Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:33, 13 September 2006

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

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

Summary of what we've accomplished so far

User:Quiddity came up with the idea to add the Template:Reference pages (header bar) links to the sidebar so that they would be available across all of Misplaced Pages. Some programmers were contacted to get them involved from the start, and notices were placed around Misplaced Pages. The discussion took off from there:

• draft/example archives Archive of older versions.
• Archive 01 (August 6–14)
• Archive 02 (August 15–23)
• Archive 03 (August 17–26)
• Archive 04 (August 20–28)
• Archive 05 (August 28 – September 02)

Reserve list of other links?

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

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

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

Done. Feel free to reword for clarity/concision. --Quiddity 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When and how was decided what to include and what not to include. I just learned about the special:prefixindex which I wasn't aware of but which is a phantastic feature and should certainly be included in the sidebar (I drop my request for A-Z, this is far more better). Electionworld Talk? 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When: The 4 pages of archives, linked at the top of this page.

How: By discussing, using prior experience to properly frame particular points.

There are all sorts of phantastic features at Special:Specialpages (which is in the toolbox, in the sidebar). But we can't repeat them all! This is one of the many uses of your userpages: Create lists of links that you find useful, and would like 1-click access to. --Quiddity 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See Reasons behind the changes.

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

See also Misplaced Pages:Special. Carcharoth 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

References pages

Perhaps it would be useful to add this link to the sidebar? Reference pages is a sort of portal towards links that did not make it in, such as the A-Z index or the list of fields of study. By including it, you're still allowing people to get comprehensive listings of the topics that are available on Misplaced Pages. I feel it's a potentially very useful page that just won't get enough traffic if not included in the sidebar. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly that it should get added (and it's in the #Reserve list of other links? already), but then I've been trying to update that page quite a bit lately, so am very biased towards it ;)

(I've also been considering proposing it for a page rename, to Misplaced Pages:Contents, but I'm not sure about that yet.)

Anyone else? --Quiddity 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My word, someone listed to my ranting that the old format of that page was terrible - and now it's almost a work of genius! Although I'd consider moving the navigation template to the top of the article. But yes, it's now in a fine state to be included! :) LinaMishima 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"this page"

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

• Cite this article
• Permanent link
• Printable version
• Related changes
• What links here

• Recent changes
• Special pages
• Upload file

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

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

Not a bad idea, (in fact, I think it is quite good,) but isn't the hierarchy a bit weird? "Special pages/Special pages" is just a restatement of the title. I'd suggest some else, such as the historical "toolbox" as the second title. --DavidHOzAu 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, rss and atom aren't really pages, so toolbox probably is better anyway, if someone can't come up with something better. --83.253.36.136 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I agree. I suggest adding a section to the "final, final things to decide" section below, as that is where the changes implemented will be decided. Carcharoth 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Really really final decisions/Page-specific toolbox links in separate box

Are there any implementation problems? For example: Are there any instances when the "this page" box would be empty? --83.253.36.136 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, all the Special:Specialpages just have 2 links in the toolbox. --Quiddity 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(Smacks my face) – Could the "this page" box be made to disappear in those cases? --83.253.36.136 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Logo changes

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

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

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

The valid distinction is not "PNG vs. SVG." It's "8-bit color vs. 24-bit color." The advantage of SVGs is that they're scalable, but this graphic is displayed at a fixed size. MediaWiki renders all SVGs as 24-bit PNGs, so we it would make far more sense to use an optimized 24-bit PNG at the intended size (a smaller output file).

