Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 31 August 2006

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

The recent programming talk has been moved to its own page.

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:

• Archive 01 (august 6-14)
• Archive 02 (august 15-23)
• Archive 03 (august 17-26)
• Archive 04 (august 20-28)

The synopsis

(I leave you people alone overnight, and look what happens...again!)

• Fields and basic topics are not going to make it in. They are not nearly at a good enough standard.
• A-Z is not needed. Its a low use page, and doesnt deserve sidebar access.
• The search box should not be conjoined, or have the heading removed. It is not done in any other Wikimedia site, and there is no obvious reason to do it here. KISS.
• The search box will remain titled "search", because too many people will argue over "find". Ditto for "donations".
• The interact box is complete. The title is debatable, but many people support "interact"
• The toolbox will be ordered as version 20, as its better for readers, and all editors are readers. (plus its alphabetical, quite by accident).
• The only real decision left is whether to capitalise the box headers.

And that's it. (assuming the changes are programmable.)

I will now create the "easy" and "optimal" variants, on the project page. --Quiddity 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If, at this point, you want to make a major change/suggestion, please do so in your own sandbox and link to it. Or, wait until this simple and agreeable redesign is implemented, and then make your own proposal for a further change. --Quiddity 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Skip down to #final changes, and options for the wrap-up decisions.

"Easy" version

Umm,

Excuse me,

But... Where on earth did you pull the "Easy" version out of???

From Dragons flight's request Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/programming#Easy vs. Hard. "I'd like to ask this group to consider making two rounds of proposals. First a proposal for easy changes that take no developer intervention, and then afterwards work on the hard stuff.". Easy requires the least re-programming. --Quiddity 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The capitalisation, and choice of "interact" was addressed above (I said they were still debatable. And "Interact" was suggested long ago by David Levy, and was a part of version 20 (did you see the 3 pages of archives at the top?)).

Renaming "help" to "wikipedia help" is an unnecessary change, and just invites quibbles. It makes the word "help" harder to see at a glance. "Help contents" is a possible alternative.

I suggest you rewrite or remove the arguments below to account for all this. --Quiddity 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood and my comments addressed individually based on your replies. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it just has a ton of things there was either a consensus not to include, or no discussion about whatsoever. For example:

• It was made a clear point that search must be visible from top of page at 800x600 without having to scroll down. Easy version has too much links above it.
  • This point still remains. If easy version is implemented, it still needs to have search higher. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• There was a majority opinion to visually break up toolbox
  • Point taken if means easier technical implementation Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto for recent changes belonging in toolbox. It is a very specific tool mostly used as counter-vandalism. There's no reason for majority of users to see it in such a place where it displaces search bar and other navigation.
  • Point taken if means easier technical implementation Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• To top it off, neither version gives an option for lower-case box titles (which I personally support). Where did you find a consensus to have it always capitalized? Oh and what about renaming "help" to "interact" without asking anyone? It's cool to have new ideas, but don't displace existing ones that have support with new ones nobody even saw before.
  • Points still remain, I suggest including alternative options instead of just one version. I did not see clear consensus on a particular version in the archives. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of not assuming good faith, but it really seems to me that the "easy" version is just a classic Dilbert style "bad solution" that stands aside a "good solution" so the PHB has no trouble picking the "right" one.

• Didn't realize it had to do with technical implementation, I take back my words. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think the Easy version needs to be thrown out, and discussion focused on refining the Optimal version on those points which are still actual (like capitalization of box titles, "interact" vs "help" in title, "Help" vs "Misplaced Pages Help" in box, etc.

