Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


See the "project page" for the versions under discussion.

Reminder to programmers - keep in mind that there are non-programmers here too, so a little extra explanation to help the rest of us understand what you are talking about would be most appreciated.

Reminder to programmers - make all of this language-neutral.

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

File:Wikipedia-browsebox-demo.gif
mockup example
browse

A suggestion for a new sidebar box.

Partially to replace some of the various navigation bars and boxes, eg {{Reference pages (header bar)}}, {{Reference pages (footer box)}}, {{List resources footer}}, {{Categorybrowsebar}}, and the former design and erratic placement of {{Browsebar}} and {{catbar}}(deleted).

And partially to provide the most concise summary of Wikipedia:Reference pages and Wikipedia:Start possible, in a permanently accessible location. Thoughts? --Quiddity 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone likes the general idea, there are many options for which links to include, where to put the box in the stack, and whether to try and merge some links from the "navigation" box (perhaps move some of the site tools like "recent changes" and "contact wikipedia" down to a new box)). --Quiddity 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously a very significant change being suggested, and would need to be discussed by many people. I am simply bringing it up here first, to gauge initial reaction. Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I LOVE this idea, and I have some additional suggestions: linkify the names of each box on the sidebar (but remove "navigation" from the top box altogether), and modify this box to include referenct tables:

"Overview" became "Overviews", to prevent confusion with the Overview link on the Main Page. "Other index schemes" became the menu name "reference pages" (The page is now called Wikipedia:Reference pages.

I also have some suggestions for the rest of the sidebar:

"Recent changes" should be moved down to the toolbox. The toolbox menu name should be shortened to "tools" and linked to Wikipedia:Tools (though that page could and should be improved as part of this project).

The Help link in the navigation menu should be moved to the top of the list, or to the end of it, not buried in the middle. The name of the top menu box (navigation) should be removed, as it serves no purpose, and would be the primary function of the reference pages box - while the reference pages box would serve navigation of the encyclopedia proper much more directly and explicitly (while the navigation box has non-navigation pages listed in it).

The name of the search box ("search") should be linked to a searching superpage, with augmented search features and/or links to the best external wikipedia-specific search tools.

Quiddity, how did you create the mock up of the sidebar in the picture above?

--Nexus Seven 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.
(mock up created with just cut and paste in XnView (freeware ACDsee replacement)) --Quiddity·(talk) 04:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming enough people respond (we may have to create a project page for this and put notices up on high-traffic pages) and we reach a consensus on a new sidebar configuration, who could implement the changes to the sidebar? Won't that take modification of the PHP? We should get those people involved from the start, because they could provide guidance on what is and is not possible, so we don't go down a dead end and design something that isn't practical. --Nexus Seven 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the first one. It adds alot of user-friendlyness to Wikipedia. dposse 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for programmers on the above Sidebar Redesign Proposal

What would it take to implement the above discussed changes to the Sidebar? I'm a bit unclear on the procedures involved here. Assuming we arrive at a final design via consensus building, what happens next? What files need to be changed? Is there code involved? Etc. --Nexus Seven 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do we need to keep in mind during the discussion of design specifications? Like what is and is not doable, etc. --Nexus Seven 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is trivial to add a new box in the existing software. Similarly, it would be no problem to modify the names on any of the boxes. Existing software doesn't allow links on the titles. Making them do so would take a bit of work (or javascript tricks) but is not impossible. The items displayed in the toobox are dynamically determined by page context, can't be modified in existing software, and I would suggest changing that would be a bad idea. Dragons flight 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you know about MediaWiki:Sidebar ? --Splarka (rant) 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's another example of how this works (on a differenct wiki): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
What are Mediawiki:Navigation, Mediawiki:Search, and Mediawiki:Toolbox? Are these pages in any way relateed to the sidebar as is Mediawiki:Sidebar? --Nexus Seven 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Sidebar is used for everything above the searchbox. The ones you mentioned are the titles of the <h5>'s used in all the other side boxes. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

As Splarka implied, the proposed updates seem fairly straight-forward 'coding' wise. Most aspects of the Wikipedia 'interface' are controlled by pages in the MediaWiki namespace. For instance, MediaWiki:Sidebar contains a line 'contact-url|contact'... which is evaluated as a call to MediaWiki:contact-url, which in turn points to Wikipedia:Contact us, and displays the link text as the contents of MediaWiki:Contact. Kind of roundabout in that case, but nothing tricky... though any changes would require an admin because the pages are protected. I doubt you'll need to get into CSS or javascript changes for this, but those are also found in the MediaWiki namespace at MediaWiki:Common.css, MediaWiki:Monobook.js, et cetera. --CBD 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

seems logical enough...I didn't know...thanks for the info. I don't completely agree with all of the content. I don't think the top should be links anyway. --gatoatigrado 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

third suggestion

version 3 - feel free to add more versions

Your examples are ambiguous between the "lists" and overviews. The "topics" links only give lists of things, which in my opinion aren't as useful. --gatoatigrado 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

integrate "contact wikipedia" to "help", most users know this. use small line breaks. --gatoatigrado 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

this organization of "contents" made more sense to me, with the last four links being what I would expect in the back of a paper encyclopedia. --gatoatigrado 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mock up (version 4)

The revisions I mentioned above would look something like this. I've added in the word "lists" to make the reference pages menu more semantically accurate:

Someone needs to fix the search box above, as I just threw together the closest approximation that I could find. It's supposed to look exactly like the current searchbox on the current sidebar, except that the box title is linkified (we can create an appropriate page as part of this project). I couldn't find the sourcetext for the real searchbox. I also didn't know how to create an internal link to the Wikimedia Foundation wiki's fundraising page, which should point to the dontations subheading of that page. The Random Article link above is dead, because I didn't know how to replicate it. Since the toolbox items are dynamically generated, I just left those blank. Since Recent changes can't be easily moved to the toolbox, I deemphasized it slightly by placing Random article above it. --Nexus Seven 22:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The internal links are with a prefix like w:, but I don't know - look on the template for "wikitionary has an article on <pagename>" or whatever. --gatoatigrado 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
got it (see project page). --gatoatigrado 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the "featured pages" but not "random article" link? I think the former is much more valid. The "recent changes" seems to be more of a toolbox thing to me. --gatoatigrado 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete it, I moved it down to the Reference pages box. It is, after all, a list page, like all the other pages listed there. And it definitely fits the definition of "Reference page". --Nexus Seven 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
right, that's fine. What about moving "recent changes" to "toolbox"?

