Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 06

"this page"
To me it seems obvious to put all links refering to the current page in their own box. – See final decisions

this page
 * [ Cite this article]
 * [ Permanent link]
 * [ Printable version]
 * Related changes
 * What links here

special pages toolbox
 * Recent changes
 * Special pages
 * Upload file

--83.253.36.136 13:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it would make that part of the sidebar look more organised. Lcarsdata (Talk) 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, (in fact, I think it is quite good,) but isn't the hierarchy a bit weird? "Special pages/Special pages" is just a restatement of the title. I'd suggest some else, such as the historical "toolbox" as the second title. --DavidHOzAu 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, rss and atom aren't really pages, so toolbox probably is better anyway, if someone can't come up with something better. --83.253.36.136 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently these are all toolbox links. I get the impression, from the way the toolbox links are generated, that separating them out like this could be a problem. What I proposed was to keep the toolbox for page-specific links, and to suppress the global links (what you have in the toolbox) and reinsert them in a different box. Essentially, you are proposing to rename the toolbox to "this article", and put global (non-page-specific) links in a section called the toolbox. The latest versions of the proposed redesigned sidebar use a horizontal divider to separate "this page" links from the "global" links. Carcharoth 10:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I am proposing (this page, not "this article"). The separation with the horizontal divider is an improvement, but I think it is important to really point out the existance of a bunch of page-specific tools, and to make it clear which tools are not page-specific. --83.253.36.136 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I suggest adding a section to the "final, final things to decide" section below, as that is where the changes implemented will be decided. Carcharoth 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really really final decisions/Page-specific toolbox links in separate box

Are there any implementation problems? For example: Are there any instances when the "this page" box would be empty? --83.253.36.136 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all the Special:Specialpages just have 2 links in the toolbox. --Quiddity 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Smacks my face) – Could the "this page" box be made to disappear in those cases? --83.253.36.136 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. "What links here" could conceivably be useful for Specialpages. Wonder why it is not enabled? I can guess why "Recentchanges" is not enabled, as the Specialpages are not editable (they are dynamically generated I believe, though there will be some editable something somewhere, but this is getting deep into the technical side of MediaWiki). Actually, I just tried a little experiment. This link would give everything that links to Prefixindex, except that it doesn't. So obviously "What links here" doesn't work for Special Pages, and hence this link is not provided in the sidebar. But does anyone know where the "code" for the Special Pages is kept? Carcharoth 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Really really final decisions
(Add anything you think I missed)

Title of "interact" box

 * interaction
 * accurately descriptive and covers everything. -Quiddity 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the help pages are not really interactive. Many of them are just pages to be read, not pages to respond to or ask questions at. I really can't see anything suitable to title this section with. Carcharoth 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the first box is called "navigation", then the third box should be called "interaction", not "interact". Fredrik Johansson 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that make good sense to me. If there are no objections, I'll change this suggestion to that right now. --Quiddity 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * help


