Knowledge talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll

584: 39: 2421:

Have you seen this on other home pages? I haven't. I suspect for good reason. I spend quite a bit of time answering questions about categorization. A common question is: what is the difference between lists, categories, templates and (most recently) portals? There is already too much redundancy in the site. There should be less, not more. I hope the article count can be retained if the "no"s prevail. --

589: 1758: 3731:. Honestly, the second search box looks nice and it calls attention to itself. However, not only is it redundant but it also has different controls than the normal search box (it doesn't have a 'Search' button). There's just too much potential for confusion here. Search needs to be more prominent, this isn't the way to go about doing it. 3651:. It is a scroll vs. autotext issue combined with using the arrow keys vs using a mouse scroll wheel. There are two workarounds that I have seen people mention (and I've added them to the FAQ entry) - some systems allow use of a keyboard shortcut like Alt-F to focus on the search box. There is also the option of using 2510:... redundant and clutters page on a smaller monitor. I would prefer the initial emphasis of the page to be on the featured articles as these demonstrate the best of the project, and thus reject a design that favours a quicker pass through the front page. Plus the side search bar is plenty visible enough already. -- 3633:

Thanks for liking my idea! I'm glad someone agrees. It would be so much more convenient not having to move the mouse over and click in the search box all the time. Since searching is the main function of the site, it should have the insertion point automatically appear in the search box, just like on

64:

The main page redesign opening editing session ended on February 18th. The one outstanding issue is whether or not to include the extra search box in the header. This straw poll is to gauge opinion on this from the Knowledge community and decide which version to put forth to an official final vote.

4474:

search engine, so they didn't need to impress anyone with numbers. WP (despite what us who are here everyday might think) is still relatively unknown amongst the web surfing 'normal' people - they aren't going to know upon first glance of the main page whether the site contains 100 articles or 1M -

4340:

Yes, it makes searching more prominent - redundancy shouldn't be such a huge issue as it is the front page only. The inclusion of the search box also allows the no. of articles to be listed - a small feature which it would be a shame to drop (especially since we are now getting into very impressive

3957:

The example page presents the second search box in the only manner that could possibly be compatible with the design elements that already have garnered consensus. Yours defies the clear consensus in favor of listing the portal links in columns within the header box, and it places the second search

2420:

No. Redundant. I'm teaching my octagenarian father to use the computer. His biggest problem with windows is that there is 3 or more ways to do anything, none of which he can remember. The second search bar will confuse new users who will wonder why there are two, and then one of them disappears.

314:

4487:

I should stress that this may not be an election decided by numbers. When I posted this, the vote count was tied at 33. It may not be a perfect tie in the end, but we should look beyond the vote count at the strength of the opinions. Was there one option that had some die-hard supporters, where the

4374:

principle function of the main page is to welcome new visitors and show off what WP has to offer - a search field embedded within the main page fits that function like a glove. As for the article count - it is an impressive stat - I didn't say we should brag about it - but equally we shouldn't be

4064:

Are you saying that you've never entered a search term, ended up at an article (perhaps the wrong one), and wanted to immediately search again? Are you arguing that there's no value in encouraging readers to use the search box that appears on every page (instead of leading them to assume that they

2847:

It'll confuse new users. Let's say a new user sees the top search bar, and is going to search for something with it, when they see an interesting link. They click on the link, and when they're done reading the article, they go to the top of the page to search for the the thing they initially wanted

4042:

Search box is not confusing. Portals are. Categories are. Lists are. Browsing in general is confusing ('cause way too often you take a wrong turn). Vanishing box is not a problem for me. If you search for something, you will end up in an article or in the search view. If you end up in article, you

3982:

Please read the talk page and the archive. The straw poll was a means of fostering discussion and gathering input, not a contest to determine which single draft was the "winner." Draft G was the only one of its kind, so the supporters of that style all voted for it. Meanwhile, it also generated

