Misplaced Pages

proposal: treatment database of case studies

why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.

This isn't really a proposal for Misplaced Pages. This is more a proposal for an entire new wiki. For that, see m:Proposals for new projects. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not do their own studies, though this may be a good idea for a new wiki. _InBC 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, like Misplaced Pages, it may be inaccurate—and we're dealing with medical advice, not just general knowledge, so I foresee some problems there. Gracenotes § 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Use WebCite for web references

WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it, and links better off without it (like exlinks and links to the New York Times for an article, for example) don't get it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well, now that I look, apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create, so they wouldn't quite work with something on the scale of wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should be careful about the use of outside products. WebCite may be a non-profit organization and free to individuals using it this way, but it is supported by publisher fees. Its copyright policy is that "Except for archived content, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License." I see no reason why an editor may not choose to use this, but it should not be WP policy to incorporate requirements or expectations to use an outside service. I am not sure it has general acceptance. DGG 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource. Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it

Exactly. It already has an archiveurl= parameter.

apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create

Meaning what?

The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.

The Internet Archive only archives things that the Alexa toolbar finds, though, which leaves a lot of gaps. And it's usually only linked to after a site has gone offline, not when a site changes. WebCite creates an archive at the moment the page is cited. If we cite a page that later changes, our citation is no longer valid.

Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.

WP:AGF? — Omegatron 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't archive automatically when you pass it a URL. It archives when you give it the command at a form, and that form requires you to enter an email address, where they email you when your archive is ready. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It would be great if we could just archive things automatically by linking to http://www.somearchivesite.org/thecurrenttimeinUTC/http://www.thesitetobecited.com/page.html

Also, I read through http://www.webcitation.org/faq (which also explains why Internet Archive isn't good enough), and the service is currently an academic project at the University of Toronto, with a Collective Commons-licensed site, so the advertisement accusation is unfounded. — Omegatron 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals: 1) Dynamic Searchable 'Intelligent' Keyword FAQ & 2) Watch Feature Renamed & 3) Mail & 4) 'Did You Mean' suggestion

1) Misplaced Pages should have an FAQ which allows a user to literally ask a question, and the site will direct the user to possible FAQ's that may answer their inquiry, based upon keywords in their question. Friendster.com has such an FAQ (when contacting customer service, any inquiry will be filtered through such a system).

2) The 'watch' feature is a great one, but its function is not entirely obvious. I recommend it either be renamed to, 'Watch This Article' or 'Add to Favorites' (or something to that effect).

3) I had new mail and didn't realize it until stumbling upon a small message informing me of this fact. Perhaps there should be a more localized place for new messages, such as "Check Messages", or "Inbox"

4) Before rejecting this suggestion, hear me out. I was told that there would not be enough processor power & servers available to achieve the following suggestion. Please read my suggestions on how to possibly achieve this at the end of this recommendation:

Misplaced Pages should have a "did you mean" feature when users search for a misspelled term, such as the one dictionary.com offers. If one looks up a word in dictionary.com and it is misspelled, the site offers several suggestions of words that the user may have meant to write. This will not only help people find the articles they are seeking, in an age where spelling is worsening due to computer spell checks, but will also help people find articles they seek that may be worded just a little differently than how they wrote their search term.

For example, 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' is a word in the English language. But if one replaces the last vowel with an 'o' to yield: 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosos', then Misplaced Pages falls short of suggesting any similar terms.

I recommend using 'google' or dictionary.com some how (perhaps an agreement between wikipedia and the aforementioned) to achieve this. If Misplaced Pages doesn't have the processor power and servers, could it not take advantage of google's vast amount of servers? Could Misplaced Pages not run the search through a 3rd party? And how much power would it really take to run a search through a dictionary even, to at least check for probably spelling errors?