--gatoatigrado 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Dragons Flight above, the toolbox menu is generated dynamically, and it would be very difficult to add items to it. Though since you are a programmer, you may know a way to implement this? --Nexus Seven 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The "categorical index" isn't an index. I liked my version better, mostly because of the order of things in "references pages". I actually think the header links are nice now that I see the mock-up. I also think we should have as few links as possible for simplicity, but it's a lesser issue than putting them in a logical order. --gatoatigrado 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Since it points to categories in the category system, and since the category system is a page indexing system, the categories page is also an index page. --Nexus Seven 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Indices are "usually arranged alphabetically" (index), not hierarchically, but I guess you're right. --gatoatigrado 23:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Featured Articles and Current Events back up to the main menu, because the Reference Pages list was getting too long, and because these 2 pages aren't as general as the other pages listed in the Reference pages list. --Nexus Seven 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

not that it matters, but the above search box causes this page to be invalid.

ordering

if this is proposed to seriously replace the links on the entire Wikipedia project, it had better be perfected. I think "lists / glossary / index" makes sense, because it seems similar to the appendicies, glossary, and index in a print encyclopedia. --gatoatigrado 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's perfect it. I'm not too particular abou the order, as long as sufficient links are provided. I'd hate to see any major reference pages left out. --Nexus Seven 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm Very particular about there being a coherent ordering scheme behind their order, and would prefer a minimal quantity of links. We can always add links later on, but people will scream blue murder if things are removed later on.
I'll add another variant once we find out if it's even possible to have it below the search box (if it's not, then i'm against the whole thing). --Quiddity·(talk) 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

random/recent to toolbox

I like it this way; these pages aren't particularly useful anymore because there are so many recent changes, and random article isn't that useful. It's farther down, and it's sort of a special page, not article. --gatoatigrado 23:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found random article to be extremely useful. It helps break mental blocks, and it is a great navigation tool. You never know what is going to pop up. I've found some very interesting articles using Random article, even some that were relevant to my interests, that I never thought of looking up directly, as I didn't even know they existed as topics. But that's just me. We need to see what the community at large feels about this. But according to Dragons Flight, above, we can't add anything to the toolbox. It is dynamically generated, and would take a programming, rather than an editing, fix. But we can explore this further. That's why I've invited programmers to this discussion: to find out what is doable and what isn't. What are your thoughts about the doability of changing the programming of the dynamically generated toolbox menu? --Nexus Seven 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be moved to the toolbox menu, if a way can be found to make this work. --Nexus Seven 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry I moved this to another place; I read your comment above. I have a mediawiki on my site and I'll see if it can be done easily. Otherwise, I guess it's fine as is. --gatoatigrado 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries. This discussion may take longer to complete than the one week granted on Village Pump Proposals. So moving the discussion was a good thing. --Nexus Seven 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The 'Recent articles' link is really a toolbox function, and so should be moved there. However I find the 'Radom article' to be wonderfully informative, and a major advantage of wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. Hence I would suggest keeping it in a prominant position, although perhaps not within the main navigation options. Within a new 'Comunity' section? LinaMishima 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there do we loose permalink in the mock versions 3 & 4. If it's gonna be that way, I oppose to such a modification. Lincher 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The toolbox remains pretty much the same - we have no way to change it (that I know of), and it is different on different pages because it is dynamically generated. The proposal above was to add two items to it, while not removing any. I've added the missing items to the mock-up - leaving them out is just confusing, even though their inclusion is explained above. --Nexus Seven 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

programming

What can and can't be done.

I know for a fact the toolbox cannot be changed; it would affect every wiki that WMF operates. Also, things really can't be placed below the search box, sadly. Most of the rest can be done; I'll organize an example in a few minutes. Ral315 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Without changing MediaWiki at all, see here. Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
um, why are you saying you can't change the toolbox? I just did. see section below. --gatoatigrado 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See Dragons flight's comment and mine above - editing the toolbox changes the toolbox on every single wiki operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Ral315 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered it is possible to embed raw HTML into Mediawiki:Navigation, Mediawiki:Search, and the like, which control the headings on sidebar items. This would allow one to add links to those headers without any modifications to the existing codebase. Dragons flight 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
oh okay...neat. Do you have an example? --gatoatigrado 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited MediaWiki:Search and the html only displayed on the MediaWiki page. Are you using a different version? I'm using 1.6. --gatoatigrado 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, it apparently only works on Mediawiki:Sidebar headers (e.g. Mediawiki:Navigation) but not on Search or Toolbox. Dragons flight 07:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If this-hypothetical-box cannot be placed beneath the search box, I believe the whole idea needs to be dropped. Moving the search box lower in it's placement on the page is totally unacceptable. --Quiddity·(talk) 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If the consensus agrees, then certainly. But the Reference Page links would be extremely useful to have access to from every page on Wikipedia, and the consensus may be that it is worthwhile to lower the search box. As long as it is still on the page, there shouldn't be any problem. There is still much to explore, and we may find a way, or a compromise. Just keep an open mind, and help us find one. --Nexus Seven 09:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The search box is currently only just "above the fold" at 800x600. Any lower and it would be below the fold; this would be unacceptable (because of poor usability). It would also mean changing a core piece of site design, thereby potentially confusing a large percentage of users. I would very strongly oppose moving the search box lower in the page; (unless the top "navigation" box gets drastically shortened as part of all this). --Quiddity·(talk) 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the suggestion of dedicating the upper sidebox to navigation only - this will only add a single additional line to the box above search box (space will be made by moving entries to other sideboxes further down). Even that single additional line might be removable. This way, all the reference tools on the sidebar will be together at the top of the page, where they belong. LinaMishima 19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Like version 12? It's an interesting idea, but it is so vastly different to all the other WikiMedia sites, that it is near-inconceivable that the change would be accepted.
The scope of all the newly proposed changes far exceeds my initial suggestion, which was for a simple 6-7 line browse box addition. sigh. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe most people have worked with the spirit of your original proposal, that the sidebar be enhanced to make top-down wikipedia browsing easier. This has lead to quite a few discussions about the current methods, practices and absolutes which have been very benificial. I strongly believe that a good enough case for change will be accepted - the german wikipedia already has a different sidebar to the standard. The call for placing reference access above the search is also because if options are presented below, they are painted as secondary to the search tool, which should not be the case. LinaMishima 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The German and Italian are indeed very different. Hmmm. --Quiddity·(talk) 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes me doubt Dragons' claim, no offense. The italian version would require editing as the current monobook.php is "hard coded" not to allow any custom sections below the "search" box. --69.221.232.135 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To make this perfectly clear what we cannot do without modifying the php source which runs every wiki. --gatoatigrado 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No navigation / search / toolbox links
  • All custom content panes are above search and toolbox
  • Links are one line, making the "A-Z / Categorical" impossible