1902:

Honestly, the second box seems frivolous and makes the front page look shoddily designed; like the someone forgot that there was already a search box on the left side. We can't make it look like we're too eager to have users type something into our little boxes. --Columba livia 07:42, 19 February

348:

I know that when I first visited the site I was a little overwhelmed by the front page. It took me a while to realize that the right side bar had basically everything navigation-related. I just think that the addition of the new search bar could only help make the front page more user-friendly and

3349:, simply it would be overkill. There is no reason to have two search boxes. It would be better to prehaps elminate the side one, instead of two. But two boxes, is one too many. It's going to be confusing to new users whom will question which to use. It's a waste of time. One box should be enough. 4411:

browse up and down the main page, not really noticing the search box and then browsing on to another website. Having the box there is win only - if your principle concern is users having a seizure because the top search box suddenly isn't there then that simple isn't a problem, for two reasons:

4410:

The standard search box will stay exactly where it is - it ain't going to change any - the chance of a new user picking up on it and using it is exactly the same. Worst case scenario the user goes back to the main page to search again - but that is still infinitely more desirable than having a

3939:

I created another draft that is essentially the version with 2nd search box, but with a better focus on it (it probably makes the vote more fair I think as this is much better looking I think, it does not look like the search box has just been pasted in). I think it is a lot better and puts the

712:

Yeah! It is good, specially with the article count above it. This acually makes it easier for people to see how many articles there are - it works better! Other wise it looks a bit weird. Though I think the wording should be changed cos for me when reading I seem to think "Search ALL (insert

597:

It's a crutch. The new users will leave the nest and the crutch behind in due time, but it can make all the difference in the world to new users ("Hey! That's an easier way to find stuff than paper encyclopedias!") It also adds the article count. But I will not be terribly upset to see it go,

4369:

It only appearing on the main page is a problem in your opinion - certainly not mine. If it was appearing at the top in all pages then that would be a problem to me (as we would have duplication). The search bar on the left is obscure, and not obvious to the first time visitor whatsoever.

3664:

I have long wanted this and never knew why it wasn't there. Thanks for the heads up, Carcharoth. Intrigued, i investigated some javascript and found that IE6 supports an "onmousewheel" event which would be a nice work around, but firefox does not support this event. So there goes that.

4081:

The portals and categories are there for people who like them better than searching. The search bar on the left has been there for a long time, and people know that it's there. Putting another search box is just unneccasary. Humans are not as stupid as Renata3 makes them out to be.

1797:

Most of the casual users of wikipedia never go anywhere near the category system. Knowledge is NOT a conventional paper based encyclopedia and therefore the search function (from my point of the view one of the huge advantages of wikipedia) should be prominent on the main page.

4165:

I don't find it confusing either. In the Main Page, the main focus of the page is navigation of the site, so therefore, the search box should be more prominent; in the next click, the focus of the page shifts to the respective article, so the regular search bar is appropriate.

1556:

It draws the eye to the ability to search Knowledge. Considering that new users might not be able to find the search box in the normal location, a notice could be placed when users search Knowledge from the main page that the search box is now located on the left navagational

4384:

The standard search box will be rendered far more obscure if we distract newcomers with an alternative search box that disappears as soon as they use it. I didn't say that we should be ashamed of our article count, but we shouldn't imply that it's the most important thing.

296:

Yes. It's prominent, and it also has the total number of articles above it, which I think the front page needs as it makes Knowledge sound more impressive. The other option only has that information right near the bottom of the page. Also, it's aesthetically pleasing.

2363:

No. The main page would actually look uglier with it there. I changed my vote from yes, because I didn't look at the drafts w or w/o the search box, and now that I did, it's better w/o it. Now that I think of it, the extra search box would just take up more space.

