Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-03/Main Page redesign

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Main Page redesign

[edit]


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Yair rand 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support eh, why not -- Prince Kassad 09:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support —RuakhTALK 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support but with some reservation — or, more precisely, with a question about when we should switch to the new design — since we don't yet have many entries in place for all the features, last I checked. (E.g., "Funny quote" has only four entries, of which only three are IMO suitable for our main page, being relevant to a dictionary.)​—msh210℠ 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, note that this vote is on whether we should switch to the new design, not on when we should do so. That won't require another vote, natch, but should not be done until the new design is ready.​—msh210℠ 15:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Bequw → τ 01:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Ƿidsiþ 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC), like MSH above, with some reservations....we need to make sure we have plenty of material for these features and plenty of support to work on it BEFORE we make the switch. But I reckon it's an improvement. Ƿidsiþ 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I am switching to support. The text of the main page has now been placed to Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers, which seems sufficient. While I find the two additional features unneeded, they can be given a chance; and if no one takes care of them, they can get removed in another vote, or even in an informal straw poll. I like the thin borders of the new design, and the reduction of clutter in the topmost box. I dislike the removal of a hyperlink to Community Portal. A small tweak is needed: "Tea Room"/"Tea room". The text "you can edit" should be either without a hyperlink or linking to Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers instead of to Wiktionary:Tutorial. --Dan Polansky 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Punchier! (“Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, …” → “More than words”)[reply]
  11. Support, in particular due to Robert Ullmann's argument below regarding "you can edit" text. Amgine/talk 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC). Changed vote to support. It looks like the feature will be ready for show when times comes[reply]
  13. Support. --Thrissel 22:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support It's pretty homely, but there are definite improvements in its function. Come on boys and girls, don't veto a redesign because you disagree with the wording of one phrase or some image positioning! Fix it. This is a move forward, and it has been stagnant in its pond for months, so let's get it out there where it will get some attention, cause some minor annoyance, and work can proceed. —Michael Z. 2010-05-02 02:52 z
  15. Supporting and ready to do my part now that school is out (for summer and also forever, as the song goes). DAVilla 08:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is, for clarification, Wiktionary:Newly Discovered. DAVilla 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
Oppose Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC). But only because the Word du jour isn't working yet.[reply]
What do you mean? --Yair rand 08:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the word du jour has been gulyás for the last decade. I can't see any plan to change it either --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
gulyás is an example WDJ, just to show what WDJ will look like. When the redesign is actually put up, that section will be replaced with {{Word du jour}}, which works like {{Word of the day}}, and WDJs will be taken from WT:Word du jour/Nominations. --Yair rand 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There's a few words on the nomination page already. What I really wanted to say was "come on, Yair rand, get the word du jour set up already". I guess when the new page goes up, there'll be more interest in it. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Do you think we should start using up the small supply of nominations before it's even put up? Or just that the pages that will be used once it's up (Wiktionary:Word du jour/May 11, etc.) should be started in advance? --Yair rand 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean the latter - to start them up in advance, starting on the first day the page goes live. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there could be some problems with that. For one thing, it's not completely clear whether this vote will pass. If, a week before the vote is finished, it looks like it's going to pass, then it would make sense to start adding the pages for the new features. --Yair rand 17:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's another niggle. I haven't been able to find the page which says what "interesting stuff" is displayed on the main page. There's still red links on this new main page too, which of course shouldn't happen. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wiktionary:Interesting stuff/Nominations, which lists all the "interesting stuff". The red links are there because it's impossible to have an archive of something that hasn't started yet, and Wiktionary:Interesting stuff would be mostly like WT:Word of the day, showing today's feature, and links to rss feeds and archive pages, which isn't possible yet. --Yair rand 20:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC) very strongly. The "you can edit" language must go. The problem is that while we (including other open project editors) know that edits are scrutinized, sometimes very closely and strictly, to the "general public" that phrase simply screams "This site is completely unreliable, maybe worse than Urban Dictionary. You really, really should go somewhere you can trust!" Note that we don't use the "you can edit" language until the third graph in the present page, and by that point