• OK, I see the justification for the Easy version now. In my opinion however, the easy version is really too similar to existing version, and because it pushes searchbox too far down, it is actually worse then the current version. I'd rather keep the current one over the Easy version. Elvarg 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To sum it up, we really agreed on too much to throw it all away and start talking about a whole new version. We should focus on fine-tuning what we have and proceed on putting it up against the original. Elvarg 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but you could be waiting a really long time (if ever) for some of the code modifications to be accepted. Dragons flight 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elvarg that the "easy" version is worse than the current version. We should simply wait until the necessary coding modifications have been made. Incidentally, I'm not sure that the current code supports uppercase lettering in the section titles. —David Levy 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The lowercasing is coming from a lowercase attribute in CSS that could be removed without modifying the code. Dragons flight 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info!  :) —David Levy 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Search discussion

Even if the "search" section retains that name, we should ask the developers to add to MonoBook the option of changing it. Presently, it automatically duplicates the second button's label (sans uppercase letter), and there's no means of changing it to something different. I'll remind everyone that in the Cologne Blue skin (which includes this additional option), we already use the word "find" to label this box. This is not a new concept, and it's because of a technical limitation that we haven't implemented it in MonoBook. (There was a consensus months ago.) The only argument that I've seen against it (that people refer to the entity as a "search box") fails to consider the "find" label's use in Cologne Blue (which hasn't led to any confusion of which I'm aware). The big button is labeled "Search," after all.

I'll reiterate that the box serves two functions: "search" (which seeks out the typed term in articles) and "go" (which attempts to display an article with that exact title or something very close). It doesn't make sense for these to fall under the heading of "search" (which describes only one of the two functions). Conversely, the word "find" accurately describes both. From a linguistic standpoint, the current setup is analogous to a dessert shoppe telling people that it has two kinds of ice cream: cake and ice cream. —David Levy 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "search" is better than "find" anyways. "Find" implies that the searcher will find the answer s/he is looking for. While WP is the largest encyclopedia ever, we do emphasize that it is constantly being built on, and in no way full and complete, and as such there is no guaranteed "finding" of anything. When the user clicks search or go, they will be searching WP, but they only may find what they are looking for. I see no reason to spend tons of effort to make a clear-cut label misleading.

To address your point, I think we should try renaming the buttons rather than the label. For example, label "search", and buttons named "Exact" and "Similar" Elvarg 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a valid point regarding the word "find," and I like your alternative idea. Perhaps buttons labeled "Titles" and "Content" would work. This, of course, would still require the same modification to MonoBook. (Otherwise, the section would automatically be labeled "content.") —David Levy 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick mockup with different versions:

Not only any of these options eliminates the linguistic mess David mentioned, but it makes it much clearer to the reader what exactly each button is going to search.

Elvarg 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the third example a great deal. The "Titles" and "All text" labels make the most sense to me, and the buttons' combined width doesn't exceed that of the input box (in my browser, at least). Indeed, such a change would address my original concern and increase clarity at the same time. Excellent idea! —David Levy 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Much clearer. --Quiddity 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, same here, but i don't care that much. --gatoatigrado 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that much better. It's still very ambiguous because of what such a button might imply. "All text"? It still takes some expectation of what a search box is to be able to conclude that it must imply searching for that particular search string in all of Misplaced Pages's text. Furthermore, all (almost all) search engines use either the label "Search" or "Go", and the former seems like not such a strange choice if there is consensus for using the title "find" for the entire box. I suggest the following: —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The above suggestion has the universally understood "search" as its primary label. The "advanced" tag will not be used by people who just want to find articles; they'll be presented a full text search if the title they're looking for does not exist anyway. There's just one problem: these two labels seem to be too big for the box they're in. So perhaps we might use this one instead, if it is technically impossible to mend this (by decreasing the size of the font, for example): —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it all boils down to the fact that a more accurate description only makes it more vague. There are a few terms used almost universally on the internet, so why should we try to use anything different? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument at all. You've cited the fact that people need to know "what a search box is" for the labels 'Titles' and 'All text' to make sense, but isn't that true of any labels? I'm confused by your claim that "a more accurate description only makes it more vague," and your proposed labels don't make any sense to me (and I'm an experienced user). Moving the 'Search' label from one function to the other (assuming that we could make it fit) would be disastrous. The word 'Advanced' conveys practically nothing, and it doesn't seem to apply, even with pre-existing knowledge of the button's purpose. (To me, the ability to jump directly to an article on the desired topic seems more "advanced" than bringing up a list of potentially useful pages.)