1415:. Oddly enough, before I looked I thought I'd vote no. When I looked I thought it actually looked better (regardless of purpose). I don't really like the redundance... but, I think removing from the left might be a better response to that (and that won't happen). 4455:

I'd like to point out, that Google removed their running total of "indexed pages" from their frontpage years ago, probably for similar reasons we are placing it lower on the page in this draft: It is a fairly inaccurate number depending on what gets included (that

4008:. So let's help them find it. Do not force them to browse through endless categories, lists, almanacs, compilations, etc etc. Second search box for you might look stupid and redundat because you can navigate WP blindfolded, but newbies can't. Also, there is this 1356:. I didn't even realize there was a search bar on the left until I found this discussion page... I kept going back to the wikipedia.org page to search (now feeling stupid). Oh, and aesthetically I like the look better than the version without the search box. 2537:...which is somewhat irrelevant to users ability to judge the usability of a website design. I wasn't aware that I needed 50 edits to be considered to have an opinion worthy of merit around here, do I need to hop off and make 48 random edits? {sarcasm} -- 277:

the second box and it looks great! Veteran wikipedians may be used to the sidebar, but new users to any page can often be disoriented by the other options and miss the most important tool (the bar!). The second bar is visible at first glance; keep it.

3768:! The version with the search box forces content (Categories · Featured content · A–Z index) into the left side and away from the portals, which is confusing; the version without has all content on the right and all meta on the left, which makes sense. 2268:

I actually performed a usability test on a person who's never seen Knowledge before (yes, such people do still exist). One of the first questions—"what is the difference between the search boxes on top and on the left side"? I'd take that as a

1710:

What frames? Our code makes no use of frames. We "bother" with the MonoBook sidebar on every page throughout the site (thereby providing a consistent interface). Why should the main page, which makes the first impression, be any different?

3743:

No - Top of the page may be the first place you look, but sidebar comes right after. Too confusing and distracting to have two boxes for the same thing. Emphasizing the sidebar search box or putting the pointer inside it would be better.

2278:

No. However, it would be jolly nice to have a fairly prominent article count, but not large enough to seem like we're boasting about it. Something along the lines of "The 💕 that anyone can edit, currently working on XXXXXX articles" --

4421:

not notice the search box if it was all that was on main page. The end result with these characters is that we would loose them under the current setup, but with top box we will at least keep them in the site and reading the wonderful

2104:

Nope. If a first-time searcher looks for something with the extra search box, they're not going to understand where it went when they want to search again from another page. Give focus to the sidebar search, but don't add a new one

4351:

The fact that this would appear only on the main page is a major part of the problem. And again, the article count is located elsewhere on the page, where it's contextually relevant. Shouldn't we aspire to impress readers via the

4460:

number includes stubs, undetected advertisements/graffiti, everything requiring cleanup, hundreds of profiles of anime characters (not to pick on a subculture), etc). We certainly won't be printing all the 1,000,000 articles...

2238:

consistent location, set by skin. Should not be on the page, but should be in the surrounding wikimedia boilerplate, as it is at the moment. Side location is not ideal, but having another, redundant, search box is far worse.

4310:

By March 1st, we will likely have crossed the 1,000,000 milestone — an occasion that will be surely noted on the main page. After that, I don't think the article count needs as much emphasis at the top of the main page.

2678:

No. I think emphasizing the search box is important, but it needs to be in the same place on every page. Otherwise users might become confused. Commercial websites like amazon.com don't do it and we shouldn't either.

3608:. Like everyone said, it's redundant. If anything, make the current search box more noticeable, and make the insertion point automatically appear in the search box (I've been wanting that to happen for a long time). 2688:

No. It would be better to direct attention to the search box on the sidebar that appears on every page. However, it's not something I feel strongly about and the page looks OK with the extra search box present.

643:

Yes, yes, yes! My main reason was that it helps people not familiar with the site to search for what they need; but after seeing the drafts, I also submit that it looks much nicer with the search box as well.