There is, however, a very good reason why we use an 8-bit file for this purpose. For most users, 24-bit PNGs (whether native or automatically converted from SVGs) display without transparency. They would see a solid background, which would look far worse than whatever minor issue presently exists. —David Levy 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was just about to reiterate the fact that 24-bit color is unacceptable when you posted the above.  :) —David Levy 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this as well. If you can actually fix the matte, that would be great. It isn't very difficult if you have the source image. Myself, I'm more concerned with fixing the huge amount of graphical errors that you can see in the large version of the logo. It baffles me that nobody ever has. It makes the logo look terrible when printed at an even slightly high resolution. But I don't think that if I did fix it, it would be accepted. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things from this discussion: (1) The current image is indeed horribly pixellated around the edges and should be fixed. (2) The use of two different globe images across the various projects is unacceptable - only one version should be used. Carcharoth 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are changing the logo, we should also consider fixing the errors in it. The Devanagari text on the logo is wrong. For details of the proposal, see this page for the proposal I created some time back. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could User:Nohat fix this? --DavidHOzAu 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted him long back. Didn't get a positive reply. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The change was requested in July? Okay then, we might have to fix it ourselves. Does anyone know where the source code is? (He made it in POVRay, right?) --DavidHOzAu 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed made in POVRay. I asked him for the source a while back, but he seemed reluctant to give it. Whether this is due to the fact the logo is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation or because he'd just rather not have people mess around with his design, I don't know. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked your message on his talk page. Interestingly, he also told me "there are no plans to change the logo at this point". I don't see how he has anything to say about that, but I'd presume there's some kind of regulation that prevents us from changing the logo around too easily. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the international version, the only thing I can see is that it may require editing of the protect page, m:Www.wikipedia.org template. That's not too hard for someone over there with access rights to do.

For the english wikipedia, it requires updating the file held at /images/wiki-en.png; again, not hard for someone with access.

To me this isn't changing the logo because we are just squishing bugs. Not only is it rather embarrassing that the international logo is missing diacritics from the English one, it makes us a laughing stock to foreign language readers. Why are we still waiting around for it to be fixed after nearly 10 weeks? It doesn't take that long to render an image. --DavidHOzAu 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Logo of the redesign

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

The image has an alpha channel, it is just that IE is borked. (seeing that it is software "feature" that is nearly ten years old.) In IEFixes.js, the alpha of the logo is corrected by setting the image's filter style to the Microsoft-specific progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader. It isn't done on this project page because that's a non-standard convention. The bottom line is that when the new image used as the logo, the edges will display correctly. On the other hand, the old image has a lousy alpha channel and displays with visible artifacts, as any pixel from the original image that was white is transparent, hence the jaggy edges for colors that were close to white and didn't quite make the cut. I suggest you upgrade your browser by visting the following link: http://www.ie7.com/. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidHOzAu (talk • contribs) .

Or http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ (Firefox)

or http://www.opera.com (Opera)

Both of which are far superior to IE in many ways, and closer in spirit to Misplaced Pages (accessible and innovative) ;P --Quiddity 04:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, http://www.ie7.com/ is a Firefox page someone whipped up, and that must be the first talk page entry I forgot to sign. --DavidHOzAu 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! i figured it was an MS redirect (they just hit RC1), so didnt click. nice domain name snag! -Quiddity

I use Firefox, I was just being considerate of the people who ever can't be bothered to, don't know how to or are not able to. Misplaced Pages should be useable by all browsers if it can. I was using IE then because the PC I was using is 98 and cannot install the Firefox Google toolbar. And don't tell me I am... shouting because I know. Lcarsdata (Talk) 07:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (shouting quieted)

Hey, you might want to cool it, dude. As you can see from the above, it was all a joke at the expense of buggy Microsoft products, not you. --DavidHOzAu 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

David: I didn't realize that your proposed image still contained alpha-transparency. Can you please elaborate on the IE fix cited above? I'd never heard of it before, and I've only managed to find a discussion mostly from January with no indication that this actually was implemented (and a comment from March indicating that it may be buggy). Are you saying that your image would display properly (with a transparent background) in IE5/6? —David Levy 08:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --DavidHOzAu 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For your first question, see and . --DavidHOzAu 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

David Hozau's right, MS's buggy software isn't anyone's fault. Besides, users of Windows 98 have been officially abandoned by Microsoft, so why can't we abandon them too? Any linux distro is more up to date. oh, and firefox supports Windows 98, forgot to mention that. If you don't mind a few bad pixels, don't upgrade. --gatoatigrado 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of encountering this attitude. Yes, IE is a crummy browser, but many people either have no choice but to use it or lack the knowledge that there are other options. I don't understand why the notion of punishing these individuals is so appealing to some users.

