This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposed new main page · Current main page · Vote and discuss
The final election ran from 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC). Voting is now ended.
The results are 687 (support) /213 (oppose) /43 (neutral)

Thank you for your participation!

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This Main Page Redesign Project is over! Thank you everyone for your hard work and support. --Go for it! 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the new design and like it! For archive purposes, perhaps a link to the old design should now be included here (since the new design is up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.94.79 (talk • contribs) 16:24, March 19, 2006

Archival request

Could someone experienced completely archive this talk page, so that we can continue to test layouts with this draft page. And a short explanatory banner at the top of this page, with a link to Main Page alternate (Classic 2006), and point any comments on the actual implementation of the main page to Talk:Main_Page. thanks. --Quiddity 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

and also the development page.

Poll results

Latest comment: 18 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

The voting period is over, and the results are 687/213/43 (does not include conditional support in results)

687 / (687+213) = 0.7633333... = 76% > 70%. So we replace the main page now? Kevin Baas^talk 00:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You have the percentage wrong. Its (Number for)/(total votes)= x%. You ignored the netrual votes, which I am assuming is 43. In the popular vote for an election, they don't ignore the blank ballots. Therefore, the real percent is : 687/ (687+213+43) = 0.7285 = 73% Yes vote, so the new design snuck in by 3%.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below. —David Levy 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I contacted a bureaucrat, and he graciously placed the Redesign in its new home. --Go for it! 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm thrilled with the outcome. Even from a purely mathematical standpoint, 76% is fairly resounding. When one takes into account the number of "conditional support" votes that read like "support" votes (and discounts the "oppose" votes that are based upon false premises), the result is overwhelming.

I think that we should debut the new main page on April 1, thereby accommodating the planned April Fool's Day content. (That's a Saturday, and the idea calls for the inclusion of both the featured picture and the "Did you know..." section.) —David Levy 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I might have something else to launch then...--Here T oHelp 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Has someone noticed the amount of new users voting? I have nothing against them, but thought I'd compare how they (the number of people who have no user pages, as a rough guideline of who's new and who's not) voted. Of the 687 total support votes, about 136, or approximately 20%, were from users with no user page; of the 213 oppose votes, approximately 22 were users without a user page, or about 10%. I thought I'd just mention that. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is to be expected, given the fact that much of the opposition stemmed from a desire to stick with the more familiar design. (A new user obviously lacks this bias.) The sheer number of new accounts also is no surprise, as this issue potentially affects all readers of the encyclopedia (including non-editors). —David Levy 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked, in my capacity as a bureacrat, to take a look and render a final decision as to whether or not there's consensus. Taking Flcelloguy's comments into account, I normalized the count to remove the newest voters (who one could argue don't meet the minimum requirement - e.g, that they are a contributing member of the community).

yay: 687 - 136 = 551; Nay: 213 - 22 = 191; Total: 551 + 191 = 742; 551/742 = 74% supporting changing the main page. I'm inclined to call that rough consensus, so my official comment is that yes, the new main page design is approved. I'll be making changes shortly to that effect. Insofar as when to do it, I see no reason not to do it now. (I strongly object to doing it on april fools. In fact, I think that's an excellent way to shoot ourselves in teh foot - to make people think we're doing it as part of april fools day). Raul654 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point; we certainly don't want people to think that the new design is some sort of a joke.

Incidentally, Mark, I must commend you for not allowing your personal opinion to cloud your judgement. —David Levy 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. Would putting it up on the 26th (one week from today, one week before april fools day) be good enough? It seems like enough time for people to both know its not a joke, and enough time since it winning the poll. Rangeley 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's up. :-) —David Levy 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

again, %age is wrong. It should by 551/783(total votes)= 0.703* meaning that the Main Page really passed by .4%, total support vote of 70.4%--Hamedog^Talk|@ 09:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. This was not a plurality vote. Per our standard procedure, votes other than "support"/"oppose" are not included in a mathematical tabulation.

2. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and "70%" is not a magical threshold. Had the outcome been less obvious, it would have been necessary to carefully analyze all of the comments to determine the strength and validity of the arguments presented. I'm hopelessly biased, but I believe that an impartial party would have discounted many of the "oppose" votes. —David Levy 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The appearance of two black-and-white headshots in the first incarnation of the redesign gave me the impression that we were going for a Wall Street Journal type of look. ;-)
Kelvinc 08:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, it's up, but I thought the idea was to get rid of the default "Main Page / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" bit at the top (as seen on Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page). It's still there on the real Main Page – Gurch 10:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you know, it went as I was writing that. Never mind -- Gurch 10:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll have to get rid of that. I'd like to know how that's done, even though I can't edit the page.--Here T oHelp 12:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to bypass your browser's cache. —David Levy 13:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But how to you actually disable it? I need to do that to my userpage! Also, everyone who worked so hard, scroll down to the very botttom and take a barnstar.--Here T oHelp 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The page title suppression requires special code in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. You probably could generate the same effect by adding similar code to User:HereToHelp/monobook.js, but no one other than you would see the change. —David Levy 14:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would that disable the titles on all pages? Maybe it's just not worth my while.--Here T oHelp 15:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The code affects whichever page is specified. I wouldn't bother with it, given the fact that no one other than you would see any difference. —David Levy 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother, then. I looks really good, though.--Here T oHelp 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on adding the neutrals to the total vote count. If the number of neutrals reduces the overall approval rating, then they are not neutral but opposition votes. –Shoaler (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed main page redesign

In October 2005, WikiProject Usability embarked on a redesign of Wikipedia's main page.

After numerous rounds of voting and feedback, we have arrived at a final design that we hereby place before the Wikipedia community for an official vote.

[Read a summary of the redesign.]

Official voting procedure

The proposed new main page design is up for a vote to replace the current main page.

Only registered users may vote. All constructive comments are welcome, but votes cast via visible IP addresses will not be counted.
The issue to be decided is whether or not to replace the current main page with a new design created by members of the community. Vote Support to choose the new design, or vote Oppose if you want to keep the current main page. If you have no preference, you may vote Neutral.
Comments and questions may be added to the discussion section^{[broken anchor]}. Such participation is welcome and encouraged, regardless of whether/how you choose to vote.
Only one vote per person. Additional votes from the same person will be discarded.
The official voting period begins 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) and continues until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC). Votes not cast during this time frame will not be counted.
The current time is 13 May 2024, 19:07 (UTC).

