with DavidHOzAu's suggestions and Carcharoth's modification).
 * Additionally: We don't need the wp:tools link at all. I assume that link was added to the word toolbox primarily so that all the sections headers were linkified.
 * and, Instead of renaming Reference pages to "browse", Contents and WP:Contents are available as a page/shortcut title, as I've previously suggested. (The references page itself is still in the middle of semi-active development. Suggestions on refomatting are welcome at its talkpage). --Quiddity· (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to DavidHOzAu's points

I can live with these changes, as they keep the core concept intact. Good luck. --Nexus Seven 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the headers can't be linked, then the top menu's header should be removed to compensate for the Community Portal's link being added to the community menu box. The search box's header is totally redundant as the function of the search box is obvious without it, so its header can also be removed without hurting anything content-wise.  But will this actually save space, or is an empty header on the side bar the same size?
 * I use Firefox, and no lines in the mock-ups wrap regardless of what size I adjust the text. What browser do you use?
 * Reference pages doesn't need to be included as a link within a box, because all the major reference pages are already included, and each one of those has a link to this page in their footer.
 * Creating another box for the four global items from the toolbox will have to be run past a developer.
 * Until a MediaWiki developer is contacted and clarifies whether or not this stuff can be done, this project is dead in the water. I contacted Rob, and he showed up briefly (anonymous IP above), but for some reason he didn't comment on the actual design points (included in the summary above).
 * Previous discussions can be found by clicking the archive link at the top of this page.
 * My time on Wikipedia will be greatly reduced over the next 2 or 3 weeks, and I will not have time to push this project forward. Someone else will need to act as liaison, which entails:
 * Contacting a developer (keep messaging Rob, etc.)
 * Posting the design features from the summary and new discussions above as "bug reports" on mediazilla.
 * Keep reposting a notice weekly on Village Pump proposals (and Village Pump technical), and on the Community Bulletin Board.
 * Check on the notices at the Main Page discussion page (in the page's header template), and at WikiProject Usability, to make sure they are still there.
 * Archive and summarize this discussion page when it becomes too large.
 * Make new mock-ups based on the changes agreed upon in the discussion.

I use Firefox too, but I'm using Verdana at size 14 instead of Arial. Although I could probably work out what changes to make to the PHP code if I could work out what's needed to run MediaWiki on XAMPP, I think I'll leave that to genuine developers who know what they are doing. --DavidHOzAu 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on version 14
First, I like this version very much. I have been clicking the links to see whether they take me somewhere that I'd expect, based on the name of the link, and also seeing what my first impression of the pages are. Some links weren't working (Recentchanges and Random were the two links I've corrected). The Reference pages link takes you to a page that is a bit overwhelming. The other pages have a cleaner layout. Also, the "Category Index" link takes you to Category:Categories, when I prefer the look of Categorical index. Can the latter be used instead of the former? Or even Quick cat index?

In the community section, a lot of people will be looking for "Community Portal", which is how the link is named on the current sidebar. Moving the link to the header and dropping the word 'portal' may cause some confusion. Also, it is not clear what the difference is between "Help" and "Questions". Many people will think these mean the same things, and will have to click to find out the difference. I suggest that "Questions" be renamed "Ask a question". These two links need to distinguish between pages that people can read to find their own answer, and services where we offer to answer questions (Help Desk and Reference Desk).

Finally, looking at the Main Page 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section, would there be room in the community section of the sidebar for something like News (there called "Site news")? I'd exclude the Village Pump, as the sidebar might be too high profile for that. Ditto for the "Help Desk" and "Reference Desk" links, as those probably get enough traffic already. You could ask the regulars at the Reference Desk and Help Desk if they want to be on the sidebar. I remember a link directly to the Wikipedia Signpost being dropped in the Main Page redesign as that would make the Signpost appear too "official", but that might have changed over the last few months. Something to think about, anyway.

Finally, about the "Random article" link - I think this is more a browsing link, rather than a tool, and would fit better in the first box. Maybe even in the "search" section (imagine having the option to either click search or random article).

