Wikipedia talk:2014 main page redesign proposal

Process

I wrote up a section titled "Process" in an attempt to address the problems that have plagued the previous years. I was expecting someone to object and WP:BRD it or at least comment on it.

Instead I see that section on "Selection", "Optimization", and "Perform redesign" have been added, with the assumption that we are going to repeat what didn't work the last few times.

I am now going to WP:BOLDLY delete those additions as well as my own suggestion about the process to take, and open the issue up for discussion here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the step-by-step is going to fail. On the other hand, from the survey, the "simple main page" doesn't seem to have any chance of being adopted. I have a simple proposal, which avoids any protracted discussion: can we just adopt the style of Chinese Wikipedia? Once we decide to adopt it, we can fine-tune it. -- Taku (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether a particular proposal fails, nor is that something you are allowed to decide on your own. This is about the easily-observed fact that the way we discuss and evaluate proposals has been a failure.

Your most recent edit replaced "to be determined" with what is essentially my instructions telling us what to do. There is no consensus for my proposed method of evaluating proposals. Please leave the process section as "to be determined" until we have consensus on how to discuss and evaluate proposals.

There is no reason to rush into deciding on a process. We have only had more than one proposal to choose between for less than two days. Please leave the page marked "to be determined" and discuss how we should evaluate these drafts. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What are we debating here? I agreed that the step-by-step process is doomed to fail and this time we try something else. But this is not "your" process; you can't just change your mind; i.e., we need to stick to the process. By the way, you didn't respond to my proposal above. I think the Chinese Wikipedia style has the best chance of the community support, judged from the previous efforts. The community is not going to adopt any radical change, as they are mostly happy with the current. Thus, we should just propose some modernized design with no substantial change. The point is such a proposal will have the best chance of passing. -- Taku (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing two entirely separate things. There are proposals for redesigning the main page. Those are all fine, but they are not what we are talking about. Your comment "the 'simple main page' doesn't seem to have any chance of being adopted" is irrelevant to what we are discussing. Your comment "I think the Chinese Wikipedia style has the best chance of the community support" is irrelevant to what we are discussing. Those are both proposals for redesigning the main page. I am talking about how we should evaluate those and other proposals. That question is far from settled, and you need to stop editing Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal as if it is settled. Please restore the "to be determined" language until we reach a consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why "not" settled? What process are you proposing? I've made some minor change for the clarity, but the current process is exactly one you put forth initially. Did you change your mind? The process need not be complicated. We can just debate which design proposal to present to the community, right here. There is no need to debate how to do debate, unless you're proposing a different process. -- Taku (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted a proposed process, then, when it became clear that there was no consensus for what I had written, I tried to remove it, only to have TakuyaMurata put it back. This means that it is no longer my proposed process, but TakuyaMurata's. I am not going to edit war, but I protest the fact that TakuyaMurata has decided that he gets to decide what the process should be. I think it needs to be discussed and a consensus reached. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be in charge or anything. But you can't just change the process because you didn't like the outcome. Also, I'm perfectly open to the discussion. What alternative process are you proposing? -- Taku (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Who decided that what we did last year -- or what I wrote earlier and then deleted -- is "the process" and is not subject to consensus? I most certainly can "just change the process" when I am trying to change it to "to be determined by consensus". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, what alternative process do you have in mind? -- Taku (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark the process section "to be determined", have a discussion, come to a consensus, implement that consensus in the process section. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. If there is no dispute, there is no need to say "to be determined" (since it's determined.) What process are you proposing? (I can't read you mind.) -- Taku (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is that we mark the process section "to be determined", under discussion" or something similar, have a discussion, come to a consensus, and then implement that consensus in the process section. Please don't ask again. I have answered you twice. You just refuse to accept my answer.

Re: "it's determined", evidence please. Where and when was this decided? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• shameless plug: How to structure controversial Policy proposals is an area I have some experience in and I have written an essay on the subject that I recommend to anyone contemplating undertaking such a project. The most important thing is to take your time setting it up and carefully choose the format, close out date, and maybe pre-recruit one or more users to administrate the debate and close it when it is done. Good Luck. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's really good! It will be the first place I go if I ever propose anything again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the mistakes of the past.

It appears that there is no real interest in doing anything differently than what has repeatedly failed in the past, so I am going to wait a week or so in case this comment sparks a discussion, then I am going to unwatch the page, wait until next year, and at that time once again suggest that we stop doing what isn't working. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia

On the Chinese wiki, you can have customized Main Pages, have a look at zh:Help:自訂首頁, I have created a main page proposal based on one of those, I will post a like once its completed --TheChampionMan1234 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Put notice on main page

Why not put a notice on the main page about asking people for help on redesigning the main page. It would help get more people involved. 86.173.52.65 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Great idea! And update it when there are different proposals to evaluate it. — Lentower (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, there has recently a redesign proposal for Wikipedia: [1] [2] I think it would be very neat if we can adopt something like that. (but I don't have high hope.) -- Taku (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

hi that change has to be done trhough the skin due to the new look. But it looks and something need to change in the picture. 151.225.137.145 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not let each user choose their main page experience?

Here on the English Wikipedia, we allow readers to use different skins, and change the way they use this web site with many preferences. Why not, like the Chinese Wikipedia, allow users to choose different main page layouts and contents? Both customizable ones, and not.

That would change this main page redesign to a project that develops minimal standards for a main page "skin", and a simple process for testing and adding a main page "skin" to the list offered our readers.

People are different, and interact with computers and web sites differently. One size, one style does not fit everybody. Shouldn't Wikipedia offer diversity to our readers? — Lentower (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the main page should look similar for every user. --Stryn (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stryn: Why? — Lentower (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So that if we encounter some problems with the main page, it's easier just to fix one page instead of many pages. Also if we want to add something new to main page, we don't have to edit every versions. But these are just my opinions, and I personally like when everyone see the main page similarly. --Stryn (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Winter main page

The most recent version of Winter has slightly redesigned the Wikipedia main page (see it here). This design is acceptable IMO, but even if it were decided against, new designs will have to take the new page dimensions into account. JamesDouch (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)