Yes, the term 'search' is used throughout the Internet. What's remotely inconsistent or ambiguous about labeling the box accordingly and specifying choices for what to search? Google does the same thing. (I'm looking at my Gmail account right now. I see a search box with two buttons—one labeled 'Search Mail' and the other labeled 'Search the Web'.) —David Levy 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Every single site or web portal ever uses either "search" or "go" as main search button. Clear as day. Not a single one uses "exact" or "title". Totally unclear, especially from a casual user's point of view. Also, every single site or web portal ever uses "advanced" for bringing up "advanced search tools". This is what "search" currently does. It shows you which pages are relevant to your search query, and in which namespaces to search. That's more advanced than just immediately going to the topic you searched for. I believe that using "search" as label for the portlet, "go" for the first button, and "advanced" for the second button is much more obvious, for both casual users and advanced users, than the "exact" and "full text" etc. buttons. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dislike "advanced" for a few reasons, but primarily because it makes the button 4x the size of the "go" button (intuitively confusing, as it's the secondary button). --Quiddity 18:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more, Msikma. Buttons labeled 'Titles' and 'All text' (appearing directly below the word 'search' and the input box) would tell users exactly what they're searching. How is this setup "totally unclear"?

You're also ignoring the fact that our order of priority is the opposite of that used by sites such as Google. You keep stressing that these sites use 'Search' or 'Go' as their "main search button," but that typically triggers the function that we've made secondary. There's nothing inherently intuitive about applying this label to the function that Google calls 'I'm Feeling Lucky' and applying the term 'Advanced' to the function that others call 'Search' or 'Go'!

It's common to see a single search box with buttons (either this type or radio buttons) describing the different targets. There's nothing unusual or unconventional about this. —David Levy 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I totally agree.

If we're all agreed (of those that agree) on the 3rd option, could we archive/remove the other two? They're just a distraction if we're only discussing the 3rd. --Quiddity 04:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is totally wrong, David Levy. For one thing, Google is the only search engine that has such a thing as "I'm feeling lucky", and it isn't what I'm referring to. Look at other search engines as well instead of just Google. There are two kinds of searches: a simple one and an advanced one. In our case, the first button is the simple one and the second is the advanced one. This does not compare to Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button. The problem with the setup Quiddity suggested is that users simply expect to find an article when they search for it. They are not interested in any internal workings of the engine, and thus will not like having to make an intelligent decision between searching through "just the titles" or "all text". Which one is more accurate? They don't know. Whereas with "go" and "advanced", they know exactly which one to pick. They will never use the advanced option because it presents them with information they do not need. Quiddity: we can archive the other versions once we agree on this. I don't agree yet, and I feel there are things left unsaid, so I would like David Levi to come back to this discussion for just a while longer. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim that 'I'm Feeling Lucky' is an industry standard. I merely cited the well-known feature that's most similar to that of our first button. The major distinction here is not "simple" vs. "advanced." It's "go directly to the specific page that the user most likely seeks" vs. "display a list of pages that the user might seek." There's nothing unusual or "advanced" about the latter, but our format dictates that we assign it secondary importance (which doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as the function widely labeled "search" or "go"). How you can claim that our first button's function "does not compare to Google's 'I'm feeling lucky' button" is beyond me.

