Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote

Disable the sidebar option
hey...i was just thinking...there should be an option to disable the sidebar completely as that will mean more place to read text...naturally this will be optional, and users can again get back the sidebar by clickig some link i personally don't like the sidebar because it takes up a lot of space!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sshssh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC).


 * This is a great idea; I'm sure people running smaller windows would appreciate it. It doesn't look like there's an easy way with css (there's a lot of things sharing the "portlet" class) now, but it probably wouldn't be that hard. --gatoatigrado 17:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not simply use one of the skins that lacks the sidebar? &mdash;David Levy 22:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sshssh, it would be possible to do it in javascript except that p-cactions (article, talk, edit this page, history, etc.) and p-personal (Me, my talk, my preferences, etc.) are also part of the div .  It is not as simple as setting the style of column-one to  .  Also, the margins of certain elements may have to be adjusted from the default site layout design from main.css.  Presumably it would based off m:Help:User style/floating quickbar and the navbox hiding thingy at Monobook.js. It'll take more time than I have to put it together, but you are welcome to try. I have an assignment to code. --DavidHOzAu 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"information" label"
I have two problems with the "information" label:

1. The first box directs readers to encyclopedic information.

2. Contact us and Fundraising provide information, but that isn't their primary purpose (from a reader's perspective). In other words, these links are perceived more as gateways than as sources of "contact information" and "fundraising information." &mdash;David Levy 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And "browse" can apply to just about all of the links. Overall, I think you all have done a great job improving the groupings and functionality of the actual links, so I don't care all that much about the unlinked headers. Rfrisbietalk 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In this context, the term "browse" is widely associated with the type of functionality provided by the first box. (This is true not just on Wikipedia, but also in bookstores and public libraries.)  Until recently, we even had a page entitled Browse (now a redirect to Categorical index).  &mdash;David Levy 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Special pages
In the four options (even in the orinal design) there has been made a change considering the link to Special pages comparing it with the present sidebar. It should go to Special:Special pages, but it is now to Special pages. Please restore it to Special:Special pages. Electionworld Talk?  07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. How very observant of you! :) JoeSmack Talk 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo/"interact"
I had to vote 3, I like the browse heading very much but absolutely detest 'interact'! What exactly does that mean. An option with browse and information would be perfect IMO. Ah well :D Also can you please sort out the logo properly - it is completely different to the current official one. As far as I can see the globe looks no clearer but the text on it is blurred and wrong AND the text the free encyclopedia looks horrible. Can you find some way to fix this or I will have to go and vote for the original :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Err I am now to understand this is a new version of the logo? Not created from the source. I really really cannot sup[port you arbritarily changing this after a fairly small and infocused discussion on the talk page. I am in favoure of a redesign of the sidebar but the logo issue needs discussion on a wider scale. The logo itself is copyright to the Wikimedia foundation and is used after a competition to find the best available. Replacing it with a similar but not quite image is not an option - you need to do any 'fixes' from the source. Im voting original for now until either it is confirmed by the foundation that this change is ok or the image is removed. (Plus i dont think you have solved the IE bug properly! People still use versions prior to IE5/6 - which is the reason for the current issues with the logo!!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This logo file was created from the original source. It was inserted here under the assumption that the technical issues would be resolved via special code that we aren't currently using (so it would display properly in IE).  Given that this is not yet the case (and the logo doesn't actually pertain to the proposal proper), I've reverted to the standard logo.  The logo change will (or won't) occur regardless of what happens with this debate, and rest assured that it will be carried out only with after it's been scrutinized and approved by the proper officials.  &mdash;David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The changes to the old logo were made because white can be seen around the edges on a gray background . I tried to find the source on Meta, but have turned up a blank; Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png was as good as it gets.  Short of rendering the logo against the background image, there is no other way to fix it.  If you think the characters need to be fixed, just check out http://wikipedia.org/ and note what version of the logo is being used there. --DavidHOzAu 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the "interact" issue; I don't like that wording at all, so I'm voting for 3. I can't see any problem with the logo (though I am using Firefox, so it perhaps doesn't affect me) – Gurch 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I third the notion. I like the redesign as a whole, but hate the wording of said box! However, I don't want the redesign to fail completely, so I decided to vote for a new proposal, despite my objections. Eh. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Add a fourth on this RCEberwein 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask (any of you) what's wrong with "interact"? &mdash;David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that this isn't very helpful, but it just sounds somehow "rong". I suppose it's because you don't expect a word like "interact" in the nav bar. Alao, I soppose it's the fact that you get infromation points, infromation descks ect, and although it is interacting, you don't tend to group asking questions in that catigory, or for that matter making donations (oh, and interact somehow seems american. (not that I mind to much etheir way, and don't treat this as a rant ;-) tooto 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was very hard to come up with a better title than "interact" when "meta" was already taken; despite its failings, this is the one alternative title that we kept falling back to, if that explains anything. --DavidHOzAu 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the titles as verbs anyway ("interact", "browse", etc. - sounds so sickeningly "Web 2.0") but the noun "toolbox" jarringly breaks the parallelism in option 1. Opabinia regalis 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you have a point. Quiddity, David Levy, et al, do you think we should move our votes to option 3 or call a reboot of the survey to ../Final proof vote.  I wish we had spotted this earlier. --DavidHOzAu 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? (I honestly can't tell.)
 * This isn't something that went unnoticed. I explicitly addressed the fact that "toolbox" is the only noun of the four box labels in my most recent post to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign .  In my opinion, this if fine; the box's functionality is significantly different, so there's no harm in using a label that differs from the others.
 * Besides, "search" is likely to be interpreted as a verb, so none of the designs (including the current one) use labels from one part of speech.
 * The more important concern, in my assessment, is to use one part of speech for the first three labels. Only option 1 accomplishes this.  &mdash;David Levy 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Using verbs for the first 3 helps link them conceptually, encouraging one to 'browse' the links in all. We could have added a 4th poll option using "browse" and "information" (which would really have screwed things up!), which some might find more subjectively pleasing, but I'd argue it would deter casual visitors from checking out the community portal.
 * Also, anything can be changed, once the overall design is in place, and the majority of Wikipedians see it in action and descend en masse to comment! Because everyone's going to have something they want to tweak, change or alter. --Quiddity 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the problem. A noun is just a description; three verbs and a noun needs some sort of foggy meta-justification. Opabinia regalis 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, "search" can be a noun, but it obviously is being used as a verb. Therefore, the current setup contains two nouns and a verb, while options 2 and 3 contain three nouns and a verb (without any justification for the disparity).
 * And again, the toolbox differs from the other three boxes; it's geared toward technical aspects (as opposed to reading articles and participating in the community). It's logical for its name to differ accordingly.
 * As Quiddity noted, we want users to connect the first three boxes in their minds. Assigning action-oriented titles aids us in this goal.  &mdash;David Levy 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't find "search" nearly as distracting in options 2 and 3 as I find "toolbox" in option 1, and I could buy it as a category descriptor (especially when the search guidelines are added later). In any case, your justification is exactly what I don't like about the verbs, independently of the toolbox issue. Who sees four navigation boxes in a column and doesn't "connect them in their minds"? "Action-oriented" just sounds like a buzzword; I don't know what action "navigate" suggests that "navigation" doesn't. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. We're dealing with opinions here, and you and I obviously disagree. The "search" box goes hand in hand with the "browse" box and the "interact" box (especially the former), and it makes far less sense to me for it to be the odd name out.
 * 2. We don't want readers to indiscriminately connect all four navigation boxes in their minds. The first three boxes target readers/aspiring contributors, while the last box is primarily for editors and researchers.  Anything that helps to convey this distinction (if only subliminally) is good.
 * 3. Telling readers what they can do (browse, search and interact) is inviting; it encourages them to get involved. Clarity is of the utmost importance, but using relatively boring, less catchy terms (IMHO) doesn't make the labels any clearer.  Also, at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign, Quiddity made the excellent point that using "browse" instead of "navigation" will draw attention to the fact that the box's contents have significantly changed.
 * 4. Where are you seeing "navigate"? &mdash;David Levy 05:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I just don't see the advantage of diverging from the English standard of using nouns as category descriptors for the amorphous goals of subliminally distinguishing nav boxes or inviting involvement. Whether "search" bothers you is a matter of taste, I suppose. I think it's giving people too much credit to imagine that using verbs as category headers will have any effect on how people use the nav bar or how likely they are to "interact" or whathaveyou. (BTW, "navigate" is just a convenient example of non-improvement; there's no corresponding noun for "browse".) I see your and Quiddity's point on the box title serving as an alert to a change, though again I think that's assuming too much. If all you changed was the word "navigation" to the word "browse" on the current bar, I'm not sure I'd notice. Opabinia regalis 07:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your arguments contradict each other. You claim that the verb/noun disparity is bothersome.  When I explain the logic behind it, you imply that most people won't notice the difference.  Which is it?