However programming something that's perfectly backwards compatible is very possible. I need to know exactly what access we have, if I can show that proper modifications will have no side effects to other skins or other language wikis, or other wikimedia sites. --gatoatigrado 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


site-wide vs per-page tools

In regards to changing it across all wikis, and because those whom know about such things are reading, I just wanted to mention that the per-page and sitewide links are slightly confusingly organised, and could potentially be better grouped/seperated?

eg. this is what we currently have:

  • What links here - per-page
  • Related changes - per-page
  • Upload file - sitewide
  • Special pages - sitewide
  • Printable version - per-page
  • Permanent link - per-page

I don't have a solution, just wanted to mention it. --Quiddity·(talk) 07:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, this organization is unfortunately carried out in MonoBook.php. There's a lot of organization and formatting, from the fact that the sidebar links are links, to the order of navigation, search, toolbox, that happens with MonoBook.php. I'm not exactly sure how people want to address this. To some extent, I'm getting the idea that this is more of a Mediawiki issue than Wikipedia. --gatoatigrado 11:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

programming (gatoatigrado's wiki)

done, in 4.46 hours. Not bad for being rather unfamiliar (only adding preg expressions to my mediawiki). I guess some time I'll appreciate the complexity of the code; for now it seems a bit excessive. Only English for now though. Look at it at http://wiki.ntung.com. --gatoatigrado 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The same code operates every wiki run by the Wikimedia Foundation and is widely distributed to be run on other sites. As a result, any changes to the code should be such that the present appearance is preserved by default, and such changes are acceptable across all skins / languages. (No one ever said it was easy to be a Mediawiki hacker.) Dragons flight 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

still working on links for "search" and "toolbox", sorry if the site is down for a few minutes. --gatoatigrado 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

formatted diff

diff at Image:Sidebar_changes.pdf. I recommend you apply the changes manually to help catch errors. --gatoatigrado 05:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

annotated diff

diff -dHrN old/Messages.php new/Messages.php
29,30d28

two lines below unnecessary, tried editing before I found MediaWiki:Sidebar was the only effective editing 

< ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges
< ** randompage-url|randompage

four lines below for page links in English 

173a172
> 'search_page'		=> 'Gwiki:Search',
202a202
> 'toolbox_page' => 'Gwiki:Tools',
diff -dHrN old/MonoBook.php new/MonoBook.php
144c144,148

text below for adding header links in the monobook style page 

< 	<?php foreach ($this->data['sidebar'] as $bar => $cont) { ?>
---
> <?php $bar_data = $this->data['sidebar'];
> 	foreach ($bar_data as $bar => $cont) {
> 		if($bar == "headinginfo") { continue; }
> 		$heading_name = wfMsg($bar); if (wfEmptyMsg($bar, $heading_name)) $heading_name = $bar;
> 		$bar_link = htmlspecialchars($bar_data['headinginfo'][$bar]['href']); ?>
146c150,151
< 		<h5><?php $out = wfMsg( $bar ); if (wfEmptyMsg($bar, $out)) echo $bar; else echo $out; ?></h5>
---
> <?php if(!empty($heading_name))
> 			echo("\t\t<h5><a href=\"$bar_link\">$heading_name</a></h5>\n"); ?>
157c162
< 	<?php } ?>
---
> <?php } ?>

text below for search link 

159c164
< 		<h5><label for="searchInput"><?php $this->msg('search') ?></label></h5>
---
> 		<h5><label for="searchInput"><a href="<?php echo($this->data['sidebar']['headinginfo']['search']['href']); ?>"><?php $this->msg('search') ?></a></label></h5>

text below for toolbox link 

173c178
< 		<h5><?php $this->msg('toolbox') ?></h5>
---
> 		<h5><a href="<?php echo($this->data['sidebar']['headinginfo']['toolbox']['href']); ?>"><?php $this->msg('toolbox') ?></a></h5>

text below for adding recent changes and random page to the toolbox 

200c205
< 		foreach( array('contributions', 'blockip', 'emailuser', 'upload', 'specialpages') as $special ) {
---
> 		foreach( array('contributions', 'blockip', 'emailuser', 'upload', 'specialpages', 'recentchanges', 'randompage') as $special ) {
diff -dHrN old/Skin.php new/Skin.php

text below for search and toolbox links 

1453a1454,1455
> 		$bar["headinginfo"]["search"] = array( 'href' => $this->makeInternalOrExternalUrl(wfMsg('search_page')) );
> 		$bar["headinginfo"]["toolbox"] = array( 'href' => $this->makeInternalOrExternalUrl(wfMsg('toolbox_page')) );
1454a1457,1458
> 		//print_r($lines);
> 		//echo("lines = ".$lines);

text below for MediaWiki:Sidebar heading links 

1459,1460c1463,1467
< 				$line = trim($line, '* ');
< 				$heading = $line;
---
> 				$line = explode('|', trim($line, '* '), 2);
> 				$heading = $line[1];
> 				$bar["headinginfo"][$heading] = array(
> 						'href' => $this->makeInternalOrExternalUrl($line[0])
> 				);
1483a1491
> 		//print_r($bar);
diff -dHrN old/SkinTemplate.php new/SkinTemplate.php

text below for adding recent changes and random page to toolbox 

774a775,776
> 		$nav_urls['recentchanges'] = array('href' => $this->makeSpecialUrl('Recentchanges'));
> 		$nav_urls['randompage'] = array('href' => $this->makeSpecialUrl('Random'));