Voting

Latest comment: 18 years ago1,037 comments940 people in discussion

Support the proposed new design

Support Looks awesome. hadiz
Support bring the article count back tho mdawg89
Support Why the hell not? Dark Hummingbird 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
supportlooks good to me, although I think the boxes could be spread out a bit, they're quite cramped..... Lofty 15:41 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support though I would prefer article count on the top. Nice work otherwise. --Tone 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
see below: "Article count in header" --Quiddity
Support. I too, miss the article count, please put it back in at the top. --Go for it! 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. After all that work, you don't think I'd oppose, would you? A noticeable improvement over what we have: even Unencyclopedia think so.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. a great improvement. --Quiddity 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like having Picture of the day on the main page, all week. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, a considerable amount of work was done here, and this makes everyone happy. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support 110%. The redesign is much better. --- Dralwik of the Midwest ^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"
Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, it looks great! ~~Like everyone else though, it would be nice if we had the article count up the top again.~~ (Saw comments about article count lower down the page, and agree) Will the current main page style be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page alternates? Jude(talk,contribs) 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, I dig that. --Broquaint 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support; it looks much better, great work. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, nice. --Conti|✉ 00:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. In the year since I became a Wikipedian, I've never been more proud of any achievement. —David Levy 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks really good, great sorting and doesn't look crowded. A good change! (PS - Wow, when I clicked to check where the article count was, I caught it at 998,000. 2000 more articles!) - Enzo Aquarius 00:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I am soooo tempted to vote neutral because the search box is not here... But let's not throw away 4 months of hard work because of some stupid box ;) Renata 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --HappyCamper 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's guud. User:Silvdraggoj
Support, good. Neutrality^talk 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support – ABCD ^e✉ 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support of course, without reservation. Thanks to DL for keeping us on track through the many diversions. hydnjo talk 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Could be better, but what we have is worse. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Slightly. I don't know but there's just something about it that seems, un-stylish, but as long as that big ugly "Main Page" is not there I'm for it. Page Count needs to be returned and the top of the page, I see it there near the bottom, but I'd like to see page count every time I log-on to the main page, and not have to go searching for it. -Kode 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I prefered having the additional search box, but at any rate, the new design is superior in just about every way to the old one. We can deal with further improvements later. For now, this is a major improvement. Fieari 02:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks better. Greatigers 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Well done! Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Chris 02:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
100% Support—this is a huge improvement. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Great work. bcasterline^talk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to conditional support due to addition of article count.
Support. I agree with and support the rationale below. But why the new background colors? -- Krash (Talk) 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The pink clashes with the new design, and the blue is less purple to accommodate the new purple box. —David Levy 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I can dig it. Pink is for sissies anyway. -- Krash (Talk) 03:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. In general, well done. Portal categorization scheme needs some work. Vir 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's an issue that we intend to address. —David Levy 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support this greatly improved design. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Very nice new design. So much more information is contained on the new main page, and the page itself is only slightly longer than the old one. -Travis 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I really like the PotD and "Did You Know" sections both included. Nice work! Peter Gawtry 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like it!!!! lamuk 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Dig it. PoTD is welcome Argan0n 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks much better! Gflores ^Talk 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support and get this up and implemented in time for the 1,000,000th article! --Cyde Weys 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That isn't going to happen, but if all goes well, we can aim for an April Fool's Day launch. :-) —David Levy 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. This redesign is an improvement, especially in that PotD and "Did you Know" are now both present all the time. I am proud to support it. --Danaman5 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Change the portals though. Mathematics is a branch of Science for instance. Keeping it simple would be good (maybe looking into university faculty systems would help? e.g. Humanities and Social Sciences, Science, Law, and Commerce; following that with Sport/Leisure and anything else not covered). But, other than that, it looks far better. --Midnighttonight 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
We do, in fact, intend to pursue that type of reform. We didn't want to force people to vote on the page layout and the portal link assortment as a package deal, so we left the latter unaltered for the time being. —David Levy 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. The Tom 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support HP465 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like boxes. GreenReaper 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support.The addition featured photo is good.However,the article count on the top (as in the current main page) should be there.--Dwaipayanc 08:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support.A refreshing change.XDarklytez 10:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. A much-needed facelift. --vortex ^talk 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Well done. Agnte 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I love everything about except the font used for "Welcome to Wikipedia". Great work though! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's a good design, and a lot of work and time were spent on it. Pixelanteninja 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks nice. Please keep an eye on the static links to pages that are one click away from the main page, especially the ones at the top. These need to be kept up to standard as well. Carcharoth 11:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, although I think not having a prominent link to the number of articles is certainly a shame. Batmanand | Talk 11:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. The boxes are seperated much more clearly and the style is very aesthetic. POTD is a very good idea. --NorkNork 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Prodego ^talk 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support lookin' pretty good. feydey 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Gerard Foley 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, nice design. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Definitely an improvement. I would have preferred the article count near the top, but it doesnt outweigh the rest of the positive changes. Remy B 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. -Missmarple 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, but please give a more prominent place to the article count. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - looks very clean and accessible. Good work. GlobeTrotter 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - To be honest I didn't like it when I first glanced at it, but after staring at it compared to the other one for a while I am convinced it is a huge improvement. Alex Krupp 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Syrthiss 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks very nice, an improvement over the current one, not too sure on colors, but it'll grow on me I'm sure. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Ksheka
Support - I really like how it looks, and should be a bit easier to navigate SonicAD 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- The changes feel "odd" but I guess just because it's unfamiliar. Ah, well. I'll get used to it.--AK7 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - A good amount of effort was put into tweaking the proposed design and it came out just about how I wanted it. Ziggur 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The new design is more interesting to the eyes. It seems easier to get around, too. Un sogno modesto 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me. SomeGod 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — yupp _→AzaToth 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Redquark 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Elisson • Talk 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks nice, except for the "featured picture" of the wolf spider. Eww. And it needs the article count. UrbaneLegend 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Warm and welcoming, agree with POTD comment by Kmf164 Djm1279 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Nice color scheme, the "anyone can edit" is well placed and very visible, as it should be. Good articles over many articles. --Spacebar 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The only thing I prefer from the current main page is the varying sizes of the links to Wikipedias in other languages; it gives a direct representation of its real size (in articles). Very nice otherwise. --Shadypalm88 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I'm a-lookin' and I'm a-likin'. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me - No Guru 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I'm a fan --Nick Catalano (Talk) 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like the featured picture layout. "Change for the sake of change" can be a good thing sometimes. Pepsidrinka 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like the additions, looks good. Jjinfoothills 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me. --CannotResolveSymbol ^talk 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Nice design. - Jpo 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Change is good, we spent a lot of time on it and it is pretty. - Ozone 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Saberwyn 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The green part reminds me of Metamath... --an odd name 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like it, but still it needs something more. Possibly a few more touches like pictures relating to wiki articles? Anyway, it's a great attempt. Random articles 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support but same as above. A welcome change though. toad (t) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Its better, could still be improved more though. Jonathan Karlsson 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Its great, I prefer the colours on the new design, much easier on the eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex.mitchell13 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC).
Support – I like it. I like the current Main Page as well, but I like this one more – Gurch 22:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Gah! You've gone and changed it! Lose the em-dashes (—) on each side of the article count, it looks ugly. Or better still, move it back where it was before. Other than that, still OK – Gurch 23:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Although I think the search box really should have been included, the new design is better, although I say so purely from an aesthetics point of view.--j250x 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. The new design looks nice and clean. I like it! —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work from all involved. Radagast 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support ... a cleaner look dml 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, the current front page is showing its age. --Measure 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Dv82matt 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new design is cleaner and easy to read. -- Lewis 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - it separates the sections much more cleanly. SECProto 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A thousand reasons to Support. I think Support --User:Michael Simpson
Support --Midnightcomm 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support youngamerican (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. --RayaruB 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- The "Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance" was definately acheived. schyler 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Like it. Finnegar 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely. My only objection is the lack of an article count, but this is hardly a reason to object to an otherwise excellent design. Rangeley 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - great job to whomever made it say1988 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The new page greatly improves the visibility of the portals and other links at the top. --Constantine Evans 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Although the new design does not look better than the old, there are very useful additions to the front page. --Jannex 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like it. Zaui 07:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Great work! - L1AM (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Clean design, and it's nice to see the featured picture as well as DYK :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Good work, nice clean design, with all the useful links in clear places. Kcordina 08:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportBkwillwm 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. A substantial improvement! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - this looks better than the old one -- Karada 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks fantastic - hopefully this gets through. mdmanser 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Main Page needs a new face. Hohohob 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Very nice - cohesion★talk 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks very clean clear and crisp. An article count is the only missing element, and I know all about that issue now. doktorb | words 12:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - A lot of work went into this design, and it shows. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Allthough I think the article count should be at the top -- Snailwalker | talk 13:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The new design is way better than the old one. Also, I'm glad that the article count was restored to the top of the page. Overall, the new Main Page is easier to navigate, it looks better, and I especially like the new heading (with "Wikipedia" nice and big and no stupid "Main Page" in sight). OneofThem 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - The featured picture box does seem a bit out of place, but the rest of it is lovely, much better than the current design. Shen 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Unlike the vast majority of proposed mainpage changes, this doesn't add anything bad (like another search bar) and actually looks nice. I would like to suggest that different colours be used for section headers in the new design though. --Improv 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support had hoped for something more interesting and less cluttery from the new design, but it's still preferable to the status quo, I think. Babajobu 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I was skeptical about changing the page, but looking at the proposed Main Page and the current Main Page, I'm actually pretty impressed. I like how the "Main Page" text is replaced with a box that eliminates redundancy and provides the same links in less space. --Optichan 15:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Very nice. :) --^BuGs^ 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Much clearer than current version. --Tangotango 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Clearer sections and makes better use of my big screen. Stephen B Streater 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Like the addition of 'did you know' and 'picture of the day'. Don't love that the page is getting longer with the new content and moving towards a more Yahoo-like include everything feel. Antonrojo 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, slightly better than the current one. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support kjetil_r 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support wrestlenovi 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) I like it, i never use the other links on the original one.
Support I think this is only a slight improvement over the current design. I would suggest a continued simplification of the main page in the future. -- No Underbites 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Supoort Love it!--Esprit15d 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - great work, folks. — ceejayoz ^talk 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work guys! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fide (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
Support --rhmoore 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--CharlesM 22:03 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It is a great improvement upon the current main screen.--Adjam 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Excellent layout for newcomers Siraf 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I hope this gets approved. - JPM | 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the graphology of the new layout, the headings are very usefully bolder. The article count would be useful somewhere. The large Wikipedia font at the top is welcomed too.User:Tim_teddybear 23:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
The article count has been relocated to the "Wikipedia languages" section. —David Levy 23:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support. It's a bit better, and I like the POTD on the page, but maybe you could improve on the boxy look? Bratsch e^talk 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to make them ovals, but they only display in Firefox.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Greater clarity. Top banner much better organised. Simmyymmis 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very good redisign, i just hope the article count gets moved to somewhere more visible.--Costas Skarlatos 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice. Killdevil 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I support, but not that much, the old one is good enough Astroview120mm 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. Taylor 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
Week Support add article count at top --Banana04131 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Although I think the {{MainPageIntro}} template had some helpful information; it should be at the top.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support lets give wikipedia style Spencerk 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support--Fito 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not perfect, but certainly better than the current main page. Boccobrock 6:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, but keep the article count on the bottom. It is not an especially useful metric by which to judge ourselves. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, and I like the article count on the bottom. Shows that we place quality over quantity. I also like the simple and compact "banner". --liquidGhoul 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the picture Howaboutadog 07:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, although a search box and article count would be welcomed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support a slight improvement and the removal of the article count is probably a good thing as wikipedia itself can suffer from editcountitis and at this stage, wikipedia no longer needs to sell itself on coverage. MLA 11:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better than the existing version and its a good idea to refresh the main page every now and then. We can add back in the article count at a later date; when someone comes up with an elegant proposal. --ChrisG 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A step in the right direction, but it looks quite like the old one, yet I believe this one is certainly better. -Ridge Racer 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like having ITN and On This Day on one side with the FA and DYK on the other, it just meshes better IMO. Plus, have PotD right there is very nice. Staxringold 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think having the In The News section in the same box as OTD is a nice touch, and nice colours. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. DCEdwards1966 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, support, support! Wonderful design, extremely well put together and much more usable. -Jetman123 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Change is good — CuaHL 18:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, overall better. Petros471 18:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Dusso Janladde 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support —Serein 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support— I like it! Filmcom 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- I think all the reasons have been covered. Ljlego 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- Godlord2 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice design, smoother and includes more useful links (important for newcomers). — Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support"" - Good work. zellin t / c 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- I really like the new design, its a lot more eyecatching, I've always considered the old(current) one to be a bit bland--BoyoJonesJr 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I really like the new design, esp. the inclusion of reference desk links etc. Also what BoyoJonesJr said. Great work. -- Sarsaparilla39 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Musicofmymind 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, simply because it looks better, especially the top part. EdGl 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, although I liked the book-image background in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box. But it's an improvement over the old page. --Darkdan 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support- i like the new one more. --Jeff 04:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support While the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." bar is ugly, the rest is pretty. Also, the portals are easier for newbies to work through.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, because it looks a lot more inviting.--R.suleman 05:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks much better. Very well done! Chairman S. ^Talk 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks very nice. There's not much else I have to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squid Vicious (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Nice.--Anthony 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Junes 11:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support \alive 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support--ragesoss 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — Trilobite 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Also fully support any efforts to keep the article count at the top, not at the bottom; and to increase the prominence of the search box on the left. CheekyMonkey 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. --Zoz 18:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Hell's yea! --IAMTHE E GGMAN (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, but I think something should be done with the "Welcome to WikiPedia" line. It just looks too unprofessional, the way it's worded. I don't know why, it just does to me. Robot Chicken 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Excellent design.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I am Messedrocker and I approve. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
200th Support! I'd support anything that has the Picture of the Day always there, but this looks really good as well. Raven4x4x 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — Dash 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, although I liked the version up slightly earlier today that had the colored background just in the header bars. Daniel Case 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, Looks very welcoming in my own opinion. Better use of a front page. Pvt Mahoney 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not super-duper amazing, but an improvement. Richardmtl 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support! It's freakin' awesome. Uris ♥ 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support It's an improvement over the current main page, although still way too crowded for my taste. Ziggurat 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Improved over the old version. Would still prefer a less cluttered verson, even if it meant less front page features. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support as I helped design it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashibaka (talk • contribs) 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC).
SupportGreat job! Judgesurreal777 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I am a fan of encapsulation, so I aesthetically approve of rectangles containing text. J. Finkelstein 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nitnaga 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --- Deano252 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC): I'm all for the new design. I like have useful information right on the top page instead of huntiong around for it.
SupportGood job. Looks nice, just add article count. WikiScholarChad 8:32, March 5, 2006
Support. Cool, I guess. +Johnson542 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Very aesthetically appealing. -- Наташа ( ^User ♡ ^Talk ) 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support More coherant and better looking --Ma8thew 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks much clearer and has a lot of visual appeal. Kosebamse 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it.Jedi6 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. Sergio.solar 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A new look is always good. JPGomes 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks a lot cleaner than the current one and Wikipedia needs to move on in terms of its appearance so this is good, I really like it. — Wackymacs 13:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support kernitou talk 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Tarret 13:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Catchacode CATCHACODE 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)=
Support--Technosphere83 15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I love it. Coffee 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. The change is much easier on the eyes. bwolper 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks clearer and more appealing --Jorvik 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very clean, the new colours and layout is much better Derf noxid 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Good step. Fantusta 20:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks Better Nooby_god | Talk 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Definitely an improvement. --Joelmills 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better than the current, but needs the statistics. Nathaniel 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice (not that it didn't look good already). I like the improved organization of the news and featured article sections. Foobicus 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - could go further. --Artw 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support but agree with Artw above. Look forward to seeing it happen. BigBlueFish 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support but it would be nice to have a little bit more "stuff" and whitespace at the top, such as the oft-mentioned article count. This will work for now, though. ZacharyS 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think we're ready for a change, and I like the new design. --Phantom784 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not perfect, but an improvement! Melchoir 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Definite improvement. EdC 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. It's great! With the picture of the day, beautiful! Uncke Herb 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the top bar. --Tom 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Works for me. --Mhking 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --JoaoCastro 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Pikachu9000 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Sheldrake 04:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support NEMT 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support They both are the same to me. But I like the change. Can you make the number of article to the top? It's easy for at least me to see. Manop - TH 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions on how to do that, while still making the banner not break when viewing it in 800x600 resolution, we're all ears. Accessability is one of the goals, after all. Right now, at 800x600, there's just no room for anything else. Fieari 06:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A lot nicer, but it's a bit cramped, could use a little more lebensraum between the top box and the feat. art. and in the news boxes. Eivind 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Green is good. A step forward. Mercer66 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much nicer visual appeal and better organized. The new design highlights different parts of the encyclopedia in a clearer manner than the current main page. -- backburner001 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I'll support the new page, but the biggest prob with both pages is that the search/go to bar isn't prominent enough. It should be done a la Google and occupy the center of the page. After all, does any one actually use the various categories to browse?? Nicolasdz 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Not perfect, but better than the current design. RexNL 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, it's nicer than what's there at the moment. Annihilatenow 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It is more professional and sober look and arrangement makes it more navigable. This is Tanul | Wanna Talk 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I prefer it, as it looks more organized, and is easier to tell what is what Slokunshialgo 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Is it perfect and in all ways wonderful? No. Is it an improvement? Yes. --CBDunkerson 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The design looks great. - ddlamb 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Meh, I like it better than the old page, but I'm not sure I love it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support elizmr 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, although I think it needs to be four boxes instead of two big boxed, with some white space in between. The proposed main page is just a little busy. Hypeer 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. It's good. However, I do think every feature is just a little too tall. A shorter summary of the main article and reducing the number of entries in the other categories would be good.--Mike Selinker 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We're obtaining this content from the same sources used for the current main page, so I sugest that you post these comments at Talk:Main Page. —David Levy 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Weakly Support Although it's hard to consider with that unflattering picture of Barbara McClintock on the Main Page, I like that the sections are no longer numbered when the "number sections" feature is turned on. It would be nice if the "Did you Know" and "On this Day" sections were at the same level horizontally. I prefer the boxes from an organizational standpoint. (on voting procedure, I think that the votes should be separated by hundreds to avoid accidental vote deletion). --RealGrouchy 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Moving us in the right direction. JACooks 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I was looking around at the main pages of other languages and it hit me how much better ours could look with simple tweaks. Then I remembered this project. I think the incredible amount of work and consensus that went into drafting this shows that their is not only general consensus for change, but also genuine improvements to the new page. The improvement of having both "Did you know" and "featured picture" each day is worth the change. Plus I just like the design; it feels much more personal and less bland. All in all, I don't see any reason not to replace it with this one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it Eenu 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think the Main Page needs a change and this sure is a nice one! :) Renatta 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support would like to see "anyone can edit" changed to "good editors always welcome," but that doesn't change my support Trödeltalk 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Anshu 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support! - Looks great! --risingpower 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Excellent! --The Wookieepedian 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not perfect, but an improvement. It directs focus better: in the old design, it felt like there was too much introductory text to wade through. Wandering oojah 08:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I really like it. I'm sure that it could be even better, but it's really nice. Dybeck 12:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support looks good -- Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — Very slick and polished. Nice! — RJH 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support and let's get on with our lives. Her Pegship 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support really nice, and I like changes. Lars 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I thought I had seen some prettier versions earlier on the redesign process, but this is still a good improvement. Now the Wikipedia logo is starting to look dated. -- Solipsist 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Let's go for it!! Thegoob 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the POTD on the main page. The rest seems just like new window dressing. --Reverend Loki 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Leo44 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nautile 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Alphachimp 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The boxes look good, as does the font type Jofunu6
Support I love it. Jezpuh 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not perfect, but better than status quo CGMullin 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better use of screen real estate, especially at the top... Nathan Beach 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Süpport Yap --O bli (Talk)^? 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I'm always willing to give my approval on changes and improvements, and this new proposed main page is surely better than the (already good) previous/current version. --jοτομικρόν | talk 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support — J3ff 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support very pleasing design... PotatoeMasher 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - If it comes down to with or without the article count, I prefer the version without, but support either version. Nice work! My thanks go out to those that did this work, whether it is adopted or not. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like it, it's rather nice Sceptr e ^(Talk) 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - simply the redesign is much better. --Zayani 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like the design. its much better than old. --Jacob The Quaker
Surport - hasnt changed as much as I would have hoped, but its still (slightly) better than before. tooto 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Slightly better than the old one, I guess. Certainly not any worse. —Naddy 00:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. looks good. Llamadog903 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Almost perfect Ciacchi 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the new titles!, not too big of a change AlternativePlus 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better. Kellen ^T 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks more refined. Lincher 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I agree with the majority of the comments posted before me. It looks more streamlined, some slight changes which made an incredible difference. A Born Cynic 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better, and the coloured bars show better on some screens than the old coloured boxes Myk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support yeah! Terry 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not a huge difference, but it does look better. Geoffrey Gibson 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Mmmmmm.... content good. Calibas 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks quite nice to me. --Sheeo 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A lot better! 99jonathan 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I came here preparing to hate it, 'cause I love the old main page, and think change is bad, however, one look and I changed my mind. Great job! VonWoland 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much preferred --Stretch 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me --Old Coaster 09:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Really looks better! A new layout and colour scheme... just better! Hope the new page will be up soon! --Bruin_rrss23 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportTons of info and a good look. Nice rework--Looper5920 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportI like it--Bara_bg 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Seems to increase readability and navigability for new or infrequent visitors. -SCEhard T 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's not much of a change but it's enough that the page looks a little better than the "classic" look. BWF89 -- 16:49 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice. --Zsinj^Talk 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Perhaps a little cluttered at the bottom, but overall a good design. scotsboyuk 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, it is better. dugg.x1987x 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Killerofkiller 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's great. Snroy 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice improvements. JustDerek 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Cleaner, slightly better design. Gaius Octavius Atellus 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The header is the best improvement, in my opinion. The rest of the design looks good, its not amazing, but its certainly not worse than the current design. [[User:buss]|buss]] 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Big Improvment! --Colin Faulkingham 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Cleaner, clearer, funkier. I like it. Guinnog 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Sure, why not? Looks good to me. Zifnabxar 21:35, 8 March 2006
Support It looks great. Very organized, nice colors. Fantastic! ProfMoriarty 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looking good. --Sozekai 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's not much of a change, but it does kind of tidy the site up. It is well organized, too. zimmera 4:10 pm, 8 March 2006
Support It really helps set the main page apart from the "standard" wikipedia article (no "Main Page" header at the top, much more of a custom design flare to it). I say go with it. Jesusjonez^Talk 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Aesthetically I marginally prefer the old page, but from a usability perspective the new design is easier to use and improves navigability of the site. CastorQuinn 22:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support I LOVE the thing that tells you how many articles there are, but there are too many boxes, and the picture of the day is too subtle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan235 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Support I like it Gleb 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, althought I would like to see the picture of the day highlighted more prominantly.--BradPatrick 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think it is much better. --Nofxjunkee 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks marginally better. --Bishoco 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks very clean and is a very nice improvement SirGrant 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. — Seven Days » talk 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice and clean, it looks good. mrbill 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think the old design uses up the space too much. Stevefis 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Personally, I'd like to see a bit more of an overhaul than that, but it definitely is an improvement. Temoshi 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Big improvement. bobmatnyc 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looking good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spivurno (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support It allows for more content. My daily wiki activites stem from what is on the front page. It makes the feel more lively and gives more options. Big kuods to the design person/team responsible.Binarypower 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looking good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austinbond (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support The old version looks unappealing and bland in comparison, although I must ask why the colors used were chosen .. . is it because of the designer's preference? --btnheazy03 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good! Easier to navigate. Mwwallace 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, especially the portal links in the header. Jon.baldwin 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks great. Cleaner and less intimidating. Good work Jambell 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Attractive on the eyes! sauron256 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I really like it! Kbandy 00:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. Mushroom (Talk) 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good; change is always nice, if it is for the purpose of better browsing. Raptordrew 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I can see the reasons against it... but they are wrong ^_^ --TylerNi7 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's good that the change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary -- more usable, yet people will immediately realise, ah, this is Wikipedia! --Mintchocicecream 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Compared the two in some firefox tabs. Like the new one better, I must say. JoeSmack ^Talk 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The boxes create a nice, cleaner look; the page is a lot easier on the eyes now.--BuckeyeRowe 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's a small but worthwile improvment--Tedwardo2 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Is there anything left to say? --digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Somewhat superior to the old design. I don't see why not. Jredwards 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new look is really great. I like the colors and the clean up of the random looking links at the bottom. Definitely supporting. --kaorikittii 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better - much more clarity as to where sections/articles start/end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nixnet (talk • contribs) 0:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Better organization, improved readability, and the "Today's featured picture" section is very interesting. Two thumbs up. --MHowell 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, nice, clean design, and i do like the colours. The Decryptor 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, more content above the scroll. Dummies102 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much easier to read. --Matteh (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A lot nicer looking in general. Looks more... modern. --Itamae 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Don't like the colors of the box headings. Like to way the sections are organized. Can see more information on the screen now without scrolling. It does look much better than the current main page. - Ganeshk (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support While the colors used for the heading aren't that great, the overall design is far better than the current main page, so it has my vote. -- rjoseph 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks a little better but not that much of a change but it still looks better nonetheless Axsuul 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Improvement over the current page, but could perhaps use some more work. making the change wont hurt.--Jgstew 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Matt13 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not much of a change, but a change for the better nonetheless.--jp3z 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the design. It has more color and doesn't lose functionality. Allemannster 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support This is a pretty hot redesign - KnightsHFU 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Alison9 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks like a good design to me. durin42 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support GoFlyi 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I feel the new boxes better compartmentalize information, making the page more legible at a glance.michaelrjohnson 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Ghee22 01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The top of the new page is easier to read. Egamma 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Liked consolidation of metadata at top of page. Liked the colors but understand the boxy complaint. Also liked the new sequence of other wiki, wiki sister and wiki language at the bottom as it seems most likely what you want most is closer to the top of the page Parabolis 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's a lot of small changes, but adds up to a big improvement. Kudos to the wikipedians who did this! Singingwolfboy 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Good to get rid of the white space at the top --EEMeltonIV 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Jcmaco 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support New design is a more efficient use of space. Plus, it looks cooler =) Zelmerszoetrop 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very neat and organized, less ambiguous space, more user-friendly. Theodork 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Ciperl 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Like the shorcuts to categories. Android 93 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support More structured than the current page. It makes better use of space and is better looking as well fuscob 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support why the hell not? Nortelrye 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Although I like the old design. The new design is good too and change isn't a bad thing. Ikariotis 21:17, 8 March 2006 (EST)
Support Both aren't that much great, but this new proposal is way better than the old one. --Saoshyant 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Like the highlighting of the titles. Maybe the boxes could have rounded corners? -- Ash211 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to round the corners, but it only works in some browsers (namely, Firefox) and it is pixelated (there's no known way to make perfectly smooth round corners). Yeah, that might help it feel less boxy, but it was decided early on that browser-specific formatting was not an option.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks much better. And it's been quite a long time since Wikipedia's had a facelift. D14BL0 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's sleaker! --Jeff Supodsson 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new design seems much clearer to me, and I am a big fan of the "new picture of the moment section". Gleffler 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Pioto 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Emanuelbri 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support AJBcoolman8 03:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Jacob 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Sleaker, Friendlier, Better. The Picture of the Day feature is very nice. --Chaoselephant23 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Cybersavior 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- Irdepesca572 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks somewhat better than the original, and I will support any update in Wikipedia style ;) --nneonneo 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks nice and clean — Linnwood 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- the article count should return, but I do like the use of color. It brightens up the page a bit more than the whites and grays. The article count, at this time, looks good too. CBrown82633 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Strongly -- I absolutely love the new designs. Well done. --JohnSabel 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Computerdan000 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support It's an slight improvement, but I hesitate to call it a new design. More like a revision, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is nicer in appearance than the current front page, so I will support it. Tomunist 03:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. The eye/brain interface processes color much more easily than it does walls of text. --AndyFinkenstadt 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support It does look a bit better than the old one, but i really liked the old one too. Either way. --Quasar 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A little cleaner and neater, but not too much difference other than that Opiniastrous 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Needs a little more vertical whitespace between the sections, but otherwise a nice improvement. Brian.fsm 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Header is much better than the old main page. Fifth feature is also great. Jeff8765 04:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Stereo 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support What an upgrade! --Claydanford 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better. Gives Wikipedia more of a face.--Jonathan 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I love it! --Honshuzen 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Finally --[[User:Snowcatben] 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Change is good. -DMurphy 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. --Patik 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks a lot more inviting. --Dean.l 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Like it. DaBlade 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Alazoral 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks cool and i'm sure people will find it as a value add service from Wiki. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sucharith (talk • contribs) 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Swerty Swerty 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I loveeeeeeeeeeeee it............ --Kumar 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support RandomChu 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks nice! I like it. And.... stuff. So there. Laurenkendall 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I do like it. Taral 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks more encyclopedic. -Joshuapaquin 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks nice and sleek. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, i think it will be nice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrongbanana (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support I think the new look is a lot cleaner Csyberblue 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice cleaner look compared to the current one Debroglie 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks good, although I would still be tempted by less content (Google-esque). In particular, the most important bit - finding the articles - isn't immediately obvious. The subjects may be overlooked on the far right, and the search box is only in the sidebar, somehow lessening its importance. But on the whole, looks good, though not a dramatic improvement over the original.Joel.Gilmore 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks much clearer, cleaner and more freshy to me. Nice work. Greetings from Vienna. bit2bit 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better, more warm, sleek. Qaz 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --DB0 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - ora 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's a breath of fresh air. I digg it! Nukem945 07:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks great. EvilPettingZoo 07:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better, I think there's still room for improvement but it's better. joelpt 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice and clean. --General_Kenobi 07:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support More organized. Important stuff given proper attention, lesser important stuff demoted. --Philosophistry 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks really clean and nice. Vegarg 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better than the current one, and consistent with portals. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it. RichMorin 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Pretty Cool. NickBall 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The boxes around topic headers dramatically improve readability and instant cognition of what's going on where. Also, I'm not a fan of pastel colors for my living room, but on a data-rich page, they allow identification of multiple topic areas in a way that does not distract the eye as much as darker colors do. These changes seem to be all about readability, not hipness or being 'design-y', as such. I think it's really an excellent way to handle a page where the goal is 'data-richness', not 'pretty'.--Cmlilley 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Wayne 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support not a dramatic change from the current version, but makes better use of space. Husky ^{(talk page)} 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Arto B 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not a vast improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. Lankiveil 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support because of improved readability and navigation. Also because the featured pic is back.--Wormsie 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It is a clean and simple design. Love the featured pic section! --macloco 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support change is good Yablo 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good --Polaris75 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support looks very clean and accessible. Good work. --User:Licklavin 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much better!. --User:Meaganhanes 13:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support No reason that hasn't been said, I just like the look of it Lurker 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice work usability team Marsh 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support AfterSpencer 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks better than the previous page. More breaks in the page to allow easier reading of content. Go for it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahillman3 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Had a look at international sites and prefer the Spannish Wikipedia layout but this is a move in the right direction Nogwa 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Jason Bouwmeester 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Ed Boraas 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks fine... Mbgb14 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks better… etandirb 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support if somebody is willing to put the time and effort in to this..great. i would vote for it and work out the minor details later. minor details..prefer multilanguage links not take up so much real estate and the proposed color selection gravitate towards something more conventional. Apainttown 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - obviously. User-friendly and fresh. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like it! Great job! --F a ng Aili 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Sure. dave 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Honestly, it doesn't seem a significant improvement over the current design, but it's fresh, and fresh is good. Nohat 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Love it. Congrats to those involved in the designing process. You guys rock! 1c3d0g 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportThough if they were going to change it, it could've been more exciting User:Ghingo 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Better, but not perfect. Sidar 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Hedghogz 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It might be beneficial to in the footer include a simple Back to Top link to help folks get back up to the top. AmiNTT 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Seems to me that it will be friendlier to first time visitors. --Jeff Greco 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportThough they should not keep the pale green on the left, not a nice colour.Elliotgoodrich 19:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportIf they have to change it, they ought to have made a more drastic change, but this is good, modern, easy to use and it brings out some of the more forgotten pages. Daniel (☎) 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like it, it's nicely laid out and clear to read, and although not a huge change, it's a great improvement to the current one. -- MldIFS 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Certainly an inprovement over the current design, easier to read. tghe-retford 21:10 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I don't like the top table, but the new design is better notwithstanding --Cataphract 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It's an improvement, althought I like the portal layout on the French page more. Looks good =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seamusb (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support I'm loving it! PoweredDeath 16:29, 9 March (UTC)
Support Umbrae 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support-PlasmaDragon 22:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Vicovico 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Out with the old, in with the new. Nice new look. Some kinks can be worked out. But it's a nice look. Mkaycomputer 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Ayavaron 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I really like the way this is. The way it opens you up directly to Portals is brilliant. I didn't discover portals intil months of use. The only thing I don't like about this is the color-design. The color design on the current page is wonderful and the new green color doesn't maintain the same harmony as the pinkish color it replaces.
SupportSalmar 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support looks much better. --Revolución hablar ver 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Incredible improvement... fresh, modernized, streamlined, and best of all, LOGICAL! Soakologist 00:45, 10, March 2006 (UTC)
Support Matches how I mostly use the first page, to see anything interesting... Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks nice and I like having both the Did You Know... and Featured Picture on the same page (instead of weekdays and weekends). Ruhrfisch 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support You've done a great job guys. I love the green instead of red & all the other changes. You should make a start on some of the other pages now. How about community portal? Veej 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. jaco plane 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks livelier and fresher. --Grnch 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks fine. --Salvör 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, change's good. musti 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, I dig it. When will this go into effect? Sean (talk || contribs| esperanza)) 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, only if featured picture is raised a little bit so you don't have to scroll down to see it. Possibly switch around this day in history and featured picture would be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Clown in the Dark (talk • contribs) .
Support. I'm usually kinda change averse but this design flows much better than the current design, and includes the Picture of the Day 7 days a week. Can't hate on that. -- RPIRED 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, Like the featured picture ... like the blue Kauri 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, It's much cooler - much more inviting to new users, and as sad as it may be for me to say this - much more "Web 2.0" Chad78 4:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. This version is significantly less cluttered, at least in the top bar. The "In this English version..." was definately not neccessary, and the links to the portals are much clearer. However, I'm curious--although it might clutter the top, why was the donations link removed? Also, although the top of the main page looks nicer, the page itself has been lengthened by almost a fourth. Is there any way to shorten it or prevent its vertical growth? Few will scroll all the way down everytime they come to Wikipedia. On that note, it may be good to switch the locations of the "featured picture" and the "on this day" tables, as the picture is probably the more popular link. Kashomon 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The donations link is still located on the navbar to the left. Honestly, there was so much text surrounding the old donations link on the main page, that I had never noticed it before there, although I have seen it on the bar to the left. Vertical growth shouldn't be much of a problem, in my estimation... the new length comes mostly from: A) PotD, B) "Other areas of Wikipedia", and C) Not shrinking the text size of the other language wikipedias. None of these things should ever really take up more space than they do now. Fieari 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like the colors, I like the layout. Thought it was a little cluttered myself, but it does well enough. --Wolf530 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Love it! Makes it much easier to read. Sigmalmtd 05:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like it, but it's not too much a change, is it? JHMM13 (T | C) 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Nice new page much more functional especiallly with featured pic of the day:) Tom 06:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Easier to read key information and navigate to portals quicky. I like it, I like it a lot. Bananafritter 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice change - less wordy - more task oriented - like add of portals Abeo Paliurus 12:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Valmi ✒ 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Chris j wood 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Every project of engineering must progress, no matter how large or small that progression is. Keep up the good work. BloodRoses 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support New design looks more professional; very good. I personally don't like the subject portals at the top right (I would prefer the help/editing/categories/etc links there), but I realize that other users often find them helpful. Draeco 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the new page. It looks nice. --Seth Goldin 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the new design, it looks better. --BlueMech10 March 2006, 14:43 (UTC)
Support The inclusion of the article count in the main page redesign has won out, and has now been included on the project page. Thus I am supporting the new redesign. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support IMHO, it looks better than the old one. --Eric Jack Nash 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Such a huge improvement. I think some of the other proposals were better, but this one certainly isn't bad. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much cleaner, sharper-looking, love the new additions, a huge improvement IMHO. LearningKnight 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it alot, very nice! --King-of-no-pants 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I can't say that I lean to either of layout-variants (i.e. old and new), however the new design in meaning of page always being in developement might be better. regards Wayfarer-Talk | , on March 10, 2006 at GMT 5:46 (PM)
Support It looks great, and doesn't make me want to run away. One complaint I have had of the main page since I started contributing is that there is no Search box for Help topics. But, I realize that is probably a feature request and not a design element. Aguerriero 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It took me a while to truly appreciate the changes, but despite the low discernibility of the differences between the old and new pages, I think they're worthwhile changes. I'm still a bit sore about the lack of a more visible search box, but it looks like that's being looked into. Rod ESQ 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It *feels* much better; more streamlined somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnebres (talk • contribs) 2006-03-10 19:32:45
Support. It's a very minor change I think, so it's hard to vote no. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Wangster 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Booyay --LifeStar 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Mostly because of the new colors and POTD section - we really needed that. :D --Filip (§) 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice and fine. --Djordjes (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, definitely an improvement. the wub "?!" 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It could use some changes. Hasnt changed in years. Whopper is in the building 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the cleaner layout and better organization. Asatruer 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the concept of putting the news and history in the same column. I don't see a problem with the search box. Found it right off even on my first visit. Yendor33 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Can't complain. Jurjen 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks great, good work! —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support, This is a really cool design and is attractive to visitors without compromising any useful information.Omni ND 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Massive Support Much better design and organization than current. Much more attractive.--Dan428 06:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think it looks great. Gmrx 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks stylish, and a chage would give the Main Page a fresher feel than it has at the moment. I also like the featured picture every day.--Oli 13:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, I Love It. Nate 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Like it, but the featured picture should be bigger Hcsteve 17:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks just a bit better, nothing substantial. However, change is good! --IceCube 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support definite improvement... not saying that there isn't room for more improvement. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it BadCRC 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Thunderbrand 18:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good! D.Kainoa 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. 'bout time. --Pamri • Talk 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Use bigger images tho! --karlwick 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support My only objection is the phrase "1,017,805 articles in English" at the top. Better would be "English language edition - 1,017,805 articles". Not a show stopper though. –Shoaler (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Impressive, nice and bold Cheezykins 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Simple, clean, elegant, nonintimidating. I like it! Ccool2ax
Support It is beautiful...and I would love a change! Wikipedia Helper
Support An impressive redesign Xwu 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I wish the other languages section was dropped, though. TheJabberwock 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, I like it. Similar to the current main page, though at the same time it's more attractive. Phoenix2 00:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, It's pruddy, ya huck huck. -- Greaser 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, 'Picture of day' and other help desk type links are welcome. If background colors of different blocks ('ITN','FA' etc.) be little more different then it would more nicer, I think. AshishG^talk 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
SupportI like it because it is more welcoming that the other one and also because it has more info. Sure wish it was with more grabbing though.Akupta321 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Foxmulder 04:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think this organization makes more sense than the current one. The colors are fairly unobtrusive, and it seems to translate well in other skins. FS 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Seems much cleaner, yet instantly recognizable. MFago 04:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support per Tomunist. Still room for improvement, but it's a step in the right direction. Slowmover 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Although not hugely enthused by the new design, it's a touch better than the old and a step in the right direction in most respects. I do think the main page tries to be too many things and ends up being too cluttered and confusing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks RAD. BDSIII 10:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much better. Martin Hinks 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Shanes 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support KenWalker kgw 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It seems a fairly minor makeover, but placing the articles nearer the top of the page is appealing to me. --Robert Turner 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Cyb3r 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Doesn't seem to change too much, but I like it. I am in favor of allowing users a custom home page, however. --Amplus Quem 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I prefer the new one :)--MatthewFenton 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new one is a huge improvement--Zxcvbnm 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like this new new one a lot more...not too crazy over heading though Osbus 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support good. Akanemoto, 12 March 2006, 21:48 (UTC)
Support This version looks more professional. --Psp 22:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Yea!, I like the Intresting facts.--Drago Rosson 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
Support. Flower party■ 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Keep the page count there. Change this page, just a little, every 18 months or 2 years to keep it fresh. Compare the new design with Britannica and Encarta home pages , its just so much better than theirs. It offers free stuff straight away. They are trying to sell you something.Lumos3 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It might take some time to get used to the colours, but looks more user-friendly to me TheGrappler 02:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I definitely like the new layout. It's both attractive and efficient. Capedude2005 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. It's a great new look for the site, makes it more efficient to separate the information on the front page! --Genius00345 05:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Would make a better first impression.--Matth e wUND^(talk) 08:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. It's not my favourite, but it's better then what it is now. Marcus1060 08:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks a lot more informative and tidy compared to the current one. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I really like the new design; it seems much more inviting and informative. --jweed 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks great. Carioca 17:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I like it, gives Wikpedia a nice, fresh face. CharonX 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Not sure why, but I like it. There's nothing wrong with it, and the change won't hurt. ROY YOЯ 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Some proposals looked yet better, but this advance is still better than nothing. (It is both attractiver and efficient) Reo ^ON | +++ 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Aethstetically, it looks better than the current main page. Schizmatic 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support More tidy appearance, easier to find information. Aperium 17: 22, 13 March 2006 (EST)
Support strongly. Even though it is a touch more cramped, things are located in better places, like the On this Day going under In the News. The article count is still easy to find if it is important to you, and more logically placed. Plus I think the colors are great. It isn't as if the green and purple are dark. They are pastels and (IMO) pleasing to the eye. I say it's great. :) Happy editing! --Cromwellt|Talk 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, I didn't notice when I looked at the draft itself (somehow, even though I read practically this whole page) that the counter was also put back in the header. That in no way hurts my vote, but it should help some others choose to support. --Cromwellt|Talk 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the new version. Looks cleaner. --myselfalso 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much better layout - though the picture margins could be a little bigger. --Jeremy 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support New design is slightly more appealing than current one. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the new design. It is much cleaner and more elegant. --Marc Macé 08:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Very nice. Angr/talk 09:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Huge Support. Very clean, much less clutter. Compare in your mind, if you will, the state of web design in 1996 with the same today--this is how much of an improvement this is! I'm all for this! Go go go! --echelon ^talk 10:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Great new main page. Dovi 10:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC
Supro Support! "Ugly" is subjective. "Easier Access" is objective. That is the core of the issue. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - However This page is 99 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. Hee! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - looks good! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Very nice, very usable. I like it quite a bit. Biiaru 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Can't say it's much different from the current design, but it's still better. CrazyInSane 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Black Carrot 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like it, I love it, I want some more of it --Larsinio 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like the new design. I am pleased to see the news and the anniversaries in the same area, as they are more closely related than the featured article and the anniversaries. Good work.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - I like the new design, and think the old one should be turned into an optional skin. Timrem 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - much more cleaner and sleek. --Thorpe | talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Not perfect, but much nicer than the current design.--SirNuke 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Pourquoi pas? It makes the page look much neater and more organized, not to mention easier to navigate. It's also more colorful, and actually will have the featured picture on the Main Page. Yauhin 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Very clean. Excellent organizational design. Simoes 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Seems more organized to me. --Galaxy001 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Refreshing look, more organized. Kip 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Stbalbach 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Not exactly as stated, because there isn't a "the" new design. But the various recent changes to "the" design seem to be mostly OK. Robin Patterson 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Bmgoau 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Very good redesign, I've always envied the Polish and Slovak main pages, our current one looks so sterile and bland. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Marknew 11:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- It is great to have "featured picture" everyday, after all a picture speaks a million ideas. Robin klein 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
support, it's time for a change, and good to have DYK and FP both 7 days a week. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
support -- only thing I would change is centre the title and remove the portal listing from the top frame, otherwhise it's fine 8472 13:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
support -- Better, just a bit Spankman 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
support -- I support this. User:Aitsukai 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I Support...YA! The old page was tight, but the new one is AWESOME TIGHT TO THE MAX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreddy92 (talk • contribs)
Support The old page was good, this one is even better. KenWalker kgw 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support (Changed after further review) I like the organization, you achieved the goals described DavidH 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC). DavidH 07:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Support It looks good now with the article count. Though the sie bar could use some sprucing up if the page is to be that long. H-BOMB 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support --Stephane Charette 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support mo' support than a sports bra, yo --Savethemooses 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. It's nice to mix it up every now and then. --Danner578 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Somehow, it looks much more refined. SeanMD80 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Minor changes, but it seems to be more usable. I like it. --Chris 21:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not only does it look more pleasing to the eye, it also has a featured picture of the day EVERY DAY! Lionheart Omega 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new design is better, looks better and more colors is what is needed. Good work. --Milan Tešovic 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support The new design is nice, much swisher than the current one. Iburneditdown 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Cleaner, more obvious for the eyes, all around better. --Jake11 05:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Much cleaner. The header especially is a big improvement. --Tjohns ✎ 05:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Cleaner, but would like to see a more significant overhaul. --Dtaylor1984 13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think it's OK. Myopic Bookworm 16:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Definately support, until a more major change comes along. Lukasa 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Flipping back and forth between the two, I don't see all that much of a change aside from minor formatting stuff, but I like the fact that the "anyone can edit" link is so much smaller and crammed up in the top left. ;) Kafziel 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I believe this is a much more effective and functional page than the latter. Though I concur and consent to many other conditional supporters of demanded changes and alterations. I believe that this new page should impelmented. --Earendil 17:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Although I don't see a major effect on the usability, I'd vote to support the change. --Quinlan Vos 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support A significant improvement. Polaris999 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not a huge change, but an improvement nonetheless - Gobeirne 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Although I think it could be better, it is still an improvement over the last welcome page. I especially like the inclusion of the Picture of the Day. Spizzma 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very much improved in terms of efficiency, usability, and intuitiveness. Well done.--Senseiireland 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not too radical of a change, and I like the colors.--DodgerOfZion 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, How could you not?! However I would change "6,823,505 articles in english" to "6,823,505 articles that anyone could edit." The current page is really showing it's age, and if voting continues like this we'll have a new main page very soon--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks great. Sdauson 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks good, plain and fairly simple. I like the idea of having a featured picture every day. VMajander 12:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Better than the present one. ^R_H^e _o^d_t 13:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support by the time you get done redesigning it, the metawiki software will allow for another redesign- which is alright, perpetual revision of the main page put's it like everything else.--Rayc 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support This seems slightly better than the previous version. Don't see it as a revolutionary change, just a natural evolution. --Ignignot 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it! Much more organized and professional. Great job to the redesign committee! ComputerSherpa 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks fantastic. Clavette 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Supprot The new page looks cool, it's much more inclusive for newer people and allows more of a titally feel. Skuzabut 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the new color scheme of the boxes. The entire page is just easier on the eyes for me. I like it, I support it. -- Makaio 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support the current version (as I type this), with the numerical article count at the top of the page. - dcljr (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, I like the color scheme, and none of the usability is taken away. - Jersyko·talk 03:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, I really like the look. It's more professional and, I think, more accessible to first-time users. Z4ns4tsu 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - kaal 06:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong support, It looks amazing and it's time for a change! New year - new design! Lars 09:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, Like the new look, certainly time for a change. Scohoust 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. I agree that the current Main Page can be improved, and although this is not the best we can do, it's an improvement. I agree that we shouldn't focus on article count but on article quality, so I don't like the article count so upfront and prominent. (Some minor quibbles: I don't really like the pastel colours and the 'blocky' look. Round corners would improve it, as would more lively colours (I like fr:Accueil and it:Pagina principale better, though our structure is better — they have too much link lists); I agree with Phil Sandifer somewhere below that it's not a good idea to link to Portals so prominently without there being a good quality control mechanism in place (yes, I know we do link to them currently, too)). — mark ✎ 12:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support per many others. Although the current main page does do the job, we have had that design for a while now, and it's time for something new, as long as it can still be usable for everyone. I think the new design does just that. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Not perfect (a bit too long and the top box isn't really that pretty) but still better than the current one. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice.- JustPhil 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support New things are always good. --Wonderfool t (c) 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Having the Featured Picture on the main page every day is good, and the colours are much better than the old version. --Cadaeib 23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I think it's better than the current main page, more useful and less scrolling required. Jw6aa 23:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support

