Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Archive 03

Toolbox

The following is a complete, in order list of what lives in the monobook toolbox. One items is disabled entirely on Wikipedia. Others are very rarely seen (such as the RSS feeds that appear only on Special:Recentchanges and a few other places).

• What links here
• Related changes
• trackbacklink - disabled on Wikipedia
• rss atom - for pages that that have feeds
• User contributions
• Block user
• Email user
• Upload
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page - an extension, must come after all normal items
• ... any future extensions

The order of these is determined in PHP and would require a developer to change. Further, such a change would reorder all toolboxes on Mediawiki sites using Monobook (not just the English Wikipedia). Such changes might be made, given a good argument, but they are less likely to be made than changes which only affect the English Wikipedia. Similarly, moving items from navigation to the toolbox is unlikely because of the effects on others sites and skins (e.g. does every mediawiki want a "random articles" link in their toolbox, probably not). I'd suggest you presume you can't move between the main sidebar and the toolbox unless a developer explicitly agrees to implement some work around, because it is very nontrivial to do that in a way that won't mess up other sites/skins. Dragons flight 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a workaround would be simply to suppress (or switch off) some toolbar links for the English Wikipedia, and then duplicate them somewhere else? For example, the Special:Upload and Special:Specialpages links are just links, nothing else. They are not page specific, and could easily be implemented in another box, like the one that Rob says is possible to insert above the toolbox. Then you just switch them off in the toolbox, and you have effectively moved the links. Carcharoth 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if we start messing about with the toolbox, we're going to cross the boundaries of common sense. The contents are context-sensitive, as observed above, and suppressing certain items doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Implementing the additional sidebar below the search box (customisable via a second message) and perhaps embellishing the current sidebar code (making sure output is XHTML conformant; allowing heading messages to contain internal links, etc.) are ideas which are reasonable, and make sense, and won't be too hideously complicated. A little code abstraction is going to be necessary, but it's all *fairly* simple stuff.

Note: This IP is semi-static, so using the talk page isn't a brilliant idea, since I won't be reading stuff often enough to catch it all. A better idea would be to use email - the Special:Emailuser page ought to work fine, although my email address is probably spammed all over the web if you want to be direct. -- Rob Church, 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rob, nice to meet you. What about:

• Having 2 links on a line in a menu box?

--Nexus Seven 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to distract from the more important query above (about 2 links on a line), but the two "toolbox" links I suggested suppressing are not context sensitive (unless I'm mis-understanding what Rob said). Special:Upload and Special:Specialpages do not change according to page you arrive from. I think this is what others are calling "global" links. The context-sensitive links are the "What links here", "Related changes", "Printable version", "Permanent link" and "Cite this article". Can someone pin down the terminology and give these two sort of links names: (1) Just a static link; (2) Link that dynamically changes according to what page you are on. Carcharoth 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the two words you are searching for are "fixed" and "contextual", respectively. --DavidHOzAu 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's feasible if we can think up an appropriate, backwards-compatible syntax for it. 86.134.116.228 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The link line on the Main Page

One of the objectives we were trying to achieve here was making the link line on the Main Page obsolete. The line between the header and the first two article boxes. The line with the following links on it:

That's why the headings became linked (to help make room for these). If this line is completely covered in the sidebar, then it can be removed, which someone insisted would improve the Main Page's design. The only link we are missing from above is Searching.

--Nexus Seven 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Which is another reason why I think the search panel needs its own box (other two reasons are special importance of search (right now it looks like search belongs to some administrative section of wikipedia, not article search), and also the fact the in-box search just looks uglier than having its own box. I'd go so far as putting search back and renaming "search" to "search Wikipedia" -Wane, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. The top box is now completely navigational, which is totally about finding articles, and isn't administrative at all. Plus it looks cool. It's slick. --Nexus Seven 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  As I said above, I think we should leave "search" in its own box/section. Otherwise it might confusingly imply that the link above it (Glossaries, or A-Z index) is it's heading. (I'll be gone for a few hours). --Quiddity·(talk) 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  A horizontal divider would fix that. --Nexus Seven 06:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

External links that point to wikipedia (technical)

Use {{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|param=stuff&param2=stuff}} or {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|param=stuff&param2=stuff}} to reference pages on wikipedia in any sidebar tests. {{SERVER}}/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}} could break one day. In theory, however, {{fullurl:Article|action=history}} should always reference Article's history. I changed version 15 to this. You will find most major templates use this, like {{userlinks}} (aka {{vandal}}) See Magic words on meta for info about the fullurl. I'm not up to speed on if this matters when its implemented or not, but it can't hurt to use a fully working external linking format. --Kevin_b_er 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Search portlet

To portlet or not to portlet... that is the question. Would the search box be best off having its own box, or should it remain in the navigation box?