I still don't understand why you believe that telling users exactly what they're searching would be confusing or unintuitive. Suppose that someone is researching the topic of "sharks." Why shouldn't we offer the option of seeking an article with the title "Shark" or searching for articles containing the word "shark" somewhere within their text? How are the arbitrary terms "go" and "advanced" more intuitive or easier to grasp? Why do you believe that it makes sense to present users with an option that "they will never use"? Why do you want to withhold the ability "to make an intelligent decision"? —David Levy 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that these buttons are not about "simple vs advanced", but if you look at them objectively, it is. The first one allows someone to quickly jump to the page that they most likely are searching for, even if it is an ambiguous term. The second one allows not only seeing the topics that are relevant to the user's search query, it also allows them to search in different namespaces such as Misplaced Pages or Talk. That's more advanced than the simple search; there is no way you can deny that. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you've continually noted, we're attempting to label the buttons to accommodate typical users. Advanced options are present, but most visitors will never use them. The page itself, however, is something that most people would want to use (for a non-advanced purpose). We should describe its basic function, not the additional variables that are tacked on. —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how this has anything to do with Google. Sure, our current "go" button behaves just like "I'm feeling lucky", I won't deny that, but this isn't about Google. This is about how search engines work in general. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, search engines' default behavior is to display a list of pages that match the search terms entered. This is the function for which the button usually is labeled 'search' or 'go' (or some slight variation thereof). Assigning the 'go' label to a button responsible for a different function (jumping directly to one of these pages) is unintuitive. The confusion currently is mitigated by the use of the label "search" for a button that triggers the usual function, and you seek to change this to "advanced" (which would tell users almost nothing about the button's purpose). —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your second point: nobody wants to think when using a search engine. They are searching for something, and the search engine is a tool to find it. But people do not expect a search engine to behave any differently than just getting them to where they want, and fast. Imagine being a casual user and wanting to go to that "sharks" article. If you're presented with searching for either "titles" or "full text", you will need to realize that articles consist of a title and a "text". But what exactly is a title? Perhaps the headers could be seen as titles. And what is a "full text"? People could misinterpret this, especially if English is not their first language. I am Dutch, and I know that, for example, my father would not like having to think about what those two labels mean. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that the distinction would be clear to most people fluent in English, and it certainly wouldn't be difficult for others to pick up. I'm occasionally presented with such a challenge when I visit non-English websites, and I don't expect them to be changed to accommodate me (which couldn't realistically be done without using English).

Of course, I don't believe that your proposed labels would help anyone (regardless of his/her level of English). They simply don't make sense. They fail to explain what functions are being carried out. How is that easier to grasp? —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But "go" and "advanced"; he knows he doesn't need advanced for his casual and simple searching, and that "go" will simply do what he wants to: take him to the article. -msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But what if someone doesn't want to go directly to the article and wants to perform a simple full-text search (without using any of the advanced options)? Burying his/her desired function under the intimidating label of 'advanced' is not helpful. —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In case he wants to search for shark discussion in discussion pages of Misplaced Pages, he can choose the "advanced" option and tick the box that allows him to search through all discussion pages. -msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what about users who aren't interested in any of the advanced options (such as searching non-article namespaces) but wish to perform a basic search and display the articles that contain their desired term? —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is how people have come to expect their search engines to operate. -msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect to be given the option of displaying a list of pages that contain my search term. —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutely not arbitrary terms! Like I said, almost every site in the world uses either "search" or "go". It's universally understood. -msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not for the function to which you wish to assign it! —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereas "full text" and "titles" is ambiguous and uncertain, at least to most casual users. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. —David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My example had first button bolded. I think it is needed to show that it is that button which will be used by default (when Enter is pressed from search box) Elvarg 03:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If you know how to code that, please update the examples. The second button's function also needs to be fixed. (I simply copied the code from the project page.) The problem with your graphical version is that it's browser-specific. (The styling is significantly different in my browser.) —David Levy 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The bolding is probably a function of the CSS id="searchGoButton", and you can only have 1 call to an id per page. So we can't include it in the mockup, but it'll appear in the actual version. --Quiddity 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how come the Russian Misplaced Pages (using same monobook-looking skin) already is able to have different text in title and second button? Check out http://ru.wikipedia.org/ and take a look at their search box. You don't need to know Russian to be able to see that the title of the searchbox has different text from either search button. Elvarg 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I was told that this was impossible. Perhaps the code already has been changed, or maybe the Russian Misplaced Pages is using some sort of workaround. —David Levy 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick check revealed that some of the other Wikipedias also have different text for the section title and second button. —David Levy 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the second button's label can now determined via MediaWiki:Searchbutton (which hasn't been created). Unless I was misled, this must be fairly new. (The section's title is determined via MediaWiki:Search, which I was told covered both.) —David Levy 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that MediaWiki:Searchbutton isn't new, but its compatibility with MonoBook is. I found a non-Wikimedia wiki for which the page was created on 18 June 2005. It's running version 1.5.5 of MediaWiki, and the feature is not present. Of the Wikimedia sites that have begun using MediaWiki:Searchbutton, all appear to have created the page no earlier than the end of last month. —David Levy 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the search "Titles" and search "Contents" layout. It actually describes how the Misplaced Pages search function works. Actually, I mostly now type in my search term in the browser window and hit return. If there is an article, I go straight there. If not, I hit the "search" link in the "not found" page. But I started out using the search box, and I guess nearly everyone does. Regarding the proposal to have a button labelled "Advanced" - I would expect that to take me to an advanced search option, like the "advanced search" link from Google. Our equivalent would be the check-boxes at the bottom of a search page like this, allowing searches in different namespaces. Carcharoth 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though the editor is a newcomer, I've had to revert these changes because they were not discussed and consensus hasn't been reached yet. Sorry. --DavidHOzAu 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