Sincerely, Danfogel 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Robots.txt keeps google out of AfD and a number of other places on wikipedia. We need an internal search for those. Search Suggestions are a perennial propose and just too taxing on the servers to implement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Content Disclaimers

A new perennial proposal has come up at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(perennial_proposals)#Content_disclaimers. mrholybrain's talk 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "new perennial" is an oxymoron. The same reasons as always apply against this. >Radiant< 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW redirects reminder

Hi,

Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Academics on Misplaced Pages

I feel that academics should be allowed individual pages of their own on Misplaced Pages. This is because a lot of the research that they do is publicly funded and so they should be accountable for it. Misplaced Pages could help a lot in this, as it already exists. Academics working on particular fields could be searched for and their work examined by interested folk. I have noticed that a lot of less well known academicsa get deleted from the site based on their lack of fame. However, these academics tend to be famous in their own field and less well known outside of it. As such it seems strange to allow people to delete these articles just because they are not celebrity characters.
Could anybody explain this to me? If so what is the deletion policy.
Many Thanks. Synthesis for all 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Curious Gregor

As far as I'm concerned, I will not nominate anyone for deletion if they have a published research document under their belt. That, to me, is their notability. 99% of the world may not have heard of him or her, but that 1% of experts in that field may be more than familiar with the work or could be attempting to track down that very info. I agree with you: academics should be permitted to have their respective articles on Misplaced Pages per WP:PAPER. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone who has ever published a paper is notable" wouldn't work; we still have to have criteria. —Quarl 2007-03-22 06:23Z

There are already sister projects at WikiScholar and

Proposed "spring cleaning" day

See User:Naconkantari/cleanup. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New bot

I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker and User:OrphanBot (for images on Commons and Misplaced Pages, respectively) manage most of that work between them. --ais523 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. Thanks AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar editing

I think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

{{copyedit}} ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Images

As all images under a free license are being pushed over to commons, shouldn't we remove the free license templates and simply prohibit people from uploading anything but WP:FAIR images on enwiki, or is there something I'm missing here? mrholybrain's talk 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "shouldn't we remove the free use templates"? -Amarkov moo! 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. mrholybrain's talk 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally yes mrholybrain. There is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Moving_free_images_to_Wikimedia_Commons, but there is a current problem with the "Upload file" link in the sidebar going to the upload form, so people tend to ignore the pointer to Commons and upload free media here anyway. I think the "Upload file" link should point to page (eg Misplaced Pages:Upload, which is currently a redirect) that directs people to the Commons upload form (for free material) or the Misplaced Pages upload form (for fair use material).--Commander Keane 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add a bit to WP:NOT

I'm proposing to add a small subsection to Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. My proposed subsection merely states that Misplaced Pages articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.

I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIVIA? Also, it's basically in there under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Be careful what you wish for because triviality is often subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we add "Misplaced Pages does not need to present the same rule in different words"? _InBC 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in the classroom

Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Misplaced Pages article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies? So far all that Misplaced Pages has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I though of such a project, however I was thinking that a separate dedicated wiki would be a better place for such a thing as it may wish to have a broader scope than Misplaced Pages. _InBC 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Misplaced Pages:Students' notice board, anyone? Keeping it on Misplaced Pages will make coordination easier than on an outside wiki.--Pharos 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I think WikiProject format is more suitable than noticeboard format, unless you're thinking of something different. My primary idea was to make this a forum where professors and teachers can share strategies for incorporating Misplaced Pages assignments into their classrooms. Within that project the students might have their own section to coordinate their end of the work. Durova 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only suggested a noticeboard as noticeboards tend to be defined by their members (such as the noticeboards for citizens of different countries), while wikiprojects are defined by their subject areas. But either way, I totally agree with the concept.--Pharos 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The difference I see is that country noticeboards are useful for active Wikipedians but many of these people would be new users or infrequent contributors: educators who are intrigued by the project and need just enough information to structure a classroom assignment. So instead of ongoing developments this would address the same issues multiple times. WikiProject format fills that need although I'm receptive to any better idea that comes along. Durova 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The project idea is good. It is a subject based idea, not a group based idea because regular Wikipedians will be able to give inputs on the ideas the teachers have, which lets face it are not always compatible with our goals. It will give us a forum to guide their lessons into something that is compatible and beneficial to Misplaced Pages. _InBC 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would be very good to have a place where seasoned Wikipedians can help the professors and teachers understand the site better so their assignments are compatible with our policies. A couple of months ago we had a ruckus when one instructor issued a classroom assignment to vandalize Misplaced Pages. That led to Jimbo's direct involvement and one of our administrators quit. Proactive community involvement should head off that kind of problem and facilitate more productive contributions. I'd be very happy if more students were improving Misplaced Pages from their university libraries, and if my recollections from my own student days haven't grown too hazy, I think my class assignments would have felt more meaningful if they'd actually been published. Durova 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I seem to recall a similar page being set up over a year ago, but the issue was less pressing then and it kind of fizzled out. I'll see if I can locate it. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I anticipate part of what this project would do is organize information about classroom Misplaced Pages assignments, sorting things by assignment type and educational level which would be more useful than the chronological arrangement for an instructor who's planning a syllabus. Anything relevant that's already onsite would help. Durova 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD template change