~~I would support if a page count was added to the top of the new design.--God Ω War 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)~~Full Support now that a page count has been added.--God Ω War 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I like it, but it should include the "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,823,505 articles." from the old version, or at least the number of articles. The linked Portals will also need to be carefully watched and maintained. the wub "?!" 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Vote changed to support now article count has been added. the wub "?!" 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A slightly modified version of text in question is included in the "Wikipedia languages" section (where it's contextually relevant, because other Wikipedias are listed by article threshold).

With the exception of Portal:Featured content, all of the linked portals were taken straight from the current main page. Did we improve their visibility to such an extent that you noticed them for the first time? ;) —David Levy 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, so it is. It seems fine down there, especially as the article Wikipedia is now a more prominent link. However I'd still like the article count at the top. As for the portal links, they used to be categories on the old main page, and I never really noticed the change over there, since they still said exactly the same thing. the wub "?!" 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support per God_of_War. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support (see support voting section) --15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support i'd like to see a page count and perhaps a tidy up of the top banner the welcome to wikipedia looks particularly ugly, i like the rest of the page though. Discordance 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Now the whites gone and theres an article count i like it more but last niggling issue for me is welcome to wikipedia, its still ugly, if that gets changed ill switch to support. Discordance 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support again per God_of_War. Cerebrus13Full Support
Conditional Support if we have the article count up top. Anyway, I think the new redesign is okay, but not exceptional -- its still to cluttered. P-unit 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd support if (A) the white background behind most of the content (background-color: rgb(252, 252, 252)) was eliminated (it should be transparent there) and (B) the design was recoded to use div elements and not tables. Come on. This is 2006. {{User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify - (A) the off-white (rgb252) is only used in the header box. What do you mean by "it should be transparent"? that it should be pure white(rgb255)? (B) The code is actually fairly well structured xhtml 1 transitional using mostly divs. The tables remain present to support the visual layout in older browsers that are still widespread throughout much of the world. --Quiddity 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I like it, except for the bar at the top. It would look much better, in my opinion, if "Welcome to..." was centered, with the other stuff below it, kind of like the current version. Clarinetplayer 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Slightly better. Progress. nice work.User:Ozten 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support as per God of War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlasmaDragon (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2006.Changed vote to support now that article count has been added.-PlasmaDragon 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. Needs article count... somewhere. I realise that this vote isn't going to make any difference, because it's already been fixed, but I'm not voting support otherwise. --Mark J 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The article count is included "somewhere" (the "Wikipedia languages" section, to be specific). —David Levy 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. The gutter between the boxes should be larger. Gutter between boxes (between "Today's Featured Article" and "In the News," and also above "Today's featured picture.") should be maybe twice as large as the margin inside the box between the border of the box and the text (or inner box). A little more air, and variation in air, will make it feel less "boxy." (Also, I favor article count at top.) Still A Student 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. As above. I think a greater space between the boxes would make the page seem more "streamlined", so to speak. Allthesestars 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support I like the way that the new front page design makes it easier to pick out the categories by boxing them out. The major criticism I have is that there is very little white space on the page and the eye can't rest as a result. This page doesn't invite me to read the detailed content or make me want to read any other page. The eye must be allowed space to relax and pick out details rather than be overwhelmed. (aeropagitica) 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support It's OK, not an improvement yet. For me to support it, I really want that ugly Welcome to Wikipedia changed. Maybe italicize it, or bold it, or something; it just looks like someone's geocities page to me. And a bit more spacing would be nice, like after the header, and perhaps inside the boxes, just to make people feel less overwhelmed when entering the site. I also really liked the light red color, which is a nice contrast to the blue links.--mets501 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support I like it, but I would like ot see the Welcome to Wikipedia centered just a bit more. I understand the purpose of seperating it form the portals. I recommend we center it in the space between he Portals list and the left end of the box. I don't care for it on that left edge of the box. --Arobie 02:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For someone with the 800x600 display resolution, there is no extra space between the portals list and the left end of the box. If we force the welcome message over to the right, we'll mess up the page for these people. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. The design is quite good, but I'd like very much to see a change in the navigation at the left of all Wikipedia pages -- it needs either more whitespace or more focus on aesthetics. The "Welcome to Wikipedia" is rather distracting compared to the Wikipedia logo in the top left of the page, but the portal navigation on the top right is excellent and so are the headings in the content area. Webdinger 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
We have absolutely no control over the sidebar. That's a part of the MonoBook skin, not the main page. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support It's too wordy to say Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages. Please consider changing the latter to plenty of languages, as it is better grammar. It sounds better. --Cumbiagermen 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just how is "plenty of" less wordy than '"many other'"?? And, as for grammar, there is absolutely no difference. "Many other", though, is stylistically vastly superior to "plenty of". -- Picapica 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could always say Wikipedias are also being written in other languages...You know, I'm sure people will get the "many" part from the fact that languages is plural. They're reading a encyclopedia, so they can't be totally inept. -Noneloud 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. We've passed the milestone; if we have the article count under Wikipedia languages, we don't need it at the top. Also, "Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages" is better said as "Wikipedia is also available in many other languages" or something to that effect – it's not in the passive voice, so it sounds better. Lastly, a bit more white space would be nice. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Stating that "Wikipedia is also available in many other languages" implies that the different Wikipedias are translations of the same entity. This is not the case. —David Levy 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that wording necessarily implies that. Perhaps something like "View and edit Wikipedia in any of the following languages"? I don't like the passive voice being used, is all. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. Don't like it there is too much stuff I like it the way it is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipediarules (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Conditional support I disagree with putting the article count at the top. I also agree with Athelwulf in that we should rewrite it to be "are also being written". Furthermore, the "Welcome to Wikipedia" link looks pretty horrible. Sayhar 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I support a redesign, but I know you guys can do better than this. Jaxshores 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
So what's your condition? Do you mean oppose, instead? Fieari 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support banner at the top is ugly. I'm for it mostly otherwise though. What would be nice is an overhaul of the navigation system, maybe a whole new theme for the wikipedia. --Jason 01:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I really think you would do better off with only a few minor changes. The boxes on the header titles are unneded since the fonts are big and bold anyways, so I really think you would be better off without them...That would help I think; however, I think the main thing that is throwing me of is that everything on the page is adjusted left, yet that "Welcome to wikipedia" banner is centered, yet not in the middle of the page. It makes the page very uncomfortable to look at because it causes a tension due to the offset. I think that's also why this example is more bearable because you can't tell that it's centered as much...You could even keep the counter by removing the dashes on the right side (like "— 1,012,649 articles in English") while having it adjusted left with the rest of that text. -Noneloud 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support When I read new design, I thought..'wow! they are really going to make it less cluttered now'. But it is just the opposite. I will support a redesign where you have less text on the homepage and more links. How about putting a search field in the center , sans google, and adding a tree-like diagram showing where the users can navigate to. And maybe we can have a language selector on top right corner, maybe a drop down menu (or better). The idea is, put less text on the homepage. We can put links to different child sites (wikimedia, wikinews etc.) --Prnay 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean to oppose instead. The changes you suggest are pretty major for the design, and for what you'd prefer to go through, there'd need to be more consensus for your idea specifically... which would likely call for several more months of design and decision. Fieari 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I like the new design, mostly, I am not entirely crazy about the shade of green and i'm also unsure if pre-empting the normal title in the way that they are is a good idea. But, beyond this, i think it's a good impovement, and an improvment in the right way (incremental, not too drastic of a change) Kudos to WikiProject Usability AdamJacobMuller 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
one small suggested copyedit "Wikipedias are also being written in many other languages" -> "Wikipedia is also being written in many other languages" The latter has a much more natural language flow to it AdamJacobMuller 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, that would suggest that a single set of articles is being written in multiple languages. —David Levy 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Conditional Support~~ Why does the Other areas of Wikipedia section (below the featured picture) exist? I genuinely can't see any need for it at all. On the far left top we already have navigation & toolbox that do this job. Community Portal is repeated for starters as is help. The village pump is already at the top of Wikipedia:Community Portal anyway. Why do we need site news and reference desk on the front page? Why not have a good navigation page intead? The rest of it I love. the boxes are nice. I read somewhere that green was proven to be easier on the eye while red is strains the eye. And psychologically, green is better than red too. The layout is pretty good & the changes to the upper section are well though out too. I've got a big screen (1600x1200) so a lot of space is wasted on the current version. Over time more & more people will have bigger screens. Generally a vast improvement (apart from Other areas of Wikipedia), so well done guys. Veej 04:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For new users, simply linking to these pages isn't sufficient. Unless we provide reasonable descriptions on the main page, the experience can be overwhelming. Speaking for myself, I wish that such a section had existed when I first found this site. It would have helped me to understand what Wikipedia is all about (and begin editing) much sooner. —David Levy 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops, David got to this first, but since I typed it all up already, feels like a waste to just let it go.