a user has read two graphs explaining that it is a serious collaborative project. Most general users won't even bother reading that text, they are looking for the search box (;-) (Over all, I don't think it is an improvement; IMHO it would be better to twaek the present page where desired. This parenthetical note is not that serious, I don't strongly object to the design if others want it.) Robert Ullmann 11:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I lifted the language pretty straight off WP: where it doesn't seem to hurt (besides the link to WP: could hardly be more obvious, so I don't see how it can be so hurtful). I wrote a reasonably cogent explanation of why I went the way I did with the redesign. If the tagline is the problem, I have no issues with it going completely, but I don't think we should hide away the nature of the site. It just makes us look dishonest. Circeus 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I frequently read comments on discussion sites etc that say something like "you can't trust anything in Wikipedia, anyone can edit it". Pretty clearly those commenters haven't actually tried editing (or, better, vandalizing: they'd learn fast!) It is just the very first thing they are told about Wikipedia, and it is a very strong negative if one doesn't understand the workings. What I'm saying here is that WP has made the same very bad mistake, and its reputation suffers. We needn't copy the mistake. It becomes clear enough later with things-to-do and so forth that people can edit, we aren't hiding anything. (;-) Robert Ullmann 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I don't mind cutting off the "you can edit" part. That issue never actually came up in the 2009 discussion of the redesign, y'see. I'm curious as to your take on the removal of the "space-padding" text, to which Dan belong is opposed? Circeus 14:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I like certain things about the new design better than the current one. But I miss the explanatory text currently placed in the left half part of the page: the text has been neither shortened nor moved to a separate page but rather removed altogether. The two additional day features seem unneeded to me. --Dan Polansky 08:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to go completely off the topic of this page, but does anyone think that the text might be useful in Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers? The page is not only linked to at the bottom of every page on the website, but also from the word "Wiktionary" at the top of the new main page design. --Yair rand 05:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the text from the main page to Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers. --Yair rand 03:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to support. --Dan Polansky 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose No me gusta — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Pharamp 18:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) No me gusta también. It's quite ugly, needs some further improvements.[reply]
    Pienso que querías decir "no me gusta tampoco" — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 03:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Any suggestions? I mean, it has only been a work in progress for 13 months with a decent chunk of the community working on it. --Yair rand 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My only suggestion... make it less...unattractive. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 03:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose EncycloPetey 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I haven't seen the evidence that the additional front page features will be actively maintained. --EncycloPetey 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, have to agree with Polansky and EncycloPetey. The new main page seems cramped and unprofessional. Maybe we can add the proposed "features" to the current layout? –blurpeace (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose --Barmar 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I don't like it. I find it too crowded and confusing, I'd keep it simpler. --Barmar 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Caladon 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC) It looks slightly better with the removal of the wall of text, but I agree with EncycloPetey that I am concerned about the maintenance of the extra features. Also where's the new entries button? Caladon 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Conrad.Irwin 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Reiterating arguments hereinabove. (I don't like the "you can edit", the lack of any introductory text, the disorganisation of the new features - though I appreciate Yair's valient efforts). (and now I look closer at the design I see images overlapping text, and the left aligned text on the right hand column is at odds with the varying indentation on the left - though both are easy to fix) Conrad.Irwin 23:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked how the redesign looks in IE, and it looks like all the icons have jumped all over the place, unaligned, and basically terrible. There is no way we could put this up before fixing it. Does anyone have any idea how it could be fixed? (As for the new features, everything will be sorted out before it's put up. There is no rush to get the new design in place.) --Yair rand 02:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dispenser has fixed the problems, so that the redesign now looks the same on IE as on other browsers. --Yair rand 05:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain Circeus 21:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) This will seem weird given I was the one who, for the most part, conceived it. However, there are issues regarding the viability of one extra daily feature, much less two, and without such the entire design loses much of its interest. Circeus 21:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC). Can't decide if this is better, worse, or about the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2010-03/Main_Page_redesign&oldid=9002873"