Hope all this helps, and good luck in getting this proposal approved and implemented. Carcharoth 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, as part of this project (or in support of it) several of us are scrambling to prepare pages for presentability on the sidebar. Some of the links simply haven't been updated yet (I'll update the reference page links though, momentarily).  And we still haven't created a decent page for "search" or "tools", but they're on the list.  --Nexus Seven 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct linking
It is slightly worrying that many of the versions had incorrect links (now corrected) to "Recent changes" (Special:Recent changes does not work, the correct link is Special:Recentchanges) and "Random article" (Special:Random article does not work, the correct link is Special:Random). Although this would have probably been spotted at some stage, it kind of suggests that no-one was actually checking and following the links - one of the first rules to follow when doing a redesign like this. Can I urge anyone putting any new versions up on the page to thoroughly check their links first. (Incidentially, for any developers watching the page, why do incorrect "Special" links appear blue and not red? Is that a "feature"?) Carcharoth 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bug, and there's a ticket on it somewhere. 86.134.116.228 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob, are the 4 design features presented in the summary above doable? Will you be able to implement all four of them? --Nexus Seven 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

More publicity
I haven't been reading the Wikipedia Signpost recently, so apologies if this has already been suggested. One way to get more eyes reading this discussion would be to try and get this proposal mentioned in Signpost. The Main Page redesign got a mention, so I would guess this would as well. Carcharoth 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We should contact Signpost when it's time to present the design to the community for final approval. Until then, the notices on the CBB, the Main Page talk page, and WikiProject Usability should suffice. --Nexus Seven 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Nexus Seven- when you are about finished with the redesign, I'll give it a mention; perhaps even a short mention now. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Modified Version 14... introducing: Version 15!


navigation
 * Main page
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * Portals
 * Fields of study
 * Topics (Basic)
 * Categories
 * Glossaries
 * A-Z index

help
 * Help
 * Community portal
 * About
 * Questions
 * Tutorial
 * Contact us
 * Donating

toolbox
 * [/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=&oldid= Cite this article]
 * [/w/index.php?title=&oldid= Permanent link]
 * [/w/index.php?title=&printable=yes Printable version]
 * Related changes
 * What links here
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages

This is the basic idea of what my suggestions above entailed, with few minor changes. The two most notable features are removing the search box and separating boxed contents. In light of the discussion above, I'm not sure how implementable this is. --DavidHOzAu 05:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual the search box is too wide in Internet Explorer and the box model breaks yet-again.--DavidHOzAu 05:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the division of the toolbox into article (contextual) links and encyclopedia (fixed or global) links, but I still don't see why the Random Article link is in the toolbox. It is not a tool. You don't click on it to help you do anything. It seems more like a browsing or navigation tool, hence it would fit better in the top box where it is at the moment in the current sidebar. I don't quite get the reason for dividing up the community box either, nor why the link to "Tools" is considered a community link rather than a toolbox link. I don't mind either way where the search box ends up, but I think there may be reasons why it is in its own section on the current sidebar - hopefully someone else will know if there is such a reason. Carcharoth 08:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest we remove the "tools" link altogether? That page does not need or deserve a permanent place in the sidebar. I think it was only part of the mockups for aesthetic reasons (so that all the headers would be linkified, instead of all but one....), and because everyone keeps copying the code to start their own versions, the link remains in most of them.
 * And I agree that the random article link should be moved up to the navigation-section. --Quiddity· (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a reason why it needs its own section; all the PHP code has to do is spit out the HTML code, which isn't hard for a scripting language like php to do.
 * In community, the first subgroup comes under "Please help me", while the second subgroup comes under "what can I do"; I found it very hard to work out what order to put them in before they were seperated. However, I see no problem with removing "Tools", and without that link there really is no need for a separate subgroup.
 * You are both quite right; Random article doesn't belong there. Would straight after "Main Article" be appropriate?
 * If you don't object to it, would you mind if I made these changes and put it under another section called Version 15, or would you prefer that this copy is changed? --DavidHOzAu 12:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I just moved the preview over to the right because the nesting was not showing. --DavidHOzAu 12:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest changing this copy. Less clutter. --Quiddity· (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've updated it. For the benefit of new readers, here's what changed:
 * Moved "Random Article" from toolbar to navigation
 * Removed "Tools" and the hrule in community
 * Placed "Community portal" as the first item in community because it would stand out if I left it there
 * Moved "printable version" up by one because "cite this article" and "permanent link" should be next to each other (changing display mode is different from getting a link, yes?)
 * Finally remembered to change "Overview" to "About"
 * Also, I withdraw my comment above that "Community/Community portal" should be just "Community/Portal"; it wouldn't look aesthetically pleasing with "Portals" straight above it in the navigation box. --DavidHOzAu 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the search box, and changed "toolbar" to "toolbox" (per someone's earlier comment of don't change established names without due need).
 * "Random" might be better at the bottom of the section, under A-Z? Not sure. --Quiddity· (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've moved "printable version" down by one, to fix your mistake (yes, cite and permanent should be next to each other ;) --Quiddity· (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, whoops... did I do that? ;-) Anyway, I suspect that where "random article" goes is completely arbitrary; I found it very hard to form any abstraction that would give order to it and the surrounding items. In particular, while all other items in the navigation box are essentially indexes, "Random article" is also a navigation tool but is definitely not an index. Any order that makes an iota of sense is clearly better than what it is right now. --DavidHOzAu 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I too am open to ideas. --DavidHOzAu 10:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Some further suggestions based on the discussions so far: Hope this helps. Carcharoth 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Random article just below main page might be OK, but I would favour having the featured content link right below the main page link, with current events next. The current order seems to be alphabetical, but that is silly, as there is a clear distinction between "contents listings/portals" and "index" links. My preferred order: Main Page, Featured Content, Current Events, Portals, Random Article, Fields of study, Basic/Topics, A-Z/Index, Glossaries, Tables. Also, people will wonder why the Categories are hidden behind an "Index" name?
 * The Community section seems misnamed. Only the community portal link is a real community link. The others are more help/contact pages.
 * Having "related changes" and "recent changes" next to each other could confuse people.
 * Having reviewed some of the pages again, especially the tables one, they seem rather confusing and not as comprehensive as they should be if they are to be linked from such a prominent location. Better to have a few links to the best pages, rather than link to pages that aren't up to scratch yet, or will just confuse people.
 * Actually I'm beginning ot like this idea now. Version 14 actually looks pretty good! One thing I will say is the the Basic / Topics links(s) are a little confusing - its not very descriptive (if that makes sense) of what your going to find. I will also say you need to start talking to developers now about ways to implement these ideas - it'll probably take a while to get the changes worked out and implemented so better of working it out now :D. I think you need to raise profile too. Try getting some crats and important peeps onboard (try Essjay as he may well be interested. And I suppose it cant do badly to approach Jimbo Wales, if you get him onboard your sailing ;) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're way ahead of you on this one. Programmers were contacted at the very outset of this project, and they've been contributing to the discussion all along.  We've also attracted the attention of a developer, who has jumped on board.  Rob Church, is already involved, and is monitoring the discussion.  According to him, when we have a design worked out, we need to submit it as a bugzilla report, provide him with the bug number, and he will implement the necessary support code personally to the mediawiki software.  See If you actually ask... above. --Nexus Seven 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for Jimbo, since he didn't get involved with the Main Page redesign, I doubt he'll show up here. But when we submit this to a greater audience for approval, I'm sure he'll look in on it.  --Nexus Seven 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carcharoth's suggested navigation-links ordering.
 * I totally agree with having fewer navigation links, to begin with (easier to add links later, than to upset people by removing links). (However, we should go through the navigation-links section thoroughly in a seperate thread.)
 * I suggest we swap "What links here" with "Related changes". Per Carcharoth, but also to make it easier to see "what links here" which is currently at the top of the toolbox, presummably due to its high utility; Having it just before the horizontal-rule, would help it to stand out.
 * The two userpage toolbox entries, "user contributions" and "email this user", would presummably get put in the top of the toolbox, in place of the "cite this page" link. (they don't need to be added tothe mockup, but we should know where we're suggesting they get put). --Quiddity· (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, we really need more discussion on navigation links. The changes to the mockup above are:
 * Used new ordering, except that I swapped "Random Article" and "Portals" with the idea of separating the list into "find an article" and "find a topic". (Does that look better or should I put those two back?)
 * As suggested, tried to gain some sense by swapping "Index" with "A-Z" and "Topics" with "Basic", and put the latter of each pair in parenthesis. Not sure if this is effective since it still leaves that fact that index is really about categories.
 * Removed "Tables"
 * Moved "What links here" down by one.
 * I think someone else will have to contact Essjay because in three hours I'll be going on a one-week holiday to a place where there isn't any internet access. --DavidHOzAu 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot that "community" was changed to "help". --DavidHOzAu 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed "index" to "categories", and moved "A-Z" to its own line.
 * I think we should leave "search" in its own box/section. Otherwise it might confusingly imply that the link above it (Glossaries, or A-Z index) is it's heading. --Quiddity· (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Dropping "Lists" and "Tables" makes sense, since those are pretty redundant, but I'd hate to see any of the other ref pages removed. And I like "contents" better than "navigation", as "contents" on the sidebar does for Wikipedia what "contents" on a page does for each article. --Nexus Seven 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this on the project page as Version 15. I hope this goes somewhere; see you all next week. --DavidHOzAu 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Index
Can the category system and the category namespace be renamed to "Catdex"? --Nexus Seven 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesnt seem clear at all. Why invent a neologism?
 * Even if you meant "the index system and the category namespace", the two arent related, and shouldnt be on the same line at all. --Quiddity· (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tutorial link
A link to Tutorial might be helpful for newcomers.--70.253.195.61 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose. Tutorial is a very narrow topic only useful to the subset of users who both want to edit (most just read) and also are new at it. The sidebar should only be used for links that attract a wide spectrum of visitors, i.e. are useful to everyone, not just a select few. Therefore, we already have the Help link, which has links to Tutorial, Introduction, and any other utility-based references, and the total area covered by Help does justify it's existence on the sidebar.  -Wane, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The link is on the Main Page, so it's not that appropriate to put it on the sidebar. That page also includes a prominent link to Introduction, and specifically ushers the readers there if they aren't ready for the tutorial yet. The tutorial link is the "editing" link on the link line on the Main Page, which we were trying to incorporate here.  --Nexus Seven 04:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