I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgies_c 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (science)

A poll is underway at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mangojuice 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. I support this proposed guideline but am happy to see it genuinely ruled on by the community as a whole and not just by those of us who have worked on it. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no, that's not at all how it works. Guidelines aren't "ruled on" by anyone, nor are they created through polling. Rather, there is discussion ongoing on the page. At the moment there do not seem to be any real arguments against the page, but one or two editors object on grounds that process wasn't followed (regardless of the fact that the process they refer to doesn't actually exist). Comments are of course welcome. >Radiant< 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Actually, I do think the "discussion" that should have been happening was being treated as a poll, but naturally what we want is a discussion: does WP:SCIENCE have community support or not, and should it be a guideline? Mangojuice 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian hymns

I note that many articles in this category contain the full lyrics to the hymn, which is source text and really should belong in wikisource. Should we do something about this? Comments please. >Radiant< 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that we should transwiki some of them. The few I briefly looked at, however, do not indicate the specific source (i.e. hymnal, music dictionary, etc.); the text should be redacted from those as it may be a copyright violation - especially the translations. Many are also rather small. Perhaps a merge might be in order? That, however, is a ways off. --Iamunknown 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Or a merge and move to Wikisource - Wikiprojects need to do a much better job of crosslinking and crossreferencing on matters such as these. bd2412 T 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: explain abbreviations on "User Contributions" page

OK, I'm a fairly new contributor, and I look at my "User Contributions" page, and I see various abbreviations apparently indicating something about my contributions. But I can't find where they are explained.

So I propose that they be explained right at the bottom of that page, every time it is displayed. I think that could be done in just a single line.

The specific abbreviations I'm referring to are:

• top -- this one is fairly obvious. And I did eventually find an explanation.
• m -- still don't know what this means.
• hist -- history of changes. Guessable, but should be explained.
• diff -- difference between revisions. Also guessable, but should be explained.

Having an explanation of these right on the page would be helpful for new contributors.

T-bonham 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

m means that the change is a minor change (you clicked on the "minor edit" box or a process was performed which is by default considered a minor change (such as using the admin rollback capability). Corvus cornix 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a key at the top of the page history that describes these (and some other things), so I think people become familiar with them there. Plus I think it's quite easy to remember what they mean when you've seen them once and when you click them (the links) you can see what they do. I don't think there is a MediaWiki message at the top of the contributions page, so it would need developer attention for implementation (if desired by the community). mattbr 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's main aim

Rather than providing free knowledge to everybody on the globe, shouldn't Misplaced Pages's main aim be to provide in-depth free information. I think Misplaced Pages, rather than striving to create more articles, should focus on making the articles it already has as Featured Articles. What do people think? Ahadland 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but directing everyone's efforts to this end is a futile task if you ask me. AdamBiswanger1 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state why you feel that way? Id rather have 1.6 million featured article, than 3.2 million stubs. Wouldn't you? Ahadland 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy to say, harder to do. I take credit for 1 featured article and 2 featured lists. I've probably edited several thousand other articles. If those are your priorities, by all means walk the walk. Durova 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but I don't see how we could direct the efforts of someone who likes writing articles about obscure cricket players into someone who likes sharpening language and finding sources and references. There are those who enjoy writing and editing within their interests, and then there are those who enjoy improving the encyclopedia because they are passionate about it. The latter are much less common, and they are willing to do what you ask. But making the former into the latter would be a herculean task. The way to achieve this, or at least try to achieve it is a separate question. Advertising? Incentives? Who knows, but convincing users to delve into the nitty-gritty fact-checking, organization, and reference-finding work needed for and FA seems futile. AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ye but we could still direct our efforts into achieving that, try and make users passionate. One way we could do this is by leaving templates on their talk pages, such as, to use your example, if you are interested in cricket players please consider looking at and cleaning these: Article here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