FYI, IE6 is the default browser of Windows XP. That won't change until Service Pack 3 is released, and not everyone will install it. —David Levy 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've written and LGPL'ed a cross-browser safe Javascript to automatically fix 24-bit transparancy/alpha-channel for PNG's on Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6. At around 3KB, it could be included in a new build of Mediawiki and would fix the logo's jaggies problem. You can test it here. Sony-youth 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this what DavidHOzAu referenced above? If it could be implemented site-wide, that would be terrific! —David Levy 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the images still linkable? I heard that people usually have problems with linking <a> tags around images that use AlphaImageLoader. --DavidHOzAu 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It uses the fix that DavidHOzAu mentioned. Once linked to from a page, it attaches on onLoad event that checks if the browser is IE 5.5 or 6.x and if so fixes all PNGs in the document. Yes, it can handle links - I've updated the demo site to show this. Sony-youth 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's neat! ;-) --DavidHOzAu 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Character error in Logo

I found that letter 'vi' (Misplaced Pages) in Kannada, Hindi and other indian languages is wrongly represented. This one should be corrected before final decision.--Raja Hussain 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. There's a petition around somewhere on this. —Nightstallion (?) 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Really really final decisions

(Add anything you think I missed)

Title of "interact" box

• interaction
  • accurately descriptive and covers everything. -Quiddity 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, the help pages are not really interactive. Many of them are just pages to be read, not pages to respond to or ask questions at. I really can't see anything suitable to title this section with. Carcharoth 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    If the first box is called "navigation", then the third box should be called "interaction", not "interact". Fredrik Johansson 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm, that make good sense to me. If there are no objections, I'll change this suggestion to that right now. --Quiddity 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• help

• community
  • for, this is the word most commonly used for free projects such as linux. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For, help is too narrow and makes redundant with one if it's subheadings (Levi already explained why that's bad ). And interact sounds too much like a person-computer interaction, not people community which we have here. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    What does reading a help page have to do with "community"?

    "Help" is where you can read how to interact with the community. Even when you simply edit or write on Misplaced Pages you are interacting with others in the community who will check that what you wrote is sound, and with others who wrote before you and others who will write after you. Misplaced Pages is a community collaborative writing project. "Help" explains how this community collaborative writing software works. --Roger Chrisman 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• assistance (or similar/synonym)
  • It is a synonym of help, and yet it means a lot more. In context, it would mean both "how you can assist us" (read: how can a surfer assist Misplaced Pages?) and "how can we assist you". (read: how can Wikipedians assist a surfer?) It pins down all links within the box. --DavidHOzAu 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    People contact Misplaced Pages and visit the community portal for reasons not pertaining to "assistance." —David Levy 06:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Such as if they were going to write an article about Misplaced Pages or WikiMedia Foundation? You're right; never mind then. (Just a thought: Isn't "assistance" just a synonym for "help"? We still need to brainstorm some more appropriate/inclusive titles, or, (worst case,) leave it as "interact".) --DavidHOzAu 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• help & interaction
  • Strongly for my own suggestion. Catches both non-interactive help and help obtained by interacting, as well as non-helpful interaction. Also catches giving help. Don't be afraid of the 2-word label!
    Bye the way, I see nothing wrong with having both the word help in the label and a link called Help, just like a box labeled "Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers" could very well include a link to "Tom Petty". --83.253.36.136 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, Help/Help is evidence of a redundant hierarchy. --DavidHOzAu 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that such a bad thing? (I can't find the explanation refered to in the "community" entry above.) --83.253.36.136 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it really long character-wise, it isn't very descriptive. It implies that all other links in the help box can be replaced with one link called "help". This ignores several links in the box, notably Community portal and Donations. The reason why the help box needs a new name is because it is the same as this link; either one or the other has to change.

