Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Election Discussion/Archive 1

If we are to run an election, we need to create rules and a schedule. Here are some questions we need to answer:
 * Taking a leaf out of Zocky's book, are we?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Runoff
Why not have a run-off with the new candidates first, then pit the single new candidate against the current main page?--ragesoss 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's similar to what we're doing. The key difference is the fact that we don't have to select any of the current drafts in its entirety; we can combine the best elements into one new draft.  &mdash;David Levy 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This strategy seems to be very good - too bad we can't use it in real-life politics :) - JustinWick 18:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ragesoss. --Go for it! 10:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heretofore, you've advocated a single-round election with multiple new candidates. Now you want us to narrow down the selection process to one new draft, but without the option of combining favorable elements from the current drafts?  Instead, you'd prefer that each be viewed as a package deal?  &mdash;David Levy 10:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the best combination of favorable elements can be determined by us fighting it out in a reversion war. I think we would wind up with a poor compromise.  I believe that, if enough combinations are presented to the voters, they will pick the very best one, refective of what the community wants the most.  Then the winner can be pitted against the main page, which would avoid the candidate dilution problem you demonstrated quite well with your chart.  I don't think we've yet seen the best design that the Wikipedian community can produce.  --Go for it! 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the best combination of favorable elements can be determined by us fighting it out in a reversion war.


 * Who said anything about a reversion war? We're trying to work together, but you would prefer a competition.


 * I think we would wind up with a poor compromise.


 * I don't understand. How would combining the most popular elements into one draft result in a "poor compromise"?


 * I believe that, if enough combinations are presented to the voters, they will pick the very best one, refective of what the community wants the most.


 * Again, I don't understand. How would it be preferable to select an arbitrary combination of elements (likely assembled by one person)?  Do you honestly believe that this would be less likely to spark an editing conflict than the creation of an optimized hybrid?


 * Plenty of votes have been cast for specific features, and many of the voters expressing draft preferences have cited specific reasons. Why do you insist upon disregarding this valuable input (in favor of an unintuitive ballot tally)?


 * Then the winner can be pitted against the main page,


 * That's precisely what will happen, but we're doing this the smart way.


 * If you'd prefer, think of this as selecting one "winner" from among the current drafts, and then editing it (by incorporating popular elements of the other drafts) before we submit it for official consideration as a main page replacement. This is a wiki, after all.


 * which would avoid the candidate dilution problem you demonstrated quite well with your chart.


 * No, it wouldn't. Instead of occurring in the final round, the dilution would impact the selection of the finalist.  Similar drafts would split the vote, thereby allowing a less popular (but more unique) draft to artificially pull ahead.  By applying common sense (instead of blindly counting votes), we will avoid this problem (and select the best possible candidate).


 * I don't think we've yet seen the best design that the Wikipedian community can produce.


 * Then why are you attempting to stop us from creating it?! &mdash;David Levy 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should we alter course from the current multi-draft approach? Besides, that would require a clear consensus. We're already working on multiple drafts, and as anyone can plainly see, that is the current modus operandi. --Go for it! 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above reply is utterly baffling. In addition to the fact that you've already changed your stance to support the selection of a single main page candidate, it simply doesn't pertain to the comments that preceded it.  Nonetheless, I shall address your statements individually:


 * Why should we alter course from the current multi-draft approach?


 * The multiple drafts serve as proposals for the elements that might be included in our one final draft. That's the direction in which we're headed, so indeed, there's no need to alter course.


 * Besides, that would require a clear consensus.


 * We don't need a clear consensus to deviate from a plan that doesn't exist (in favor of the plan that has existed all along). &mdash;David Levy 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We're already working on multiple drafts, and as anyone can plainly see, that is the current modus operandi.