That wouldn't help me: I know almost nothing about cricket. Durova 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could make it a personal habit of yours to solicit the help of users toward specific articles that you think deserve more information. That would be just fine, and I have several personal practices myself that are like that. But to embark on a widespread campaign toward this end would waste time that is better served editing the encyclopedia. I'm glad to see you interested in and passionate about Misplaced Pages, though. AdamBiswanger1 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo made a comment to exactly that effect. He wished that we could have a hundred thousand featured articles by the end of 2007. Not gonna happen, but it's a good sentiment. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if all users have the same defeatist attitude it obviously wont happen. All users with the tireless contributor barnstar im sure would be happy to help.Ahadland 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalism noticeboard?

Here's another dish that's been simmering on my back burner: a lot of mainstream journalism articles about Misplaced Pages either contain factual mistakes (such as failure to distinguish between editors, administrators, and arbitrators) or overlook features and developments (such as stories about vandalism that fail to mention semi-protection, anti-vandal bots, and plans to adapt the German Misplaced Pages's stable versions feature into the English language site). In fairness to those hardworking members of the press, they operate on tight deadlines and may not have sufficient time to learn the knowledge a devoted Wikipedian acquires over months or years.

So would it be practical to implement a journalism noticeboard where they could post factual questions and get answers from Wikipedians? I foresee a couple of pitfalls here: journalists normally ask these questions through private channels and need a contact's full name. Also there's a risk of the page getting abused by disruptive users. But if experienced editors provide verifiable diffs and links, if journalists provide their bona fides, and if some of the discussion follows up via e-mail, then this might be useful. The main advantage is that this could provide more and speedier answers than a query to a particular contact who might not receive it until after press time.

What are your thoughts? Would the benefits be worth it and could we resolve the pitfalls? Durova 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have centralized locations for press about wikipedia already? It seems like it would be best integrated there. (a place to go before you write the story, as well as a collection of stories that have been written) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any interactive place where they can ask questions and get swift answers? The Help Desk has its own problems and doesn't seem appropriate for that function. I've given my name to the Foundation as someone who's willing to answer questions, but nobody's followed up with me via that route. My only interactive contact with journalists has happened when I initiated it myself. Durova 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading

it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.

And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:

/root
index.html

sub-portal directory example

/portal1
-/a-z directory
--/images
---/images display html files
---/images

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webscriptz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar

Mission accomplished - consensus-version implemented. Nicely done. The Transhumanist   03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Implementation of the redesigned sidebar (which was completed via consensus last September) is way behind. In the meantime, Misplaced Pages's main menu has become bloated.

I propose that while we're waiting for the developers to implement the new design, that a temporary fix be made to break up the main menu and make it easier to read. Like this:

navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events

---

• Random article
• Recent changes

---

• Community portal
• About Misplaced Pages
• Contact us
• Make a donation
• Help

The rest of the sidebar would remain the same. This proposal only affects the top menu box.

It wouldn't require a developer, and any admin could implement it.

There's the same number of links, but the lines and rearrangement make it much easier to see the structure and to read.

The Transhumanist   20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. The Transhumanist   21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't it make more sense for "Community Portal" to be in the top section? Nihiltres 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (never mind, that's not a problem Nihiltres 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
• Why do I dislike that Help is sorta buried in the middle...?   Having it at the end (current state) means that when in reading all the items they become a blur, at least you'll see the important last item 'help'. I'm thinking leave it at the end, or put it above the line and after Current events. The divisions do help to some extent, but two or one, which items above and which below? Ouch, I already have a headache! Shenme 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved "Help" back down to the bottom, as you suggested. The Transhumanist   21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Sorry, I'm just entering the discussion. Where would the search box be? --Iamunknown 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Same place it is now. The proposal only affects the top box on the sidebar. The rest have been left off, but will remain the same.
  • Below all of that. Prodego 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I already have to scroll down to reach useful tools; the more space that is used for decorative purposes, the more scrolling will be needed. Notinasnaid 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point - we could remove the word "navigation" from above the box to make up the difference. Would that help? --The Transhumanist   21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- I like it, and I agree w/ removing the "navigation" text. I do kind of feel that the Community Portal should be in the top portion, but I'd be fine either way. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I like that; the separation is clearer. I can certainly appreciate Notinasnaid's comment about scrolling, but I think this small increase in height is worth it. Adrian M. H. 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel that this is a fix for a problem that doesn't really exist. The sidebar is not really bloated as it currently stands, and I doubt that a redesign will slim it down much anyway. (at least none of the proposed redesigns I saw seemed to do so) Then again, I usually browse with a very high resolution, so everything looks small to me. Is there any possibility of writing a script or adding a preference to customize the sidebar? (i.e. remove links that you don't use very often)--Danaman5 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can already be done with user CSS (e.g. to hide the "Main page" link, add