 * Readers either will notice (in which case the distinction is relevant) or they won't (in which case it isn't). Either way, there's no problem.  &mdash;David Levy 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * a) There is a bothersome grammatical disparity, and b) it is not of sufficient user-interface value to overcome that disadvantage. Opabinia regalis 08:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I disagree. Personally, I believe that the disparity between "search" and the other labels is bothersome.  As you noted, it appears that you're in the minority.
 * 2. Again, you just got done arguing that most readers (including you) might not even notice the change from "navigation" to "browse." It simply doesn't make sense to claim that people will be bothered by something that they won't notice.  &mdash;David Levy 08:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you that disparity exists in both cases. Is that what is being discussed here?  That regardless of who is right that we really borked up somewhere? --DavidHOzAu 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that the existing disparity (carried over to options 2 and 3) is random and illogical, while the disparity present in option 1 is deliberate and logical. &mdash;David Levy 09:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry David, I don't understand what's unclear here. It would be easy to overlook a title change in the existing design, which suggests that the titles are not valuable enough as interface elements to justify a deliberate disparity. You had some thoughts on why verbs would be useful as interface elements; I don't agree. Regardless, it's not important enough to continue cluttering this page; visit my talk if you want to continue discussing this. Opabinia regalis 16:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Opabinia, but you still aren't making sense. If the change is easy to overlook, it can't simultaneously be bothersome for the same people.  You also aren't explaining how a random disparity is preferable to a deliberate one (based upon an actual distinction).  And to be honest, I don't particularly feel like going out of my way to continue this debate, given the fact that circular logic ("It would be easy to overlook a title change in the existing design, which suggests that the titles are not valuable enough as interface elements to justify a deliberate disparity.") frustrates me greatly.  &mdash;David Levy 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I said I would stop cluttering, but your assumption here may be the reason you're not understanding what I'm saying. Why do you think the oblivious and the bothered must be the same people at the same time? The user population isn't a homogeneous group uniformly falling into one category or the other. Opabinia regalis 19:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You indicated that you find the disparity bothersome (which appears to be a minority viewpoint) and that you are "not sure [you]'d notice." How is that not a contradiction?
 * I believe that some people will notice the disparity and others won't. For those who do, I believe that the separation is logical and beneficial.  For those who don't, it obviously is irrelevant.
 * Based upon the response thus far, there's no evidence that most people are perturbed in the manner that you are. &mdash;David Levy 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I already explained that I have no trouble reading "search" as a noun category descriptor, especially in the long term when search help links may be added. Opabinia regalis 19:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've repeatedly explained that I disagree with you. I don't believe that my opinion is sacrosanct, and that's why this page exists.  &mdash;David Levy 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there will be any text links added to the search box itself. We tried it in various drafts, and it looked poorly designed and cluttering/confusing. Much more likely would be a link on the "search results" page, leading to Searching. See also my suggestion to merge/overhaul that page itself, at Wikipedia talk:Searching. Thanks. --Quiddity 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a workable solution to all objections
We should try what they do over at fr and treat this early survey as a vote of opinion and not a vote of decision. The outcome of this survey wouldn't be binding. I suggest that after a few days we close the survey, invite further discussion, bring discussion along far enough that it possible to gather a vote of decision. And if there are any lengthier discussions than this one, we treat it as a vote of opinion again. When we do reach that final decision stage, we would split up the proposal into small manageable units and cast votes of decision on them. (There already appears to clear-cut consensus for a change of some sort, although most posts down here relate to (1) being fundamentally flawed.) Would that be an appropriate course of action? --DavidHOzAu 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, you've devised a complicated solution to a nonexistent problem. It's impossible to please everyone 100%, but we appear to be headed toward a rather decisive consensus (especially considering the fact that options 1–3 are mostly identical).  It's clear that the redesign is overwhelmingly welcome, so it comes down to a simple matter of which labels are preferred by the most users.  Barring unforeseen circumstances, there's no need to drag this out over something so minor and uncontroversial.  &mdash;David Levy 08:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind then. --DavidHOzAu 08:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that I didn't offend you. Your comments are highly thoughtful and constructive, and I'm attempting to respond in kind. :-)  &mdash;David Levy 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No offence taken. --DavidHOzAu 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "It's impossible to please everyone 100%, but we appear to be headed toward a rather decisive consensus (especially considering the fact that options 1–3 are mostly identical)." - I wholly and totally disagree. "Decisive" only in that this sidebar layout is the one that 3 editors want, with just a discussion about the headers being allowed?  I think that if one wanted a true discussion, one would offer all the variations up for public discussion/vote. If there was a concensus, there wouldn't be the discussions on this page (the browse/information wish, for example).