 * By that logic, we would never be able to select a new main page design (unless we used all of them), because that would require narrowing the field to one. The fact that we have numerous designs now doesn't mean that this is supposed to continue throughout the entire process.  &mdash;David Levy 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with David here... the multiple drafts allowed us to illustrate the various design options (e.g. browse bar above the header, below, ...), search box or no search box.. and allow people to comment on which design elements they prefer. Once this round of comments and voting is done, we will take into account all the comments and work towards *one* consensus design. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please eventually let's assemble a single substitute for the current MP. As has been stated, this is kind of a runoff with the major exception being  that all of the candidates weren't put forth at the same time and this confounds any "counting". When A, B, C, D and E were put forth and we made a choice we didn't have the benefit of seeing F. Anyone preferring F probably didn't go back to cancel their previous vote for B, and so on as the additional candidates appeared. I almost hate to say this but a final poll, starting from scratch,  with only all of the current candidates presented simultaneously and with no editing permitted after the start time would have value. The purpose would be for the electorate to express their preferences and to do so starting with a clean slate. Those comments can then be used to craft one single candidate replacement for the current MP which will be overwhelmingly acclaimed. hydnjo talk 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a multi-candidate, multi-vote election?
If you really want many candidates, you can have multi-vote elections with up to one vote for each candidate. Note. If somebody votes for all of them, that doesn't change anything. Gogino 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the best idea I've seen so far. If each voter gets a maximum of one vote per candidate (with no doubling up), this would solve the problem of similar candidate vote dilution because if a voter liked green and blue, for instance, he could vote for all the green and blue drafts.  This would also ensure that the best combination of features, from the community's point-of-view, would be selected. --Go for it! 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Voting systems for an idea on different ways to vote. They all have plusses and minuses.-Ravedave 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so long as the results of the poll are used to craft a single final design. That design I believe will be overwhelmingly acclaimed. hydnjo talk 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. We can narrow all of our ideas down to one draft. It's fine as a two candidate vote: the cuurent MP and our ONE draft.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to straw polls with multiple drafts but for the final round, we need only two.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I may not have said so with sufficient clarity above. One candidate vs the current MP. hydnjo talk 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How many candidates should we include?
The 5 front-runners from the current selection?--Go for it! 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support one new draft vs. the current Main Page in the extreme. Any more than that is too confusing. Having multiple drafts was useful here because we got a lot of feedback, but this "election" was intended only for feedback. The upcoming one is to gain accpetance and consensus to "go live" with this project. Unless someone shows us a completely different but amazing draft very different from either candidate, not just a bunch of variations, we keep this closed. We'll have a nice long open editing session to incorperate such ideas, though.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Now is when we determine the design specifics (based upon what's most likely to generate consensus).  This is based not strictly upon the amount of support, but also upon the amount of opposition.  For example, an idea with 30 supporters and 5 opponents is a better choice than one with 40 supporters and 20 opponents.  In fact, the lack of opposition is more important than the presence of support, because the former constitutes implicit acceptance (albeit to a lesser extent).  In other words, it's better to have a main page that most people like than it is to have one that some people love and others hate.
 * Not when the opponents are merely the flipside of the opposing choice. Most people naturally oppose those that they don't support, so it's mostly redundant.  I put off voting in that method so long because it was tedious, redundant, and boring.  Which might explain why few voters took the time to fill it out -- it looked like mostly team members who hang out here already.  --Go for it! 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Several of the designs are very similar to one another, so it wouldn't make sense for many people to support one and oppose another. By reading the comments (instead of merely tallying the votes), one can see that plenty of people have supported and/or declined to oppose their second or third favorite designs. Liking one draft slightly more than another is not tantamount to disliking the latter draft. &mdash;David Levy 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon completing our careful analysis of the feedback, we need to create one final draft, with users given the simple choice to keep the current main page or replace it. Anything else would preclude the likelihood of garnering consensus.  &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An election with one candidate? Well, one new candidate (with the other being the current main page)?  That doesn't seem like much of an election, and certainly not anything like Arbcom.  And not  as much fun.  I'd like to develop a six-feature candidate for the election, and see if the voters pick it.  I'm sure others have similar hopes for their designs.  May the best design win, by popular vote!  --Go for it! 05:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. From the very beginning, this project's goal has been to develop one collaborative main page candidate, not to create a free-for all among numerous forked drafts (a plan that no one other than you has advocated).
 * 2. Why on Earth should this be the same as the ArbCom elections?
 * 3. Not as much fun?! Are you seriously citing that as a legitimate criterion?
 * 4. If you want to develop your own personal main page design, go right ahead. I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavor, but I suspect that it will be considerably less successful than this one.  &mdash;David Levy 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right, we keep his simple. The ArbCom is different, so what? They're completely separate things! People want to come in, look at our draft (they know the other), make up their mind, vote, and move on. You said that this multi-draft election was a flop; that's becuase people want either two candidates or another way of voting: breaking down the individual elements like Zocky did. One draft vs. the current Main Page is the way to go.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough proposals - enough community involvement - to have a final. With regards this vote, take the top 2/3rds or so (for minus against), and people can use that as a base for a new draft, or start completely fresh. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Go for it! 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We have more than enough proposals. You need to realize that most of these drafts have been forked from a common ancestor (the product of three months of collaboration and outside input).  Almost all of the necessary refinement already has occurred, so it's merely a matter of combining the most popular variations to create our final draft.  "Start[ing] completely fresh" would mean throwing all of our work out the window.  &mdash;David Levy 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think voting (approval) on one new design (yea, nay) is best. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is a more difficult decision than the previous questions. Ideally my My preference is to have y'all propose a single Main Page substitute candidate and we'all would vote on that one collaborative proposal. It certainly makes your job tougher but hey... You folks have studied this in exquisite detail and have gotten community input in a variety of ways (straw polls, commentary, individually submitted drafts) have had the opportunity to argue the merits from varying perspectives. One of the problems that I foresee with a multi-draft "election" is the inevitable campaigning for support which then degenerates into a popularity contest.
 * My apology for not reading all of the questions prior to beginning my answers which accounts for the inconsistancy in some of my responses. With regard for the timing for example, my response should have been "whenever you are ready". I prefer that you think of this as the interested users ratifying a new look than having a free-for-all (again).
 * Finally (on this point), I think that the ArbCom election is the wrong model. Instead, think of this as similar to bringing an article to featured status. We probably wouldn't want competing versions of an article put up for a vote to see which was to become the "official" featured article. hydnjo talk 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the number of possible candidates should be kept very small (4 or less including original page) but that 2 is not necessarily the best number. Ideally we should be looking to get several hundred votes on this, and it's not clear to me that any single one of the possible choices we've come up can be stated with any certainty as having the best chance to win a popular vote given how limited the voting has been on this project.  I don't want to see the page redesign not happen just because the one candidate that was chosen was not good enough, or that the votes were too diluted.  Maybe we should have a contest of a few new ones that's widely voted on (say, in the first week) and then whatever wins that goes up against the old main page in the final vote... just like primaries within a party are held. - JustinWick 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Primaries. What do you think this draft is, a circus?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What you propose is similar to what's happening right now. The difference is that we don't have to settle for any of the current drafts.  It's becoming increasingly clear which elements have the potential to garner consensus (and which ones don't) and we should be able to assemble a design that combines the most popular elements in a manner that will satisfy most people.  (I'm already formulating ideas.)
 * You say that you don't want the votes to be diluted, but that's precisely what will occur if we have multiple candidates. Suppose, for example, that we put forward three new designs.  If 2/3 of Wikipedians support the idea of redesigning the main page (and 1/3 oppose), the vote breakdown might be as follows:
 * New candidate #1: 22%
 * New candidate #2: 22%
 * New candidate #3: 22%
 * Current main page: 34%
 * Even if we were to allow people to support as many versions as they like, a large number would vote only for their favorite (in the hope of tipping the "election" in its favor). &mdash;David Levy 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my model there would be no competition between drafts and the current main page until there was only one draft left - hence my allusion to "primaries." I don't think we have had enough voting (have we had hundreds of individual voters yet?) to really be statistically representative of the will of wikipedia on which design is really the best.
 * What I propose (though do not feel terrifically strongly about) totally and uttery avoids any dilution of voting caused by the current main page, without unnecessarily restricting voters. Perhaps I had not explained it properly in the first place. - JustinWick 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need top 3 current designs run vs current main page. May be 2, but not less then 2...  TestPilot  00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * New candidate #1: 30%
 * New candidate #2: 30%
 * Current main page: 40%
 * &mdash;David Levy 00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent logic, I hadn't thought it through this way. hydnjo talk 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. We go with two drafts: the current Main page and a collection of our best elements to compete.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple approval voting should help hashing out a concensus. Bad proposals would get much approval. I think all the current candidates should have a chance. If there's something wrong with the single new candidate that is proposed, people may vote to keep the current main page, while they want to change. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we keep all the current drafts we've accomplished nothing this round. Go for it! had a point; we couldbn't possibly put it into one draft, but 8? That's way too many; they're all variations on a theme. We need to strive to eliminate some because that's where we're going to wind up: the can only be one winner. (NO, we are NOT, changing the Main page every month!)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or should new candidates (not in the list above) be allowed to run in the election?
To be a fair race, I don't see how we could deny anyone the right to run. What's your opinion?--Go for it! 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. We need to keep this simple, and forge all of our ideas into one candidate to compete against the current Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Otherwise, the votes will be split among a ridiculous number of slightly different candidates (and the current main page will "win" by default, despite being less popular than the idea of change).  By determining the design specifics now, we avoid that problem.  &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Main Page got very few votes above, so I doubt there will be much chance of it winning by default. --Go for it! 05:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have numerous candidates (as we did for the ArbCom elections), most voters won't bother to view all of them, and/or they won't give them more than cursory glances. If they happen to not instantly like what they see, they'll opt to stick with what they know.
 * And suppose that we have several candidates that are virtually identical to one another (as we do now). The resultant vote fragmentation easily could cause a radically different candidate (which actually is far less popular) to win.
 * No, we simply mustn't go down this road. &mdash;David Levy 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. We take the feedback we're getting now and take the best of the drafts, or the best elemnts as per Zocky's poll, and put them into one draft which we send to fight the current Main Page. If it wins, great; if not, we get tons of feedback.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * New candidates should be allowed to run in the election. We need more diversity in the drafts. More ideas. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, most of the current drafts stemmed from three months worth of ideas. The purpose of this project is to collaboratively create one main page candidate of which most Wikipedians can approve, not to compete against one another with whatever designs we please.  An open "election" would be utterly chaotic, and it basically would negate everything that we've accomplished.  &mdash;David Levy 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with HereToHelp and Kevin_baas. Let's take all the feedback into consideration and come up with a final design. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that you agree with HereToHelp and me. :-) &mdash;David Levy 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "new candidate" is the one final draft that's a consensus of all our ideas and collaborations. Right now, I'm working on summarizing all the votes and comments (I'll keep updating it, each day with new comments/votes).  Summarizing helps me to better understand what the consensus might be (e.g. search box and browse links).  Though, I don't know if we can please everyone... --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To repeat, this isn't like ArbCom, it's more like working on an article and bringing it to featured status. hydnjo talk 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I prefer and support an election with multiple candidates, I agree with Hydnjo's argument that if there is only one candidate being presented, then that is not an election. That would be submitting a draft for approval.  An actual election would bring more talent to the forefront, to ensure we got the very best design. --Go for it! 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There will be two candidates: the current Main Page and the proposed replacement. Regardless, you were the one who originated this "election" business.  As for ensuring that we create the very best design, what do you think we've been doing for the past three months?  &mdash;David Levy 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason elections with more than two parties work in real life is that it's not an "all-or-nothing" business. They can have different ministers or seats in the legislative body. But here...there's really no compromise allowed.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we start election with more then 3 candidates + current main page that would be too confusing. No new drafts.  TestPilot  00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget three candidates + the current Main Page. We need only two: ours and the current one. Most people prefer a redesign over the current one even if it isn't their favorite ("the") redesign.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the last 3 months there were many elections - you voted on different parts of the main page. Complete it, finish one candidate, and let it run against the current main page. If somebody will come with something else then they can start this process again and maybe in another 3 months we will have even better candidate. Gogino 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If they do, sure. but so far, this is it; and the voters are pretty clear on what they like and what they don't.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How should the candidates be developed?
Should we split up into 5 teams, each team working on a seperate draft?--Go for it! 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We develop our champion is a two week open editing sessesion at the closure of this straw poll (and put up that notice of the final vote). We all work together and once the election starts, no editing allowed.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say we don't really need structure - just go around tweaking them like any other article, the wiki way. Nobody owns them. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's all work together, towards a final consensus design. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeahhh! hydnjo talk 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Count me in for that.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ==> I don't have a dog in this fight. I say pick a small number and let the masses vote as hashed out above.  If we go with five, and there is no clear "winner," we can have a runoff of the top two or even three.  I don't think we should go with less than three (including the current home page)— but if we go with three, then a clear winner should emerge or, if not, we can hold a runoff of the top two.  I think the final candidates are fine as they are; if anyone still wants to diddle with them, let them.
 * ==> Moreover, if there is sufficient interest among three or more designs, we can always use them in rotation (say changing them every month). Let's not get boring. &rArr;  normxxx |  talk   &rArr;   email  00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you serious?! This is WikiProject Usability, not WikiProject Confuse and Anger the Masses.  &mdash;David Levy 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Were they angry or confused during the Arbcom election? I think you are being melodramatic to confuse or confound us.  An election would probably attract the most attention and therefore garner more participation than the mere ratification of a single draft.  Also, it would ensure that all the ensential design points were covered and hence voted on by the readership in general.  --Go for it! 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the above, but I was responding to Normxxx's suggestion that we change the main page's design every month. &mdash;David Levy 04:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom is very different from this. They called for more than one winner. And, last time I checked, you can't take the best aspects of each user and put them into one candidate. We have that luxury but we must use it, because we need one and only one Main Page.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How long should the voting in the election run?
Does 2 weeks seem about right? --Go for it! 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what happened with the ArbCom elections. I'll second a fortnight.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Two weeks seems like an appropriate duration. &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Two weeks is good with me. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with two weeks. Geesh, if the rest of the questions go like this one.... ;-) hydnjo talk 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks is perfect. - JustinWick 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think it's settled. If only we could agree elsewhere...--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * i also agree with 2 weeks. Stormscape 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that 2 weeks, is to little. The number of people that use the English Wikipedia is huge and I think that at least 3 weeks to a month (preferable a month) is needed for people to vote and formulate option. A month will allow more than enough time for those not so active users to get in on the discussion and voting. --^BuGs^ 07:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...there's no reason we can't be patience. -b 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Can't be patience" is no better than "can't be patentience": you fixed your spelling but not your grammar.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We need emoticons. The rolling eyes thing.  That said, my dog wrote that. -b 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a preliminary notice, announcing the upcoming election?
Say, two weeks before the voting starts? --Go for it! 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, like ArbCom, put a notice on the Community Portal, people's watchlists, and the message on the current Main Page is fine, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also sounds good. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Piling on with my agreement for two weeks for reviewing the candidate drafts, commenting and for the drafts to be somewhat fluid in response to comments and then frozen during the balloting period. hydnjo talk 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to use of a message on the main page since the main page redesign project will interest a small percentage of Wikipedia readers and for those it doesn't interest it just clutters up the main page. I don't really care about use on the watchlists and community portal since neither is such a widescale issue.  Jtkiefer T   20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with hydnjo about frozen comments, and believe that notification similar to ArbCom elections would be best. - JustinWick 23:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a notice on the Main Page itself is out. I say watchlists, the Community Portal, and the Main Page talk.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. I know most people ignore the notices on the main page but, considering that's what's to be changed, I think it belongs there.