final changes, and options

I've removed the easy version, as noone likes it.

I've lowercased the headings, to mirror the current version. Hopefully will result in shorter arguments (argument for change likely to be less emotional than argument against change.)

The only things left to decide/discuss are:

Title of "interact" box

• interact
  • 1std choice, accurately descriptive and covers everything. community as weak 2nd choice. -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)
• 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)
• meta

My 1st choice, though possibly too linguistically arcane? --Quiddity 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggested "Meta-news" as a link title during the main page redesign process, and this idea was shot down rather decisively. I don't think that anything containing the term "meta" is going to fly, as it evidently is not recognized widely enough. —David Levy 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. plus confusable with meta-wiki. back to interact then.-Quiddity 05:16, 30 August 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)
  • for, per gatoatigrado, plus it's the current wording. "Help contents" as 2nd choice. --Quiddity 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For, short, to the point, and stands out right away. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Capitalisation of box headers

• for or against
  • against but don't care that much. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • for, but weakly. I consider them labels more than titles, so dont need to be capitalised, imho. --Quiddity 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, those words are not headers per se, they are box tags. A header serves two roles: describe whats it's heading, and stand out compared to ordinary text. However, with the box format, it's the boxes themselves that stand out, and the tags simply need to describe what the boxes are about. Making the titles capitalized would create visual "bumpyness" and make scanning more difficult. Elvarg 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. All navigational links are in lowercase. Keeping these lowercase is only consistent. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Title of "search" box (and buttons?)

(ongoing in section above)

Mop-up

Can I archive everything on this page above #The synopsis now? --Quiddity 23:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quid, what would we do without you ;) Elvarg 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

um, no thanks next time. leave some recent discussion. some points may have validity not yet incorporated into the lastest discussion. --gatoatigrado 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I read through it all, and tried to sort all the new and recurring questions/comments/rants/decisions into the synopsis at the top and the decisions-remaining list just above. I realize people may still have replies they may not have had time to read, but I decided (boldly) that getting this thing over smoothly, was more important. Or did you have a specific point in mind, that had been left unaddressed? --Quiddity 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We're still discussing things. Do not archive ongoing discussions. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I asked in the comment you replied to; Is there something specific you're referring to? Because all I see in the last 24 hours of discussion is argument about voting, and tangents into things that have already been discussed to death.