 * In reading over my comment, I can see how it might be taken as "emotional". It's not. I just sincerely think that something that will appear on over a million pages should probably have a bit more input/discussion.
 * (And I think User talk:DavidHOzAu has the right idea.) - jc37 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The other layouts were openly discussed and voted on. That's how we reached this point.
 * 2. "Consensus" doesn't mean "100% agreement among all people." Please see Consensus.  &mdash;David Levy 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing it for 5 weeks solid, and have been batting the idea around for even longer. We've replied to your alternative suggestions (which center on moving the "Help" link into the 1st box), but you don't seem satisfied with the answers.
 * I'll try to resummarise: The 1st ("browse") box contains (links to) pages whose main purpose is to lead directly to articles. The 3rd ("interact") box contains meta information, eg resources/information/assistance/help/community/etc. We envision both boxes being changed further, in the future; Either adding links such as those listed here, or removing links, such as "Wikipedia:Questions", which I've suggested be merged/clarified with "Wikipedia:Contact us".
 * What is it that you think has been left unaddressed, or insufficiently examined? --Quiddity 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I am not pushing an agenda of where "help" should go. That was "a" proposal. My complaint as far as that goes is that it was wholly dismissed by 2 people, with a third who was starting discussion, being beaten to submission by the other 2 (please pardon the euphemism, but atm, I can't think of a better analogy).  That doesn't sound like much of a "discussion".
 * I had other suggestions as well, but in the face of either being ignored, or snippy responses (with 1 or 2 exceptions), I was rather hesitant to put those forth. So I went back and re-read all of the archives.  And was rather disappointed.  For the most part it's 3-5 people with an agenda, beating back the masses of suggestions.  Now that's not true in every case, easpecially at the beginning.  But in the last couple weeks (with only a few exceptions, like the logo image), it's been pretty much: "We've discussed that already, we know what we're doing, look at the long discussion, leave us alone".
 * My point here is this: Just because Quiddity (who I really do presume is acting in good faith, and what he feels is best for the Wikipedia project); just because he had a good idea, and criteria was set for that idea, doesn't make either the idea or the criteria the "right answer". Quiddity's idea brought to the forefront "other" issues with the sidebar that need addressing.  And I think that those other issues have been well discussed, and continue to be discussed.  But as for link content of the 2 arbitrary boxes... Discussion's disappeared.  For example, there were concerns about whether "Questions" should be in the "other" box, but that discussion pretty much died, rather than was resolved. So, defacto, "Questions" is still retained in the list.  Two of us were discussing the "theme" of the "other" box, and had that quickly curtailed, and dismissed as not wanted. And so on. Concensus isn't 100%, but I would hope it would involve a minimum quorum of some kind in this case.
 * At this point, I think further discussion of the content of the two boxes is needed. And judging from other comments both here and in the archives, I would presume that I am not alone in this.  I made a "simple proposal" below.  Any reason why we don't go through with that, and leave the discussion of box headers and box link content for further discussion? - jc37 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the impression that every idea automatically warrants the same amount of discussion. That simply isn't true.  No one prohibited the serious consideration of your suggestions; they simply failed to generate a significant amount of interest or support.  Several of my ideas were quickly rejected as well, and you don't see me complaining.
 * The purpose of citing the previous discussions was not to shut people up. It was to save everyone the trouble of rehashing arguments that already had been made.  Ironically, you appear to be suggesting that we should have ignored the earlier dialogue.
 * Lastly, you've continually mistaken disagreement for dismissal. &mdash;David Levy 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that whenever we archived the discussion that the same old things kept popping up. If anything, we are guilty of becoming tired with the same old things that have already been answered, and answering those issues somewhat succinctly.  If we ignored certain issues and/or decided to default back to the old sidebar, (or what has consistently appeared in the last few versions,) it is because we didn't see the point of repeating discussion on things already decided.  For example, take the searchbox redesign... it was going nowhere, getting progressively larger and heated, and the task of getting all the other parts pinned down was being ignored; we forked it, and continued development. In these cases you can't really blame us for trying to push the proposal on to the next stage a little, if one can call it pushing. --DavidHOzAu 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Restarting indent)