 * And I would submit that I myself first learned about this process through ... a notice on the main page. Daniel Case 03:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Two weeks sounds like enough time before the election starts. --^BuGs^ 07:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be announced on pages main page regulars commonly visit, so they have ample chance to notice the election. Main Page, WP:DYK, WP:ITN, wherever upcoming featured articles where discussed and/or the related talk pages. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since this affects the Main Page, it's common sense to announce it on the Main Page. --Go for it! 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone should put the notice for the current round of this project back on the Main Page. --Go for it! 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtkiefer has expressed serious opposition to that, and I tend to agree. The talk page is fine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Those with a serious interest read the talk page. Gogino 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the rest would be blind-sided. I think we're asking for trouble not placing it on the Main Page. --Go for it! 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not want to blind-side nobody. I thought the announcement would be superfluous. The main purpose of talk page are changes of the main page. Everybody knows this is an ongoing process. You might say that most of changes are not that big, but I think that with increasing number of editors this process will speed up and ultimately we will have remodeling projects wide spread. So probably it is more important limit their frequency than announce that they are happening.
 * And there will be announced elections.
 * If the situation is not yet as I described it then it is probably better to announce the project at the beginning not at an advanced stage.
 * Say, you invite people and they start to say things most of which you abandoned months ago after a long discussion. In case this is not happening and I just don't know about that because I am not long enough here, then I am an example of such a person. How much time do you want to spend with me? I am blind-sided ;-)
 * --Gogino 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone knew about ArbCom through a message on the Community Portal and the watchlists. We got those two and and the Main page's talk. It's fine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