We DO have a metric f-ton of reference pages which are very poorly organized, many of which are redundant, outdated, etc, and there is a need for a MAJOR overhaul of Wikipedia's internal reference and administration pages, but that's another subject to talk about. -Wane, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily another subject. We are cleaning them up as part of this project -- at least the ones appearing on the sidebar.  To which pages were you referring? --Nexus Seven 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Help should be at the top of the help menu box
Help shouldn't be buried in the list. It should be at the top of the list. One, because it's standard software design to put help at one end or another of a menu to help it stand out. Two, it's especially appropriate here because the name of the menu box is "help". --Nexus Seven 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * I'm going to move "version 15" to the top of the project page. I suggest we edit that, as we seem to have a basic consensus going. --Quiddity· (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since (at least for a group of Wikipedians) duplicating all main page header links so we can remove them is a primary objective, we really should include Searching so that we don't lose the support of this group of people (even if we don't remove the header link later, at least we will succeed in gathering a wider support base to push the sidebar change through, which will happen independently of any future main page redesign). - Wane

Archiving the versions
Since we seem to have a consensus on basic design, the first 14 designs just detract. I'm moving them to an archive, with a link at the top of the project page. --Nexus Seven 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Some late comments
I somehow overlooked this discussion until now, so I'm joining it rather belatedly.

Overall, I like version 15 very much. As I was reading this page, I was prepared to mention several flaws in version 14, but most of them were cited and corrected over the past few days. At this point, I have only a few concerns.