First, DL, I could be mistaken, but you actually didn't comment at that time. (I was attempting to avoid pointing out who did what, but apparently that isn't an option.) DavidHOzAu and Quiddity did. Quiddity apologized for his "dismissal" (my word, as I called it above, he called it being "snippy") and DHOA was whom was actually attempting to discuss (I have no feeling of "blame" or any other accusatory for you whatsoever, btw). And after that, so was Quiddity. (Which we can also note from a comment of his above, which I apparently missed.) As I've said innumerable times, I have no doubt of their good faith in this. (Though I have some concern about the tone and indirect accusation of: "Several of my ideas were quickly rejected as well, and you don't see me complaining.") I also am not sure where you see that I suggest that "we" should have ignored anyone. However, I also don't want what is obviously an important discussion to devolve into a "he said-she said" / j'accuse and counter-accuse situation. I presume we all wish the best for Wikipedia at this stage. - jc37 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer Quiddity's query above - My concern is that there has been a LOT of debate, but concensus has been hazy at times. There has been this push to "finish", at the expense of further discussion and ideas. Someone above mentioned that when side discussions started to distract, they were split into side pages. I think (as I mentioned below) that the toolbox is great. I also think that there was/is concensus about there being an "other" box. However, I think the "other" box, and it's contents should be/have been split into a separate discussion. Especially with the hint that further links may be added to both the "top" box and the "other" box in the future! Is it really such a bad thing to go forward with what obviously has concensus (the toolbox, among other things), and to further discuss the "box" content, titles, and links? - jc37 16:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. There is no one option that has a supermajority anyway.  My thought: let the devs who implement this decide what title to use, and if it doesn't look good, we discuss it then. Heck, probably the only thing that'll change is the title of the new box. --DavidHOzAu 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Other skins
I ask that no action be taken. I don't see that anyone has taken the needs of users of other skins into account. Will my sidebar even change? Or not? Or how? Do you know? As a Cologne Blue user -- from necessity -- this issue trumps all others. I do not like the current sidebar but I have learned to work with it. I have no interest in figuring out a new scheme that has been designed with no consideration for other users' needs. Sorry. I want to see more work on this project. John Reid 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The MonoBook layout is merely an example. It isn't feasible to create mockups of every skin's navigation setup until the basic idea is approved.  Rest assured that the necessary work would be done to offer comparable functionality across all of the skins.  &mdash;David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just had a quick look at skins via SVN, and I don't think a change to Monobook.php will affect CologneBlue.php --DavidHOzAu 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Cologne blue even affect Monobook? Does it even have a sidebar? I don't know. Please put this in programming talk. I think the current plan is to create something backwards compatible with the current sidebar. I was thinking (as on that page) it could be possible to have a new sidebar variable, for sidebars parsed the new way (the current way won't allow the things we want to do), that would not eliminate the old sidebar, used on every other language Wikipedia. --gatoatigrado 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
How will this affect users who have altered the side bar with scripts? If a new entry is placed after item 6 and the redesign means 6 no longer exists, this might actually break bars instead of improving them. I would also prefer if some link is included in the seach box to refer to often asked search questions (capitalization, WP:VFAQ 1 and things like that). - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. This project was initiated under the consultation of (and would be carried out only with the assistance and approval of) the developers. Full testing would be conducted to address any technical concerns prior to the design's implementation.
 * 2. The addition of Searching (among other links) is a future possibility, but we didn't want to tie this into the proposal (especially given the opinion of some that the pages in question need work) &mdash;David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting system
It was a really stupid decision to present three replacement candidates against the original. This way those who support any of the changes, which are much more different from the original than they are from each other, will split their vote over the 3 minor differences, while those opposing the change at all will unite on the original.