The "Other areas of wikipedia" are needed on the main page, because currently, those areas of wikipedia have been considered too hard to find. The point isn't "efficiency", as defined as lack of redundancy, but rather making things easier for newcommers. The Reference Desk is a great resource Wikipedia offers... but how many links do you have to click on to find it? Where's the first place you are even told we HAVE such a thing? I've seen a lot of Reference Desk-style questions on the main discussion page... this could be avoided if people can see that we have that service elsewhere, easily. "Community Portal" is an enigmatic title for a page... useful, yes, but think from the eyes of a newcommer, who doesn't feel part of the "community" yet. Explanations are nice.

That's basically the reason for it. If you still hate them, and hate them enough to vote oppose because of it, that's your perogitive. As for the screen resolution, yes, more people are going to bigger screens, but I've noticed the elderly keep resetting my computer-lab screen resolutions lower when my back is turned, and when they aren't doing that, they're increasing the font size. So accessibility is an issue for them there. Fieari 04:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I laughed heartily reading about the elderly. I've experienced the same thing so many times. Your explanations make a lot of sense. I still think we need a good navigation page (of the quality of this new main page), to help both new & existing users get about easier. I don't see how new users need site news though? Changing vote to "support".Veej 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It makes more sense to include Site news in this section than it does to leave it in the header (from which it's been relocated). —David Levy 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support- The blue just doesn't work with the grey logo and grey everything else. I vote for a darker color, but other than that, go for it! --Kandh07 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support Easier to make out different areas, nice to have portals at the top, nice to see a page number counter att the top, but the design doesn't mingle particularly well with the otherwise quite conservative use of colors. It also feels a bit cluttered. But, on the whole, the redesign is very attractive! Much more professional than the current one. To have both a picture of the day and a tip of the day is good news. It will probably just be a question of adjusting to the new main page. Well done! Shandolad 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support- The color scheme needs to change and the page should be customizable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jagatpreet (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
The page is customizable. Check out "skins" in your preferences. Note that wikimedia would prefer the not everyone does this, as each person using a different skin or modifying other preferences like that increases server load whenever you view a page. As to the color scheme, many people seem to agree with you, more people seem to disagree with you. *shrug* Hard to please everyone. Objection noted though... Fieari 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support. Most of the page is nice, but the banner at the top is very unappealing. Rob ert 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support - The 'featured photo' section should be the same color as the rest of the page. Change, in some way, the ridiculous ugly banner on the top, and you have my full support. Bayberrylane 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I like the idea of adding more to the layout, but perhaps a more streamlined front page (less clutter) would suit the purpose better. A large menu made with Macromedia Flash (it could be optional for people that do not have Flash) that users could scroll through for current events, etc. would reduce the clutter greatly. User:Guitar Buddy 22:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support There are too many lines dividing the page (for example, the boxes around the heading names -- "In the News", etc.). Get rid of those heading boxes and add a wider right margin to the first column of text (in the form of the padding attribute, for example). White space (which can be whatever color, of course -- the term just refers to empty space) is incredibly important and the new page doesn't have enough of it. Tlogmer 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC) - Okay, I've looked at it on a different monitor: it looks 100 times better on an LCD than a CRT. I stand by my conditions, but with less gusto. Tlogmer 08:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support, changed from support. The addition of the article count suggests that it's somehow important, and it makes the header look cluttered and unattractive. I don't see any reason to include it except as tradition, which, to my mind, is not a good enough reason. I know the article count was added because consensus seemed to favor its inclusion, but I don't support it. I think it significantly detracts. bcasterline^talk 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support The plain bullets at the top of the page are ugly and uninviting. The color and shape of these bullets are very drab and boring, not something for Wikipedia, which is the most interesting encylopedia out there. Tom 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support I'm not a fan of the banner at the top. The welcome message just comes across as cheap for some reason, perhaps because it is redundant with the icon to the left. I also don't like the bullets very much. Other than that, I love it. WoodenTaco 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support The 'Welcome to' sign looks extremely dull. It should by an image based on the wikipedia logo. Dast 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support - I agree, I don't like how the box on the top saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" looks, it requires change. The color arrangement also looks strange to me. Everything else looks good. Also, looking at some of the comments from both here and from digg.com, it would also be a good idea to get to choose which design we want - the old one or the new one, with the new one as default. --FlyingPenguins 08:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support - I think their should a tiny bit of white space between the main box and the featured picture. Tutmosis 13:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support - New page looks good, but the bottom part including other areas - sister projects - languages looks like a bad appendage to a beautiful page. Redesigning those sections with the same style/color themes like rest of the page would be really great --Vyzasatya 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support- I like it. -- Anna 18:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support- A more prominent search box would be beneficial. Ksenon 02:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support - I like, but I have reservations about the Picture of the Day box - having the picture there is great, but it looks out of place (I'm not sure where it should be, but it would be nice if it could be above the fold, to balance all the text around). Making the search box more prominent would also be a good thing. -- Mithent 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like it, except for the increase in size to the other languages at the bottom. There are just so many, I think they ought to be slightly reduced in size, the way they are on the current main page. The changes to layout closer to the top are definitely much cleaner-looking though. Dansiman 07:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support if the distracting background colors were lighter, to improve readability of text. Jonathunder 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support – but (a) perhaps too much text for the encyclopedia's start page. Maybe some of the more wordy areas (such as the opening paragraph of the featured article) might be set to appear by default as semi-expanded, i.e. clicking on a [show more] would expand them to show all their text (then undone by clicking on a [hide more] or the like). (b) Not sure if the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — N articles in English —" header sufficiently large. (c) Switch the position of the "Did you know..." and "Today's featured picture", so the later grouped with "Today's featured article" and nearer top of page? Although this user undecided about the new design, the time and effort appreciated. David Kernow 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional support The new page is a good idea, but it really annoys my eye that the "Did you know..." and "On this day..." are not on the same line. It would just look less confused. Fix this, and you'll have my full support. --Valentinian ^(talk) 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional supportAlign "Did you know..." and "On this day..." per Valentinian. Also put more emphasis on the "Featured content" link WP 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support with a suggestion: Is it possible to put a search field right in the top, in that blue bar next to "Wikipedia", in which people can search the site? I feel like, as the search field is the primary way of accessing data, we might want to make that front and center (if that's even wiki-code-possible). JDoorj a m Talk 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, but would like a change Some time ago I remember seeing a version of the page that had icons beside each portal name. In my opinion that made the page look very good. --(Aytakin) | Talk 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that portal icons were rejected by the community by a fairly wide margin. I liked them, too, but apparently most people didn't. —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 17 March 2006 @ 23:31 (UTC)

Oppose the new design and wish to keep the current main page

Oppose. The new resources are great! However the implementation results in a page that scrolls down too far. Comments on what causes such a long page:
Language section (bottom) font size become larger? (too much scrolldown)

The blocks are great, but the amount of content is too large.

The top block is a good idea, it's now shorter!

Featured picture implemented poorly and takes vertical space.

"Other Areas" and "Sister Projects" blocks collectively take too much space. Suggestions: font size smaller, remove or reduce logo graphics, remove or reduce explanation text.

(I'd hate to give a conditional approval, and have it implemented as-is) Santaduck 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, I just hate it, and like the current version --Frenchman113 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Seems like change for the sake of change to me. What, exactly, is wrong with the current Main Page? --J o h n O 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Our design objectives are outlined below. —David Levy 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Way too many boxes. Why does every piece of the design have to be in its own little box? This is bad web design. Kaldari 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That was the version I was looking at. Kaldari 06:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right Zafiro. That is much cleaner. why aren't we going with that version? Veej 02:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
UGG-LEEE current interface is both better in appearance and content. ALKIVAR™ 10:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not pulled together well. --Grocer 11:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Ugly. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Header looks worse than current header. Needs more drafts.--Urthogie 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Contains more WP:NSR violations than I care to count Cynical 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a project page, not an article. Self-references are entirely appropriate. —David Levy 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't particularly care for the new design. KnowledgeOfSelf 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I can't see much difference on the new site except layers. I would really like to see the new page to be less cluttered. Maybe its just me, but I think the main page should be a little more "clean" if you know what I mean. Sagarkhushalani 11:50, 1 March 2006 (CST)
See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much cleaner and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, I like what we have and certainly prefer it to boxy mc-boxbox. Lord Bob 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"oppose". Ilike the current main page. is ease reading and "discreet" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leeandro (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose, It's ugly, and too boxy. BigRedPaul 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose too many boxes. Compu terjoe 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
See the version without the 1 million article banner - it's much more clean and less boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose serious case of de streamlineing.Geni 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It's too similar to the current version. We had the chance to be bold and come up with something really interesting, but design by the masses has apparently not allowed that. — BrianSmithson 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it better or worse than the current design though? Being too bold turned far too many people off. Obviously, you're in favor of being bold. Is the proposed page MORE bold, or LESS bold? I think it's more bold. Is the fact that we didn't go as far as you would have liked a reason not to at least step in the correct direction? Fieari 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose prefer the old Arnemann 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose There isn't much wrong with the current layout, and it requires too much horizontal scrolling for me. Robmods 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What is your screen resolution? We tried to test/tweak on all common sizes, browsers and skins.. --Quiddity
Oppose The first thing I see on the new design is the huge text size for the "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too big, and looks like an amateur did that. The rest of it is good however. Mike _{(T C)} 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Weakly Oppose mainly because the main page looks great, is useful, and functional. The new page doesn't add much; if it ain't broke don't fix it, or something. Also, why so much emphasis placed on the featured picture? S e miconscious • talk 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I feel bad voting this way, because of all the work that I know has gone into it. I just like the current page better. sorry --T-rex 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It looks ugly, far too blocky. The top bit is the worst. I think the featured picture should go at the top, it would be far friendlier (well, unless its that unspeakably notorious image). --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I much prefer the current page, as I think the gigantic WIKIPEDIA is a little silly. Also, how many featured things are we going to fill the main page with? TheConsortium 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "featured things are we going to fill the main page with?" We already have a picture, article, and Did you know selected and stocked for the current main page, and that wouldn't change in the new one. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
On the main page now is one featured box, the article. I like this, as Wiki is all about articles. For a featured pictures section to be added to the main page makes Wikipedia look like more of a photo album, albiet a somewhat professional looking one. I personally would have made the main page smaller and easer to load. TheConsortium 08:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The current main page contains two featured content boxes, one of which hosts our featured picture two days out of every week (thereby displacing "Did you know..."). The new layout accommodates both features seven days a week, and it places the featured picture below the text-based featured content (with load time in mind). I agree that Wikipedia is "all about articles," but images play a major role in these articles. In our previous discussions, the idea of including the featured picture every day was overwhelmingly popular. —David Levy 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected, informed, and still unconvinced that the new page is better. Here's to democracy. TheConsortium 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the new design. Yaohua2000 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I like the top bar, but overall I dislike this redesign. The page seems more crowded (less empty space), which is a retrograde step as the current page is already too confusing and information dense for newcomers. There should at least be larger borders between the text and their containing boxes (eg the featured article box). I don't like some of the new colours, either - I find the cyan used for the featured article particularly lurid. The old main page separated the columns using colour; abandoning the coloured box backgrounds means that this has been lost here, and it is easy for the eye to wander into the wrong column when scanning rapidly. Lupin|talk|popups 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose with a passion. I can take or leave the current, but the redesign is ugly. Sean WI 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose; way too many freaking boxes. Ral315 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
See the version without the 1 million article banner - much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose; It doesn't look aesthetically as pleasing as the current one, though I can't say why. I think it's mainly the top that's the problem. I like the objectives, though. Atropos 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I'm with the "It's just uglier" crowd here. Xoloz 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's uglier, way too many boxes. Not the first thing you want new users to see.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Too close to the current and not enough change to get my vote. And, as already mentioned, it's pretty ugly. Political Lefty 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved. --Clngre 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I like the present one just fine. The new one needlessly surrounds things with more boxes.-Platypus Man | Talk 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Political Lefty. Leftis t 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Their design philosophy - "let's throw everything in, so we don't upset anyone" - is not a good way to create a page. The current main page isn't great, but this is a monstrosity. Raul654 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If our philosophy were what you suggest, the redundant search box, header-bound article count, extra portal links and book image would still be present in the draft. What, in particular, do you believe should have been excluded? I know that you opposed the inclusion of the links to Wikipedias with 1000 or more articles (present on the current main page) and the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, but nearly everyone disagreed with you. We included only the elements that were backed by consensus, and the fact that you happen to disagree with some of these decisions doesn't mean that they were made recklessly. —David Levy 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Ugh. The new design looks horrible, and seems to be lop-sided compared to the current page. What exactly does the new design actually accomplish that the current one doesn't? Terrafire 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
Our design objectives are outlined below. —David Levy 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to change the entire page in this way - if extra features need to be added surely they can be added to the existing main page. The new design looks lop-sided and boxy. Terrafire 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The picture of the day has way to much room - all the width?!?!. No article count is not good either. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture has been assigned less space than it occupies on the current main page on weekends. (The horizontal orientation results in a greater section width, but you aren't considering the reduced height.) Our draft contains five features. This one is thematically detached from the other four, and placing it at the bottom is beneficial to users with slow Internet connections and/or text-based browsers. By "no article count," I assume that you mean "an article count with placement lower on the page." (Again, it's been relocated, not removed.) —David Levy 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is that amount of width for the FP for the day. The width requries more wording to make it full - currently there is way to much room for that section. I also think that the article count should be at the top, and the welcome to wikipedia bar at the top is too empty, which could actually be turned into a plus by putting in a search bar. This is the main page of wikipedia, and is usally the first page people will click on to. The new design is no better, and probably worse. --Hamedog^Talk|@
You're failing to consider users with different display settings. The featured picture's caption might not fill the entire box for you, but for someone with a larger text size, it actually exceeds the height of the image itself. Likewise, the header may appear partially "empty" to you, but it's entirely full for someone with the 800x600 resolution. The extra search box failed to garner consensus in a straw poll, so it's unreasonable to expect its inclusion. —David Levy 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise you were accounting for people who like to enlarge the text to compensate for there eye sight. I do have a suggestion to fix this problem - make the Featured picture the same size as the Did you know section and place next to it a featured portal. Also, bring the article count back to the top. I can't see why "In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 1,004,185 articles" can't fit anywhere up there.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 09:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support if the top of the page had the extra search box like here:[1] and you fixed the picture problem.--Hamedog^Talk|@02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The top right is far too cluttered and busy. Fix that though and I'll support as I like the basic Idea... - JVG 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The colour scheme and boxes around titles are simply ugly. Zocky | picture popups 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Although I sincerely appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into this, I don't see it as an definite improvement of the current design. I liked the 'clean' look of the current design, it's too cluttered now. --Joann e B 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: The top "Welcome to Wikipedia" often overlaps into the portal section and thus looks sloppy. Also while it's a cool idea to have a featured picture every day of the week the current designated space for it doesn't seem to fit with the layout. I don't want to be overly negative since no doubt a lot of work has been put into this, but that's just my opinion. Deathawk 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The overlapping problem should be fixed now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. It hurts my eyes, and the old one doesn't Bifgis 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Way too many boxes. Count me out. Oskar 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: without the 1 million article banner, the redesign is much less cluttered and boxy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Not pleasant to look at: I feel like everything's squeezed in. Dylan 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I appreciate the work, but it's too crowded. Deltabeignet 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too many boxes, and it seems like some stuff is moved around just for the sake of moving stuff around. RMG 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed with above, and I like a big, centered welcome text. -Beefnut 04:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Lose the colored boxes around the headings and then we'll talk. —Andux^␅ 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Too many boxes, and the boxes are too crowded. When I looked at it, with or without the million articles banner, the first thing I thought was, "Too much text." I like the current main page too, so why would I want it changed? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Bifgis puts it well. The main problem for me is the color scheme: that greenish thing placidly dripping off the left column cocks eyebrows. Can it be changed (to almost anything else)? If it can, or if someone can give me one of those annoyingly sensible reasons why I must, despite hating it, go along with the color scheme for the greater good and all that, I'll consider changing to 'support'. —Encephalon 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the color scheme really enough to change your vote from support to oppose, in light of the fact that it took four months to argue out the changes? I remember seeing various color wheels and all sorts of heated arguments about slight hues... suggesting a color scheme change isn't a minor thing from my experience. Is ditching the whole design for a color really the right idea? Is the current color worth not having the POTD 7 days a week instead of just on the weekend? What about the layout? Fieari 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. You seem to suggest that the color scheme is important—critical, even, judging by your emphasis on the dicussion it engendered—but yet that I should not give much weight to it when making my decision to support or oppose. Why? Many of us (try to) make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of each element in a proposed change. In my judgement, the proposed change here is minimal—this is a very conservative redesign—and in such a scenario the relative importance of aesthetic considerations increases. In fact, since most of the changes are cosmetic and not functional (the new page doesn't actually do much more than the current one), it seems a tad odd to suggest that I shouldn't consider perhaps the most obvious cosmetic change. Yet I think I'm being very reasonable—I said if someone could inform me of the rationale for the color scheme, I'd strongly consider moving to support, if I found it sensible. Very kind regards —Encephalon 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My issue is the difficulty of any one person changing any one tiny little detail. Basically, I'm saying that for consensus to get anywhere, massive work has to be done to please as many people as possible. Just look here for how some of the color schemes were chosen. Everyone has opinions on aesthetics, but basically, what needs to be chosen is that which is least offensive to the most amount of people. Every issue was hammered against a large number of votes, and every issue had both supporters and dissenters. In many cases, strong supporters and strong dissenters. Pleasing both is massively difficult. Basically, I'm asking for give and take here. If you can't have every little detail the way you'd like it-- because what you would prefer I garuantee someone else is strongly opposed to... can't we at least find things that most people at least don't mind all that much, and then add things in that most people do in fact find as an improvement? I'm voting support mostly because I love the new organization of the featured stuff on the left, news stuff on the right, and also the inclusion of the featured picture every day. I think these are major improvements that vastly outweigh minor aesthetic concerns. In order to get these, I'm more than willing to compremise on colors. Does this make sense? Fieari 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This conversation is taking on an unfortunate hue and I'm not especially keen on continuing it much further, Fieari. Please note:
I think the color scheme of the proposed design is very poor, poor enough that I'm unable to see that the few benefits of the design justify it. The things that you suggest are benefits are themselves simply cosmetic changes: eg. placement of the "featured stuff" on the left and the "news stuff" on the right. You appear to believe this is a "major improvement" that "vastly outweigh[s] minor aesthetic concerns." You are certainly entitled to that view, although I'd point out that the improvement you speak of is itself an aesthetic concern. IMO, a poor color scheme very substantially reduces the appeal of having a couple of paragraps a few centimeters to the left or right of where they used to be.