When should the starting date for the voting begin?
We could be ready in 2 weeks, put up the preliminary notice then, and have the voting start 2 weeks after that. So, a month from now? --Go for it! 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this is our last straw poll. We advertise while we have our last open editing session, and then we have our final election.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking. &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about a specific timeframe yet... especially since this round of discussion/voting has been extended until Feb. 4th. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So, should official voting start on February 11th? --Go for it! 06:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we start with a call for proposals, and when proposals(drafts) stop coming, the election starts. In the mean time, we have discussion instead of elections (and possibly straw polls on details or features) Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See above, maybe just a week after the close of the current discussion/voting period might be a bit too quick. Let's decide on a date once this discussion periods ends. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want this to become a free-for-all (instead of the collaboration that it's been for the past three months), what's the point of discussing anything? &mdash;David Levy 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems OK but now I don't understand what the preliminary period is for if not to allow y'all to respond to commentary with minor editing (typos, grammar and the like). hydnjo talk 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that having a small amount of padding in the election timing is OK because this is hardly an urgent matter, and unexpected things come up. Be a little conservative, and leave enough time to have everything in place.  That being said, I'd vote for end of February for when the ballot casting should start. - JustinWick 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, no rush, let's do this right, but mid Febuary (rather than late) for starting the final vote should be fine. We'll make the switch in early March.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What happens after the voting is over?
As a team, we make the winning candidate operational, without changing any features or design elements, and place it on the Main Page?