3808:. Nice idea at first, but it's redundant, especially if the left-hand search box is going to be emphasized anyway. Oh, and like others have said, it would confuse new users as it won't appear on every page. 3941: 4660:

If the current main page contained an extra search box, that would be true. It doesn't, so such an addition must be backed by consensus. If it isn't, we stick with the status quo (no extra search box).

72: 2338:

No - should instead provide info on where the search is - and preferably change the color of the search box or something to make it easier to find for new users - and match the color to the instructions

4118:

If the box is not included (which it looks like it won't) could we ask the devs to give focus to the search box on the nav bar. I hate having to click over there. I should be able to just start typing.

4470:

I think when wiki or wikipedia becomes a verb then we too could afford to remove it. Google removed it not because it was inaccurate, but simply because it was no longer necessary, they were known as

3435:. If I want a search box, on ANY site I will check the top bar or the left bar; that's basically standard across the web. It's not very far down, and can be seen easily. It does what it says. Simple. 1750:- just as Google has a search on the top and the bottom of each search results page, Knowledge should strive to make things easy for less technically adept users. Redundancy often helps usability. — 77: 4107:

No, but i've been on the internet for years. Yeah, people are morons. But i do believe that the majority of them know what a search box looks like since Google is pretty damn popular right now.

3180:, Alt-F is designed to automatically place the cursor in the search box on the left so that one can begin typing w/o clicking it.. if we're going to place the search box, we must be sure that 1283:!!!! Every single friend of mine was looking for some searching tool and didn't notice the original one in the first moment. Do not let people think, that they have to go through categories!! 466:

I am slightly concerned with people thinking the search will always be on top, and then not finding it, but at the first visit people will probably want to search, so I have to go this way. -

195:

Absolutely! It is the single most important thing on the main page. People search and encyclopedia for something, they don't browse it. It should be the focus off attention on the page. --

845:

Yes. It looks a bit out of place, ( I like the no-second-search-box design better), but it will definitely help Knowledge newbies. But leave it just on the main page, nowhere else.

4592: 760:

Yes. Great idea. There really aren't any drawbacks to doing this. I really don't understand the complaints about it but there are several. Wow and I thought it was a no brainer...

481:

Yes - It is higly useful for all visitor, can be easily found rather than looking down the side panel, and the number of articles statistic helps to give a scale of the project. --

4141:

BrokenSegue, I agree with you on that and it's one of the reasons that I prefer the Classic skin. And, just to make sure that I understand your vote for a second search box, you

3907: 25: 3973:

This one is closest to the draft with the most votes (6G), which didn't list the portals within the header box. Where can I find the discussion that lead to that consensus? --

4065:

must return to the main page)? Do you honestly believe that people won't be confused when the search box no longer appears where they've been told to expect its presence? —

4043:

don't need the box any longer. If you are in search view, there is a box up there. If you clicked something and ended up in WP namespace, and got lost, click "back". Simple.

4004:

Just reminder to everyone. Think why people come to WP? Not to read our featured articles or to look at featured pics (it's nice if they do). They come here because they are

389:

Yeah, if you're reading the categories and articles and such, it's nice to have a search box right there and not have to move over to the side, moving to another "box". --

1785:

we got one of those on svwp and I believe it make it clerar that you have found an encyklopedia and as Renata said "Searching is the most efficient way to find stuff." /

1390:. The search box takes up a prominent spot that just looks too blank otherwise, has the article count (one of my favorite features), and is very helpful to newbies. --- 221:

Yes, yes. People I talk with always hate going to the side search bar (oddly enough, sometimes the center of the page loads faster than the side). Also, it look better.

1883:

It would confuse readers by distracting them from the search box that appears on every page. They would expect to find it at the top, and it would suddenly be gone.