I'm perfectly happy to respect your right to your views on this issue, and while I certainy don't share them I'll not suggest that you are being unreasonable to hold them. I'd like to ask that you be as considerate of your fellow Wikipedians who have voted to oppose. To imply that I'm insisting on having "every little detail the way [I]'d like it" is odd. Not only did I choose only to voice one objection, I also stated that I'd move to support even without any changes if someone could provide a compelling rationale for the current scheme. I'm not especially impressed with some of your remarks to others. Suggesting that User:Stettlerj is being petty strikes me as decidely impolite, and I don't particularly care for the tone you seem to be addressing Taxman with. I understand that you must feel quite strongly about the redesign, Fieari, but do be more careful with how you address opposing views. Very kind regards —Encephalon 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the most compelling rationale behind this color scheme is that it was deemed acceptable by more users than any other. I respect your right to dislike it, but changing it would generate more new opposition than support. If you personally believe that the cons outweigh the pros, you're correct to oppose the redesign. As for this discussion, I don't think that Fieari intended to insult you. —David Levy 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, David. I had just wondered if there might be some sort of technical or graphic design rationale for the scheme that was lost on this non-expert. It's really not a bad piece of work at all, frankly, and you guys are right to feel proud of the effort you put into it. Tell you what, I'm gonna see if it grows on me in the next few days, and if I start being able to stand that green and purple (!) I'll plonk down a support vote. ;-) —Encephalon 22:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The top is composed of too many boxes which make it look ugly and untidy. I also feel that there is no point in choosing any because they both appear similar. I want to know how the page is affected when the template for a new Wikipedia message is introduced - - Erebus555↔^talk
See "About the redesign' below for the changes, which also imply why the changes were made. Fieari 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeAs was already stated I believe by Political Lefty, Neither are very good, and the new one is maybe even a hair better, but an entirely different option is needed and just deciding on a mediocre one gives the impression that the question is resolved. Stettlerj 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't an incremental improvement better than holding out for something better that might never come? Isn't that petty? Bird-in-hand and all that... Fieari 20:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeThis is cluttered, useless, buggy, and doesn't even have a 2nd search bar. Waste of time trying to totally redesign the main page, why don't we do evolutionary changes instead so it slowly gets better with extensive bug testing? Plus, make it clean, like RexNL's userpage, thats simple elegence --Weirdperson11 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Like the current version. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Too cluttered. --DanielNuyu 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too cluttered not as easy to read as it could be --Aaron Einstein 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The current page is much less cluttered and visually attractive --mathwizxp 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I don't really like the overall look as much as the current main page, but it's similar enough that I don't care much -Elmer Clark 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Old version looks better and Easier to read. --Z.Spy 04:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I dislike the big "Wikipedia" at the top, it is too stark, and I dislike the darker-colored boxes around each heading. The clearer explanation of the difference between "help desk" and "reference desk" is an improvement, though I might list "reference desk" first. Crypticfirefly 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose While some new elements are quite nice, not having the article count at the top of the page is a deal-breaker. We should be talking billions of articles, not millions. Jimbo is wrong in that regard. Just because printed encyclopedia's have natural limits doesn't mean we do. The quality of an article we don't have is zero. Lastly, if we lose, why couldn't choice of homepage layout be a preference? I suppose I could write a script to fork the homepage, but I'd rather spend my efforts on articles, not coding around the new homepage. Someone said this isn't a democracy; it most certainly is a democracy of dollars donated.Marktaff 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If the article count was included at the top, would you support? Is that your only objection? Would you be willing to go the compromise of accepting this design for now, and then starting a new vote as soon as this one is done to place the article count higher on the page? If there's enough consensus for that, I'd imagine that one change could be made pretty quickly... Fieari 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Current page seems much cleaner - new page does not increase usability QmunkE 07:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I feel that the old version is cleaner. The new page is a little too cluttered and I'm not sure about the Welcome message.10:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Gaspode the Wonder Dog
Oppose for reasons outlines in opposing votes 62, 2, 9 and also 58. Greentubing 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose First, the "Welcome to Wikipedia". The Wikipedia looks very bad, because of the centering and it being bold within not bold text. Second, it doesn't look that much different from the old page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weatherman1126 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose on aesthetic grounds (and yes I am looking at the one without the million articles). I also agree with the sentiments expressed by a few people above that the proposed replacement is surprisingly similar to the existing page. As a brief overview the only change seems to have been to make it slightly uglier and to shoehorn a "Featured Picture" box into a row of its own where it looks like an afterthought (and is off the bottom of my browser window). PeteVerdon 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I personally see no problem with the current main page (and yes, I have read the objectives and the opposition to the current main page). However, if a redesign is a must, I would vote for anything but this one. I absolutely despise this design. It feels too boxy (both with and without the million article banner). I also feel that the picture of the day box looks like it's an afterthought (I agree with whoever said it above). Also per QmunkE and Gaspode, I feel that the old version has a cleaner feel to it. This one just seems cluttered. --^demon 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Awful lot of work for a worse outcome, sorry. It looks worse, and Did you know, in it's current incarnation highlights completely unverified claims in new articles. Not the type of thing we should be highlighting, but looking worse is the problem. I think it's the box around the welcome that's particularly displeasing. - Taxman ^Talk 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How is the proposed "Did you know" worse than the current one, which, you might note, is IDENTICAL to the current one, except in the proposed draft, has been moved to the left instead of the right. If you want to remove our "Did you know" section, is this really the place to do so? Wouldn't the village pump be a better place for such a campaign? As for looking worse... well... everyone has an opinion. I guess I can let you have that one. I, for one, find the proposed page much, much, MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the current one, by leaps and bounds, and think the current main page is the ugly one. You can't please 'em all there. Fieari 17:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I feel that the new design is incredibly boxy, and doesnt improve significantly on the current design. --Deemo 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Looks more cluttered than the current page. Proposed page is too long and requires too much vertical scrolling (which I usually don't do) to see it all. --MarkS 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I've changed my mind; this one is too boxy. Fredrik Johansson 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The new design is boxy, brings nothing we don't already have and is frankly just plain ugly. Wikipedia is one of the Internet's biggest websites and it and its users deserve much better. --Hn 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding the page's appearance, but how can you possibly claim that it "brings nothing we don't already have"? —David Levy 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Too square and pointy. Graphic design should be friendly and inviting, and the sharp corners here make it cold an unwelcoming. I like the addition of the featured picture, but the design just doesn't scream "Hi!, come on in and set awhile." psch e mp | talk 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too many boxes. If you're going to change anything put an article counter at the top The Bread 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Preferred some of the earlier drafts; believe this is too clumsy. Everyone has tried to include every possible thing you could have on the main page, which isn't what we want. Harr o5 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Its ugly, and makes me jump. (Or maybe its just that its new.) -Reuvenk_[T][C] 04:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Too boxy! SushiGeek 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I see two issues. First, the colors used for the left and right sides are too close making them difficult to distinguish. Then, I don't like the top box (police, ....). Poppypetty 12:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think the current design is much more elegant and suitable for Wikipedia. --Tail 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose.--Lkjhgfdsa 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. This seems as others have noted change for change sakes. The largest item on the page (the Wikipedia on top) is a link to another page. C'mon. Also, I have to admit reluctance at seeing the "anyone can edit" moniker made more prominent. It's a heightened invitation to vandals. Jtmichcock 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As a wiki, isn't the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone one of its most prominant features? It should be one of the first things a visitor sees. bcasterline^talk 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the most important thing for the user is that it is an Encyclopedia covering a broad array of topics. Second: it's free. That people can add to the information is noteworthy, but not the most important thing. Jtmichcock 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose its less attractive than the current one, could you not just add the links on the new page onto the current one, instead of redesigning it? Philc 0780 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose it doesn't seem to work on my explorer. JASpencer 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific? What doesn't work? Can you post a screen capture? —David Levy 22:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new header looks awful (too many ugly blue links!). Other than that, the other changes just seem like minor aesthetic improvements. ~MDD 46 96 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose While it would be great if we could get the 'picture of the day', and 'did you know' sections on the main page all the time, this new redesign simply isn't the way to do it. imo, of course.-Laplace's Demon 07:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Like the old version beter. SYSS Mouse 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think this actually improves usability at all--and the page count is missing. The boxes are not very attractive. Also, the words 'Welcome to Wikipedia' look very ugly for some reason.Yorick 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The differences in content aren't that apparent to me, and the top bar is just horrendous. It's so neat and tidy as to be almost medically sterile. --Cantara 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The current page serves it's purpose well enough. - Bladeswin 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I see no reason to change it at this point. Danthemankhan^(talk) 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Whilst the overall layout is generally pleasant, the colour scheme is so utterly hideous that I cannot attach even conditional support to this design. The colours are incoherent and the green is particularly offensive-looking. By comparison, the present Main Page – although severely lacking in several respects – has an elegance that is lost here. That said, I do believe a design suitable for Wikipedia will eventually emerge from this endeavour. --cj | talk 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeI agree with the "too boxy" argument.--Theloniouszen 07:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak oppose, in the end I don't particularly care. gren グレン 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too much of clutter. The current page is very pleasing to look at. Nivus 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeI saw some good proposals earlier, but this is not one of them. Sabine's Sunbird 13:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new "Welcome to Wikipedia" header looks good, and I like the layout of "In the news" "Did you know" etc and the inclusion of Picture of the Day, but the rest of the changes seem to be unnecessary. The colour scheme is ugly, and the overuse of boxes to contain material and indicate headings gives the page a very heavy feel. White space is a key element of web design, but this design clearly seeks to obliterate it. The bottom half of the page containing the other areas, sister projects, and languages actually expands the clutter instead of cleaning it up, and most of the links in "Other areas of Wikipedia" are duplicates of what's already available in the navigation sidebar. Instead of listing every language under the sun, there should be a single link to a page with all the languages listed in alphabetic order. If the design used the old colour-scheme and only used boxes where the old boxes were, I suspect half the opposition would disappear. --NormanEinstein 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Don't like the new colors and the excessive boxes. Also don't like the changes in font sizes and headers for the other language Wikipedias. The current page is simply more elegant and there is very little functionality improvement in this change. The header links at the top are fairly minor and could be adjusted without a vote like this. Tfine80 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Don't like the small 'Welcome to Wikipedia' at the top. Don't like new font settings and the only thing that has been changed apart from that really is layout, which I am not all that keen on either. UKWiki 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose IMO, it should have a larger picture of the day and isn't worth doing without it. --Locarno 18:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose this change for the sake of change. The main page could certainly use an update, but this ugly, cluttered variation on the current MP isn't it. Apologies to the folks who have worked on this, but a group-think approach to design seldom succeeds (especially when most of the group aren't design or usability experts) and this is a perfect example as to why. Jgm 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The current seems better, easier to use, and more user-friendly. --daunrealist 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Eww. It's just plain ugly. The current one is much better. The Kids Aren't Alright 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per cj Brian | (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. Too boxy, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia" header at the top just doesn't look right to me - I think it's because the welcome message isn't centered like in the current version. I agree that change is necessary, and I like several of the changes made here, but I'd much rather see some of the concerns of oppose voters addressed before we make a change. There's no reason to rush into a major decision like this - it's not like the current page is totally broken. BryanG 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, no rushing has occurred. This design wasn't thrown together overnight; it's been in the works since October, and it's the product of countless discussions and debates. We're trying to please as many people as possible, but we can't please everyone. Among those voting to "oppose" on this page, some feel that the page is too drastic a departure from the current main page, while others feel that too few changes have been made. No matter what we do, someone will object, so we have to strike a balance. We've aimed for a viable compromise, and I believe that we've succeeded in finding it. —David Levy 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this has been going on for a while, and that many people put a lot of work into it, but I think you misunderstood my point. It feels like (to me anyway) that now that we have a "final" design, some people have decided that regardless of any further objections raised, we should approve this design no matter what objections are made, because it's better than nothing. I'm sure that some of the opposing voters have been complaining throughout this process, and will never change their opinion, but others (like me) weren't really aware this was going on until now. I hope you won't discount their suggestions just because they weren't involved up to this point. BryanG 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not discounting anyone's opinions, but most of these suggestions already were tried at some point along the way (and proved unsuccessful or unpopular). What some people want is the exact opposite of what others want, so it's impossible to implement everything. This is the combination that drew the most praise and the fewest complaints. —David Levy 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design seems to be too boxy, and I'm not too fond of the new colors and font. Personally, I prefer the original design --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too boxy, top of page looks terrible comparitively. Sticking one box right under the tabs gives me a gut reaction that this page just isn't aesthetically acceptable. All of the rest of the proposed change is kind of nice, but really just "change for change's sake". Gspawn 17:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design doesnt look as sophisticated and the extra boxes only exist to make the page look less professional, keep the original design. 19:51 07-march-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPaul1066 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC).
'Oppose The proposed design is too compact - i.e text per pixel density is too high on the first part of the page. Also it is a bit too symmetrical for my taste. --Denoir 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, too less space between header and the two boxes below of it. Also, the current layout is "cleaner" and easier to read. --Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, i think the old one just plainly exhibits information better; new one is squares ville man--zachjones4 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too many squares, the colors are too "cold" (unlike the warm glowing colors of the current version), there's not enough whitespace (too dense), and the "On this day" and "Did you know" don't line up.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The new proposal looks perfectly wretched... and people are used to and can function with the old mainpage. Don't change just for change's sake. Thesocialistesq 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. As already mentioned, the new layout doesn't add much to the existing design. Also, there are too many boxes.Yeu Ninje 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed change is huge! Twice as long as the original. More links and buttons don't make for good design. Compare Yahoo to Google. It's called SNR. GIVE ME WHITESPACE OR GIVE ME DEATH!!! Meekrob 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. There are some good aspects to the redesign, but the way to improve the main page is to reduce the number of links and amount of colored boxes. The page will be perfect when there is nothing left to take away. Symptomatic of the problem: the continued existence of the utterly useless "start a wikipedia in another language" link. What fraction of visitors to the english main page need to start a new wikipedia in another language? One in a million?? — brighterorange (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Although I do quite like the some of the former frontpage candidates, I prefer the original to this one. I like the clean centralised top part of the original main page, and that's lost in the redesign. - Hahnchen 13:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose it is just ugly I Love Plankton 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Strongly OpposeThe immidiate response to the new design is revulsion. The page is too crowded, and the colors are unappeling.Eyeballcancer 19:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't really see where it's an obvious improvement over the current main page -- it's different, not better. Sahasrahla 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too boxy/square. Mikeee 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I too like the current design better. Patrick Gill 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose First impression of the page is ugliness. Too cluttered and compartmented with ghastly multicolored boxes. Also 5 pictures of roughly equal size means nothing has prominence. I don't think we should change until we have something demonstrably better. Meersan 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Although I would love a change, this is not what I wanted. -- WB 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This new one is a slight improvement in terms of colour and clarity, but the boxyness and amatureness of it all are very un-wikipedia like. Sorry! -- User:StaticFish 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Agree that the new one is nicer color and clarity, but disagree strongly about the boxes. Looks like a circa late 90's web look. -- User:flxstr 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design looks absolutely aweful. Though a new design may be in order, this definatly should not be it. -- YourParadigm
Oppose I like the current design. Why change?--Byron 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This design is just not different enough, it's change for the sake of change. It's not clean and organized enough. 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickenofbristol (talk • contribs) .
Oppose I don't see much difference. It needs to be cleaner, simpler, and more effective. Sturmur 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, Wholeheartedly and Passionately The old design looks cleaner. --Err0neous 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The added clarity is unnecessary and unsightly. --Iscariot 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Very Weak Oppose I don't really like the way the WP:The Free Encyclo is centered but not really centered. I don't really like that header much at all, actually. Can't really describe it. Otherwise good work. This may change as I think about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worthawholebean (talk • contribs) 0:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose The old one is fine; leave it alone.Realkyhick 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Keep it simple and functional and leave it alone. Thatbox 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I hate it for all the reasons mentioned above. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I am great. Imav 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too cluttered. Theccy 01:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not really a difference. Harder to read. Praetorian42 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Way too complex. Like the simplicity of the current design. Menuet 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's too cluttered and harder to read, and not a change enough to have my vote. -- Flibuste 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough of a re-design to merit a change. Anyways, the old design looks cleaner and simpler. --Mikm 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe I'm just attached with the old one but I prefer it -- Tawker 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The colors are still need work, and the header is distracting and awkward looking. -- MonoNexo 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Like simplicity and clarity of current page. This one is too busy and cluttered, overwhelming as a home page Augustz 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design is not a big enough improvement to justify the change of the now-familiar front page. However, I do like the Draft L. Anyone else agree that it is better than the currently proposed version? --vekron 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design is a little to cluttered with the top right nav. Also not really digging the color scheme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagneticStain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose The whole placement seems somewhat squished. Also the light blue does not work at all IMO. Jraynes 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Poorly designed. It does not provide efficient access to information. -- Rvallee 9 March 2006, 02:27 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the new color scheme, and the whole thing seems cluttered. I like the current text sizes on the main page at the bottom- in order of "importance". Mintrepublic 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The current page is great, clean, and functional. The new design is plain horrible. The Intellectual 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Really quite prefer the current version. $cirisme 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The old colors and layout are peaceful and welcoming. The new colors and layout are jarring and mugly. Very 1970s Italian living room.--Bigplankton 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This new layout seems clunky and pointless. The current page isn't great, but this new one makes it worse. MrC 03:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Colors clash with the site's color scheme and their use seems completely unnecessary, and detracts from the flow of the main page. --Kameron 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Ugly color changes, no real added functionality krbrowning 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Bigbadbyte 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Sometimes a little unused space can be a good thing - the new one's a little too dense. Also I like the old colors better. I agree the new header is better, but the rest is worse. StringCheesian 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Messy looking, too much going at once. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ謚慕ｨｿ 04:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Prefer previous design.. Sndrsn 08:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Current design, as well as proposed new design contain too much text boxes. It looks too messy and should improve much better with shorter texts. Empty space on the portal site also improves a lot and has a more calming effect. The Dutch portal site shows some improvements by using small logos, which makes a nicer appearance. Brynnar 12:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Paul James Cowie 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose To box like, doesnt flow as well as the current main page. --Reefsurfer226 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose To me, it seems obtrusive a little, doesn't really flow. The colored bars around each section title seem to actually isolate them too much, actually making it harder to differentiate between the sections. Ease of use definitely seems to be less.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Moderate oppose The new design doesn't strike me as simpler. The huge list of languages in the footer is a negative. I'd rather the front page be simpler. --Zippy 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak oppose: I think a new main page design is damn well needed, both for the sake of change (yes, this _is_ a reason) and because I'm not very fond of the other one. However this doesn't really cut it for me. It's too cramped, the colours are jarrying, the layout looks strange. Ludraman 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The current site is fine, don't mess with something that isn't broken Naelphin 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose New design is busy and the divide down the middle is clumsy. Please don't. Septentrionalis 05:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Vehimately oppose, thanks for your hard work...but no thanks. It's just aweful. I love the simplicity and clean look of the main page...please don't take that away. Having the featured picture on the main page every day isn't a bad idea, but not like this. It looks way too boxy, and it screams: "we're changing this page because we were bored with the old one." Besides, if you're going to change it for the sake of changing it, don't make it worse. Keep it clean. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Current design is fine. Brandon W 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose the colored heading things are horrible looking. I much prefer the almost completely unnoticable subtle coloring on the current main page. --Krsont 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeI feel that the main page does need a redesign but that the design proposed is simplu not good enough to warrant changing from the current one. Hopefully there will be a nother version of the redesign which takes on board a numebr of the comment expressed above, although, I aprreciate it is never possible to please everybody. --Wisden17 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Much too boxy. Not very visually pleasing. Search bar isn't prominent. Too many things are off-center. --P. B. Mann 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OpposeNothingisreal 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: I feel that the page design present at the moment is better at relaying interesting information to newcomers and requires less downward scrolling. Also, the boxes look a little odd and their sizes would change too much according to the lengths of articles etc. --Eraysor 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:Current version is more delicate and visually pleasing. At just as easy to use. Ehjort 15:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Current design is not flawed. Also the picture of the day has a smaller area than in the current version. What good is a picture of the day if it can't be seen adequately? Joelito 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed design is not good enough to warrant a change. Although I think a better design would be warranted, I don't think a new design should be based on the current proposal. Scrap it and try again. —thames 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I miss "Did you Know?" already. --M @r ē ino 22:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
That section is still there. Stylistically, things have been altered, but everything that is on the Main Page now is still in this design.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Prefer the current design --Goog 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose How does moving the portal links to the side make them more visibe? It just makes the "welcome to wikipedia" section uglier. And why move a beautiful picture all the way to the bottom where it is less visible -- Xerrex 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Feeble Oppose I prefer the current design to the proposed one, but if it's necessary, so be it. Amina 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The current design is elegant as is. The proposed design tries too hard.Nan Yang 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Yeah like, the new design is really boxy (natch), and it just doesn't seem as clean as current one. I like the way the portals are displayed now too.
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the green colour. If you used a warmer colour (such as the current pinkish one or, better, something orange or yellowish) I would prefer the new design. DBrane 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose Completely agree with Frazzydee (no. 168). Piet 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't dislike the proposed new design, but the most important thing, the header, looks like it has been pushed into a corner by the rest of the page. David Sneek 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I kind of like the current one better, and I agree with the last post... the header really kills it for me. If it were any other singular element that bugged me I might still support it, but the header is really important. The current design is simple and fits with the rest of the site. -Vontafeijos 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The old one looks nicer, IMHO. Vanky 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. If the header were fixed up a bit, I might reconsider... Mr. Lefty 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. I like a lot of the new page design, but the colors are too pastel, giving the whole page a sort of baby-wallpaper look. The colors also happen to clash with the strong reds and skin-tones in today's pictures, which makes me wonder about the wisdom of color bars on the front page. Without the colors, I think I would change my vote, but with them, I'm in strong opposition. -Harmil 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I like the new content, but the layout is just terrible - big pastel colored blocks stacked neatly. The page has no natural flow. --George 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose on aesthetic grounds. The old page looks nicer. Specifically, I prefer the old page header section with centered text. I prefer the balance of having four "main" sections to the new design with an extra section tacked to the bottom. I prefer having simple bold titles for DYK, ITN, etc, rather than having little colored boxes just for these titles. Overall I see many things I don't like and nothing I would call an improvement. (Note: I use the Classic skin, not Monobook. It may look nicer in Monobook. However, good design dictates the page should look nice in any skin.) Isomorphic 06:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Why does every header need it's own box? Manmonk 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - there's nothing wrong with the idea: in fact I like it. Just not as much as the current MP, which I believe is wonderful.--Keycard ^(talk) 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Full Oppose. Nothing personal, I just like the old one better. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Only thing better about the new one is the way the top bit pulls out Questions, Searching, Editing... links. The rest feels more amateurish and messy than the current one. Rd232 ^talk 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. A website designed by committee ends up looking like Vogon poetry sounds. -- Seth Ilys 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - The page scrolls down too far and the interwikis are even less prominent than they are now. People already are asking why we don't show them in the enwiki and we have to point out to them where they are and that we're just doing it differently. With the new design they're buried at the bottom and in small font. Not good. Outside of that, I have no preference. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I have somewhat mixed feelings on this, but overall come out leaning towards leaving the front page as it is. I think the existing (old) look is cleaner, but I like the reversed DYK <-> OTD on the new page, along with a couple of other elements. In general I'd prefer a less severe redesign that was more of a point-tweak to the current page than a significant visual redesign. Whichever, I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. --Estarriol 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I really would miss the red, there is too much blue and green in the new design. Danny Beardsley 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - It's no better. In particular I hate mixing boxed heading on top then ordinary <h2>s at the bottom. Scrap it and try again. --Perfecto 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, poorly designed (breaks every rule in the book). There are far too many design elements (different type faces, boxes, colours, alignments, lines etc) and it's longer, hiding more information "below the fold". For some reason, useful information links such as "site news" have been spread out across the page, making them harder to find. It really is dreadful! Our current main page is much better - cleaner and much more professional. Dan100 (Talk) 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Many of the concerns you raise also apply to the current Main Page. You have failed to say why you think the current Main Page is more "professional". Regarding your "hiding more information below the fold" comment. I have just checked and it looks to me as if the new design has more information up front than the current design. You say that useful links (plural) have been spread out over the page, but only give one example. As far as I can see, that is the only link that has been moved down the page. Your example was the "site news" link. This was moved because it is a "community" link, and of less interest to the readers of an encyclopedia. The main page shouldn't be designed so that editors can use it as a shortcut to where they want to go. They should know enough to bookmark etc. It is readers that any main page needs to be aimed at. Carcharoth 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - far too boxy, cluttered and visually-unconducive. Ronline ✉ 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Current one is better. —Xezbeth 16:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I like the current one. --Janarius 17:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I dislike the new color theme Sinerma 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - new color scheme looks awful on the classic layout scheme. Oppose linking to portals until there is more quality control there - too many are used for POV pushing. Phil Sandifer 23:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Pssst, we link to the portals on the Main page now. :] --CBDunkerson 00:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Did we make them so prominent you noticed hem for the first time?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Changes are not bold enough. Far cry from a "redesign". Kevin Baas^talk 01:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The new design is all crappy and childish looking. While the left pane is all white and plane, it takes the page out of harmony to give the right pane full color. Also, the colors are too much. There is no consistency. Besides, it scrolls too much and isnt anywhere close to a neat design. thunderboltz ^(TALK) 14:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose That green is simply out of context. If there is one change to main page it should be the color for the featured article... but not green.--Bauta 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The pale green and blue are too clinical and the normal h2 header for Other areas of Wikipedia looks like an afterthought – it's not integrated with the rest of the design in any way. HAM 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Headings in pastel-coloured, heavily padded boxes look very childish. While the current Main Page isn't perfect, it does look more professional than this proposal. It is hard enough convincing people to take us seriously as a reference work, without giving them a front page that looks more like it belongs on a children's site than a serious work of reference. That having been said, I do appreciate all the work everyone has put into this, but I still cannot support it. — orion eight (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Too busy. They took it in the wrong direction. Old version is better. --Chroniclev 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral; no preference