What should have been done is first an internal round of voting to determine which one is pitted against the original, and then this vote, with original vs winner, where vast majority of those favoring change would then mass vote for a single candidate as opposed to wasting votes fighting over minor differences. Whoever made it this way obviously knows nothing about Voting theory.

I'm not voting. Elvarg 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to bring up the "obvious," but voting is evil. Just because some counting is possible here, it doesn't mean this is an election. There's really nothing to stop us from deciding the combined support for the changes outweighs the original, and then hashing out some sort of hybrid from those. Rfrisbietalk 12:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As someone familiar with voting theory, you obviously know what approval voting is. As noted at the top of the page, "you may vote for multiple options."  &mdash;David Levy 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I made this voting page. I was merely acting in good faith by making it to get things done. JoeSmack Talk 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to Joe, I would like to add that we tried to decide through a previous discussion, as we have always done up until this point. Note that we've already gone through old versions and hybrids of them and found reasons why they were lacking; six weeks was sufficient time to get involved, right?  Besides, I doubt it would have made much difference.  Opinions happen and opinions change, but there is a point where the difference between choices is so small that the distinction between the right choice and the not-as-right choice fades into obscurity; this is one of those times.  We came a long way using discussion, but consensus on which one was better wasn't forming and we were just wasting time. --DavidHOzAu 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that he/she makes a mistake in not voting (especially since they can vote for "no change"). While I don't think that time has been "wasted", I also think that concensus has been rushed on several points.


 * As for the voting: I might comment that in any voting scheme, the first alternate option always carries "extra" weight (it's decries a "preference" to the voter, whether that preference is intentional or not). Then preference to the "last" option, with the second (middle) option typically receiving the fewest votes.