 * community
 * for, this is the word most commonly used for free projects such as linux. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For, help is too narrow and makes redundant with one if it's subheadings (Levi already explained why that's bad [Where? Please replace this question with a link, thank you --83.253.36.136 ] ). And interact sounds too much like a person-computer interaction, not people community which we have here. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What does reading a help page have to do with "community"?
 * "Help" is where you can read how to interact with the community. Even when you simply edit or write on Wikipedia you are interacting with others in the community who will check that what you wrote is sound, and with others who wrote before you and others who will write after you. Wikipedia is a community collaborative writing project. "Help" explains how this community collaborative writing software works. --Roger Chrisman 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * assistance (or similar/synonym)
 * It is a synonym of help, and yet it means a lot more. In context, it would mean both "how you can assist us" (read: how can a surfer assist Wikipedia?) and "how can we assist you". (read: how can Wikipedians assist a surfer?)  It pins down all links within the box. --DavidHOzAu 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People contact Wikipedia and visit the community portal for reasons not pertaining to "assistance." &mdash;David Levy 06:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as if they were going to write an article about Wikipedia or WikiMedia Foundation? You're right; never mind then.  (Just a thought: Isn't "assistance" just a synonym for "help"?  We still need to brainstorm some more appropriate/inclusive titles, or, (worst case,) leave it as "interact".) --DavidHOzAu 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * miscellanea
 * In the ( un likely) event that none of the above are good enough. --DavidHOzAu 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * help & interaction
 * Strongly for my own suggestion. Catches both non-interactive help and help obtained by interacting, as well as non-helpful interaction. Also catches giving help. Don't be afraid of the 2-word label! Bye the way, I see nothing wrong with having both the word help in the label and a link called Help, just like a box labeled "Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers" could very well include a link to "Tom Petty". --83.253.36.136 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Against, Help/Help is evidence of a redundant hierarchy. --DavidHOzAu 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is that such a bad thing? (I can't find the explanation refered to in the "community" entry above.) --83.253.36.136 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only is it really long character-wise, it isn't very descriptive. It implies that all other links in the help box can be replaced with one link called "help".  This ignores several links in the box, notably Community portal and Donations. The reason why the help box needs a new name is because it is the same as this link; either one or the other has to change.
 * I don't understand your reasoning. How does it imply that? Community portal is about interacting with the community. Giving Donations is interacting (sort of), or it's about getting help on how to donate. So they are not ignored. I still haven't seen a good reason why this specific redundancy has to be avoided. And the text isn't too long. --83.253.36.136 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't mind this title if the help link changes to help contents or something else that actually means something. --DavidHOzAu 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Help contents is fine with me. --83.253.36.136 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * help & community


 * other
 * More easily understood than "miscellanea"! Carcharoth 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Wording of "help" link

 * Help
 * simplest, others are unnecessarily wordy. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is also the least helpful; "help contents" and "Wikipedia help" both imply that the link you're heading to might be something else than help with using Wikipedia. It might imply edit help (requesting help to work on an article), or perhaps help given by people rather than guides or tutorials. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What else would "help" mean on Wikipedia other than "Wikipedia's online help file"? --DavidHOzAu 06:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The help system in fact includes help given by people with links to Help desk and Reference desk. --83.253.36.136 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For, short, to the point, and stands out right away. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For. The Help system includes all sorts of help. --83.253.36.136 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed opinion to Help contents. --83.253.36.136 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For, easily understandable, concise. Kaldari 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Help contents
 * The actual page is Help:Contents; Help is the redirect. Full name is totally unambiguous. --DavidHOzAu 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It's the actual page name, 2) It's a standard form for the context (firefox, opera, filezilla, and more), 3) It's only adding a word after our currently used link-word so isn't as potentially confusing (when quickly glancing down the list, it's better to have the initial word as the primary word). (2nd choice is leaving it as "Help"). --Quiddity 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For, to gain acceptance for the box label "help & interaction". --83.253.36.136 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia help
 * An argument for this one: it more concisely states that this is help about Wikipedia (in the universally accepted form; most, if not all applications, will show [application name] help in the help menu), and not, for example, help from people to edit an article. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My browser says "Help Contents"... Carcharoth 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For, consistent with half of the computer programs out there, and we should have accepted one of msikma's proposals by now. --DavidHOzAu 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Using Wikipedia
 * Avoids using a vague one-word title. Simple and direct. If people insist on including the word "help", then "Help using Wikipedia" would be my second choice. Carcharoth 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Help on Wikipedia
 * Better than "Wikipedia help", "Using Wikipedia", and "Help using Wikipedia", in my opinion. Also has a nice double meaning of "Help about Wkipedia" and "Help in Wikipedia". --83.253.36.136 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Help" link really should be under "navigation", not "interact". To me, seeing "Help" (or even those names proposed above) under "Interact" implies that by clicking this button, you will be helping as opposed to receiving help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EatMyShortz (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, but "(Wikipedia) Help (contents)" is a link for n00bs/editors instead of your average surfer, and should be in the box devoted to similar pages. I think by now we've worked out where it goes; this section is actually about what name to pick. --DavidHOzAu 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that only "n00bs" need to use the help pages. Sometimes even experianced editors need help doing something they haven't done before or don't know much about. Lcarsdata (Talk) 09:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree too, because audience wasn't my point, it was just to get it in context. My point was that items that don't navigate but help you contribute aren't navigation items -- they are help items. --DavidHOzAu 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions link