Needs the article count. Also, people who vote on this should get to all be admins.--The Cunctator 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that I understand your latter comment, but I can tell you that the article count has been moved to the "Wikipedia languages" section. —David Levy 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See the "About the redesign" section. One of the considerations is that some people, including Jimmy Wales, think the focus should be "quality not quantity." I agree. We have just shy of a million articles already, far more than any paper encyclopedia so the article count novelty is bound to wear off eventually. --vortex ^talk 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not if it keeps growing; not if its doubling time keeps shrinking; and not as long as it can be used to compare Wikipedias in various languages. Face it, editcountitis is part of Wikipedian culture. Embrace it. --Go for it! 11:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. The current version works fine for me, and David's rabid campaigning completely turned me off. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what you're referring to. Could you please elaborate? —David Levy 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Part of me says shake it up!!!!!, and then another part says it looks ok now what more can you expect from the main page. Finally a third part of me says "Burritos are nice."--M4bwav 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - I think it's better than the current page in that its focus is better balanced, but I really think the top banner needs something more in it (such as a very subtle image, like the site's background or even a faded version of the 'world logo') - it is the first thing the eye rests on after all. Being educational doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be needlessly proper (I say needlessly because there was a previous draft that had such a background, if I remember correctly) - Drrngrvy 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The background image was removed when it was learned that it displayed improperly for some users. —David Levy 21:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree but David has a point. If we can get it to work for everyone, I'd support, say, a faded jigsaw globe behind the Portals.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
On the type of low-end monitor that I've seen, any faded background image would appear quite unattractive (and render the superimposed text less legible). I liked the book image (and actually created the latest version), but we must be considerate of the potentially affected users. —David Levy 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you look at the way the (current) background image for the whole site fits in, the 'focus' of it - the dark patch - lines up well with where the box we're talking about sits. I'm not suggesting making the box transparent (for obvious reasons) but if that image is taken to work fine for users, could part of it be used? Wouldn't that give continuity too? I just think that if the main page changes, that'll be it for a very long time - Drrngrvy 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - the headings look slightly clunky and unWikipedia-like. As someone said above, some part wants change, some part doesn't. x42bn6 Talk 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral both versions have too much junk that no one wants. Like anaversaies, or news. People don't come to an encyclopedia for news or anaverseries, they come for information. also, both versions omit the one thing that people actualy use to get that info. the search bar. The search bar was one of the main reasons for starting this project in the first place. How can we possibly leave it out? Especialy since it's by far the most important feature. sure catagories and portals are fine. but they're slow. to get where you want fast. Search. Both versions are terrible. Every attempt I made to have the redsign be actualy useful was reverted. Both pages are completely useless. Tobyk777 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a search bar. There is also a link, Wikipedia:Searching, to help people search. There are many different ways of searching, not just using the Wikipedia search function. Also, the Main Page has to cater for those who want to browse, not just search. Categories and Portals are NOT intended to be used to find things. They are for browsing. There is nothing to stop you using the several options available to create a personalised dedicated searching interface to use as your entry point to Wikipedia. Carcharoth 10:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
neutral They both look very similar to me.--Acebrock 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Overall a slight improvement, but I miss the article count. I'm not truly happy about the background colors either. I don't see the problem with the search, the search box in the sidebar is still there. --Bogfjellmo 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. It looks more streamlined that the current design, but, at the same time, just too cluttered with so many new boxes. The featured picture receives too much emphasis — and is unbalanced, with a picture on the left and often sparse text on the right. Scrolling further down, there's simply too much boxed clutter, with a lot of empty space to the right of "Other areas of Wikipedia." Overall, I can't say it's an improvement, though I wouldn't say it's bad either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is lots of empty space in some displays because we have to make it fit well in a 800x600 browser window. --Quiddity 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I like the current design beacause it is easy to see everything but the new design would work also. --User:ARIG@ele 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Wally 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral The differences in the style and usability of the current and new design are so minial that I could not leff the difference. chemica 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral This seems like a frivolous distraction from far more important internal societal issues that need to be addressed first, I see very little difference in terms of layout. Karm a fist 10:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, just for the record. --maclean25 23:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I think the header bar at the top and the suppression of the "Main Page" heading are both big improvements, but the colored boxes are just too distracting for me. —David Wahler (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I like it, but I don't see how it really improves usability all that much. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. Too boxy (and yes, I am looking at the one without the 1MM article comment) and even after reading the design principles below I really don't think there was anything terribly wrong with the previous page. But strong approval of deemphasizing the article count. We should not be getting hung up on this as much as we are. Martinp 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. No strong feelings one way or another. As mentioned under "Discussion, would like to see a link to the excellent "About Wikipedia" page added to the left hand Navigation box. Tony 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral don't really feel that this is much of an improvement; its not bad either, maybe a little clutered at the top Robdurbar 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. It doesn't seem like it makes it much more readable or improves user experience. It's a little more flashy, but it has the same clutter issues that the original has. --Kickstart70 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. It doesn't look like a lot has changed between the existing and proposed pages. There doesn't seem to be any major improvement that makes Wikipedia more attractive or easier to use. Solarusdude 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral The Color Scheme is prety Loud, But the arrangement of textual Content is much better than the present Page. I would like a combo of the New Textual arrangement and Old color schemes. Sharath Sridhar 10:31 9 March 2006 (IST)
Neutral Can barely tell the difference. Souk 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Not much point. Change for the sake of change. I would suggest if you do change it to lose the box-corners of the talbes. Rounded corners and light "transluscent" colours (think Flickr) are very sleek and appealing. Box corners an dtoo much repetition in colour (like in new design) are like potholes to the eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakksoho (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Neutral ...Are you serious? Why is this even being voted on? The change is minimal. If the moderators want change, then they should do it. This is not big enough to invoke a public response. Ellimist 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mean you support the change, but object to voting? Ironically, wouldn't voting support be a better way of doing that? The reason for the vote is because it's the main change, which everyone sees first thing... and the fact that we have a segment voting oppose should suggest the need for the vote. Fieari 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Meh. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-9 22:29
Neutral The changes are inconsequential. AND, though I've used wikipedia.org for years, I had no clue that this main page existed until the article was posted on digg. Cassavau 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral This change is far too small to be important. I came into this expecting huge differences, but, to be honest, if it had been changed yesterday without any warning I'd have hardly batted an eyelid. It says something about the weaknesses of Wikipedia that something as miniscule as this change should warrant such a large discussion and voting process. Phileas 07:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral If it ain't broke, why fix it? But then, new stuff is nice too. So long as it works, can't say I feel strongly either way. --Eilu 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I had to go back to check how it was different from the other one. They are very similar. For this reason I do not have much of a preference. I do dislike the new green color in the background of the FA. Anagnorisis 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I like some parts of the new design, but the later parts of the page (especially Other parts of WP) look a bit funny. Tristanb 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral: Where's the difference, apart from more colored boxes? Sandstein 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Don't feel strongly either way... -- KTC 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral When taking the oppotunity to make a change, it should be more drastic. It is not a vast improvement on the old one. --Eft 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning on oppose and make a new draft per Eft — if we're revamping it, we should be really changing it. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I never use the main page, anyway, and it really doesn't look like it's that big a difference. MusicMaker5376 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I like that the new design has both the DYK and FPicture, but the rest is just a minor, cosmetic change. I am not sure if this is more user-friendly, and certainly the current wiki-page has become a familiar site. Is it worth changing it? I am not sure.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral To tell the truth, I don't really care. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 03:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral i don't like both variants. the colors have bad contrast and the promoted design simply contains more garnishment. both look somehow blurry and there's quite too much text on it. imo a voting for such a minor change is ridiculous! --Pythagoras1 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - I was expecting it to have changed more. This one is barely different. It's hardly worth all the time and effort that's gone into it, frankly. Would have supported if the article count had gone, though. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - Not enough of a change to chose one over the other. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutral: Agreeing with Trevor there. Davidpk212 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago83 comments42 people in discussion

Anonymous votes

Support I like the layout. Only 2 complaints:

1.) The font used for the site logo (Wikipedia)is rather garish. 2.) The colors. When I scrolled down, when the purple hit the screen it actually hurt my eyes to view. If you want to use that color, then at least it should be on the page at load up, not scrolling into view. Perhaps if you swapped the green and purple for the news and picture of the day. Though to be honest, I really think the purple needs "softening" no matter what. - 68.13.144.181 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking now at the current version, which is apparently different today than yesterday, I note the addition of article count, the lack of "boxy" lines, the "WIkipedia" logo has changed to a more straightforward one, and the colors seem bit less "extreme"... Very nice, all around. - 68.13.144.181 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Better than no changes at all
Support It's about time. --71.50.168.42 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Only registered users may vote. --vortex ^talk 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Somewhat ugly, it would be nice to have the article count on top. --24.247.126.44 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Root for the underdog. --67.86.102.43 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's just plain ugly! There's nothing wrong with the current main page, in fact it beautifully illustrates the easy, simplistic look of Wikipedia that everyone loves! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.193.225 (talk • contribs) .
Oppose, I would prefer the older design at this stage, the new one is two "boxed up". themit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.88.138 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose Too much stuff, I dont look at main page in the first place, I want a page that wil load quickly and not cause browser problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.21.120 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Support looks good, cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.7.4 (talk • contribs) 0:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC).<;/small>
Support looks ok —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.13.93 (talk • contribs) 0:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose The Current is simple and clean the new one just doesnt really add anything and breaks up the clean look —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.211.56.31 (talk • contribs) 0:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Looks like reasonable changes to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.230.131 (talk • contribs) 0:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Looks the same to me --Flaco 19:13, 8 March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.250.229.239 (talk • contribs) 0:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support The new version is much cleaner; it is easier to organize my initial glaced readings. I suggest stronger colors: royal blue, rather than sky blue, for instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.111.68 (talk • contribs) 0:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support The new one looks a little bit nicer, so let's go with that one. 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.150.91 (talk • contribs) .
SUPER DUPER ULTRA MEGA PWNAG3 SUPPORT Love the design!! -- TIRUS/MUSHROOM/TIRUS89 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.176.176 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Support Looks much nicer. 71.8.74.51 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Good. 144.173.6.76 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Support I like the new design —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.236.208.25 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 March 2006.
Support Better looking and harder to make a post so less people spam wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.220.195 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 March 2006.
Conditional support Portals in top-right aren't more prominent IMHO - that's 'blind spot' for most people (people start reading from top-left and after reading heading they look further down). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.89.126 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Oppose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.26.160 (talk • contribs) .
Support Who wouldn't, the new homepage is gonna look AWESOME! Anyone who doesn't support, just change your vote, ok, its like pointless not to support.. --66.32.156.227 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comment - I'd like to mention that the process for obtaining concensus on each little tiny niggling detail was long and arduous. I would reccomend that people vote simply on the consideration of whether the proposed main page is better or worse than the current page, not whether the new page is perfect in their minds. Other improvements might be possible with further work, but I think those niggling details should be proposed and hashed out elsewhere, perhaps at the village pump. Unlike a FAC, where objections are easy because A) We want it to be perfect and B) Fixing a problem is a simple matter of clicking "edit", any suggested changes will probably require a few extra months of "politicing". So please... yay or nay, is the proposed change better than the old main page? More or less better, that is. Given "These are the only two possible choices", which is better? I know it's hard for most wikipedians to accept the fact that an aspect of wikipedia isn't modifiable at a moments notice, but changing the main page is slow and hard to do. 24.116.38.54 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with what you say is that since this change is so time-consuming, it's not likely to happen very often at all. Deadlines are good for motivating us all, but overrunning them costs us nothing: no money, no users, no reputation (since how do you label an ever-changing mass?). It's best to get it right first time, imho - Drrngrvy 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages All of the forigen charaters slows down my web browser if I scroll over the Wikipedia languages section. Not really a big deal. --Midnightcomm 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you experience this issue with the current main page? —David Levy 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The redesign seriously needs some white space or a centered logo between the Welcome to Wikipedia and the featured article stuff. Atropos 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: without the 1,000,000 article banner, there's a lot more white space: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft&oldid=41714090 zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Someone mentioned that they were pleased that this proposed replacement of the Main Page doesn't have "Main Page" at the top. Is this assumption in fact wrong? Is the appearance of the proposed replacement for the Main Page missing the "Main Page" (the Wikipedia "page title" bit) and "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (the tagline that appears on ALL Wikipedia page) that is at the top of the current Main Page? I know it might be difficult to make this "visible", but it seems misleading to have this missing when people are directly comparing these two pages. Carcharoth 10:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is, in fact, an actual design element (in most skins). It wouldn't have to be carried over (if it were to prove unpopular), but it is a part of the current proposal. —David Levy 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you mean here. Are you saying that this is part of the layout of the Monobook skin? I understand that, but the point I am making is that people are currently comparing apples and oranges - they don't see "WikiProject:Usability/Main Page" at the top of the proposed replacement. Unless we really are proposing to suppress the top-of-the-page "Main Page" part of the Monobook layout on the Main Page only. If we are, that should be added to the summary of the differences on the voting page, so people are clear about this. Carcharoth 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that we plan to suppress the text in question (which works in most skins). I suppose that we could add this to the list, but it seems like a somewhat separate (and optional) deal in my mind. (If people don't like this, we can add the text back.) —David Levy 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment One thing that I really do like about the new design is that it has the "Today's featured picture" seven days a week. If the vote turns out being "Oppose", I suggest that at least the "Today's featured picture" be permanently added to the old Main Page. —OneofThem 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the search box all the way down at the bottom of the page? And what happened to the tabs at the top of each article? I can't tell if this has to do with the new changes or whether it's just the site not loading properly on my computer...but if it's the former, please, don't move the most important things down to the bottom of the page. It's not only inconvenient but the whole site looks totally unprofessional now. I'm confused though, because the "current main page" and articles also have this layout. --130.126.67.39 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be describing an alternative skin. Were you logged in when you saw these changes? —David Levy 11:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears to have reverted. Stayed for 2-3 days, despite F5-ing, and then suddenly reverted back to the old 'layout.' Here's a screenie of what it looked like, if you have any idea what happened:

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2484/untitled1ed1.jpg

And no, I was never logged in.

--130.126.67.39 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, you were seeing the "MySkin" skin. I assume that this was some sort of glitch, and it was unrelated to the proposed redesign. —David Levy 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion There has been some controversy about the text 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' I think it should be capitalised and have the full stop as this shows the encyclopedia is wrriten in proper English. --81.104.37.81 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not a sentence. The sentence is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Our current draft includes both the comma and the full stop. —David Levy 16:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that this vote is biased towards the people that already have spent plenty of time developing the new main page, and so of course they'll prefer it. For such an important change, the vote page ought to have more visibility. Maybe a link on the real main page, or a mass email, would be a good idea. -Beefnut 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how widespread the coverage of this vote has been. There was some discussion with a list of places it was suggested to announce this vote at. Can someone please make a list of the places that the vote was announced at. I agree with those who think that an announcment should be made on the Main Page itself (if I was a reader only, and not an editor, I'd still like to be able to consider contributing a vote, though how do you let readers without accounts vote in an election like this?). Carcharoth 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Main Page Banner announcing the millionth article is likely to be in place for at least the next couple of days (I think the idea is for it to be there for a week after the event). This is already affecting some of the votes, though Zafiroblue05 is pointing out the differences. Can the links to the two pages being voted on (at the top of this page) also include links to the pages without that Main Page banner? Carcharoth 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although I voted to oppose, there is one feature of the new design that seems to be lacking from the current - the links to the Help Desk, Reference Desk etc. are much more obvious in the new design. Finding the Village Pump without being explicitly directed to it is currently unlikely, something which the new design remedies. Still think the old page is better though. QmunkE 10:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to really strongly suggest that this vote be made more prominent to those who have not been involved in redesigning the main page. A link on the Main Page talk page is not sufficient; I very rarely read that and I doubt that many others do. If I hadn't mis-clicked on the Discussion tab while aiming for a bookmark on my browser bar above it, I would never have known about the vote and would have been annoyed when the Main Page suddenly turned into one I don't like with no apparent consultation. By contrast, those who have worked hard to come up with the new design and thus have a strong interest in its implemntation are all well aware of the poll. The population for this vote thus suffers from unbelievable selection bias and cannot possibly be considered valid by any competent statistician. I would suggest that an announcement to all registered users (similar to the "you have new messages" announcement) is required if the result of this vote is to have any credibility at all. PeteVerdon 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, very few of the poll respondents participated in the draft creation process, and some such individuals have voted to oppose its implementation. Secondly, we wanted very much to publicize this election via the watchlist message or the current main page, but the project's most outspoken opponents vetoed these ideas. —David Levy 15:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it doesn't matter who vetoed the public election. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I too will be angry if the main page is changed due to a tiny, undoubtedly biased fraction of the community. --Beefnut 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No one "vetoed the public election." It simply hasn't been advertised via the watchlist message or the current main page (despite our desire to do so). Nonetheless, the poll has received more publicity than most of the site's goings-on, so I don't think that either side has much to complain about.