1327:; though if added, I think it would look best if highlighted a bright color, such as yellow or orange so that eyes would be drawn to it. Another straw poll perhaps? — 683:. A search box in the header, like in Draft 6J.2, would definitely look better. I've always thought that, for the Main Page, the searchbox isn't made very obvious. — 4685:

Either way, since more users opposed it than those who supported it, there wasn't a need to look at the 70% figure... now, the next step is an election against the

2606:

No. There's no need for 2 search boxes when looking at the main page and that would be weird. Keeping it minimal is efficient and makes the front page friendlier.

2430:

No. It doesn't look good in my opinion, and has no justifiable use, being so close to the standard search box as to make no difference, except to confuse people.

2023:

Search box on the left is already visible enough as far as I'm concerned. Two search boxes might make someone think, "What's so 7special about the other one?" --

21: 3042:

style as default, since it is more readable and already has two search boxes in useful places. (This change would create a third: two of them close together)--

918:

Yes. One of the left for left-handed people, one on the right for right-handed people. (On big pc-screens right-hand/left-hand placing does make a difference.)

1822:. It's not logical but neither are the anons who keep leaving non-questions on the reference desk. Registered users will be able to hide it via CSS anyway. 367:

Yes. It's okay that it's only on the first page: people expect a search box on the home page. Otherwise you'd have to complain about the search box on the

1569:

It makes the main page more friendly to newcomers. I may just be a subnormal oik, but I didn't see the search box the first few times I used Knowledge.

1835:

Experienced users aren't the ones who would be confused by the box's presence, and an empty space would only make the page look even more unbalanced. —

1581:. An extra search box on the main page is more convenient for newer Wikipedians and is more noticeable than the search box on the left panel itself. -- 4237:

It's still on the page (in the "Knowledge languages" section, where it's contextually relevant). In my opinion, we shouldn't make the article count

1609:, looks nicer, it also keeps the article count above the fold in a context, it's nice to have on display to show what a great resource Knowledge is. 4025:

I'm baffled as to how the confusing presence of a redundant search box that vanishes upon use could possibly be attributed to the KISS principle. —

3312: 3237:- redundant, I've had a look at the proposal and I just don't like it where it is. (wow, 92 votes to 91, this is the closest poll I've seen...) -- 2863: 1686: 3260:

Also, the current draft is worse than the current main page. Needs more images to make it more appealing. This is why i completely agree that;

3118:

doesn't look nice to me, and since it doesn't appear on other pages it would confuse users. Plus, it doesn't format correctly on Linux/Opera--

490:

Yes. It does not look out of place, it is not confusing, it will not appear on other pages. It helps people find articles. I see no drawbacks.

4475:

the number helps quantify the size of the place they have stumbled upon, my argument for the number remaining prominent is as simple as that.

2480:

No, its definitely confusing, and i like the cleaner look of the other version. Besides wikipedias allure comes in browsing not searching. --

1681:, The search box on the left frame looks idiotic, anyway. And since when do we even bother with frames and navigation panels on main pages? 2174:

No. Redundant and unattractive, and the draft without looks more "balanced" with "Categories · Featured content · A–Z index" on that side. -

55: 17: 4182:

I don't find it confusing. eBay does a something similar thing (it has 2 ssearch bars on its main page and only one on most other pages).

4012:. And please don't vote because "the box is too high/low." Please vote on the general principle; technicalities will be worked out later. 2946:

the article-count got moved to a more contextually relevant location on the main page, at the top of the "Knowledge languages" section. --