Why it should have its own portlet (add your own reasons or rationale here, or respond to others):

• Increases clarity
• Catches the eye sooner rather than later
• Removes the need for a horizontal ruler, which some (many?) people find ugly
• Search navigation is different from "browsing" navigation; this warrants its own portlet (Carcharoth)
• Removing its portlet will be too big a change for most people (Carcharoth)

Why it should not have its own portlet:

• Increases compactness
• It is a navigational element, so why should it not be in "navigation"?
• Removes visual clutter by having fewer portlets

So what is your call? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think leave it in its own box. It is a navigational element, but it should be distinguished from the browsing links. Browsing is a very different mindset to searching. Also, the general principle to not change established practice too much. People are used to links like "Community portal", "What links here" and the layout and placement of the search box. Some change is good, but too much will disorientate people. Carcharoth 11:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that you note it will be too big a change for a lot of people. I've added those reasons to the lists. I agree too: I think the search bar should be in its own portlet. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 11:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave in its own box/portlet. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done in draft. -Quiddity·(talk) 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Who and why removed link to this page from Community Portal?

This is ridiculous. It took me hours to find this page after someone took it off the community portal, and I was SEARCHING for it.

Steps I had to take:

1. View Source of Community Portal page

2. Brilliantly, ComPort is made of lots of templates so looking at its edit history doesn't show edits of individual templates.

3. Find the {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} link in the source code.

4. Figure out that's where the sidebar redesign proposal was originally placed.

5. Spend lots of time trying to figure out where does CBB template come from.

6. Failing to find the answer, going to the sandbox and posting {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} in there.

7. Open the source of the sandbox

8. Look at the Transcluded Templates posted below the source to find the address: Template:Announcements/Community_bulletin_board

9. Open that page.

10. Look at revisions history

11. Find the right revision of CBB template which had the Sidebar redesign link on it.

12. Follow that link.

I don't need to mention that someone who has not heard of this would never even know this proposal existed.

This is not just another proposal regarding some minor policy or technical matters. The results will affect millions of users who browse Wikipedia. The discussion has reached the point, in my opinion, where there was a good reason to go wider than ComPort, like posting something in the Signpost, so more can read about it and express their opinions. But what do we do instead? Kill the ComPort link so that virtually nobody already not involved will even know such discussion takes place.

Pfft. 66.119.191.2 00:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just feel the learning curve? ;-) You now know more about templates than you did before, right? Seriously, I agree that this project does need more exposure. Just not too many editors proposing their version 56 or something... Getting the balance right between getting lots of feedback and co-ordinating the ideas and edits of lots of editors, is difficult. I once lost a page I was looking for on Wikipedia. What I did was to use Google. This search gets an instant result. Some people probably use Google all the time to navigate, rather than this silly sidebar. :-/ Carcharoth 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It got pulldated, I've re-added it.

It will be in the Signpost this week, but this week's edition is slightly late... --Quiddity·(talk) 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why "Help" with big "H"?

Should be "Wikipedia help" rather than "Wikipedia Help" as far as I am concerned. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume that this was a typo. I've corrected it. —David Levy 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why obscure "Help" with "Wikipedia"?

"Help" stands out better. With two items starting with "Wikipedia" on the same menu, it is easy to click the wrong one, and it also takes me an extra second to choose between them. "Help" is the industry standard for software. We should stick to it because it is proven to work. --Nexus Seven 04:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I archived a bunch, in an attempt to make things slightly shorter for any newcomers.

See /Archive 02#Suggestions by msikma for that thread.

Ditto for #Search portlet. (I very strongly disagree with merging the portlet, and so will many others)

There was agreement, and I acted quickly. :) --Quiddity·(talk) 05:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Why is List of fields of study in the nav box? It's pretty usless... Can we add List of chordate orders and List of chemical elements then as well? Also why is donations moved to help? Donations should be the most prominanint link in the 1st box. The location of the Donations link could cost the foundation alot of money or make them alot of money. Shouldn't "Editing turorial" be the 2nd entry in the help nav box? I am guesisng people looking for help want help eidting more than they want the community portal. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There were even more links in previous drafts ;)

I suggest we remove the List of fields of study link, and replace it with a link to Wikipedia:Reference pages (which I'm currently cleaning up, and proposing be renamed to Wikipedia:Contents) --Quiddity·(talk) 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents already exists and isn't being used for anything but as a redirect. So all you need to do is edit Wikipedia:Contents, and turn it into anything you want. --Nexus Seven 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That would create redundancy, which I'm trying to avoid. --Quiddity·(talk) 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

800x600

I and many other users still use this resolution. It's not a matter of lack of good monitor or video card, It's a matter of preference. I have a new 19" LCD and I still use 800x600, it's just easier for me to read.