I don't understand your reasoning. How does it imply that? Community portal is about interacting with the community. Giving Donations is interacting (sort of), or it's about getting help on how to donate. So they are not ignored. I still haven't seen a good reason why this specific redundancy has to be avoided. And the text isn't too long. --83.253.36.136 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind this title if the help link changes to help contents or something else that actually means something. --DavidHOzAu 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Help contents is fine with me. --83.253.36.136 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• help & community

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

• information

• Similar to when you go to a fair, or a convention. While they may have a help desk, they usually (and more often) have an information desk. (Continuing this thought below.) - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wording of "help" link

• Help
  • simplest, others are unnecessarily wordy. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    But it is also the least helpful; "help contents" and "Misplaced Pages help" both imply that the link you're heading to might be something else than help with using Misplaced Pages. It might imply edit help (requesting help to work on an article), or perhaps help given by people rather than guides or tutorials. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    What else would "help" mean on Misplaced Pages other than "Misplaced Pages's online help file"? --DavidHOzAu 06:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    The help system in fact includes help given by people with links to Help desk and Reference desk. --83.253.36.136 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For, short, to the point, and stands out right away. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For. The Help system includes all sorts of help. --83.253.36.136 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed opinion to Help contents. --83.253.36.136 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Misplaced Pages help
  • An argument for this one: it more concisely states that this is help about Misplaced Pages (in the universally accepted form; most, if not all applications, will show help in the help menu), and not, for example, help from people to edit an article. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    My browser says "Help Contents"... Carcharoth 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • For, consistent with half of the computer programs out there, and we should have accepted one of msikma's proposals by now. --DavidHOzAu 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I think the "Help" link really should be under "navigation", not "interact". To me, seeing "Help" (or even those names proposed above) under "Interact" implies that by clicking this button, you will be helping as opposed to receiving help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EatMyShortz (talk • contribs) .

Yes, but "(Misplaced Pages) Help (contents)" is a link for n00bs/editors instead of your average surfer, and should be in the box devoted to similar pages. I think by now we've worked out where it goes; this section is actually about what name to pick. --DavidHOzAu 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that only "n00bs" need to use the help pages. Sometimes even experianced editors need help doing something they haven't done before or don't know much about. Lcarsdata (Talk) 09:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree too, because audience wasn't my point, it was just to get it in context. My point was that items that don't navigate but help you contribute aren't navigation items -- they are help items. --DavidHOzAu 12:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions link

• Whether to include the Questions link, or not. (See also /Archive 02#Comments on version 14)
  • weak Oppose. I'm still not sure about this link. Both the link wording, which is almost always piped in usage as Where to ask questions; and it's easily confusable with Contact us. (Those pages ought to refer to each other, but I can't figure out concisely how). --Quiddity 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    In that case, they could be merged. --DavidHOzAu 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I was considering that, does anyone think such a proposal might be accepted? And if so could someone else do it? I'm exhausted of proposing-things-energy this month. ;) -Quiddity 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I've suggested a merge at Questions and Contact us, or at least a clarification. --Quiddity 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• or Rename the link wording to "Ask a question"
• To put my thought in perspective, I was going to propose adding Misplaced Pages:About from the list above, but after reading it, it's better served on the main page ("overview"). It helps inform, but will I need this info while reading an article? I think "Questions" falls under this as well. It's only an additional click away (since it's also near the top of the main page. And it's also duplicative of Help in several ways. - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex

• Whether to include Special:Prefixindex in the navigation box or not.
  • Strongly support. It is an easy but rather unknown feature that can help to easily find articles. It is similar to a list of content. The link could be names A-Z. Electionworld Talk? 08:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't care, we'll get around to adding it when we add the reserved links mentioned in a section above. --DavidHOzAu 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Why should we wait? The proposal started about adding reference links. Where was the decision taken to wait for the reserved links. Will all reserved links be added? Please add this link in the first redesign. It is a feature that works, helps navigating and fulfils the criteria listed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Electionworld Talk? 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I don't disagree with you, but I think the point here is to get to a layout which we all *can* agree on, THEN we bring up additions. (when has ONE layout been widely agreed upon? I can't remember any.) Furthermore, I really really don't want to have to discuss where everything goes again. (although I would put it directly below "Categories" as "Lexicography", "Article Index", or whatever we had it as last time.) --DavidHOzAu 11:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I understand, but I think if nobody argues against it, then we could take it in this redesign in the position you suggest (below Categories as Article Index). If it leads to a lot of discussion, let's wait then to do it in step 2 (I wasn't aware that we really could bring up additions in a later stadium, the reason I asked before for an explanation of the procedure). Electionworld Talk? 12:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Per Carcharoth's comments above, some kind of merge or rethink of Special:Allpages, Special:Prefixindex, and Misplaced Pages:Quick index is needed first. Also, "Quick index" is currently linked on the Main Page as "A-Z index", and any sidebar link should match up with that link. --Quiddity 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page-specific toolbox links in separate box