#n-Main-page {display: none} 

to here – Qxz 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why are you ignoring the #Sidebar redesign proposal above? In the future, please add comments at the pages that are affected (like Mediawiki:Sidebar) instead of just the promotion at WP:CBB and WP:Help desk. --Quiddity 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because this doesn't affect the sidebar redesign at all, only the current sidebar, as a temporary fix while we're waiting for implementation of the other. No need to muddle the other discussion with a tangential issue. The Transhumanist   22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not tangential at all! It's exactly the same discussion, with 2 different drafts. Both attempting to re-implement the change that almost made it in December. Gah! --Quiddity 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This is only a temporary fix. Not a developer issue. Even so, it is a seperate proposal - the proposal you referred to above wasn't getting much traffic, and if you've touched upon the same issue there, it sure wasn't obvious. The Transhumanist   23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, I'll just repost it below then. --Quiddity 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons already stated: I fail to see the need for this change and it pushes the most important feature (the search bar) lower on the page. That's a big negative for the vision impaired who have to use low resolution settings. Well intentioned but counterproductive. Durova 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • removing "navigation" from the top of the box should offset any drop in the search box. The Transhumanist   22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I still don't get it. The introduction calls this long overdue yet fails to provide any reason why change is even needed. The current organization looks just fine. What exactly is lacking that any of the proposed changes would improve? And before assuring anyone the new version is better, please readjust your screen resolution to the appropriate levels for an eighty-seven year old grandmother with cataracts or her twenty-two year old grandson with glaucoma. Test before you put this to a vote. I'm rather surprised to have been the first to raise this objection, which makes me wary of quick oh-that's-no-problem assurances. Too many times in the past I've seen tech staff give hand waving promises for stuff they hadn't quality checked and then walk away from the problems they had created. Durova 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Allow me to explain... What I was referring to as "way behind" is the implementation of a design that was already ratified back in September. It received consensus, but has been held up by inavaiability of programmers to make the necessary changes to the MediaWiki software. The problem we are trying to solve here with this proposal is that the main menu has become cludgy and hard to "get" at a glance. It needs to be broken up visually to make it easier to read. Two horizontal lines are fairly inobtrusive and do not elongate it by much, while providing most users with an immediate benefit. The Transhumanist   05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Changing to Neutral per previous consensus. I'm not confident enough in this to support. Durova 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A great improvement and easy to implement. Terrific. --Dweller 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome its a lot easier to find what you are looking for with this. -- Darkest Hour 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's probably the only thing that brings people away from usership, since the rest of the links on the sidebar are community-related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HubmaN (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
• Support design B — while I'm still convinced that the original #Sidebar redesign is the way froward, I guess this is a logical compromise — Jack · talk · 05:49, Thursday, 22 March 2007

Alternative designs

design A navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Recent changes Community portal About Misplaced Pages Contact us Make a donation Help

design B navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Recent changes Community portal About Misplaced Pages Contact us Make a donation Help

design C navigate Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article interact Help Community portal Questions About Misplaced Pages Contact us Recent changes Make a donation

design D navigate Main page Featured content Contents Current events Random article interact Help Community portal About Misplaced Pages Contact us Recent changes Make a donation