Firstly, I'll note that About was labeled "Overview" on the main page to address a point that was raised during the redesign process. (On most websites, the word "About" links to a page full of boring legal information, and readers are likely to expect the same from us. Conversely, "Overview" conveys the page's true nature.)

What especially bothers me, however, is the inclusion of the numerous navigational links (List of portals, List of fields of study, Lists of topics, Lists of basic topics, Categorical index, List of glossaries, Quick index). Most of these pages are largely redundant (as far as I can tell). Linking to all of them is very confusing, and it takes up a great deal of space (thereby distracting users from the useful links that follow).

The same basic issue arose during the main page redesign process. Of the many links to top-level navigation pages proposed (including some listed above or similar to those listed above), we ended up including only three: Portal:Browse (excluded here in favor of List of portals), Browse (now a redirect to Categorical index), and Quick index.

In my opinion, it's extremely important that we reduce the number of navigational links. Whatever ends up happening, the sidebar should match the main page (unless the main page links are removed, which I oppose). In my assessment, the underlying issue is the fact that we currently have an unwieldy number of pages that serve essentially the same purpose. Perhaps someone could merge some of them together (given the fact that there's so much overlap in their content). Then we can decide how to go about linking them from the sidebar and/or the main page. The present setup is overwhelming. I can barely make heads or tails of it, and I'm not a newcomer. &mdash;David Levy 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Village pump %28proposals%29/topics redesign, for our attempt at a merge. It seemed too overwhelming though (#Ojections to this proposal). A possible answer was to only merge pairs of pages, instead of 3 or more. eg basic topics and overviews.


 * We've purposely been leaving the final choices of what to include in the top (navigation/browse/contents) box till the very end (ie, that's next :). Some, like myself, would prefer a minimal set of links (3-5). (like version 6 or 8.) Others have suggested that the more included the better. But yeah, we'll be hashing that out next, i think. --Quiddity· (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions by msikma
(with replies indented below)

My main gripe is the fact that the links are a little unclear sometimes. Some suggested fixes:


 * Portals - List of portals -- This makes it easier to figure out what this page will contain simply by writing down its contents more comprehensively.
 * "List of portals" is more specific, but I feel that we should enhance the page with a brief explanation of what "portals" are (thereby making it more than just a list). We also benefit by keeping the word "portals" in the first (only) position.  Incidentally, why we using List of portals instead of Portal:Browse?  Is the latter to be replaced and redirected (as Browse was)?  The last thing that we need is another redundant navigation page.  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Nexus Seven has been redesigning the style of all the reference pages (plus cleaning them up). Once his box-design is properly templatised/centralised, he intends to ask for a page-history merge for those portal lists (and presummably the category lists too). Or something along those lines. --Quiddity· (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Topics (Basic) - Topics (basic) -- removed the title cap, which is a bad typographical practice and also unused anywhere else on Wikipedia except for the Main Page (ironically).
 * Okay, but these are among the links that should be considered for removal, merger, or demotion to a lower level. &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Glossaries too. --Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Help - Wikipedia help -- Added "Wikipedia" in order to ensure people realize they're going to a place where they can learn about Wikipedia, and not get help with certain other things (such as research help).
 * Agreed. We would have done this on the main page, but we ran out of space at the 800x600 resolution.  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * About - About us -- See above. Mainly just making it easier to read.
 * "About us" still sounds like a link to boring page of legal information about the Wikimedia Foundation. How about "Wikipedia overview"?  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Questions - Questions and answers -- People are looking for answers, so it would seem more reasonable to call it this as opposed to "questions".
 * Sure, why not? We have the space.  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, it line wraps for me. --Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, let's leave it as "Questions." &mdash;David Levy 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you're right. It does wrap. Too bad :) —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tutorial - Editing tutorial -- Again, making it easier to deduct what that page will be about.
 * Yep, I meant to post this suggestion earlier. We can also add a Searching tutorial link.  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I object strongly, unless a dedicated effort is made to clean up Searching first (or use Look it up instead). --Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that the inclusion of any new link is contingent upon the acceptable state of the page in question. In this instance, Searching and Look it up should be merged.  &mdash;David Levy 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, except, I said the same thing about the same page during the Main Page redesign, and a few people offered to give it a thorough workover. It's a bit cleaner since then, but not much, and it's still frightfully long and unfriendly.
 * I strongly agree with a merge. Will tag them now. --Quiddity· (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestions here are just typographical, I didn't realize we were still thinking about which links to add or remove. I actually also think we don't really need a tutorial link in there. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What links here - List of links -- "What links here" is a question, and yet it is bad practice to add a question mark to a list item. But we also can't leave a wrongful sentence in the list. Thus, I propose we change it to simply "list of links".
 * "What links here" is intended to be interpreted as a phrase (as in "This is a list of what links here.), not as a question. "List of links" fails to convey the nature of the link.  (It could lead to any sort of "list of links," rather than a list of links to the page in question.)  How about "Links to this page"?  &mdash;David Levy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't change. The established name works just fine, in the context of the toolbox. --Quiddity· (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "What links here," especially if a line-wrap issue exists. &mdash;David Levy 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I guess so. It seemed a little strange to me. I do interpret it as "What links here?" rather than "A list of what links here". It's a small gripe, though, so it doesn't matter all that much. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that the search panel is much more comprehensive having its own portlet. With these suggestions, I'd suggest a new draft... :