Like this:

• Cite this article
• Permanent link
• Printable version
• Related changes
• What links here

• Recent changes
• Special pages
• Upload file

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

• An advantage: no more horizontal line. Horizontal lines are very ugly, I'd say. A disadvantage: there'd be a huge amount of boxes (5) in the sidebar. I think that it isn't worth it; let's just keep the horizontal line. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per msikma. Too boxy, plus I'd imagine it'd require far more programming time than a simple horizontal rule. --Quiddity 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be less programming, but anyway. Hopefully the whole thing can get redesigned. --gatoatigrado 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

If it's not too late : slidin' sidebar

Today's sidebar stays at the top of the page. With long pages, it should smoothly slide down :

• Is it easy : plenty of sites offer that feature ?
• Is it possible in the same redesign ? (the logo could stay at the top). Thank you. -- DLL 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Against or optional only I personally hate such things, and it would also require a guarentee we cannot made that the sidebar will fit on one screen on any resolution. LinaMishima 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Against or optional only for the same reason above. JoeSmack 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Against -- many articles would have a long language list and the sidebar would be too large to fit on a monitor, therefore making it sliding would make it impossible to scroll to different parts. Therefore your suggestion makes no technical sense. It would make sense to suggest a frame-based sidebar, where scrolling the article would be done independently of scrolling the sidebar, in which case I'd support an optional user-choice feature, but I think it would be extremely difficult to implement technically using existing mediawiki software, and the implementation cost would far outweight the benefit. Elvarg 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Against or optional only, per above. These are annoying if you're not expecting them. -- nae'blis 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already possible with meta:Help:User style/floating quickbar. :) (Oh, and I'm intensely strongly against making this a default. It's an accessbility hassle, and it hogs resources on low-end computers, and isnt cross-browser compatible.) --Quiddity 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it was actually rather easy to do with style="position: fixed;", which I also believe is widely supported (by Internet Explorer 6.0 as well, I think) without hogging resources (as it isn't a Javascript). Regardless, I think it's a really bad idea that should not be implemented. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

interact or recent changes

I came here to learn just what will be happening to Recent changes; now that I see that it survives, might I ask that the interact piece of the sidebar act like a ] link? That way the page could move "up" when someone clicks interact, and I could then see Recent changes without scrolling. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a potential problem indeed. Perhaps we should consider moving Recent changes up into the "interact" box? My 2 arguments for: 1) its a useful link to promote understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, and to promote vandalfighting. 2) its the only link in the redesign that is moving into the toolbox, where some people might not think to look (especially as it's so low down now). My argument against: That'd put "What links here" below-the-fold for me at 1024x768 (actually it fits) --Quiddity 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So make your font smaller! ;) --DavidHOzAu 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt help anyone running 800x600, or even anyone running 1024x768 with an extra browser GUI toolbar or 2. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

pin it to your toolbar...this isn't a critical discussion. --gatoatigrado 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

interaction and help contents update

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

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

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

As for a final wrapup, can I impose an arbitrary "1-week from now" (Sept. 12) deadline for committing to a draft to present to the wider community? --Quiddity 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me, lets not drag this out any more than necessary. JoeSmack 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quiddity, thank you for the Recent changes above the fold. --Ancheta Wis 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll move that thread to just above. It's still only a suggestion, until more people agree. --Quiddity 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't think anything that needs to change or any other change that could possibly be discussed. However, if it is not too much work, I think we will need a more comprehensive list of Reasons behind the changes (linking to the corresponding discussions where decisions were made) so that people don't object for the wrong reasons. --DavidHOzAu 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll be away for a bit soon, so good luck (though I fully expect to see the discussion still dragging out when I get back!) :-) Carcharoth 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

declare a winner

There's been a lot of good points brought up, and it's hard to declare one good reason superior to another, but this is what I think.