 * As you implied, we have to have an updating version of all the templates. Notice how the Main Page's code is very short. I don't mind putting the data into templates to make stuff simpler, but no, the content should not change (other than the features, of course).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well eventually I'd say it would have to get a larger community approval to replace the current main page. Kevin Baastalk 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need "larger community approval"? what exactly would that entail? --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Something like a note on the signpost and/or village pump, linking to a poll - i'm sure everyone will vote yes, but i think in theory it's an essential (due) process. Also people could give input then, such as what portals should be there, what sections, etc., and it might result in an additional tweak or two. Kevin Baastalk 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, something like that just to gain ratification. hydnjo talk 20:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be only one draft proposed to the community to replace the Main Page, then it should be fully operational and ready to go the moment we propose it. However, above I was referring to if an election with multiple candidates is run, and since many would likely be mock ups like some of the drafts posted above, a finetuning period would be required to make the winner ready to be displayed front and center (to make sure all the features piped in properly, etc.). --Go for it! 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with your first point. A non-functional page is only reason to shoot it down.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another issue is templates. I think that only dynamic features should be templated. The static material should be kept on the Main Page itself for simplicity. Otherwise, you wind up with private little conversations off in esoteric corners like Template talk:MainPageIntro to change elements on the Main Page, even though the Main Page's talk page is the official place to discuss all changes to the Main Page. The next best thing would be to have the talk pages of all static templates on the Main Page redirect to the Main Page's talk page. --Go for it! 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the static stuff and the updating stuff should be separate. That's why I support one type of box for the dynamic material (the light box with a darker color for the title) and the static stuff simply surrounded by a grey box. Not templating the stuff creates a larger source code (look at the current MP's source). I think that redirecting or having a notice "please go the the main Main Page talk instead" should be fine.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And once the new Main Page is in place?
What should happen to this project/project page once the election is completely over? --Go for it! 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We update all our messages to users, Main Page FAQ, and Editing the main page. Then, we archive this and give ourselves a well earned pat on the back and perhaps a small Wikibreak.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can hardly wait! Based upon the above feedback, I have a good feeling about this. :-)  &mdash;David Levy 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --Go for it! 05:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On to portal design semi-standardization! Add some design integration - don't have to restrict the creative freedom of each portal group, but with their input we can make wikipedia look morfe seamless and professional. Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur with Kevin... we need more consistency across portals, (e.g. categories generally in the same place on the pages). --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of this for all! hydnjo talk 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And some of these!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a small request for when this is all over: would it be possible to have a page listing all (or as many as can be found) of the various drafts? That would let people look back at other design features and ideas that didn't make it into any final design. They could then borrow ideas to tweak their own designs. I tried to find drafts before draft 6, but failed. I looked at the archived talk pages starting here Draft 1&2 Talk Archive, but they made no sense as you can't see the draft that was discussed. Did anyone keep copies of Drafts 1-5? Carcharoth 14:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They were simply on the project page. I'll go back and find them.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Somehow, they got lost in a page move. I'm sure they're there.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They're located within draft B's history . When this round of discussion is complete, we can move this back to the main project page.  &mdash;David Levy 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Even though I think all the feedback from multiple drafts is great, we still can, should, and will make them into one draft. Can someone help me find those drafts in the history? I'm looking, but it's harder than I thought it would be.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh great, Draft B's hisotry only goes back to a long series of edits by Tom. Where are the rest of them? (Shouldn't we have thought of this earlier?)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line
Go for it! stated that we've yet to reach a consensus regarding whether we're designing a single draft for ratification or designing multiple drafts to be formally voted upon. That simply isn't true.