 * But the question is: In a site filled with links, does it really matter that much what the final sidebar is? (Especially considering that the only difference between the pro-offered versions is unlinked box headers.) - jc37 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of voting theory, I actually thought that the last two of the four possible choices would be more popular. The rise of anti-sentimentalism knows no bounds. ;-) --DavidHOzAu 07:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * we want to get the sidebar as good as we can. Why can't you just use a sorting algorithm, eliminate redundant names, add (redesign 1 + redesign 2 + redesign 3) and compare to the votes for original? --gatoatigrado 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No A-Z?
I'm severely disappointed that none of the proposals includes the A-Z index link. I saw it in many early proposals and was really looking forward to it. It's a very helpful navigation interface for users accustomed to paper encyclopedias. I didn't even know it exists, and I remember searching for something like it when I first came to Wikipedia! For this reason, I'm voting for the original, in the hope that another redesign would be initiated that would include the A-Z index. Trapolator 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For A-Z see our discussions at #A-Z / Prefixindex and at #Special:Prefixindex. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We aren't voting to determine a permanent configuration that shall be etched in stone and never altered again. Any decision to add that link in the future could be made regardless of which design prevails in this poll.  (We needn't go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.)  A vote for the original design means that you don't like the changes, not that you want more changes.  In fact, you're opposing the creation of the box in which the "A–Z" link would be placed (thereby reducing the likelihood that it will be adopted in the future).  &mdash;David Levy 01:21/01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

XNR to Current Events
The link to Current Events should go to Portal:Current Events. --ais523 10:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. (you have a very sharp eye!) --DavidHOzAu 11:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Simpler proposal
I think that the work on the "toolbox" has been great. How about if we only implement that change, and allow for further discussion of the rest? I think that that has unanimous consent at this point. And it has the added benefit of being less work for the developers. - jc37 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please go to programming talk to discuss that. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This was brought up earlier, and the version without the new "interact" box looked worse than the original. This is not a time critical operation. Please recruit a programmer, or if you are one, help. --gatoatigrado 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost
Over at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom it looks like their fishing for someone to write a little article on this for the next Signpost coming out very very soon (11 hours). Anyone game? (I hate fish) JoeSmack Talk 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite
Sorry to barge in at the voting stage but why has the "cite this page" link been moved to the top of the list? I don't see it as being particularly more important, and in fact citing Wikipedia as a source should be discouraged whenever possible. BigBlueFish 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why exactly is that? If I'm missing something totally obvious, that's been known to happen. But please explain why "citing Wikipedia as a source should be discouraged whenever possible". I'm speechless. --Storkk 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true, see the note at the top of the "cite this page" page. "Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information — citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibiliographies may result in censure or a failing grade." as well as the warning at the top of Citing Wikipedia, and the Academic use disclaimer.
 * In reply to the original question, during the discussions there seemed to be about a 50/50 split between the 2 orderings. I was surprised noone raised this particular point at all. There are definitely lots of pros and cons to each ordering, but as long as the global/local links are kept seperate, anything is possible. I'm ambivalent on the issue. --Quiddity 05:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note the phrases "sole source" and "important reference." That doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't be used at all, and it certainly should be cited if it is.  Regardless, it's beneficial to make this information more prominent and allow each student to reach an informed decision (which might not occur if the link is overlooked).
 * All editors are readers, but the reverse obviously isn't true. Therefore, it makes sense for the editor-oriented links to be shifted to the bottom.  &mdash;David Levy 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * True, though the print version is still more important IMO than the cite page. However the current order, intentionally or not, is also alphabetical, which seems a fairly systematic reason to accept the current order. The citation page has also made the limitations on citing Wikipedia much clearer than when I last visited; given that, it's probably a good thing if people who ARE going to cite it see that page; given that, I'm 100% behind the current redesign. BigBlueFish 13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple when you realize how each link relates to the displayed page:
 * Primary The first three links in the toolbox relate to the current page. Of these, the first two links are version-related, and the third completely transforms the page.
 * Secondary The next two links show pages that link to/from the current page.
 * Unrelated The last three have nothing at all to do with the current page.
 * Does that answer your question? --DavidHOzAu 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 1-3
Is there such a thing as "Option 1-3"? Would combining the two most popular options help? I would go for...