by the way, I didn't only vote for my opinions; I still like "Help" personally, but in the end the points made by Quiddity were better. --gatoatigrado 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

title for other box

There appear to be only three good wordings here.

Interaction

• + covers everything well
• + provides a contextual (and rhyming!) conterpoint to "Navigation"
• − sounds like computer / pages interaction

Community

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

Other

• −/+ undistinctive, but simple

Help

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

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

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

Excuse me if I'm stating the obvious here, but there was an option for "other" that I suggested. The title you gave this section "title for other box" also seems to suggest that this is a natural title. People will still see "help" straight away, as that is the first thing you see below the header. Carcharoth 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Or even, strangely enough, leave this box without a title! Better to have no title at all, rather than a misleading one. Carcharoth 09:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks weird without a title, like its part of the search box, or broken. --Quiddity 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is indeed the only major point left to decide, but i'd like to hear from more people before we make up our minds. Quiddity 11:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I dispute the implied negative connotations of "interaction". It sounds fine and appropriate to me. And besides, everything we do here is by interacting with a computer, (and often with a community, though that isnt essential to reading or contributing to Misplaced Pages)

If we're going to examine negative connotations, then I think "community" sounds a bit like a closed-gate group of people, something you are 'obliged' to become a part of in order to contribute. Though this is essentially true, so maybe a good thing to imply...? --Quiddity 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

I think the rhyming is immaterial; the point of changing it from "interact" is so it is a noun. I don't see the rhyming with search in the middle anyway. The points above were supposed to be major for/against. --gatoatigrado 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The rhyming is obviously just a happy coincidence, and any connection/polarity between it and "navigation" would be basically subliminal. --Quiddity 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

About the "community portal" having "community" in it; "help" menus in most applications have "help contents" in them, so I don't see what's wrong. --gatoatigrado 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's a big issue, changing "community portal" to "Misplaced Pages portal" wouldn't lose any relevance in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

partial "mock up"s

(a) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   interaction Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(b) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   community Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(c) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   other Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(d) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   project Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(e) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   information Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

commentary on title for other box

Late to the party, but the latter three options don't really convey what's in the contents. "interaction" isn't great, either, but "community" implies that the other boxes are not community-oriented, which isn't true. An "other" box should never be above anything with a more specific name, IMO. And "help" isn't really what the donations button is about, at least from a traditional perspective. I could support "other" if it was moved below the toolbox (which puts the donations link in the relatively advantageous spot of last thing to catch the eyeball). -- nae'blis 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some thinking about this and have came up with the following four suggestions as an alternative title for the help box:

• instructions
• information
• manual
• project

Out of all of these, I prefer "project" because all links in the help box are relate to helping the Misplaced Pages project. It even covers donations and community portal! --DavidHOzAu 05:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: if we can't decide what to call the help box by September 12, we will have to keep the status quo and use "help". With that in mind, this section needs to be nailed. now. --DavidHOzAu 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

? The status quo does not reflect "help" as the box title. The opinions/points seem to be in favour of community or interaction still. --Quiddity 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, okay, my mistake. My point was that people have under two (three?) days to propose alternatives; if anyone has any new ideas they wish to table, they had better start typing. --DavidHOzAu 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

You make some good points. One must search for a word that can be pre-pended to every one of those "categories". --DavidHOzAu 08:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "information"? Similar to when you go to a fair, or a convention. While they may have a help desk, they usually (and more often) have an information desk. (Continuing this thought below.) - jc37 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... "information" keeps with the -tion notation. --DavidHOzAu 02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how donations fits under information though. --DavidHOzAu 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. —David Levy 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

At least that's one alternative removed. How many more do we have to go? --DavidHOzAu 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(My apologies for not responding sooner (had to sleep "sometime" : )

The simple answer is the "information desk" analogy, again. You go to a convention, and the will always have donation pamphlets, right there along with community profiles, and contact information. (Whether contact for discussion, or contact for donation, it's still contacting "someone".)