Draft by msikma


navigation
 * Main page
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * List of portals
 * Fields of study
 * Topics (basic)
 * Categories
 * Glossaries
 * A-Z index

search

help
 * Wikipedia help
 * Community portal
 * About Wikipedia
 * Answers
 * Editing tutorial
 * Contact us
 * Donating

toolbox
 * [/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=&oldid= Cite this article]
 * [/w/index.php?title=&oldid= Permanent link]
 * [/w/index.php?title=&printable=yes Printable version]
 * Related changes
 * List of links
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages

Version 22: Search bar at top
I know this is radical, but I wonder why it never came up during earlier discussion. I made version 22 as mockup of 21 with search bar above navigation bar.

The same idea with searchbar on top can be used with any other version, so this version is not about link order or anything else other than searchbar position. If people like this idea, they can use any other version and implement this suggestion.

The rationale behind this is that face it, the search to the average user is vastly more important than any other element on the sidebar, so I thought that it would be more visible if put right at the top. In that case, also, it would not hamper the size of the navigation bar, as there is no fear it would be pushed down the page.

This is not a die-hard request, just an anti-groupthink suggestion to propose something that nobody else even brought up, and something we can potentially consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.119.191.2 (talk • contribs).


 * I agree withg this idea, but then in combination with version 18. Electionworld Talk?  21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally find this unuseful. It's a rather large change. I really do suggest not doing this since it doesn't really seem logical to me to place the search bar so far up above the most important navigational elements of the site. It doesn't really make it easier to use, since the seach bar is always in view anyway. I also don't know why "Wikipedia help" was bolded. It's a similar gripe as with the tutorial link being in an earlier version: do we really want to promote our help tool so much, which should really be for new editors rather than readers, anyway? Most readers just read articles, while it's the new editors who will want to have information about various internal ways of doing things. I don't think that a bold "Wikipedia help" is much use to anyone this way. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention - this subsection is only about the position of the search bar. Everything else was just copied from the topmost template, and this suggestion can be implemented with any other version. 66.119.191.2 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my replies below, which cover moving the search box, and highlighting the search box. --Quiddity· (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More search box issues, comments....
I seem to recall that during the Main Page redesign, there was some discussion about having a second search box. At one point, I also remember the search box being highlighted yellow to increase visibility. Is there any possiblity of this happening during the sidebar redesign? That is to say... (1) can the sidebar be highlighted? (2) If so, which color would be best? (3) If the search box is indeed moved above the "navigation" area, would highlighting be deemed redundant? (4) Would highlighting become annoying to common users whilst navigating through Wikipedia? (5) If so, could we have the highlighting only apply to the main page to make it easier for new users to navigate? I feel that once users locate the search box, they will continue to use it past the main page, and probably won't need the highlighting any further.