I hate to break it to you, but every Wikipedia decision (both major and minor) is based upon input from a tiny fraction of the community. What, in your assessment, is the source of this alleged bias? —David Levy 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to mention that only once have I ever seen so many different users vote on any one topic or proposal here, and that was for voting on modifications to the speedy-deletion criteria-- and I suspect that by the time this is done, we'll have WELL more users voting on this than that. "Undoubtably biased" seems an unfair sentiment to me, since I doubt this myself, proving "undoubtably" wrong right there. Please assume good faith. This said, I'd have no objections to a main-page banner declaring that this vote is going on. The more people voting, the better an idea of consensus we'd have. Either way though, I believe this vote is fair, and produces a pretty good sampling; indeed, a bettert sampling than we usually get. The voting period is huge, for one, and many many many people do look at the main page talk, including new users. Fieari 18:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I regret the absolutist language, and for lack of knowledge will take your word for it that this Decision is getting as much widespread attention, if not more, than other comparably important changes to Wikipedia. Still, as the main page is SO very visible to anyone who even glances at the site, surely everyone must agree that this decision ought to have a wider voter-base. Why not mass-email? --Beefnut 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(I'd also like to mention that, on reflection, the new proposed page is really nicer-looking, despite my initial resistance to the change. Still, this doesn't change my belief that many readers would really like to be a part of this decision and are being disenfranchised from lack of awareness.)

I'd like to say I only stumbled accross this as it was mentioned on the main page for a day or two a while ago, and then came accross the vote by accident a while later. This vote is nowhere near publicised enough. And should have been clearly posted on the current main page at the top for the duration of the vote. - Jay 02:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing's for sure -- if the new version does get adopted based upon the vote as it currently stands, there will be a minor flood of gawd-that's-ugly comments from casual users who had no idea there was even a proposal, and that these comments will be the tip of an iceberg of unspoken feelings that will, in the long run, work against Wikipedia's desired image as a world-class outfit. And I think nearly everyone, supporters and opposers alike, knows in their heart/guts this to be true. That, to me, is the deal-breaker. I want to see a design that makes me confident that most casual users -- the ones that don't know or care about this type of vote -- will actually like or at least feel okay about. Jgm 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that there will also be a flood of "OMG the new Main Page rawks" comments from other casual users who had no idea of this proposal? and, since the "Support"s seem to be outnumbering the "Oppose"s, doesn't that mean that there'll be more of those kinds of comments? ("Selection bias" lol :P ) —OneofThem 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think not so much, in reading the pro and con comments: in addition to the fact that people naturally complain more than they compliment (grin), supporters seem to do so mainly on the basis of how well all the items have been included, on the incremental nature from the prior version, and in recognition of the effort; asthetic comments seem mostly neutral at best. Casual users just want to use the thing, and are more concerned with doing so without having to face an ugly page. In any event, assuming the new version is adopted, we shall see what the comments turn out to be. Jgm 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The aesthetic comments "seem mostly neutral at best"? Are you and I reading the same page? —David Levy 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

comment - on the voting process... i voted in support of this change, but found myself discouraged at the brow-beating going on against those who voted in opposition. the vast majority of the opposition votes have refutation comments under them from people who are in support of the new main page design. just let people have their vote and their comment and don't get so involved as to reply to their vote even if they are wrong in their reasoning. it's silly. --Jeff 22:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a majority vote. Anyone (irrespective of his/her viewpoint) is welcome to respond to anyone else's comments. —David Levy 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Two comments
- There is a single piece of non-boxed space with a few links under the welcome box and that makes the whole thing look somewhat incoherent. Shouldn't these links find some other place or get a box for themselves? Or alternatively, more non-boxed whitespace with a few other things.
- The article counter should stay out, as it sets the wrong preferences (we need a focus on quality, not on article counting). Kosebamse 10:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Lots of people may be voting on personal preferences. Shouldn't it have been made clearer that this is a page that lots of people use, and so it has to cater for a wide range of uses and types of users (though I think the emphasis should be heavily towards those who regularly browse the site, or people arriving here for the first time, rather than those who do lots of editing). The work done to get the right balance links on this page to make it more USABLE is something that hasn't been emphasised enough. ie. Ask people to vote on whether they think this page is the best one to be the Main Page of Wikipedia, not whether it is the page they would like to use (though a separate poll to gauge that would be useful). Probably too late for this election, but something to bear in mind for future discussions on these issues. Carcharoth 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Concern - The length of FA lead keeps varying and this could throw DYK out of whack. --Gurubrahma 17:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The same issue (the possibility of one column's length significantly exceeding the other's) exists on the current main page, and it's why the sysops responsible for authoring the content need be careful to manage the text accordingly (a capability that we presently lack, because we're drawing our content from the same sources as the current main page). Having compared the two versions on a daily basis for quite some time, I've noticed that even with this disadvantage, our combination of features (with the positions of "Did you know..." and "On this day..." swapped) ends up resulting in greater balance more often than the reverse. —David Levy 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It needs the article count. H-BOMB 22:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When this is all done you might want to go through the 'oppose' and 'conditional support' type votes and put together a list of specific objections and how many people had issues with each of them. Then go through the list with the 'design team' from the top (most common objection) and see if there is any way to address them without significantly impacting the page. There may not be, but if even a couple of the 'big objections' could be addressed it might help. The biggest issue seems to be 'clutter/boxiness'... which goes hand-in-hand with the additional content being added. Only ways to alleviate that are to remove some things, make the page longer, or use some sort of 'thumbnailing' system where things are given in miniature and full info requires a mouse-rollover or click. The first two would probably cause more objections than they solved, but the third might have some viability. The various sections actually are essentially 'thumbnails' already, but they could be collapsed more. For instance, you could make the POTD just a picture and have the text describing it be the image text which pops up on mouse-rollover and/or a click to get the current POTD page. Et cetera. --CBDunkerson 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this suggestion would help, as it would leave empty space. I do, however, have a very simple idea in mind that would reduce the "boxiness." The reference section (the white box at the bottom) needn't be a box at all. This matter was briefly debated, and neither option was overwhelmingly preferred over the other. We ended up retaining the box, but I don't think that it would upset too many people if we were to remove it (leaving all of the content freestanding). I've decided to boldly implement this idea now. —David Levy 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment for support - I'm always willing to give my approval on changes and improvements, and this new proposed main page is surely better than the (already good) previous/current version. Given only the choices yes and no, thisis my vote. However, I don't really like the colouring. Other than that, it's excellent: I like the Welcome section very much, I really appreciate the fact that the article count has been removed, and I'm all in favour of the new Portal section. In a few words: very useable! --jοτομικρόν | talk 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know about it as a whole, but I'm unhappy with the increased prominence of the 'did you know?' section. I find its informational value usually questionable and was in favor of using a featured picture in its place all the time. --Kizor 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - number of voters. Why is it that the ArbCom elections were given a much higher visibility than this issue? Everyone sees the Main Page - how many Wikipedia users come into contact with the ArbCom on a regular basis? ArbCom elections were clearly "advertised" on several key parts of the site, notably Watchlists. Has this already been explained elsewhere? QmunkE 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This Voting system seems to be very unfair. It shows the results before you vote. How many of you actually looked at the votes before voting and saw the big list of "supports". I am talking about Conformity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.44.18.73 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

This is an open discussion, not a majority vote. —David Levy 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If one does not have a stong opinion one way or another, it's a good idea to read the arguments on both sides and then decide accordingly. -EdGl 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - No matter which one wins, I think that there should be an option to change the skin so then other people will be happy. KSava 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Comment - I'm wondering if the Main Page thing at the top will still be there even though it isn't in the preview? I imagine it must be, but if it has somehow been removed I'm interested in why. It'd be the only page that doesn't have that, which is very wierd. Atropos 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This (no "Main Page" at the top) is part of the design. This heading is used on all other pages to give the page/article title. On the main page, we consider it unnecesary to say it's the "Main Page" at the top. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But its a part of every page in the Wikipedia. I think it should be included for conformity to the rest of the project. It is practically a symbol of how open the Wiki is that the Main Page is clearly made the exact same way every article is, and removing that from the top makes it seem different from the rest of the Wikipedia. Atropos 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Having reviewed the comments of those Wikipedians in support and opposition of the main page redesign I believe that the best solution is to return the proposal to the Usability WikiProject to review the concerns of the opposition voters. This would allow input from rank-and-file Wikipedians into the redesign. I personally believe the redesign is okay but I believe a clear consensus could be reached only if the Usability Project reviewed the redesign with the input so many voters have given.

--Loucards 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I was recently browsing the Main page alternates and I found a couple of alternates that I really liked, like the Italian-style one, the misty breeze one, and the shades of blue one. Then I realized why I liked them so much: they have colorful little icons! :D In my humble opinion, I believe that icons such as those in the aforementioned Main Pages greatly increase the web site's "user-friendliness". Does anyone agree with me? Do you think that those icons could be implemented into the proposed new Main Page this late in the voting process? (If not, it's cool; the new Main Page is awesome anyway. :P ) —OneofThem 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Article count

Among those commenting on the "missing article count," I have to wonder how many realize that it has been relocated to the "Wikipedia articles" section (where it's contextually relevant), not removed.

Either way, many people would prefer to see the article count back in the header, and this is an issue to which we've dedicated a great deal of thought. If anyone has an idea of how we could go about integrating such an element with the new design, please let us know! —David Levy 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, underneath "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," you could put "Currently with 6,823,505 articles" or something like that. —OneofThem 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- See [2] or [3] for some attempts to do that. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"6,823,505 articles that anyone can edit"? æle ✆ 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We've tried that too. In my opinion, this was the best attempt to date, but it still was far from ideal. We don't want to give up the traditional tagline or imply that our site is no greater than the sum of its parts. Such wording also fails to consider the fact that users can author new articles (instead of editing existing ones) and contribute to the community by editing pages other than articles. —David Levy 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered there is duplication of the tagline with the Wikipedia logo that already says Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. There is no need to need to say there is no need to stress the free aspect again.

But new users can't create new articles, so should making it obvious be an issue? - Drrngrvy 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that new users are initially unable to create articles renders it even more important that they not be misled to believe that this very temporary restriction is permanent. —David Levy 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but if there were a small message straight after signing up - such as 'You're now a member of the Wikipedia community, giving you the ability to create new articles!' - would clarify this without changing the traditional slogan and without misleading newcomers. It might even encourage people to create [useful] articles ;) - Drrngrvy 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How about under the top box, like so?

Overview · Searching · Editing · Questions · Help

6,823,505 articles

Categories · Featured content · A–Z index

æle ✆ 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The two sets of links consume just the right amount of space for the line to display properly at the 800x600 resolution (without wrapping or horizontally scrolling). Any significant amount of additional text would cause one problem or the other. —David Levy 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, though. Still, we've taken measures to keep this compatiable with 800x600.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The styling is wrong, but just as a suggestion what about something like below?

Welcome to Wikipedia,

counting 6,823,505 articles

of free knowledge that anyone can edit

I copied the banner code from the project page to try your idea out below...

Moved banner down

I don't know... looks kinda ugly to me. How else could it be tweaked? Fieari 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You were right. I reduced the size of the top line and removed the bold from the article count to try and make it look less cluttered. I fiddled with the same one just so there aren't too many of the same thing on the page. - Drrngrvy 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't count articles. Many people here argue that the counter should be more visible. I wonder if any of them have asked themselves whether that counter has any value except that it's an old tradition. It is essentially a leftover from the days when not everybody knew us and size did matter. Today, we're among the top twenty Internet sites, are enormously popular, and certainly do not need to ask anybody for more articles. What we need is more quality. A counter for featured articles might be a far better idea. Kosebamse 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that most people here are either ambivilant, apathetic, or supportive of having the article count. Myself, I'm ambivilant. I could also go either way. On the other hand, there seems to be a significant minority who are really serious about wanting the count up by the top. There's another faction who actively don't want it, like you... but they haven't spoken up, probably because they see that the count isn't prominent, and are happy with it that way. But how can we tell who those people are? I vote we let things stand as is, at the moment, since the vote seems to be leaning towards passing, and then have a new referendum immediately afterwards with the issue of having the article count made prominent or not. That was, we can more accurately gague consensus. Fieari 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd support a FA counter ("What? A million artciles and less than a thousand of hem are any good?!"), but I agree, let's keep the counter out of the header—especially because no one can find a good way to put it in.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be ashame of that ratio (which has been around one in thousand for a very long time, seems almost like a physical constant). When we brag with the number of articles, that will likely be read as: "we have so many articles and that's what we are proud of". When we say: one in thousand articles is really good by our standards, that would hopefully be read as "we need good and intelligent people to help us create gold out of dirt". Kosebamse 09:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the way the article count is at the moment still isn't quite right. I was wondering if having a link to the article count would be better than just the count itself: most (if not all) of the objections I've read against a more prominent counter point out that Wikipedia's focus is more quality than quantity now, so having a counter right there is almost gloating. I'd agree, but what about when we reach the absolute limit of substantive articles (at least when it starts to plateau)? It'd be good to see how much we think we can write about anything. Anyway, just as an RFC, this is roughly what I'm talking about.

Welcome to Wikipedia,

; Draft archives
	Draft 5 Archive; Draft 6 Archive;
	Tally (poll) archive for Draft 1 through 4; Draft 1&2 Talk Archive; Draft 3 Talk Archive; Draft 4 Talk Archive; Draft 5 Talk Archive; Draft 6 Talk Archive; Post Draft 6 Talk Archive; Open editing session Talk Archive; Bug fixing session archive; ; Final poll and discussion archive;

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

~~You might think 'big' is the wrong word to choose, but I did because the juxtaposition of big free is 'of our time'. - Drrngrvy 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Twas a bit too silly me thinks. How about having the 'the' being a link too the article count? Too pretentious? - Drrngrvy 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "over a million articles in English"? It takes the focus off the quantity of the articles while still giving an idea of exactly how big Wikipedia is. -EdGl 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, McPedia has a nice ring to it. ;-) --hydnjo talk 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer that to the current version, too. The thing is, the three lines make the current header look a bit more bloated than two, to me. I just put the current source (modified) below for comparison (and because it looks quite swish :). The big above is a bit too modest perhaps? - Drrngrvy 05:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

— over a million articles in English —

Three lines is not a nice as two, but this header does look much better than the current header with numbers. bcasterline^talk 19:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the words look better than the numbers. -EdGl 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote counting for the math impaired

Because I had to sit and think about this a moment, I thought I'd pass on this to the rest of you. In order to see which side is winning at any given moment, multiply the SUPPORT votes by three, and the OPPOSE votes by ten. Right now, at 173/51, the modified tally is 519/510, a very close match, narrowly winning on the support side. Fieari 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

??!Intriguing math. What is the basis for this algorithm? Surely we are at (173+51=) 224 voters therefore 173 ÷ 2.24 = 77% support. ? --Quiddity 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: I don't know the general policy about this, so what is the threshold for the redesign to win? 50 percent? 70 percent? Redquark 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. In addition to the vote tally, the quality of the arguments presented is major factor. —David Levy 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The raw algorithm in use here is:

{\frac {Votes_{support}}{Votes_{support}+Votes_{oppose}}}\times 100=Percent_{support}

The quality and substance of each vote is also taken into consideration and provides for a more precise analysis of the voting community's intention.

hydnjo talk 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but at some point the numbers have to be too lopsided to ignore them. At the moment, the count is 191-65-9. That seems to strong of a support by numbers to ignore without, say, virtualy everyone mildy supporting and strongly opposing. It seems much more rounded than that. Frankly, I think we've already won.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I based my math above on the assumption that we needed 70% support to pass. As such, thinking in terms of a simple majority, oppose votes are "worth more" than support votes, which is why I showed the x3/x10 thing, to make this easier to see. If it isn't a case of 70% to win, the weight is obviously different. And if things are more subjective... but I was under the impression this was actually a vote, and that there was a bright line in this particular case. Fieari 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your math doesn't work. If there are exactly 70 support votes and 30 oppose votes, under your calculation Oppose wins handily. The correct way of calculating it is what Hydnjo said. Redquark 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

At time of posting, there is 72.8% support. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not sure what I was thinking. I do believe, still assuming a need for 70% support, that multiplying the support by three, and oppose by 7 works though. Since we need a 7/3 ratio, multiplying it by 3/7 should give us an "equalized" count. (as of this post, support has 73%) Fieari 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New count: 471/29/160/24 Support/Conditional/Oppose/Neutral. Somebody else do the maths. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Current count is: 515 + 8 / 34 - 8 / 166 - 1 / 27, modified for striken votes and conditionals changing to supports. That works out to Support = %70.6, Conditional Support = %3.5, Oppose = %22.3, Neutral = %3.6, and I've updated the Community Portal count accordingly. Fieari 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies as consensus?

On RfAs, it's 70% support, right? What constitutes consensus here? Just curious. Please cite policy and/or precedent. Thank you. --Go for it! 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus is usually up to admins. Also: Even if there is consensus, but both sides share some concerns ("too boxy" and "leave the page counts" seem common at a glance), things might wind up at square one regardless. Gspawn 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The "70% support" figure is a merely rough guide. It doesn't guarantee success, nor does a lower figure automatically spell failure. It's very important to gauge the quality of the specific arguments presented. (Votes along the lines of "Support. It's ugly and harder to use, but you people worked really hard." or "Oppose. It's a big improvement, but it doesn't add an extra search box." carry less weight than logical, well-reasoned comments.) —David Levy 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

While adminship is important, I think this is a bit more significant, as the main page is the face of Wikipedia... what new visitors see. I would like to see at least 75-80% support for the proposed design. Anyway, it should probably be up to a bureaucrat to make the decision. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a discussion, not a numerical vote. It's more important to carefully analyze the specific comments than it is to tally the votes (some of which are based upon illogical reasoning and incorrect assumptions). —David Levy 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, given the complaints about no article count, I think we should go ahead and try to add it. When giving a response above about article counts, I noticed one version of the draft that had it and I thought could work. [4]. A variation of that could perhaps be something like [5]. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is a required addition, i'd be for the first variation you linked. Maybe in an ever-so-slightly smaller font? --Quiddity 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the second version (which is the best attempt that I've seen). Another common complaint has been that the design is too cluttered, and placing an em dash on either side provides much-needed demarcation. With slightly smaller, italicized text, this isn't bad at all. Let's give it a try. —David Levy 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried tweaking the formatting of "Welcome to Wikipedia", adjusting the text size, padding, and removing the "Wikipedia" link underline. [6] If you think this is suitable, go ahead and revert back to this version. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I like these improvements, and I've reverted accordingly. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've calculated the percentage of votes at least once a day, and it always comes out to be between 70% and 75% support. I'm guessing this will remain relatively constant, as it has been so far. -EdGl 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of it dropping in to the upper 60s, but it by far more support than anything else. There seem to be a few key issues that people keep objecting to; I'm going to compile them in a new section below.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As of now, it's 550 support votes to 175 oppose votes. The number of upport votes divided by the total number of votes times one hundred percent equals the percentage of support votes. 550/(550+175)*100%=75.862% support. --EdGl 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we weight the votes somehow? Do the votes by users with only a single edit count more, or less (part of the aim of the redesign was to appeal to people new to Wikipedia, right?)... I wonder what the numbers would be like had the page not been linked to from digg.com. ~MDD 46 96 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Who does the "gauging" and where are the gauging procedures covered?