See below for a longer answer - 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

title for help link

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

Help vs Help contents

Help contents seems to be more popular, used in software, and actual page title (therefore, probably already discussed). I think "Help contents" has won the argument. --gatoatigrado 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding the word "contents" provides no useful information. Of course the first page of Help is going to be a table of contents, but the table of contents isn't really what people are after. They simply want "Help". If I'm trying to figure out how to use Misplaced Pages, I'm going to look for a link that says "Help". When I see a link that says "Help contents" I'm going to think "WTF is that? What contents are they talking about? The contents of the article? A table of contents?" The link should just say "Help". I don't think we need a focus group to figure this out, as it should be rather obvious, IMO. Kaldari 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you read the previous, more detailed discussion; "help contents" disambiguates between a "help index" and a "contact us" thing. --gatoatigrado 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By creating something that sounds like neither? Kaldari 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my english wasn't that good. It should sound like neither because it is neither. --24.7.86.143 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with either of them. --Quiddity 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I share the same sentiment as Quiddity, although I am leaning slightly towards Help contents. --DavidHOzAu 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

More choices: Help contents → Help table of contents (seems straightforward, but too long, breaks line) • Help TOC (short enough for one line) • Table of contents ("Help" implied assuming "help" as heading, no duplication, my choice) –Rfrisbie 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The other titles don't reflect help, so I don't think "help" is a good choice for the navigation box. It's not a table like old encyclopedias because there are links instead of page numbers. --gatoatigrado 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the three other alternatives are 100% accurate either, so by that logic, none of the choices are good enough. As far as "not being like old encyclopedias," a table of contents is a table of contents, whether it's electronic or not, whether is has links or not. It's the functionality that matters, and that's the function of that particular page. Let's vote! :-) Rfrisbie 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Help table of contents is too long and won't fit in the portlet. --DavidHOzAu 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

presenting to community

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

We should probably check out if the search box redesign has reached consensus yet. --DavidHOzAu 00:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the search box is a different matter, if the redesign of the sidebar links and layout is done can't that just be done while the search box is finished and them implemented seperatley. Lcarsdata (Talk) 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant that if they have reached consensus, we can incorporate what is decided there into this proposal. If not, then sure, implement them seperately. --DavidHOzAu 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Navigation to Browse

Oh yeah, that other idea: We could retitle the "navigation" box to "browse", both to signify it's change of context, and to better cover the new content. Would match with "search" and "interact". Thoughts? --Quiddity 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it could simply be "navigate" instead of "navigation", if we wish to stick to the more conventional term. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"browse" and "navigate" don't follow the same parts of speech as "toolbox", would be my concern here. -tion structure seems fine. -- nae'blis 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Main page
• Featured content
• Current events
• Portals
• Categories
• Random article

• Help
• Community portal
• Questions
• Contact us
• Donations

• Cite this article
• Permanent link
• Printable version
• Related changes
• What links here

• Recent changes
• Special pages
• Upload file

Help

I really think the "Help" link should be moved to the bottom of the navigation section.

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

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

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

Incorporating:

(g) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article Help search   information Community portal Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(h) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article Help search   information Questions About Misplaced Pages Community portal Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

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

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

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

And "help" helps you navigate : )

(talking about the first column) this also makes the "other" box very concise.

What are your other concerns? - jc37 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Help does not help you navigate. It's been discussed many times before that Help:Contents does not direct people directly to articles, it leads them to help pages, and therefore is not a navigation tool... it is a help tool. --DavidHOzAu 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too concise in my response. In any case, from your response, I presume you understand what I meant, that by using help, one learns "how to" navigate. It "helps" one to navigate.