We wouldnt be as far along now as we are, if I and others didnt keep prodding the discussion forward... --Quiddity 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone want to ressurect or revisit stuff in the archives (by copying a summary out to the front discussion page), they should feel free to do so. Moving things along is a good idea. Carcharoth 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing things. You do not archive things that are being discussed. There is no consensus yet. I don't see how one cannot agree with this. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is really very easy to restart the discussion on an archived topic. Just copy the whole thread back out here and ask for more discussion. Carcharoth 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Donations link

I mentioned this when there was a donations link in the Main Page redesign (the link got dropped), but the current link takes you straight to a page section talking about credit card details. This is rather abrupt for someone clicking on the link for the first time (those who have already donated won't be put off by having to scroll down). I think the link should direct to the page in general (not the section), allowing people to read a bit about why and how to make a donation, before being confronted with credit card details. In other words, change the link from WikiMedia:Fundraising#Donation_methods to WikiMedia:Fundraising. Does this sound acceptable, and if so, can this reasoning be added to the rationale on the front page of this project? Carcharoth 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I Strongly agree. --Quiddity 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds acceptable; the old link skips the preamble which explains exactly where the donations are going. --DavidHOzAu 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And looking more closely, that preamble points to the budget for 2005... Surely the 2006 budget should be out now and the link should point there? Does anyone have an account at Meta to try and correct that? See also here, where people are asking for updates on what is happening with their money for 2006. Carcharoth 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

Caps

It has always bugged me that the Main Page and Community Portal are capitalized for no apparent reason. Contact Misplaced Pages escapes since Misplaced Pages is a proper noun, but any takers for lowercasing the other two? Incidentally, portal is even lowercase in the default install, so we are a legacy anomaly. Dragons flight 05:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How did they creep back in? Version 9 and onward feature correct capitalization of titles according to WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization. I find it amusing that the actual titles of Main Page and Community Portal aren't up to naming standard. --DavidHOzAu 05:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Title Caps Are Not Pretty. We should just use normal capitalization. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me, doing various fixes to stop the arguing, and updating link-targets. I'll change to correct caps.

Are you proposing to rename the pages in question too, or just to retitle the sidebar links? --Quiddity 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've seen this argued out elsewhere though: Community Portal is cap'd to differentiate it from Portal:Community -- The Community portal. (It's a proper name, like Kensington Station. As opposed to a portal about the subject Community. (Talking of which, why is "portal" in the top-box header capitalised at all the portals? eg at Portal:Science it says "The Science Portal")) --Quiddity 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Dragons flight and DavidH: Main Page and Community Portal are correctly capitalised per the guideline DavidH quotes, WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization. Proper nouns should be capitalised. Community Portal and Main Page are the names of the pages, rather than the subject titles. Compare with Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost, where the page title is also the name. The inconsistency is that Main Page should be at Misplaced Pages:Main Page, and Main page should be an article about main pages. Carcharoth 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the dispute would be whether or not they should be treated as proper nouns when other major community pages like Misplaced Pages:Village pump, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk, Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy are not. Incidentally, "Community Portal" was changed to "Community portal" in the default install a long time ago, so the use of caps there has as much to do with legacy usage as anything else. Dragons flight 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this "default install" you keep mentioning? Carcharoth 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What you get when you install the Mediawiki software on a new website. Dragons flight 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A-Z

I really believe in an encyclopedia an A-Z index belongs in the navigation box. Electionworld Talk? 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Search inside navigation box

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

How about putting the search box inside the navigation box, as shown here? I think it is the most essential part of navigation, and it doesn't only search it also lets you navigate to each individual article. --WS 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Was suggested many times, in many styles (see the archives). Too many people dislike the concept though. sorry. --Quiddity 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I like A-Z too. Electionworld Talk? 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I dislike it. The Misplaced Pages search function is still not ideal, so promoting it over well-organised content seems wrong. I suspect many people use Google or other ways of searching Misplaced Pages. Also, people are used to the current placement. Too much change will get people upset. Carcharoth 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)