David, you keep talking about how democratic voting process doesn't directly apply, and stating that each voters' comments need to be analyzed and assigned a "weight". Who does this assigning, and where are the weight assignment rules? If there aren't any specific procedures documented in policy for this, then what it boils down to is someone's subjective opinion of the vote outcome (and by extension, someone's subjective opinion of the process itself). In that case, my question is "who gets to do the subjective interpretation?" Are they self-selected? And if so, shouldn't members of the Main Page redesign team (myself included) be disqualified due to their obvious bias? I'm just trying to understand your extremely vague statements concerning the decision-making process, in terms of what precisely that process is, and who the decision makers (or decision interpreters) are. You have yet to be specific on this issue. --Go for it! 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gauging the comments is a matter of common sense. If a respondent's reasoning is based upon a demonstrably false premise, his/her vote carries less weight.

I'm hoping that our draft will garner enough support to render the outcome obvious. If so, any admin would be qualified to close the debate, provided that he/she did not participate (or opposed the redesign). If not, proponents and opponents can argue their respective interpretations of the results, with an uninvolved party (ideally a bureaucrat) making the final call. —David Levy 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Common objections

I'm going to put together a list of the things that seem to upset a lot of users. Feel free to add any that I missed.

Too "boxy"; not enough free space, too cramped or cluttered; too much info staring you in the face; etc.
Lack of whitespace, especially at the top of the page. Wikipedia articles uniformly contain some whitespace at top (between tabs and article) due to page titles and redirects.
The "Welcome to Wikipedia" is too big and "in-your-face". It also isn't centered. (Like the article count, I think this is just nostalgia for the old page. Also, this isn't as common as some of the other complaints.)
No problem with the current Main Page, "don't fix it if it's not broken" mentality.
Feelings of tradition. (New page is too similar or too different to justify change from the norm.)
"Ugly", usually referencing a distaste for the proposed color scheme, but often also referring to boxiness and whitespace, or off-center "welcome" bar.
No article count. (This is one of those things where our intensions are good but the politicts don't work out—people want it without thinking about why it no longer should be there.)

That looks like it. Maybe we could have a simple, Google-esque page as an alternative?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Added my own problem (whitespace), which was actually what I meant by "too boxy". I think other users may be feeling the same. Changed the counterpoint on "no problem" to the more encyclopedic "not broken" line. Tried some general cleanup- some points just echoed each other. Hope that's okay! Also, some of the commentary seems like a start of a "Response" section. Do we want to go there? (leave personal responses in the commentary, and not on the list, perhaps?). Lastly, I'm with the people who think there's not really a problem with the numbers even given the response- I like knowing how far this community's come in an instantly quantifiable manner when I log in, personally. Not everyone who likes the number count is ignorant of the discussion. Gspawn 16:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, I think it comes down to three things:

Ugly: too boxy, bad color scheme, or too cluttered with too much info.
Feelings of nostalgia and tradition.

No article count (part of the above, but deserves its own spot because it's single-handedly one of the most common complaints.)

The point of this is too see if we can remedy any of thee before we go live with this (assuming it gets passed).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the first two you listed there can actually be addressed at all. While some people find it ugly, more people find it pretty. Changing the aesthetics to please the minority has a very good chance of alienating the majority, which would be counterproductive. True, there would be a number of current supporters would would also support a different look, but then, how many of the objectors agree on exactly what aesthetics it should have anyway?

On the subject of nostalgia... heck, there's a large number of voters who can't tell the difference anyway. Note that the people who can't tell the difference are voting both ways... some people think it's good that they can't tell the difference, others think it's bad. You can't please all the people all the time. And when it comes to nostalgia, if it isn't identicle, they'll vote object. And then the people who voted object because it was too similar would vote object even more strenuously..... again. You can't please all the people all the time.

Comparing this vote to the FAC process, we don't allow articles to be featured if they have even ONE strike against them. But that's because we have a list of very stringent criteria that can be followed objectively. Since this vote here is far more subjective ("Ugly" and "Pretty" can't actually be quantified, and if they can be, they can't be quantified the same way for each observer) the principle of "satisfy every objection" can't realistically be met.

Of course, the article count thing... that can be changed, and in fact, on the project page now, it HAS been changed, I note. Fieari 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you change the boxiness by dropping a layer of boxes (rule lines)? Is ti possible to keep the color box, drawn back under the box headlines, and at the same time remove the rule lines around the featured article, featured picture, in the news, etc., sections? That is, one could just have the boxes with no rules, leaving the color and bringing the color into line under the headers as boundaries. This would give a tad more white space too. It could be more elegant. Vir 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Example of main page with no rule lines on boxes: no rule line example (note that this example has a light blue background instead of whitespace, because of using my sandbox) -- This is part of what I am talking about in comment just above. The other part is to draw back the color boxes to resting under box headers. Or perhaps it is fine the way it is -- or one could even extend the color to merge with other color backgrounds. Either way, no rule lines seems more pleasing on the eye to me and might perhaps seem so to a strong majority. Worth checking? (Note: I support the new main page as is. This is for addressing many comments of main page being "too boxy".) Vir 16:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I really liked this sample without borders. very interesting! Unfortunatelly, maybe it's too late to some major change like this. Cyb3r 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx, yah, really, it is too late for this round, given the way the process was defined. But, it is an easy enough fix to introduce possibly quickly after either failure or likely passing of the redesign proposal. I think few would object to dropping the rule lines and it might resolve a lot of the "boxiness" concerns, especially with more tweaking for white space. Vir 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Header wrapping in IE

The 'edit' in 'anyone can edit' in the header is wrapping to the next line for me, no matter how much i resize the window.. Mlm42 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you have your text size set to "larger." We can't prevent wrapping completely, but perhaps someone can come up with a simple fix for this setting. —David Levy 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

'Point of order'

The proposed layout has now changed multiple times since March 1. How can that be?? What am I actually commenting on/voting for or against, here?? Awolf002 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so it's unreasonable to assume that you're commenting upon a design that will never change. It would be inappropriate to make fundamental alterations to the layout, relatively minor adjustments (in response to feedback) are to be expected. —David Levy 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what is "fundamental"? Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of differences between the current main page and the proposed design are fundamental (which is why we're holding this debate). The changes that have been made to the draft since March 1 are minor enough that if this were the actual main page, they would require no more advance discussion than what has occurred. —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Will somebody go and switch left and right boxes 5 minutes before the end of voting and have it supported as that? Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that this is a majority vote. It isn't; it's a discussion. There would be no reason to sneak in a change, as nothing that we decide now will be etched in stone. If the design is approved, it will be modified at some point down the line. That's the nature of a wiki. If someone believes that his/her support is a vote to permanently adopt this exact configuration without ever making any changes, he/she is mistaken. —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some limit, right? For instance, I would think the new placement of the article count was more than a minor adjustment, since many people discussed that as if it was the most important design change compared to the current layout... Just wondering... Awolf002 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The prevailing opinion (including among supporters of the new design) is that the article count should be included in the header. I disagree, but what's the purpose of holding this discussion if we're going to ignore the will of the community? —David Levy 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't seem to get my concerns accross. It says near the top of the page: Official voting procedure as section title and then The proposed new main page design is up for a vote to replace the current main page, and later

The issue to be decided is whether or not to replace the current main page with a new design created by members of the community. Vote Support to choose the new design, or vote Oppose if you want to keep the current main page. If you have no preference, you may vote Neutral.

It seems to me that this is actually not so, since this is a 'discussion' as you say. Awolf002 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A "vote" is a formal expression of preference. The concept of "voting" does not necessarily imply the existence of a majority/plurality vote. In this case, we're voting via an open discussion. —David Levy 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I therefore will have to remove my vote (since it is not a vote :-) until the community is done with creating the new design. Awolf002 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a wiki. As such, the design will never be "done." If you find this objectionable, you were correct to retract your vote. —David Levy 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a vote, but Wikipedia is not a majority democracy. There is no definitive percentage of support votes for the proposed design to win. It's ultimately up to a bureaucrat to interpret the voting, decide what the threshold is, and make the decision. As for the article count, this was one of the most commonly cited objections to the design. The main page redesign process needs to take into account such feedback and community consensus. We could have waited until after the voting to stick the article count in, but it's fine in my opinion to do it now in response to the feedback. I see no other specific element of the design that is drawing such major widespread objections. If there is something else very major and fixable, then I think we would be obligated to consider accommodating that. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be really bad in explaining myself, sorry! I never said this is about a 'majority'. I just wanted clarification what I support when I say: "I support this". After months of design effort there should be a high level of stability in the proposed design, so I can make up my mind about it. Let's end this discussion and see what happens. Again, sorry for wasting time. Awolf002 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you thought that you were supporting an exact design (which would never be altered in the slightest), you were mistaken; that isn't how wikis work. You have to assume that changes will be made to whichever design is selected. —David Levy 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Awolf is bad at explaining itself, I think there is one vocal defender who refuses to take anyone's point. Perhaps Wikipedia is not a Democracy, but voting processes are in fact used and one has been initiated here; but a vote is useless when what's being voted on isn't stable. Everybody recognizes the wiki-fact that the design will evolve, but we have, in fact, been asked to vote on a new starting point -- and you are making the process more difficult and less meaningful by constantly tweaking it in the middle of the process. Yes, David, it's hard when people (literally in this case) call your baby ugly, but you might consider backing off a bit. Jgm 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think David is doing a great job, and don't see a reason for him to 'back off'. And it would be silly to not constantly tweak the design.. i mean, it may statistically change the 'meaningfulness' of the vote in some philosophical sense, but realistically, if there is a strong enough opinion to change something, why wait until after the new main page is implimented? you wouldn't want to put up a design that people haven't already seen and discussed.. so it's better to get the feedback now.. that seems pretty obvious. Mlm42 17:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand the whole on-going nature of wiki and the need to take "votes" as discussions rather than majorities or pluralities, but Awolf's point of order is legitimate. First, even if a "vote" is etymologicaly or procedurally consistent with the wikified discussion, it should be recognized that such interpretation might not be immediately apparent to a lot of people. Secondly, the nature of the procedure is not clearly stipulated; it's not just a matter of consistency in terms of what someone is voting towards, but also a matter of clarity on the procedure. Why is the nature of the vote only being discussed near the bottom of the discussion page? This should be included upfront with the rest of the Official voting procedure guidelines at the very top. It makes administrative sense that a polity be fully aware of the process in which they are engaging. If nothing else, it's just good manners. Rod ESQ 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

About the "Conditional Support" votes

Now that it seems that the header contains the article count, should we start including those conditional supports in the pure "Support" category? Fieari 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Better to contact those voters, notify them of the change, and ask them to change it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've done so for all the ones I saw. Fieari 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Some of the opponents of this would be happier if both designs were retained, and the choice between them were made into a new set of skins. I suspect there are several ways to do this, including having two pages and a switch in the Main Page link. One talk page would redirect to the other. Septentrionalis 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on that. The pic of the day archive has been modified to support both the new and current version of the pic, as well as a version for the current Main Page alternates. So continued support of the classic design shouldn't be a problem, and can be maintained on the Main Page alternates page, where several other designs are also available, including one for PDAs, one for laptops, and several full-featured aesthetic variations. --Go for it! 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is it?

All this discussion, all the prominence and media, and all for a few minor aesthetic changes? And after coming to this agreement, it was deemed a large enough change from the current main page to warrant all the further prominence/media/voting? I was expecting some interesting new changes that actually improve usability, not just visibility; or if such improvements could not be agreed upon or brought to fruition, then just continue discussion or go back to the drawing board. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-10 16:38

I agree. What's the big deal here? Am I missing something? --Foofy 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to recruit more usability gurus to edit in Wikipedia. Or push to hire a few instead of pushing to tack a inscription in some rail station. --Perfecto 04:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was dissappointed w/the small number of people who participated in voting on the early drafts, and also dissapointed in how small the changes were. I proposed a number of different box styles, and there were drafts with icons for portals that would sit right beneath the header. I wanted a more drastic change, myself. I share the dissapointment voiced. Kevin Baas^talk 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

An end to 'In the news'

Clearly this is unlikely to be something that could be changed, especially at the voting stage, but here are a few reasons not to have an 'in the news' section:

This is not a feature of wikipedia.
It is potentially misleading; people might think news reporting is one of the things wikipedia is about.
It takes up a large part of the main page (old and new) and is placed prominently, thus taking attention away from wikipedia content.
If someone visits the main page, it is unlikely to be to read the news.
The web already offers a great variety of news sources and news quickviews, wikinews among them.
If it is advertising for wikinews, perhaps we should question whether this is the sort of content we want on the main page.

Dast 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a news bulletin is not a valid feature for Wikipedia; a wiki is a poor model for providing coverage of "breaking news", and I've seen many examples of incorrect information making it onto the main page. That said, it is a good idea to have main-page access to articles on subjects that are currently in the news since they are likely to drive lots of traffic; such links help reduce search-engine load and make the page more useful. (I seem to recall that "In the News" actually started as such a list, without attempting to provide actual breaking news information, which should properly be independently corroborated and vetted). Jgm 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The news section is pretty important in my opinion. It provides news without having to go to another site, and it links with the top news stories for others to add information. It wouldn't be a good idea to remove the box. --FlyingPenguins 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's my habit to read the news elsewhere, then come here to get the full story... not on the current news event, but on the background history, the context, and all that other information that newspapers tend to assume you already know. Fieari 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair points, especially about the fact that their topics are ones that drive a lot of traffic on that day. The only point I hold onto is that it is too large and prominently placed - would it not be better to put, for example, the featured picture in that prominent place? Dast 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I Think it's fine. Then again, it does tend to have the results from elections of obscure countries, but that's beyond the scope of this project.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of ITN is not exactly to deliver news, but to list developed encyclopedia articles that contain new content of current interest. Think of it as a "what's new" feature common in other digital encyclopedias; it acts as proof that the encyclopedia's content is actually being updated, and in fact updated rather quickly. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 21:44

I thought that was DYN, giving blurbs from the "newest articles"?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be argued that the newest articles are not necessarily the ones which are in the news, and non-newsworthy interersting articles might not get as much coverage otherwise. -- Mithent 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like this feature. It helps give the main page a fresh feel to it, often wikis can feel stagnant. This way you feel it is up to date. Rangeley 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page skin

Can people who like the main page still have as like an alternate main page? --24.247.126.44 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it will be available not as a skin but as a page. See WP:MPA.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Premature Redesign

If this page is about a proposed redesign, why is there currently a main page that is neither the main page used in 2005 nor the main page that we're voting on? Is this indeed a premature version of the redesign, and if so, why did it become the new main page w/o voting? I am very disappointed that the current main page doesn't have "did you know". Since the old main page and the one we're voting on have "did you know", I think it was premature to cut it off of the current main page. --M @r ē ino 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the same main page we've had for a while. The current main page design has "Did you know" five days a week, and "Picture of the Day" two days a week, weekdays and weekends respectively. It's always been like this so far. Fieari 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I never log in on weekends, so I don't get to see the DYK-less page. --M @r ē ino 14:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister projects

The text for this at the end of the proposed new Main Page is outdated. It should be replaced with template:WikipediaSister:

Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other volunteer projects:

Commons
Free media repository
MediaWiki
Wiki software development
Meta-Wiki
Wikimedia project coordination
Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals
Wikidata
Free knowledge base
Wikinews
Free-content news
Wikiquote
Collection of quotations
Wikisource
Free-content library
Wikispecies
Directory of species
Wikiversity
Free learning tools
Wikivoyage
Free travel guide
Wiktionary
Dictionary and thesaurus

(Cannot do this myself since the proposed new Main Page page is protected.) Dovi 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than replacing one with the other, the differences should be noted and the two should be merged. Several changes were made to the wording, so it is not as simple as saying that the current proposed version is outdated. Rather we are looking at two forks that need to be merged back together again. Similar considerations apply to recent edits made to all the other templates used for the Main Page, and indeed the Main Page itself. These changes will be lost unless careful consideration is made as to whether any merging is needed, or whether this should be a straight swap (both for the templates and the pages as a whole). Carcharoth 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the template appearing on the Main Page is continually maintained, and there are no differences of value in the text for the new Main Page, just outdated info. Case in point: Wikisource link and slogan. Simply replace the outdated text with the template. Any differences in wording should be put into the template itself. Dovi 11:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear you have missed my point entirely. I think we will need to list the differences. I've looked at a few of the differences and in some cases the text of one seems preferable to the other, but sometimes it is the other way round. I will list the differences. Carcharoth 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister projects

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

Wiktionary
Dictionary and thesaurus

Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals

Wikiquote
Collection of quotations

Wikisource
Free-content source texts

Wikispecies
Directory of species

Wikinews
Free-content news

Commons
Shared media repository

Meta-Wiki
Wikimedia project coordination

As can be seen, the differences are: (1) "Free content" vs. "Free-content" in the Wikinews text; (2) Some line-breaking formatting in the Meta-Wiki text; (3) A change in the introductory wording from "...that operates several other multilingual and free-content projects" to "...that also hosts a range of other projects"; (4) A change in the links: the template has a redundant link to the Multilingual co-ordination page (this already appears elsewhere on the page in a more logical place) and a link to the Copyrights page; the proposed redesign has neither of these links, but instead has a link to a Wikimedia page that describes the sister projects and has more links if people want to find out more.

In my opinion, all these differences improve the template, and simply replacing one with the other, as you proposed, would lose these improvements.

The only change that may need to be incorporated into the proposed design is: (5) the change to the Wikisource text from "Free-content source texts" to "The free library" - though I don't know the rationale behind this change in wording. Carcharoth 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is that Wikisource has adopted this slogan. The link itself is also wrong. Dovi 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. You are right that these two changes need to be made. You could try contacting David Levy or one of the other admins active on this page. Carcharoth 08:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Template:WikipediaSister will be used on the actual implementation of the main page redesign. I dont know why we arent just transcluding it in the draft already? Therefor any positive changes would be rolled into the template itself, and should be brought up on it's talk page. But as there arent any benefits to the non-template version, we can safely ignore the whole thing :) --Quiddity 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

About the redesign

The proposed main page design:

Improves the prominence of the portal links.
Clearly divides the header's article navigation links and project-related links.
Includes both the Picture of the day and Did you know... on the main page, seven days a week.
Adds a section containing descriptions of Wikipedia's important non-article areas.
Swaps the positions of "Did you know..." and "Selected anniversaries" (renamed "On this day..."), thereby establishing a left-hand column that highlights our most polished articles and our newest articles (which hopefully will receive similar treatment), along with a right-hand column that highlights current news stories and news stories from years past.
Swaps the positions of the links to our sister projects and the links to other languages' Wikipedias, thereby eliminating the need to use extra-small text for the latter.
Aims to improve the page's aesthetic appearance.

Issues considered in the redesign process

Second search box: With a vote of "no consensus" on including a second search box in the design, we have omitted it. We are considering options for tweaking the MonoBook skin to make the left search box more prominent and noticeable.
Article count in header: The proposed design provides no elegant means of including the article count in the main page header. It is, however, included in the "Wikipedia languages" section. The one million article milestone will have come and gone by the time voting on the main page redesign concludes. Beyond that milestone, many in the Wikipedia community, including Jimmy Wales, have discussed putting more emphasis on quality than quantity of articles. Displacing the article count from the header is consistent with this.

Future issues

Subsequent issues to be considered after this vote include:

Drive to improve quality of the portals and topic organization.
Improve visibility of the left-navigation search box in the default MonoBook skin. Perhaps, an orange-colored border (as used on the active tabs at the top)?

Main page development discussion

Congrats, everyone—barnstars all around!

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This goes by the honor system: if you worked hard, take it! If not, there's always something else to do...--Here T oHelp 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

For everyone who worked so hard on the Main Page redesign, we all deserve a barnstar! Here T oHelp 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I second the congratulations to everyone. Apologies that I wasn't here, during the weekend, to help out with code debugging. My hard drive failed, so I've been busy installing a new one. On to working on the portals for me, and revising the Wikipedia:Searching page. The other outstanding issue is possibly highlighting the left search box. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Final archive

Thank you for your participation!

Archival request

Poll results

Proposed main page redesign

Official voting procedure

Contents

Voting

Support the proposed new design

Conditional Support

Oppose the new design and wish to keep the current main page

Neutral; no preference

Discussion

Anonymous votes

Comments

Article count

Welcome to Wikipedia,

Welcome to Wikipedia,

Welcome to Wikipedia,

Vote counting for the math impaired

What qualifies as consensus?

Who does the "gauging" and where are the gauging procedures covered?

Common objections

Header wrapping in IE

'Point of order'

About the "Conditional Support" votes

A modest proposal

This is it?

An end to 'In the news'

Main Page skin

Premature Redesign

Wikipedia's sister projects

Wikipedia's sister projects

About the redesign

Issues considered in the redesign process

Future issues

Main page development discussion

Congrats, everyone—barnstars all around!