 * Whether to include the Questions link, or not. (See also /Archive 02#Comments on version 14)
 * weak Oppose. I'm still not sure about this link. Both the link wording, which is almost always piped in usage as Where to ask questions; and it's easily confusable with Contact us. (Those pages ought to refer to each other, but I can't figure out concisely how). --Quiddity 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, they could be merged. --DavidHOzAu 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was considering that, does anyone think such a proposal might be accepted? And if so could someone else do it? I'm exhausted of proposing-things-energy this month. ;) -Quiddity 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a merge at Questions and Contact us, or at least a clarification. --Quiddity 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * or Rename the link wording to "Ask a question"
 * To put my thought in perspective, I was going to propose adding About from the list above, but after reading it, it's better served on the main page ("overview"). It helps inform, but will I need this info while reading an article? I think "Questions" falls under this as well. It's only an additional click away (since it's also near the top of the main page. And it's also duplicative of Help in several ways. - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex

 * Whether to include Special:Prefixindex in the navigation box or not.
 * Strongly support. It is an easy but rather unknown feature that can help to easily find articles. It is similar to a list of content. The link could be names A-Z. Electionworld Talk?  08:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't care, we'll get around to adding it when we add the reserved links mentioned in a section above. --DavidHOzAu 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should we wait? The proposal started about adding reference links. Where was the decision taken to wait for the reserved links. Will all reserved links be added? Please add this link in the first redesign. It is a feature that works, helps navigating and fulfils the criteria listed at Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Electionworld Talk?  10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but I think the point here is to get to a layout which we all *can* agree on, THEN we bring up additions. (when has ONE layout been widely agreed upon? I can't remember any.) Furthermore, I really really don't want to have to discuss where everything goes again. (although I would put it directly below "Categories" as "Lexicography", "Article Index", or whatever we had it as last time.) --DavidHOzAu 11:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think if nobody argues against it, then we could take it in this redesign in the position you suggest (below Categories as Article Index). If it leads to a lot of discussion, let's wait then to do it in step 2 (I wasn't aware that we really could bring up additions in a later stadium, the reason I asked before for an explanation of the procedure). Electionworld Talk?  12:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Carcharoth's comments above, some kind of merge or rethink of Special:Allpages, Special:Prefixindex, and Quick index is needed first. Also, "Quick index" is currently linked on the Main Page as "A-Z index", and any sidebar link should match up with that link. --Quiddity 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest adding a link to Special:Prefixindex from the search results page.

Or even, adding Special:Prefixindex search results in a 2nd column: so if you do a normal searchbox search for "monkey", you'd get this column on the left, and this column on the right, in a single results page. (I have no energy to propose such a thing though. Quit looking at me like that!) --Quiddity 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh wow! Quick, everyone look at Quiddity. This integration of Special:Prefixindex into the search results is the best idea I've seen in a long time! :-) Carcharoth 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even more Wow!! Is it possible? Electionworld Talk?  13:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Page-specific toolbox links in separate box
Like this:

this page
 * [ Cite this article]
 * [ Permanent link]
 * [ Printable version]
 * Related changes
 * What links here