Anyways, if any of that made sense, great. But if not, please ask me questions. I'd appreciate replies, but if it doesn't get that far, that's cool too. Okay, just my two cents. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I pushed this proposal as hard as I could, at Village pump (proposals), but it kept getting beaten down or ignored (it kept getting prematurely archived)
 * This also covered the "move the searchbox to the top" suggestion.
 * See an archive at User:Quiddity/highlight search box.
 * You can highlight it for yourself though. Just add:
 *  #searchBody {border-color:#ddd;} 
 * to User:yourname/monobook.css. (see that archive for the other colour codes tested (orange or blue borders, or a yellow background)). --Quiddity· (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, so does that mean that the highlight of a search box is completely dead, even with the redesign here at the village pump? I know the Main Page redesign was beat down severely, but why let that be our example? Why not make another go at it here? Sorry if I am brining this up at an inappropriate location. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just clarified and rewritten the above. That archive is from Village Pump (proposals). I took it there after the generally positive reaction to it during the Main Page redesign, in April.
 * So, essentially, it's still an option, but someone needs to summarise the prior discussion (and I can't bear to read it all through again...(I think the final problem was that noone could agree on a colour? but there were disagreement on all the other points too.)) --Quiddity· (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was beat down several times because there has never been a consensus about it. The discussion below also does not appear as one because this is a major style change and one would expect there to be more dissenters if this proposal is given more attention. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the previous discussion
 see the diff


 * There is no consensus on "highlighting the search box". How many users have replied here? Four? The idea of accentuating the search box is old and has never been accepted, despite being mentioned at the Village Pump several times. The reason is that, in the end, it's not correct to believe that users are "unable to find the search box" because "they're uncommitted". Very many websites have search bars (Yahoo! and Google do, for example, and they are the most well-known sites in the world) and any user who comes here is to expect there to be one. The only users who might benefit from this are those who will eventually stumble upon the search bar anyway, usually after a very quick browsing of the layout. But in any case: there has never been a consensus about this absolutely major change (and there isn't one now), and it would seem to me that a large majority is necessary for it to be considered a consensus. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, sorry. I just noticed that this is an old discussion rather than a new one. I've added my commentary to it, and now it isn't an accurate representation of how the discussion went. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yes. Your summary would actually be the summary of events the way I remember it, and why I was blocking it from my consciousness in the first place. I'm not sure if I should feel guilty; I really didn't intend him to write a full precis of events, but meant more of a roundup or summation! Sorry! :( it's not my fault!
 * So, ummm, do you think we could possibly just archive this entire thread, and put the matter behind us? (both moving search, and highlighting search). 6 ayes below, and the motion carries.
 * aye. :( --Quiddity· (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand the concern, though. I'm sorry if I might have seemed a little harsh in my rejection. That was not my intention. Given, if this were to be done, I would suggest something like this:

search 
 * But I still am opposed to the idea itself. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 09:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An addendum. People were opposed to moving the search box, primarily because it provides a good visual break, in what would otherwise be 3 long boxes of text links. (+any interwiki language links).
 * And I'm serious, can we drop/archive this topic, and get back to the matter at hand? Please!?! (addendum: version 23 is the same as version 19 i think) --Quiddity· (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone archive it quick! That was a long, boring and confusing read through an old debate. We have better things to discuss than colour changes. BTW, the number of designs is up to 23 now. Can anyone remember how many drafts the Main Page redesign went through? :-) Carcharoth 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I misread Quiddity's comments, and screwed up. Big time. I detracted from the main flow of the conversation, but I still think the issue needs to be addressed while we are talking about the sidebar redesign. Would it be possible to allow a straw poll to go on while developments are still being made on the toolbar? This option was tabled during the Main Page redesign...:

"Future issues

Subsequent issues to be considered after this vote include:


 * Drive to improve quality of the portals and topic organization.
 * Improve visibility of the left-navigation search box in the default MonoBook skin. Perhaps, an orange-colored border (as used on the active tabs at the top)?

It is now the future. This issue needs to be discussed, at a time when a change is going to be made. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)