This entire project is based upon the goal of developing a single draft. That was the consensus in the very beginning, and it's what we've been working toward all along. For this to change, we would need a new clear consensus to the contrary. If there isn't one, we stay the course. It's that simple. &mdash;David Levy 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. So, unless something monumental and unforseen happens...


 * After this vote concludes on the 4th, we post a message on the watchlists, Community Portal, and Main Page talk that we will have a final vote starting on the 18th. During that time; it's free editing and we merge all the good ideas into ONE draft. Then we archive everything, get the talk page ready for a big voting session, and hope our work comes to fruition over a two week long vote, our one draft against the current Main Page. Our draft should be templated and fully operational/upating before we vote on it. Then, if we get a clear favorable vote, we put upload our brainchild to the seat of honor.


 * Sound good? Not like this matters a whole lot, but I'd reccomend David Levy to do the honors. Alhough a lot of people have helped out, it's really been him, Go for it!, and myself and he's the only admin among us.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the honors for uploading the winning candidate should be the founder of the project: Tom-. If he'll accept the honor, that is. It's only right that we offer him the honor. --Go for it! 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As for my reply, see the heading below...

Consensus has shifted to a multiple-draft platform
The consensus changed when David Levy forked the draft, which ignited the competition. Others began entering their own designs, and dozens more began participating in the discussions and in choosing between drafts. We've seen at least a magnitude more participation in this multiple draft round than we ever saw on the single draft project. And in the discussion about candidates above, the number of discussion participants favoring multiple candidates outnumbers those who want to go back to a single-draft project. This doesn't appear to be a single-draft project anymore, guys. Also, you are giving credit to too few. It may be true that we three have dominated the discussions, but while we wasted bandwidth (and hot air), others focused on the redesign effort itself:
 * Trevor macinnis spent many hours developing the Italian Inspired design (Draft G), which is currently the front-runner.
 * drumguy8800 displayed his page layout expertise with Draft C, and his elements of style have been copied by almost everyone else on the project. Drumguy has been a participant since at least Round 2.
 * Kevin baas has submitted two designs so far, one a complete makeover, and I have a feeling he's just warming up. And now for the strongest argument for having a multiple candidate election:  the open editing session which we tried in Round five suffered from much reversion conflict, and ultimately resulted in a disagreement which led to a unilateral forking of the draft without discussion.  But something really cool happened after that.  When we went to multiple drafts, participants focused upon producing the best designs they could, their creativity unhindered by conflict, each inspired by improvements made upon each others' drafts, with newcomers attracted to the project who in turn submitted some cool designs.  I fear that if we go back to a single draft project, it will be bogged down by factions trying to push their favorite design elements.  The multi-draft development has been a huge success, so we would be remiss in not letting this momentum continue.  --Go for it! 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, alright, there's been many others. I'll support letting Tom do the honors. And many have made new designs and doing such would limit creative output. But, why can't we just TRY to combine everything into one draft? Even if it means cutting out creativity, we still cannot have a whole bunch of drafts for the final vote. We'll get some people liking one draft, others liking another, and still others favoring a third...fourth...fifth...twelfth. There can only be ONE Main Page and it must win a clear majority, which can't happen if all the pro-redesign votes are dispersed over many drafts. This has to come to one draft because, at this junction, there's only one Main Page. Wikipedia saves everything in the history; we can't do any harm by TRYING to combine everything into one draft because that's how it's going to wind up—no runner ups allowed.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus changed when David Levy forked the draft, which ignited the competition.
 * There is no new consensus. Despite your incorrect belief that "consensus is whatever most people decide," we cannot turn this project upside-down unless there's clear agreement to do so.