tools
 * Recent changes
 * Special pages
 * Upload file

(See comments above.) --83.253.36.136 14:12, 3 September 2006


 * An advantage: no more horizontal line. Horizontal lines are very ugly, I'd say. A disadvantage: there'd be a huge amount of boxes (5) in the sidebar. I think that it isn't worth it; let's just keep the horizontal line. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per msikma. Too boxy, plus I'd imagine it'd require far more programming time than a simple horizontal rule. --Quiddity 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it would be less programming, but anyway. Hopefully the whole thing can get redesigned. --gatoatigrado 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, unless there are technical problems, in which case it should be implemented at some later time. I think it is important to point out the existance of a bunch of page-specific tools to the user, and to clearly separate them from other links/tools. But the horizontal separator is an improvement over previously, and is not ugly. --83.253.36.136 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not too late : slidin' sidebar
Today's sidebar stays at the top of the page. With long pages, it should smoothly slide down : This is already possible with meta:Help:User style/floating quickbar. :) (Oh, and I'm intensely strongly against making this a default. It's an accessbility hassle, and it hogs resources on low-end computers, and isnt cross-browser compatible.) --Quiddity 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it easy : plenty of sites offer that feature ?
 * Is it possible in the same redesign ? (the logo could stay at the top). Thank you. -- DLL .. T 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Against or optional only I personally hate such things, and it would also require a guarentee we cannot made that the sidebar will fit on one screen on any resolution. LinaMishima 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Against or optional only for the same reason above. JoeSmack Talk 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Against -- many articles would have a long language list and the sidebar would be too large to fit on a monitor, therefore making it sliding would make it impossible to scroll to different parts. Therefore your suggestion makes no technical sense. It would make sense to suggest a frame-based sidebar, where scrolling the article would be done independently of scrolling the sidebar, in which case I'd support an optional user-choice feature, but I think it would be extremely difficult to implement technically using existing mediawiki software, and the implementation cost would far outweight the benefit. Elvarg 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Against or optional only, per above. These are annoying if you're not expecting them. -- nae'blis 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was actually rather easy to do with style="position: fixed;", which I also believe is widely supported (by Internet Explorer 6.0 as well, I think) without hogging resources (as it isn't a Javascript). Regardless, I think it's a really bad idea that should not be implemented. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advices. I personally think that help pages are somewhat contorted (?), but it is really better to deliver a simple, non costly toolbar AND to let people find out where those side tricks are hidden. -- DLL .. T 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

interact or recent changes
I came here to learn just what will be happening to Recent changes; now that I see that it survives, might I ask that the interact piece of the sidebar act like a link? That way the page could move "up" when someone clicks interact, and I could then see Recent changes without scrolling. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a potential problem indeed. Perhaps we should consider moving Recent changes up into the "interact" box? My 2 arguments for: 1) its a useful link to promote understanding of how Wikipedia works, and to promote vandalfighting. 2) its the only link in the redesign that is moving into the toolbox, where some people might not think to look (especially as it's so low down now). My argument against: That'd put "What links here" below-the-fold for me at 1024x768 (actually it fits) --Quiddity 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So make your font smaller! ;) --DavidHOzAu 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesnt help anyone running 800x600, or even anyone running 1024x768 with an extra browser GUI toolbar or 2. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * pin it to your toolbar...this isn't a critical discussion. --gatoatigrado 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving "recent changes" up a section would look like this.

What do you all think of that? I strongly support --Quiddity 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't care if it gets accepted or not; I like the current version just fine with or without this change. However, this change does make it seem like "Special pages" should be moved up to the interaction box with it too... I'm not sure about "Upload file". However, if that goes, there very little reason to put a rule there, because separating the box in two seems too much with just one or two items in the second half. My official opinion is that while there is nothing wrong with this change, taking it to its logical extension is going too far. --DavidHOzAu 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

interaction and help contents update
It's too quiet, so I thought I'd be bold and update with potential improvements.

There seems to be a bit of consensus for linking help as Help contents. It's the page's title, so makes logical sense; and it keeps the keyword at the beginning, so is good usability-wise.

With the "interact" box there seems to be no agreement at all. But Fredrik Johansson's suggestion above, that 'interaction' would make a better match with 'navigation' made sense, so I updated accordingly.

As for a final wrapup, can I impose an arbitrary "1-week from now" (Sept. 12) deadline for committing to a draft to present to the wider community? --Quiddity 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me, lets not drag this out any more than necessary. JoeSmack Talk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quiddity, thank you for the Recent changes above the fold. --Ancheta Wis 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll move that thread to just above. It's still only a suggestion, until more people agree. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think anything that needs to change or any other change that could possibly be discussed. However, if it is not too much work, I think we will need a more comprehensive list of Reasons behind the changes (linking to the corresponding discussions where decisions were made) so that people don't object for the wrong reasons. --DavidHOzAu 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll be away for a bit soon, so good luck (though I fully expect to see the discussion still dragging out when I get back!) :-) Carcharoth 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone would like to help write a more comprehensive list of "Reasons behind the changes", I'd be most grateful. I'm spread kinda thin right now too... --Quiddity 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the current style of the reasons behind the changes though; it's concise. --gatoatigrado 07:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)