 * browse
 * search
 * information
 * toolbox

Two verbs, two nouns, who could ask for anything more?! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, forming a coalition would give us the needed supermajority. --DavidHOzAu 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer this to all of the current choices. Any chance this could be added as another option? Thanks. —dto (talk contribs)  03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be best to let this poll run its course and then look at the results. To me it looks like it will come down to choosing either Browse or Navigation and then Interact or Information. So I think another poll will be in order offering two sets of choices. --Monotonehell 11:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like progress! :-) Rfrisbietalk 13:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not of the impression that either "Information" or "interact" would cover everything in the box under it. I would think "Community" says it all in a nutshell. Two cents, too late perhaps. THE PROMENADER  21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Customise
Someone offered an interesting suggestion here. Please check it out, and offer your thoughts. I think it sounds good : ) - jc37 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing the survey
The survey has been up for nearly 1½ weeks, I think it'd be nice to close it and discuss the results. I suggest "Partial consensus to implement the additional box and make changes to navigation and toolbox links. All other differences are No consensus."

My reasoning is that from the sound of it, Would this be satisfactory? --DavidHOzAu 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * a new box will be added, populated with links, per overwhelming majority
 * toolbox and navigation links will be rearranged, per overwhelming majority
 * navigation and toolbox will retain the old headings due to near 50/50 split on the matter
 * the label "interact" per most approval votes
 * if anything else bothers you, it can be customized


 * Closing: Sounds fine.
 * Other differences: So, what is currently labeled as the "Redesign" at Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign is what we're recommmending be implemented? --Quiddity 03:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. --DavidHOzAu 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. No alternative to "toolbox" was considered.
 * 2. "Interact" is incompatible with "navigation," but "navigate" could be used. This would be a fair compromise between "navigation" and "browse" (incorporating the former's root and the latter's part of speech).  &mdash;David Levy 03:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "navigate" also helps indicate that the section has changed purpose. Seconded. --Quiddity 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. --DavidHOzAu 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The poll is closed. (hope I did that right). --Quiddity 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did it right. --DavidHOzAu 02:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey results table
Output of a script I wrote last night:

334 editors voted in this survey.

Enjoy. ;-) --DavidHOzAu 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Script is accessible from one of my subpages. I haven't tested its integration with Wikipedia yet, and it has a few obvious shortcomings in this regard. --DavidHOzAu 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Output of a script I wrote last night" - nice job. How about helping program the sidebar? --gatoatigrado 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Still has a few bugs, though. There were 189 votes for #1 and 23 for #2. (The missing #1 vote appears to be mine, the 95th.) Askari Mark | Talk


 * No, you're there; look for an editor under the title "Name". ;-)
 * I'll just take a moment to describe how the script works. The script doesn't parse what is displayed, it parses links.  It makes the assumption that people will link to their user page or their talk page in their signature.  For every item in a list, it looks for the first link to the User namespace and uses the link's   parameter to determine who the user is and assign each entry to a particular user. (In particular, it searches for   in the HTML code.) I do not use the href attribute because it is harder to extract information from it when the talk/user page does not exist.
 * In this case, your signature first links to User:Name, so the script thinks your name is literally Name.
 * The real problem is that number 118 for Option 1 didn't wikilink to anything, and number 12 for option 2 used an external link to their talk page&mdash;the code ignores unlinked text and external links. In a way it's not a problem because their votes don't count (they didn't wikilink to a userpage as instructed)... however, the fact that the script missed two votes regardless is a very big problem. --DavidHOzAu 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)