 * And again, this is NOT a competition.


 * Others began entering their own designs, and dozens more began participating in the discussions and in choosing between drafts. We've seen at least a magnitude more participation in this multiple draft round than we ever saw on the single draft project.


 * Frankly, that's because you basically ordered people not to edit the draft without your permission. It was only when I complained that you decided to open the project to free editing, and that's when the participation level skyrocketed.  People began composing drafts of their own at that point (before you misunderstood the purpose of my draft fork, and unilaterally attempted to transform this into a competition among every design in existence).


 * At no point was it agreed upon that the separate drafts would compete against each other. The idea was to display potential variations (thereby allowing people to comment upon which elements should be included in the final draft).


 * And in the discussion about candidates above, the number of discussion participants favoring multiple candidates outnumbers those who want to go back to a single-draft project.


 * My count is 5–5 (with some of the support for a multi-draft election stemming from a misunderstanding of the current process). How is this a "consensus"?  Do you suspect that all proponents of a single draft are sock puppets?


 * This doesn't appear to be a single-draft project anymore, guys.


 * You're looking at the ingredients instead of the finished product.


 * Also, you are giving credit to too few.


 * I agree that many individuals (in addition to HTH, you and me) have made significant contributions to this project. This is a team effort, and it needs to stay that way.


 *  Trevor macinnis spent many hours developing the Italian Inspired design (Draft G), which is currently the front-runner.


 * No, it isn't. You're tallying certain numbers, without looking at the big picture.


 * As I mentioned previously, the amount of opposition is more important than the amount of support. Draft G has 37 votes of support, but the page (formerly section) in question includes no invitation for opposition.


 * Upon examination of the individual element discussions, it's clear that the Italian-inspired design is heavily opposed. The color scheme has been voted down by a ratio of 15–2, and the header style has been voted down by a ratio of 10–2.


 * Meanwhile, you're ignoring the fact that some of the other drafts are very similar or virtually identical to one another. Drafts D and H combined have received 41 votes of support, and the individual elements contained therein have received far less opposition than that of the Italian-inspired design.


 * I hate to seem biased here, but I think we're considering throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't believe that overall "the Italian-inspired design is heavily opposed". The draft has garnerd the most votes on its separate page (yes, there is no invitation for opposition on its page, the same goes for D and H's pages), and if you change the yellow header with virtually the same thing in white (from Draft H) and use the Gold/Purple colors (voted 16 for 9 against) versus D and H's colors (13 for 12 against) I think it will be unopposed. A few more tweaks and we're there. I understand you hate the snowflakes but it could easily be something else, say jigsaw pieces in a muted color like [[Image:NeveFooter8.png]], [[Image:NeveFooter7.png]], or [[Image:NeveFooter6.png]]. And people have a problem with the missaligned columns, but I'm sure that's fixable. Anyways, let's just remember what people want and what's good for the newusers when the open editing begins.- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And now for the strongest argument for having a multiple candidate election: the open editing session which we tried in Round five suffered from much reversion conflict, and ultimately resulted in a disagreement which led to a unilateral forking of the draft without discussion.


 * No, it didn't (unless you believe that HereToHelp and I are the same person). It was HTH's idea to display the two versions.


 * And again, you completely misunderstood the purpose of that fork. I merely divided our draft in a manner that enabled people to view it with both a four-feature and six-feature layout.  The idea was not to create a competition; it was to determine which style would advance to the next round.  The same applies to all of the other proposed elements (just as it has all along).


 * But something really cool happened after that. When we went to multiple drafts, participants focused upon producing the best designs they could, their creativity unhindered by conflict, each inspired by improvements made upon each others' drafts, with newcomers attracted to the project who in turn submitted some cool designs.


 * Again, this actually began before the draft fork. It was through this process (the integration of independent ideas into a single draft) that the original draft 6 was created.  It also was through this process that drafts D and H were created.


 * Some of us are working together to produce a design that's greater than the sum of its parts, and you're trying to turn us against one another.


 * I fear that if we go back to a single draft project, it will be bogged down by factions trying to push their favorite design elements.


 * The purpose of this discussion period is to determine the community's favorite design elements. What's the point of doing this if we're merely going to put up some seemingly random combinations thereof to duke it out?