good luck cleaning it up. --gatoatigrado 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, you can't make changes that affect the default behavior on other wikis using the same code or that give unexpected results in other skins. Consequently, many of the modifications you have laid out here have no chance of being accepted in this form. Dragons flight 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
are you suggesting that there's something more appropriate than a diff? --gatoatigrado 06:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you are not understanding me. The same code that runs the English Wikipedia runs dozens of other sites. Any changes to that code have to be compatible with ALL the sites running Mediawiki software. Since your changes would impact those other sites, they will not be accepted. Any changes have to be accomplished in ways that perserve the status quo for all other sites that don't want to change their sidebar. Dragons flight 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm changes can be made to en.wikipedia.org without it affecting other WMF wiki's. They all are installed seperately (or so I am lead to believe by meta) so changes to this wiki can be made....
As to editing the toolbox - it can be done but you would have to get consensus for the change then request the changes by a developer. The same applies to getting boxes belwo the search bar --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way they will fork the Mediawiki code base to accomplish this. Period. Ask any dev. All sites use the same code (aside from LocalSettings.php) because the alternative would be impossible to manage given the normal course of development. If you can extend Mediawiki in a way that allows for these changes while being backwards compatible with other existing sites, then okay, but simply changing the behavior for everyone is not going to fly. Dragons flight 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it could probably be done, but I think Dragon's right; this is something that either should be changed in MediaWiki or we should go with a simpler scheme, like just adding the reference links. --gatoatigrado 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Testing

If anyone wants to test changing the sidebar on a real wiki, a public test wiki is available at: http://wiki.xyrael.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page . Just ask me (or anyone else who is there) to make you a sysop there, and I will. Just remember, that when you are done testing on the sidebar, please revert yourself so others can test too. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: The reason this is more significant than other peoples' test wikis is that it is public and sysop is handed out free. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In order to make the changes necessary, the php files have to be edited. --gatoatigrado 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
sysop doesn't let you do that. tell me and I can try anything on my wiki. perhaps we can get someone experienced in changing mediawiki. --gatoatigrado 05:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the toolbox, just testing the MediaWiki:Sidebar . No software changes. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Ral already did that (just editing MediaWiki:Sidebar) above. --gatoatigrado 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but only ral can edit MediaWiki:Sidebar. Here, sysop status is granted freely, so anyone can edit the sidebar. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we only need to edit it once when we decide on pages. Besides, to be language neutral, the Messages__.php pages have to be edited and then MediaWiki:Sidebar can be edited. I don't see any reason why we can't decide on the format of links here. --gatoatigrado 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
never mind, many of these things are handled by the MediaWiki:<word> syntax. sorry to criticize too early. Thanks for the idea, and I can set something up on my site as well - I doubt there would be any malicious traffic. --gatoatigrado 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
All anyone had to do was ask me, and I'd gladly give you sysop. Ral315 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

edit mediawiki

I'll try to edit my wiki later sometime so that the Mediawiki:Sidebar is better. The current schemes aren't very dynamic...

These changes should be made to MediaWiki first (to make it more "dynamic"), then Wikipedia - simply editing links.

It would be neat to have a MediaWiki:Sidebar like 

* navigation-url|navigation
** link1_url|link1_text

* search_url|search
** {{#searchfield}}

* any_other_table
** link3_url|link3_text

* toolbox
** {{WhatLinksHere}}
** {{UploadFile}}
** link4_url|link4

etc. --gatoatigrado 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If it could be implemented so that the "other table" is optional, then it wouldn't affect the other wikis. Can you do this? --Nexus Seven 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it might take more than a whole day, but I'm free this summer; it would be fun. --gatoatigrado 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
never mind - I might do it myself eventually, but it's not backwards compatible. I think there might be a few-line trick for GlobalFunctions.php to allow HTML content that would be backward-compatible. --69.221.241.8 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

a definitive answer

I'd like a definitive answer on how much we can edit Wikipedia. Just MediaWiki:Search? Some php edits that maintain backward-compatibility? No edits to MonoBook.php? --gatoatigrado 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

one line of code allowing links for "navigation" and "reference pages" to be links, but it's not the most elegant. at least it's backwards compatible.

this is in globalfunctions.php, function wfMsg( $key )
if(substr( $key, 0, strlen( "<!--html-->" ) ) === "<!--html-->") { return $key; }

other language wikipedias

Are you sure they're all on the same codebase? The Farsi wikipedia has different bullets for the first indent but not the second. The german wikipedia already added a second section. german home, german sidebar, farsi home, farsi sidebar. different comment style in farsi.

Yes. All of these examples can already be accomplished be editing pages in the Mediawiki: namespace, and without any changes to the PHP. Dragons flight 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

More changes

I propose considering some of the following options:

1. Change the link in top navbar from Featured Articles to Featured Content. Wikipedia has more featured stuff to offer than articles alone and we should emphasize that; from the featured content page, the featured articles (as well as other featured categories) are easily accessible. 1.1 Following 1, remove redundant Featured Content link from main page, together with the already planned removal of Categories and A-Z index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.225.50 (talk • contribs)

I think "categories" is useful. Featured content is okay but featured articles already shows featured content. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Add another bar just under the reference navbar saying something like "using wikipedia" or "help" or "accessibility", containing all the stuff from top left of main page (overview, searching, editing, questions. Also move "help" from navbar #1 to this navbar, perhaps making it number 1 on list). 2.1 Remove now redundant links from the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.225.50 (talk • contribs)

a separate help section makes it way too long. --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

These changes will allow important links to be on every page rather than main page (traffic linked to a particular article, which due to search enginges is probably greater than main page traffic, will see all main links on all pages; at the same time, it'll allow the removal of the whole friggning text line on main page between header and body, making a much nicer design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.225.50 (talk • contribs)

what line between the header and the body? --gatoatigrado 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about this line:
Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help

Categories · Featured content · A–Z index

But since the main page has one-click access from everywhere just by clicking on the globe, that gives the links on the above line two-click access, which ain't bad to begin with. I doubt there's room for them on the sidebar -- we're having enough trouble fitting/placing one extra box of items. --Nexus Seven 10:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

delete or combine topic lists / combine indices

"basic topic lists" is a much better page. --gatoatigrado 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

These two lists go hand-in-hand. "topic lists" has much more comprehensive coverage and caters to more advanced users, while "basic topic lists" is aimed at beginners (we're all beginners in something, right?) They are both essential, and the layout on "topic lists" can be improved easily enough. Since they are brother and sister, is there a way we can put them both tastefully on a single line? Like this, maybe. And while we're at it, combine the indices on one line as well:

This shortens the box, so it won't push the search box as far down the page. --Nexus Seven 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nice. Unfortunately the current system is quite non wiki syntax, just a bit of php, probably to ease the server loads. It definitely needs modification to be able to do that. --gatoatigrado 11:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

delete alphabetical index

the search function obsoletes this. --gatoatigrado 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

but some users prefer an index over a search function. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should keep it. Browsing and searching are two sides of the same coin. Removing either defaces the coin. "A-Z /" takes up just 5 characters, so it could easily be included on the same line as the categorical index. See my suggestion under the previous heading (directly above). --Nexus Seven 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Categorial index could be named Categories. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 10:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We discussed this above, but I think it's fine as either. --gatoatigrado 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You will see my suggested changes further down the page. Noticing this post has made me realise that one cannot say keeping this option is 'obvious'. The main reason for keeping the A-Z is for the similarity to a paper encyclopedia it provides, giving users a recognisable starting point. LinaMishima 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "Featured articles" why not "featured content"?