• This is the other potential design, as proposed earlier, at #Sidebar redesign. Just as easy to implement, and the searchbox only moves down by about 1.5cm. Many other Wikipedias have 2 nav boxes above the search, e.g. all 6 of the 250,000+ {{Wikipedialang}}uages do. --Quiddity 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So that's what you meant by "Oh hell, I'm ready to throw up my arms and let the simple draft be discussed/implemented." Man, I didn't have a clue what you were talking about. A simpler sidebar redesign to submit to developers is what I thought you were referring to. The essence of your proposal should be in the heading. My guess is most people skipped it or skimmed over it. --TT
  • It does drop down quite a bit. To improve it, you should move "Help" to the bottom, and remove Questions, because that is already at the top of the Help page. That way you keep it to 11 links. The interact box is already starting to suffer from bloat. The Transhumanist   00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, where does the wikicode for the boxes go? They're not at MediaWiki:Sidebar. The Transhumanist   00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, "navigate" and "interact" don't serve any purpose whatsoever. So we should remove those. The Transhumanist   00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the navigate and interact. They're verb tense, so it makes the reader interested in helping out, or at least getting to know Misplaced Pages. I like the separation of the third one, too, because it's not so overwhelming. I say #3. _└┘talk  01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and that was one of the points we spent weeks arguing about. --Quiddity 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Design D implements most of the redesign draft ideas, removes 'Questions' (per TT), moves 'Featured content' back to the 2nd spot and leaves both 'Help' and 'Donations' prominent (per Jack). That's the best and smallest I can suggest. --Quiddity 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Featured content is going to be included on the contents navbar soon, and so will be displayed at the top of the Contents page. Therefore, there's no need to place it before Contents on the main menu, as it is more specialized than Contents. "Contents", being the more general of the two should probably go first, because "Featured content" is a subcategory of it and not the other way around. Contents is the table of contents for the entire encyclopedia, not just a sampling of it. It makes logical sense for it to go first. The Transhumanist   05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Featured content' should go before 'Contents' because Misplaced Pages is currently striving to improve quality, not quantity. (Do I have to go hunt down Jimmy Wales' quote, or do you know what I mean?) --Quiddity 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The order of links in design A is superior. Both "Community Portal" and "Help" stand out, as they should, and "Help" stands out more by being placed at the end. "Make a donation" still stands out, as well, because it hangs out over the end of "Help". And since the eye is drawn to "Help" when it is on the end, it prompts the user to read the items in reverse order, which creates an unintended but appriopriate message: "Help, make a donation." It's perfect. The Transhumanist   05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Design E, for Eloquence

Well, it looks like Eloquence bypassed the discussions and went straight for the throat, and changed the MediaWiki:Sidebar directly. A bold move. But I LIKE IT! And five stars for audacity. Cheers.

It's close enough to all the versions above, but has one distinct advantage: the job is done. So now we can move on to more productive tasks. The Transhumanist   08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that Eloquence was very bold, and it's clearly been demonstrated we can do it, go Eloquence! Although, the changes weren't exactly what we asked for, and I've left a message on the MediaWiki talkpage — Jack · talk · 08:22, Thursday, 22 March 2007

Was there something wrong with the original?

I just don't see why there's this strong trend lately to change parts of the user interface that have worked just fine for years. Plus, I just went to click recent changes, and wound up with Featured content instead, because someone moved the button (: VectorPotential 11:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is really annoying... everything's pushed down. I'm a vandal hunting admin, and it bugs me to have to scroll down to access 'user contributions' and 'block user' every time I do a block. Is there any way you can turn this option off? Something I can put in my css? – Riana 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"#p-about h5 {display:none}" helps a bit, but still leaves about a line's worth of space. --ais523 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. At least I can get to contributions quickly - blocking is secondary. – Riana 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, ".portlet h5 {display:none}" probably saves you enough space to reach both links ('block' is just below 'contributions' isn't it (I test on a sysop account on a non-Wikimedia MediaWiki wiki), yes it is). It removes all the sidebar headers, even the ones that were there before. --ais523 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent, that totally works. Thanks! :) – Riana 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also suppress various elements;

• #n-Contents {display:none} - Removes just the new 'Contents' link.
• #n-portal {display:none} - Removes the Community portal link.
• #n-currentevents {display:none} - Removes the Current events portal link.
• #p-about {display:none} - Removes the entire 'about' box.
• #p-search {display:none} - Removes the entire 'search' box.

And so forth. See Misplaced Pages:Catalogue of CSS classes for a (nearly) complete list of sidebar elements. --CBD 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done to all concerned. It's a big improvement. --Dweller 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.