 * The multi-draft development has been a huge success, so we would be remiss in not letting this momentum continue.


 * But what is this momentum building toward?


 * Again, you're looking at the ingredients instead of the finished product. Would a baker be remiss in not allowing the flour, eggs, butter, sugar, salt, baking soda, chocolate, vanilla extract and water to remain separate?  Or would it be better to combine them into a delicious cake?  &mdash;David Levy 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, David takes the words out of my mouth and says them himself.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would favor a single draft &mdash; one that combines the well-liked aspects of the various designs. This includes a second search box and portal links (icons or no icons).  Five features also seems to be a good compromise between those that wanted four and six.  Once we came up with some designs that implemented the five features, those received many votes of support.  --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I personaly fancy Draft H: There are stylistic differences between the dynamic features and static info, and the Portals are presented in the browsebar: how people will see it all over the site. I dislike the corny icons for the Portals and placing them where the search bar is in other drafts kills the search bar, and often overflows the bar because people are putting up so many Portals. Three out of the five features are already updating; ITN and POTD are not (it requires a special format for the pic of the day; I'll look into ITN). I will, however, support any draft agreed on by consensus.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, ITN now updates.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A small view from the outside: when I ran into this page, I was confused. There were too many drafts, many of the with just one thing that varied between them, and there is no way that a person can remember the intricacies of Draft A when he just looked at Draft J. It's impossible, things get erased from the brain, and the vote is meaningless. So, perhaps, allow at most three, then a runoff with the Main Page. It is simpler to discern the differences that way. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here here!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Attracting more voters
Does anyone have a good idea for attracting more votes on the redesign? I don't think that many people even know that we have been voting on this, and honestly do not think that ~20 votes is a stasticically significant representation of the hundreds of thousands of users of Wikipedia - especially considering many votes are narrowly divided! We need more voters and more input.

Personally I think this is more important than ArbCom elections - the average reader doesn't see what ArbCom does or doesn't do, but everyone sees the main page at one time or another. The Wikipedia Main Page is the face of Wikipedia and should reflect the interests of the users. I understand that people do not want to clutter the main page with useless junk that "no one" is interested in, however I would argue that the main page, due to its ubiquitous presence in the browsing stream of individuals is something that interests everyone. Not only that, but Wikipedia is primarily about the collaborative process. Individuals who do not wish to be bothered by messages about collaboration can get the same content on answers.com.

It is hard to expect people to participate in these elections if they do not even know they are going on. Any ideas? - JustinWick 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we will be putting notices about the final vote, on everyone's watchlist page (like we do with the ArcCom elections), the community portal, definitely on the Main page talk, and perhaps on the Main page, itself. The only other, more prominent way to notify users would be notices on all pages, as done during the last fundraising campaign.  But, in my opinion, that might be overdoing it and should be reserved for fundraising. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. There's been opposition to having a message on the MP itslef, but the watchlists, CP, and MP talk are all fine, and suffiicent to get publicity.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From the (my) perspective of someone showing up here for the first time via any route, I'd be so confused and intimidated that I'd just go away. That having been gotten of my chest I think that WP:SIGN is a good venue for exposure, assuming we can present a "clean slate" if you will. hydnjo talk 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Signpost: not a bad idea, actually. Why didn't someone think of that sooner?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh! I read The Signpost. I was wondering why there hadn't been anything there (at least not recently) about this project... There is also this area here News, from where I found WP:GO. There's also the news page on the Village Pump Village Pump (news), all of which can be added to places listed above such as Community Portal and Main Page talk page. Would the watchlist one be the final step up in publicity coverage for the actual vote on replacing the Main Page? Carcharoth 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's February fourth: let's get moving, crew!
It's official, we have gotten into the open editing session. Rather than start a free for all like this draft was, I will lay out a course of action, wait for consensus, and then implement it. This is an urgent matter and I'd like to have it resolved in 24 hours. So, I gather that we should: Does anyone disagree?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Use ONE draft. We'll put it up against the current Main Page later. We make this draft out of the best parts of the others, and put it where our draft disambiguation is: on the project page corresponding to the main redesign talk.
 * 2) Advertise. More specifically, on the MP talk, the Community Portal, the watchlists (like ArbCom), and the Signpost.
 * 3) Be open minded. There are so many good ideas out there. I like taking the snowflakes from the Italian inspired one and making them into the stub icons, perhaps with new colors.
 * 4) Get into open editing mode quickly. We said the election closes today; it better close.
 * 5) Have fun and make a great page.
 * Shouldn't this be in the discussion page for the draft, and not here in the Election discussion bit? Maybe the discussion page should also be cleaned up and some of the points summarised before the open editing session begins properly? Also, I'm not clear when exactly this straw poll closes and when the editing starts. I thought it was voting up to and including today? Carcharoth 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means, continue to comment on the various drafts (even beyond today). &mdash;David Levy 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Well, I guess we're starting an open editing session. I'll clarify that for next time.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)