Or is this a obviosly blatant double standard? Makes me think that the FLs, FPictures and FPortals aren't "featured". --Howard the Duck 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is simple, if mundane. Back when I added FA to the sidebar, I had never noticed the existence of FC. As to the larger point of whether or not there should be a preference for articles, that is something that can be discussed. Dragons flight 14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's the time to change it now since we're redesigning the whole thing. --Howard the Duck 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Featured Content" is the logical choice, because it gives equal weight to all featured content, and Wikipedia:Featured content is a very well-crafted page. --Nexus Seven 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Per above. NCurse work 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Featured content page was fairly new (and had just been moved from Portal space to Wikipedia space) when that link was added, so not surprising that it wasn't used. However, it has become more widely known since it was included on the redesigned Main page. As the primary creator/maintainer I'm obviously not impartial, but this seems like a good idea to me. It makes getting directly to 'Featured pictures' take one extra click, but the WP:FC page was always meant to be a portal to wrap all the featured content together. Putting that on the sidebar would make it easier to access all of this info. --CBD 11:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the reference pages list

Whilst supporting the addition of better navigational features to the side bar, the following is potentially a harsh critique of the currently suggested changes. Given the high visability of the changes and their potential to significantly improve the wikipedia experience, it would be wrong to not throughly discuss the options presented. Pleae do not take any offense from this, and you should see from my contribution history that although may be fairly new, I am willing to dig in to help improve things.

I strongly support the idea to add an easier means to navigate wikipedia to the side bar. I do, however, believe there are two major problems with the current proposals. This stems not from the proposals, but from the reference pages list being used as inspiration.

Firstly, the reference page header presents 10 sorting options, and the average number of options on the proposals on the project page (as of 1313 GMT on the 11th August 2006) is 7.9! Versions 1, 6 and 7 deserve respect for trying to either reduce or better format their reference option lists.

Secondly, the above on it's own would not be so bad if all the options presented where obviously symantically different, and a casual reader could quickly select the one which would meet their needs. However I do not believe this is the case.

One of the big problems here is the 'overview' option. The majority of the overviews appear to be the main article on a subject, which are normally quite lengthy and detailed, and are probably not the easiest means to dig deeper for information. Overview is defined as [1]:

  1. A brief summary, as of a book or a presentation.
That's why it was changed to overviews in version 2. --gatoatigrado 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with the term 'overview' is that it could also be interpreted as being an entry point to an entire field of study, summarising it's component areas. That, however, is what portal is actually intended for [2]:

"# A grandiose and often lavish entrance.

  1. An entrance, entry point, or means of entry.

The local library, a portal of knowledge.

  1. (Internet) A website that acts as an entrance to other websites on the Internet."
agreed, let's use portals to replace some things. --gatoatigrado 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

At a casual glance the list of subjects within both 'portals' and 'overviews' appear to be the same. A good portal will summarise the topic it covers, providing an overview of the points within. A portal provides a much more complete means to access a subject and itself contains an overview, making the overview option redundant. Hence I would suggest not featuring the 'overview' option on the improved sidebar.

Whilst the 'Basic topics' is a wonderful and much-needed reduction, the topics article itself is a list of list, rather than a list of sub-topics which one would expect to find. Looking at 'Disciplines', however, I find a complete list of fields within other fields. I'm not too keen on the use of 'Diciplines', but I can't think of a better alternative. 'Basic Topics' also underplays the usefullness of the catagorisation within, and the very fact it is listed as 'basic' may put some people off a very accessable yet powerful option! The only problem with 'Diciplines' is that it sounds similar to 'Topics'. so I suggest renaming it to 'Fields of study'. Hence I suggest rename 'Basic topics' to 'Topics', dropping the original option with that name.

I like catagories, but as this word has similar symantics to 'topics', I suggest that we leave the catagorical listings out of the improved side bar. 'Glossaries' is obviously needed, although the simple english rewriter in me suggests 'Definitions' (however this would sound more like something related to wiktionary). The list of reference tables, part of the reference header, is an interesting component, but I feel it would add unneeded complexity. The A-Z index again has to stay, for hopefully obvious reasons. Combined with the above, this gives us the following sidebar addition:

browse

I think the above looks very clean and non-frightening. I have not yet placed the above onto the project page, as I am unsure how to integrate it with the existing sidebar options. All I currently know is that it would be best placed directly above the 'search' box. The current 'nagigation' sidebox would have to be split up. I suggest moving 'Recent changes' and 'Help' into the toolbox, and also moving 'Contact wikipedia' and 'Donations' (but I am not sure where to). Perhaps a new 'Community' sidebox would be an idea for some of the current sidebar options?

Sorry about the length, although such was probably inevitable. LinaMishima 13:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Field of study! Why did I not think of that before! The above has been edited to replace 'Diciplines' with this phrase, and explains the change in the prose. LinaMishima 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Noticing an above post has made me realise that one cannot say keeping this option is 'obvious'. The main reason for keeping the A-Z is for the similarity to a paper encyclopedia it provides, giving users a recognisable starting point. LinaMishima 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
um, topics is a list of topics. It's doesn't link the user to information about the topics themselves. Why don't we just use portals and leave the rest of the junk out of there? It can be from the "reference pages" link. The portals look nice, and they give most information. --gatoatigrado 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will address each point above, and offer suggestions:

  • I fully support refining this concept to optimize its relevance and utility. Discussions should continue until we have reached a near perfect design.
  • Semantic accuracy is important. If possible, pages should be named so that the greatest number of readers understand what is included on that page without having to go to the page to find out. Any poorly named or ambiguous pages identified in this discussion should be renamed, regardless of whether they are included on the final sidebar design or not.
    • "Overviews" is a good example. It has another use on the Main Page currently, which makes it ambiguous. Other possible names for "overview article" is "root article" or "core article".
    • "Disciplines" is somewhat esoteric. Based on the comments above, I've changed the name of that page to List of fields of study. Problem solved.
  • There is much overlap in function between Overviews and Portals. I agree that Overviews can be dropped. Virtually all of the overview articles are accessible from their respective portals. But this gives them 3-click access (menu to portal page, portal page to portal, portal to specific overview article). However, since almost all overview articles are also fields of study, they would have the same 2-click access (menu to fields of study, fields of study to specific overview article) as if the Overview page were included on the menu. Therefore it should be dropped.
  • Basic topics and Topics are sister pages, and are intended to complement each other. Note that Basic Topics is still a list of lists, it's just that the list aspect of its entries has been hidden within piped links. The same can be done for the Topic lists page. It is poor form to have a single phrase such as "List of" or a single term like "topic" repeated a hundred times on a page, unless there is a good design reason to do so (for instance to make identification easier between two or more otherwise identical pages). So the Topics page is in need of a clean-up job anyways. And because "Topics" and its member lists provide a much more comprehensive coverage of topics, while being parallel to "Basic Topics", it is intended both to support more advanced browsing and to provide a place for the beginners who use the Basic topics page to graduate to. I strongly recommend that these two pages be as tightly paired as possible, always presented together.
    • The List of basic topic lists emphasizes the list aspect of the page too much in its title by including the word "list" in it twice. Therefore, I've changed the name of that page to Lists of basic topics. This is also less wordy and therefore more efficient (it shaves a half-second off of reading time every time it is read. Multiply that by millions of readers, and the time savings is significant. A user interface should be as streamlined as possible for this reason.
    • Ditto for the List of topic lists. It is now Lists of topics.
    • The List of reference tables has dropped the distinction between list and table, and lists as many lists as it does tables (which are nothing more than formatted lists with additional data added), making it the most comprehensive list of topic lists on Wikipedia. It almost completely subsumes the contents of Lists of topics, making that page redundant. Therefore, the two pages should be merged under the title Lists of topics.
  • Glossaries is the standard term used in the publishing field, and is therefore superior to "Definitions". Glossaries are familiar to readers of books, especially of text books. Therefore retain "Glossaries". --Nexus Seven 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories is already represented on the Main Page, and therefore has 2-click access from anywhere on Wikipedia. The category system itself is represented on the bottom line of every page. It is already ubiquitous, and therefore the category page is unneeded. However, it is difficult if not impossible for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia to find the top of the category system. Therefore, that page (Category:Categories should be included as the "Categorical index" link on the sidebar. I've always felt that Wikipedia:Browse (the category page) was redundant to the category system itself, and that it implied a failure of the category system: showing that the category system is so flawed that it can't effectively display its own contents. In this respect the category system should stand on its own. Since the category system is supposed to be an automatically generated index of Wikipedia, having a manually crafted and maintained top page for it is quite ironic, and confusing to beginners.
  • Portal:Browse seems somewhat unintuitive. It is the portal of portals, and should probably be renamed Portal:Portals or Portal:Portal Index. But this is a minor point, which we really don't need to worry about here.

Taking the above points into consideration, gives us the following menu:

The above menu assumes we can get "Topics" and "Tables" merged. If we can't, then Tables should be added back in to replace Topics. --Nexus Seven 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Still too long

It can be even shorter. I do not think Fields of study and Glossaries (add these to the portals) is essential, but Categories are. I would suggest:
browse
Thank you for your support of my core complaint, even if we suggest different solutions! LinaMishima 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that topic and catagory are too similar to both be in the list, and it is hard to determine if a subject you a looking for would be catagory or a topic. Perhaps replace 'Topics' with 'Fields of study', and keep 'Categories'? This works, because most topics are fields of study, and fields of study inplies a 'by subject', whereas categories implies 'by similarity'. LinaMishima 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in the section above, the top of the category sytem is almost impossible to find without a link provided to it. --Nexus Seven 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there are a few other things we should consider here:

  • Referring to "Basic topics" as "Topics" may cause confusion between the two pages.
  • The Fields of Study is one of the best directory pages of Wikipedia, and is specifically a directory page to support the academic community: we can safely assume Wikipedia is used by millions of students and professors around the world, and this page is especially suited for them. Wikipedia just isn't as "academic" without easy and ubiquitous access to this page. I strongly recommend that it be included. It closely parallels the subjects presented in University catalogs, and therefore directly complements those catelogs, and supports students who need to look up or browse through the subjects themselves -- to help them choose their college courses, and to help them excel in their college courses once they are enrolled. Toward these ends, that page will only improve with time. We should definitely include it in the menu on the sidebar. --Nexus Seven 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is only 5 lines long, and contains all the essential links identified in the above discussions. --Nexus Seven 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't viable, as double entries are not allowed by the programming. We're shifting design focus however, and exploring the redistribution of links from the Main Page, and throughout the Sidebar. See version 12. --Nexus Seven 19:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout #9

Mostly I rearranged the list orders. I think "donations" looks a bit more modest when placed last; I prefer the phrase "category index" ; and I arranged the "tools" items in order of priority for someone using WP for research. The top 3 items there are those my high school students would use most, in any online resource. Fwiw - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout 10: portals verses topics

Gatoatigrado proposed version 10, which builds upon my thoughts (see On the reference pages list above), and suggests that 'Topics' are redundant to the more detailed 'Portals'. In principle, I agree with their point, however the current portal page looks a little too cluttered for my liking (whilst inspecting 'topics' revealed lists of things, which I dislike as a first-port-of-call system).

As my own entry was more of an essay, and this is a rather important consideration, I'm creating a new section to discuss the relative merits of topics and portals. Feel free to act as if this is a straw poll. LinaMishima 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, portals is a bit busy, but categories / categorical index is the only shorter thing, and it's not that much better. Yeah, your "topics" is a list of lists. Because there are so many and it's difficult to choose a winner, I think the "More reference pages" is a good idea. --gatoatigrado 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually thinking that portals should simply be tidied up - after all, in theory they could probably be the best option. However to do this may mean some radical changes to the portal page. A 'More reference pages' is probably a good idea, although the current article linked to is not ideal for a first stop when looking for information (again, I'm advocating fixing this) LinaMishima 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate a point made in an earlier section, Topics can be cleaned up with pipes, to deemphasize the list aspect of the entries. The topic lists provide more streamlined access to the topics than portals do, and include more subjects on the page for easier browsing. Meanwhile, the articles displayed on Portals are forks, not the actual articles themselves, and can easily become out of date, even on portals receiving lots of attention. In contrast, the topic list hierarchy leads to the actual articles. --Nexus Seven 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've hit upon the real solution - clean up these pages. But "overviews" should be "subjects" - it's less ambiguous in my opinion. --gatoatigrado 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

just

just get rid of all the languages and use some of the extra space. use images instead of blue text looking things circa 1994. overhaul it. it is ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.138.26 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, text links are in almost all wikipedia pages. I think being functional is more important than looking nice. I think the list being short is important. --gatoatigrado 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout 11 - best of both worlds?