But semantics aside, if we ignore the "navigate" criteria for a moment, are there any other concerns about Help being in the upper box? (I really like the change in "sense" that removing help and questions does for the "other" box. they become links wholly not about wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but about the people behind it's operation.) - jc37 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that "information" is a great header, and I commend you for being able to logically separate items. However, the help link in the navigation box would have to be Help:Contents/Browsing Misplaced Pages. I think you'll agree that Help:Contents covers more than just browsing, such as Editing, Account settings, etc. That is why I think Help:Contents should stay with Community portal under information. --DavidHOzAu 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But let's look at it from a point of "division". If we have a grouping of all the links in both boxes, how do we divide them? As you know, I suggest a division between information about wikipedia/wikipedians (the community and it's needs) and Misplaced Pages, the online encylopedia that anyone can edit.

Given this, Help would belong in the upper box.

As I mentioned above, this then makes the "other box" an information booth "contact us" box.

As a compromise, we could add a divider in the upper box between random and help.

Or perhaps even have help displayed in another fashion. For example, as a part of the "search" box, since "Help" is more closely related to that. (You can search through the whole of Misplaced Pages, and you can see the help contents about the whole of Misplaced Pages.)

"Help" is rather different than everything else (due to the makeup of "contents"). Perhaps it should have it's own unique location. (It could even be placed in the lower part of the toolbox.)

Anyway, appreciating your thoughts : )

Be back later tonight - jc37 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The top box is for navigating/browsing encyclopedic content. The box under search is for meta information. Help belongs in meta information. It's as simple (and unchangeable) as that. All your other suggestions make everything more complicated or less intuitive. --Quiddity 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was so snippy, it's been a long month, with much going over the same points! See Sidebar redesign#Reasons behind the changes for the condensed-rationale behind the design. And thanks for your ideas :) --Quiddity 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

mockups by letter

VOTE

(A) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   interaction Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(E) navigation Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   information Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

(F) browse Main page Featured content Current events Portals Categories Random article search   interact Help Community portal Questions Contact us Donations toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

Recent mockups have been lettered A-G to aid discussion. If we're going to hold to the arbitrary deadline of Sept. 12th, then we need to start narrowing the choices quickly. Personally, I'd prefer D or E at this point (but I can live with A -- nae'blis 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)). I don't know whick one David says was "eliminated" above, but maybe he can shed some light now that we have (I hope) some additional clarity. -- nae'blis 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He didnt use the word "eliminated". However options G and H are eliminated.

Cool. Feel free to strike the {g) and (h) tags, that'll make things simpler. As for "eliminated", I guess now that I look he said, "that's one alternative removed". I assumed he was talking about (e) though, which doesn't make sense in reading the discussion. -- nae'blis 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about (e). --DavidHOzAu 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The other choices differ only by the title of the "interact" box (except 'choice F', which changes the navigation box title to "browse". the interact box can be anything in combination with this).

I like F. --Quiddity 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll be going for A. --DavidHOzAu 08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going for E. A is a close second, although "Donations" has nothing to do with 'interaction' - kind of a one-way street (you--->money--->WMF) JoeSmack 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Read info about how to donate, 2) Send in the money, 3) Get an encyclopedia on the screen. Interaction :-)

I'd prefer information (E) over interaction (A) only because information is more inclusive, and therefore covers non-interactive help. But "information" is inclusive because it is such a general word, which makes it vague – I mean (cue Kim Basinger) eeeverything in the sidebar could be put under the heading of "information", couldn't it (except Upload file)?
I still think help & interaction would be better ... (sorry for the nagging ...) --83.253.36.136 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If and only if (a) or (e) are not suitable per later discussion, I will shift to (d) because "project" is another name for "meta" in this case. After all, wasn't a title like "meta" what we originally wanted but we ended up discarding it because not everyone would understand what it meant without reading about it? In my opinion, "project" is a suitable alternative in case (a) or (e) are not suitable. --DavidHOzAu 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, but also because it was confusable with meta: ;) --Quiddity 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean. A word that includes the Misplaced Pages project itself and how people can contribute to the project. --DavidHOzAu 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Main_Page I mean ;) --Quiddity 06:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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