Wikipedia's width looks like it's designed for 800x600, and it's good to keep it this way. To this point, I'd please like to request that whatever the new version is, the search box (together with its buttons) should be visible without having to scroll down. People use the search box more often than they use all other links put together, and I don't want to have to scroll down every time I visit a new page.

In other words, if the text size and structure design of the sidebar does not change, and "search" is in a separate box, then "navigation" (the only section above "search" should not have more than 9 items. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.119.191.2 (talk • contribs) .

I totally agree. This was brought up at the very beginning, and is being kept in mind :) --Quiddity·(talk) 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

basic topics/fields of study

these both seem to share a lot of similarities; is there any way we can combine these two? or maybe put it on the same line on the sidebar? JoeSmack ^Talk 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been discussion about potential merges, and even an attempt: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/topics redesign. What we came up with was too overwhelming though. There are other possibilities, but thats a whole wikiprojects worth of work, and should be considered elsewhere.

As I've said numerous times, I think it would be better to use a minimal set of links at first. We can always add links at any point in the future. (The only constant around here is change.) --Quiddity·(talk) 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone find it weird to make a link to an article to do something as simple as this? -

---

Wikipedia Directory

List of fields of study

This is a list of academic disciplines or fields of study.

Lists of basic topics

This is a list of fundamental concepts for major subject areas.

A-Z Index of Wikipedia

This is an index page on the most basic level; an alphabetical sorting of all articles on Wikipedia.

---

doing this would turn three sidebar links to one, and space is a premium - the less the better sos not to overwelm anyone. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. obviously we'd need to name the page ;) (anyone good with prose know a word for 'beginings of knowledge' or something of this nature?) JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

changed it to 'Wikipedia Switchboard'. hey, it's something. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but changed 'Switchboard' to 'Directory'. Carcharoth 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I like 'Directory'. I've been tinkering, heres a new look, little more kempt:

Wikipedia Directory
List of fields of study This is a list of academic disciplines or fields of study.	Lists of basic topics This is a list of fundamental concepts for major subject areas.	A-Z Index of Wikipedia This is an index page on the most basic level; an alphabetical sorting of all articles on Wikipedia.

JoeSmack ^Talk 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to link to an otherwise empty page of links. Whatever navigation pages we end up linking to can contain a template that links to the other pages that we end up keeping (just as they do now). —David Levy 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, kinda confused as to what you're saying... JoeSmack ^Talk 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Visit any of the navigation pages, and you'll find links to all of the others at the top (which could even be changed to resemble the above). If we only link to some of these pages, all of the others (assuming that we keep them) will still be accessible via these links. There's no need to create a dedicated page for this purpose. —David Levy 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess then i'd propose a more focused circle of navigation pages; i certainly think these three areas should be more salient than say the List of Lists, which is also up there in pages past the sidebar. having a sub-page like the aforementioned would do that; once clicked through from Wikipedia Directory --> List of basic topics --> List of Lists, one could access these less notable articles if desired without muddling prime traffic pages, and simplfy a bit of this all. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you're proposing wouldn't require the creation of a dedicated page. Users could click through in the following manner:

Portals (or any other navigation page) → List of basic topics → List of Lists

—David Levy 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, we already have Wikipedia:Reference pages ;)

Could we please try to stay on-topic here though? thanks --Quiddity·(talk) 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TOC in sidebar

Were it not so narrow, I would suggest placing the article TOC in the sidebar, perhaps under the 'navigation' box. Has this ever been considered before? thepromenader 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's been around for very long, so I think that the chance of someone having suggested that before is very realistic. On-topic, I'd say that it is completely against the nature of this site design to do such a thing. The content and navigational elements have been clearly separated, and placing the TOC in such a location would completely break that model. Also, like you mentioned, it's too narrow anyway. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew the idea could never fly, but thanks for your consideration all the same. Perhaps I should open a TOC discussion. Thanks for the reply, and Cheers. thepromenader 15:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)