Layout 11 gets the reference page menu down to 5 lines, while keeping all the essential top-level pages. Some users prefer the lists, while others prefer the portals. They are two styles of browsing Wikipedia. To include basic topics and not topics kind of cripples that pair, which were designed to work together - the users graduating from one to the other.

Layout 11 assumes the pages presented on it will be cleaned up. --Nexus Seven 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This will requre editing php files, including monobook.php and other skins (which may become tedious). I don't know if the "/" is such a great idea. I think we need to work on wikipedia:reference pages and simplify some of the other things. --gatoatigrado 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That'll expand the reference pages menu to 7 lines, which is okay with me if it is okay with you. --Nexus Seven 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On second though, I sort of like it compact...7 lines is too long. Do you think it's time for a straw poll, then we can determine if it's actually possible to implement it? Or should we try to contact some administrators who are programmers and ask them if it's possible first? --gatoatigrado 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

one last thing - switch glossaries and portals? It seems like a paper encyclopedia would be more like that. Or portals to the top? --gatoatigrado 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst having the A-Z and Categories options on the same line makes sense, I'm still not happy about "Basic topics / topics", as it is unclear which one would be a more useful choice, and under what circumstances one would choose one over the other. This lack of clarity makes having both a bad idea, in my opinion. Also, a somewhat different suggestion for the layout, since most so far seem to majoritively keep the current boxing arrangement:

Then, a new box entitled 'community' is created benieth the search box, containing community portal, Featured articles, Help, contact wikipedia and donations. Recent changes is then moved to the toolbox. LinaMishima 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know about you, but at 800x600 the words "a-z categorical index" take 2 lines and look ugly, even worse than having 2 separate bullets for a-z and for category". We need to make it shorter, like "A-Z / Topic index"
  • Lina, I like your concept, and have worked up Version 12 based on it. It takes advantage of linked box headings as discussed way above, and I've grouped all the reference pages together (Featured content and current events are reference pages, as is the Main Page. I've also incorporated the suggestions from #More changes above, and have included the community pages linked to from the seperator line on the Main Page. The Main Page's format would be much cleaner and streamlined without that line. All those links are included somewhere in the Version 12 sidebar:

Layout 12

We might want to turn "community" into "community portal" just so users recognize it (it already points there). Or rename the Community portal to Wikipedia:Community, since it isn't really a portal (it's naming predated the portal system). --Nexus Seven 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I have to concede, Featured articles probably does have a place in the reference listing. On the whole, I'm happy with the above - Thank you, Nexus Seven! :) LinaMishima 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

you all are hoping for some programming rights. I guess if you get enough support it will happen. --gatoatigrado 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Programming changes, not programming rights. Though the latter would be interesting. A program edited in the same way as a wiki. Interesting concept. --Nexus Seven 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
um, I don't know if this is technical jargon or not, but I meant rights as in permissions. I didn't say anything about editing php files in wiki style, thought it would be neat. Very haphazardous as well, and undoubtedly locked to admins only. --69.221.232.135 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I had to break up the double entries into seperate lines, since those can't be programmed (see section below). Also, since the above design assumed that List of reference tables was going to get merged with or replace Lists of topics, I've added Tables back in. We need to take a closer look at that list and if it can be merged into the overview/basic/topics merge Gatoatigrado is working on. --Nexus Seven 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

overviews to subjects

this title seems to make more sense. --gatoatigrado 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the words "Subjects" and "Topics" entirely synonomous? And won't this create confusion? As discussed above, the Overview articles page is completely redundant. --Nexus Seven 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
maybe, maybe "topics" should be "subtopics". I think names to differentiate "art / history / mathematics..." from the things within them. --gatoatigrado 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought the "overviews" (whatever you want to call it) page was sort of nice, but I guess portals is one more click. I like version 11. --gatoatigrado 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

pages redesign

This would take forever [3]; it took me about an hour and I'm not even finished with the "arts" section. opinions welcome. It uses a template so it should be extensible. --gatoatigrado 00:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this:

  • First of all, a project page or village pump is the wrong place to do this. Just find one person adept with external search/replace and sorting utilities, and have him or her go at it right there on the page. It could be transformed in a couple hours or so.
  • Remember the merge suggestion above. List of reference tables includes pretty much all of Lists of topics, and the latter is supposed to be comprehensive anyways. We should look into combining them. But a merger will take time to build consensus on the two pages. I'll put up the tags.
  • In the meantime, Lists of topics could be developed to appear more like Lists of basic topics, with piped links.
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/topics redesign is too cludgy, and click-intensive - it breaks up the browsing (scrolling) experience. Continuity is what we want here.
  • If we want to cram articles on the page as well, then perhaps blue dots which separate the items in the basic topics page's format could do the trick. Unobtrusive, and adds no wordiness. The question is, where can we find a dot to use for this?
  • Is there any way to likify the bullets in a bulleted list?

--Nexus Seven 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Adding additional links on bullet points? Whilst an interesting idea, this hides both the presense of a link and what the destination is. WP:LINK and Help:Link both advise against hidden or unclear links, but unfortunately I cannot relocate the good guide as to why these are discouraged and the term for them. LinaMishima 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that linked bullets would be confusing. By building that page with a template, you can customize how things act - if you don't want the "article" link and you want the bold name linked, you only have to adjust the template. I don't think you're getting the point of the page - it's not about the minimization but combining things. I agree that Lists of topics has a lot of redundant information. Many of the items aren't lists at all, but say something like "List of [[ArticleName]]", where the article doesn't even contain a list. Part of the point of not using a fast search and merge thing is to delete unnecessary information. --gatoatigrado 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

is it getting nice enough to convince anyone yet? --gatoatigrado 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break; only "social sciences" left to go but others should probably edit all of the page so that it's not just me editing it. Others who have been on longer probably know better conventions for capitalization, etc. --gatoatigrado 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

History box!

File:Wikipedia screenshot with proposed history box.jpg

I made a mock screenshot a while ago with a little "History" box on the sidebar. Simply put, if you're going to take any real meaning from a Wikipedia article you should also briefly review the history to make sure it wasn't just vandalized. Furthermore if you are editing a Wikipedia article it's very important to make sure it wasn't just vandalized and that you're not building on vandalism. Therefore I wish it were possible to, without leaving the article's page, observe whether the page has been edited recently. If it just got a few edits from an anon, or what looks like a suspicious username (or generally any username you are unfamiliar with), you could click on the diffs to make sure the edits are legitimate.

An important part of all wikis (and particular this one) is that the page's history is just as much of a part of the article as the current incarnation. This box would emphasize that.

I'd like for this to at least be an option, if not included by default. — GT 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This would not only make the sidebar too cluttered (visually), but add a lot of confusing information for new visitors to have to deal with. It would also help perpetuate a myth that the 'correct' article is always the one 3 edits ago (ie, that wikipedia is regularly reduced in quality by it's editors and hence you always need to look at the history). I'll agree to the idea of having it as a preferences option (defaultly off), however (as it never hurts to give choice). LinaMishima 01:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
agreed, lina. it would be a pain to program and not worth it in my opinion. nothing personal. --gatoatigrado 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Better to "confuse" than misinform visitors, in my opinion. But I appreciate both of your input. — GT 06:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Confusion can drive people away. The KISS principle applies better here. The history tab is at the top of every page, which makes it sufficiently accessible, in my opinion. Though the one line of explanation that is displayed with the history after you click on the history tab could be improved -- it should briefly explain to the user what he is looking at. --Nexus Seven 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This would add significantly to server load. I don't know how significant, but my guess is that it would not be trivial. –RHolton≡– 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragon said above that it's all the same codebase, so there's probably not going to be any topic links or "link1" / "link2". I don't think it's a big loss, and all the more reason for people to help me with topics redesign - hopefully to replace all of the "list of topics" and "overviews". --gatoatigrado 02:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Random article

Would it be possible to program the Random article feature to not bring up deleted pages that have been blocked so that they do not get recreated? Skapur 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be difficult, but with a few flags it may well be possible. There's many other good changes that could be done to the random article feature, too, but these would be best discussed elsewhere. LinaMishima 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


A Simple Suggestion

It would be nice to have a reader specific list at the side which tells him/her which were the topics he visited last. Maybe giving a list of 5 topics and a tab that says [more]. In addition to this could we also add text links to other wiki projects at the side. Mithunk

watchlist already provides some of the functionality. There's some performance concern as well. It's not a bad idea. --69.221.232.135 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

by the way, simple in concept doesn't mean simple to program. --69.221.232.135 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To be even more radical, I'd suggest that a history of articles isn't that useful - but using that history to suggest similar articles which may be of interest would be a great feature. But that's more a discussion for another place, I suspect. LinaMishima 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Making it harder to edit Wikipedia layout

My concern about this proposal is that it would be harder for ordinary readers and editors to contribute to layout design. When the Main Page was being redesigned a few months ago, anyone could edit. This did create some problems, but a lot of ideas were pooled and considered with ease. I think all the editing here would be at MediaWiki:Sidebar, which is a protected page. I realise that the Main Page is protected as well, but it was easy to set up a draft. As long as a place exists on Wikipedia where anyone can edit drafts and submit them for consideration, rather than having to go to another wiki or ask for an administrator to make edits, then that is fine. Also, this raises the wider question of whether navigational links should be within the Wikipedia pages, and so freely-editable and changeable, or whether there should be MORE navigation links in the surrounding "MediaWiki framwework". Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, but some consideration needs to be given to the overall design approach before anything is settled. At the moment, the Main Page clearly separates "content links" (top right-hand side) from "Wikipedia-specific information links" (top left-hand side). Any redesign of the sidebar should likewise keep "reader" and "editor" content separate. Carcharoth 11:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation of reader and editor material is why I suggested for version 12 to dedicate the entire upper box to article navigation, and moving all the non-article sorting links to the existing and new lower sideboxes. As stated above, the german wikipedia, amongst others, has a custom sidebar, so editing it is not impractical. The issue is perhaps one of community concensus over the redesign, which may dictate advertising this discussion more. LinaMishima 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

unlocking mediawiki:sidebar is a bad idea. --69.214.15.136 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

it's furthermore simply not possible. --69.214.15.136 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So the question becomes one of whether layout and navigation is dealt with by developers and admins, or whether it is dealt with by ordinary editors. Having the WikiMedia framework have lots of navigational links could be good, but there will always be navigational links and systems on the editable wikipage. Keeping the two set of links clearly demarcated is a must. The WikiMedia framework appears on every page, and has the advantage of being stable, but has the disadvantage of being inflexible (less easily edited, programming and size restrictions). Navigational templates (such as navboxes and other templates) in the wikipages are specific to a page, or small set of pages (though templates can affect a large number of pages), and have the advantage of flexibility (lots of different possibilities, less size restrictions), and the advantage of being freely editable (in most cases), but this brings in the disadvantage of instability, with the appearance possibly being different from month to month.
So my point is that these differences must be borne in mind when deciding which links go where and what sort of links are best put in the relatively fixed sidebar, and which in templates in the relatively flexible editable wikispace. Hope that was clear enough. Carcharoth 23:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
not exactly; you're saying the templates may be advantageous because they can be edited? If we come to a consensus on the sidebar it shouldn't need to be changed often. --69.214.15.136 05:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said the above, I would support a carefully thought through redesign with a page of text (when voting started) that clearly explained and justified the changes. Though from the Main Page redesign experience, I would suggest avoiding radical changes. I agree that change is needed. That sidebar looks so old and dated now! :-) Carcharoth 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Move the search bar!

If redesignng the sidebar, then move the search control from the sidebar!

The main page should be search centric.

It works for Google!

uh, no, wikipedia is content based. moving the search bar would make the user go to the main page any time they wanted to search. Google users are taken to external links, so there's no way they could have a navigation bar. actually they do have plugins for firefox and internet explorer. --69.214.15.136 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Sidebar_redesign/Archive_01&oldid=1137398341"