4698: 4665: 4655: 4646: 4624: 4602: 4586: 4577: 4568: 4559: 4541: 4526: 4501: 4479: 4465: 4440: 4431: 4405: 4389: 4379: 4364: 4345: 4326: 4289: 4254: 4245: 4228: 4206: 4195: 4175: 4160: 4132: 4111: 4098: 4086: 4069: 4047: 4029: 4016: 3991: 3977: 3968: 3948: 3932: 3914: 3872: 3860: 3848: 3836: 3824: 3812: 3800: 3784: 3772: 3760: 3748: 3738: 3723: 3711: 3687: 3669: 3659: 3638: 3628: 3612: 3600: 3588: 3576: 3555: 3543: 3527: 3515: 3503: 3491: 3478: 3466: 3454: 3439: 3427: 3415: 3398: 3377: 3365: 3353: 3341: 3329: 3315: 3292: 3280: 3268: 3252: 3241: 3219: 3207: 3196: 3166: 3148: 3122: 3110: 3086: 3070: 3058: 3046: 3030: 3018: 3006: 2993: 2981: 2964: 2950: 2941: 2902: 2890: 2878: 2866: 2839: 2818: 2803: 2787: 2769: 2757: 2745: 2736: 2721: 2709: 2700: 2683: 2673: 2657: 2646: 2628: 2619: 2610: 2601: 2585: 2567: 2558: 2541: 2532: 2514: 2502: 2493: 2484: 2475: 2466: 2452: 2434: 2425: 2415: 2406: 2395: 2377: 2368: 2358: 2349: 2333: 2321: 2308: 2287: 2273: 2263: 2254: 2243: 2229: 2213: 2204: 2195: 2186: 2178: 2169: 2160: 2151: 2142: 2109: 2099: 2076: 2058: 2049: 2033: 2018: 1992: 1983: 1974: 1963: 1939: 1928: 1919: 1897: 1888: 1871: 1855: 1839: 1830: 1814: 1802: 1792: 1777: 1761: 1742: 1737: 1715: 1703: 1673: 1661: 1649: 1637: 1625: 1601: 1589: 1573: 1561: 1548: 1536: 1524: 1504: 1492: 1473: 1459: 1444: 1435: 1423: 1378: 1369: 1360: 1348: 1336: 1319: 1307: 1295: 1267: 1255: 1223: 1210: 1198: 1178: 1166: 1157: 1143: 1131: 1119: 1107: 1098: 1089: 1077: 1067: 1040: 1024: 1012: 986: 968: 956: 944: 940:

after seeing the news item in signpost but a look at the new search box convinces me that the new search box is a welcome redundancy. --

928: 913: 902: 884: 875: 849: 840: 831: 822: 812: 799: 786: 773: 764: 755: 735: 726: 717: 707: 675: 666: 657: 648: 638: 629: 620: 611: 592: 573: 564: 554: 545: 536: 527: 494: 485: 476: 461: 452: 443: 430: 410: 393: 384: 375: 362: 353: 343: 319: 291: 282: 264: 256: 243: 234: 216: 199: 190: 182: 173: 159: 122: 2135: 1699: 1056: 999: 700: 2874:

Better to keep a unified design throughout all the pages, which isn't done by plonking a redundant extra search box on the main page

421:

WTF, what happened to the search box place thingy? - Oh now I see, I have to go back to the Mainpage each time @#@*&!* - Oh great

3572: 3054:

There's no need, there's already a search box on the left. One is enough. You don't see two search boxes on google.com now do you?

2795:

new user are likly to reload the main page everytime they want to search for a new article. Doesn't fit for an encyclopedia. see

1174:, The extra search-box makes it easier for new people, and does not bring that much extra overload on the main page for others. -- 4642: 4497: 4321: 3756:

No point, as far as i can see. Its not like the left hand search box is hard to see or understand, on the main page or elsewhere

2248:

No. Redundant, plus that entire top bar looks cleaner with the links on 1 spread-out line instead of 2 squished-together ones. --

1944:

Ghetto-rigging? Get the wiki coders to move the search box to a better location (top right of page) if this is a real problem. --

607: 248:

Absolutely. The rest of the redesign is a nice facelift, but really not all that important. A prominent search box is essential.

2910:

Unnecessary. Yet I don't see the total number of articles anywhere on the Main Page without the second search box. Low grade. --

4241:

prominent (or include it outside of a logical context), because this makes it seem as though we value quantity over quality. —

4094:

You obviously haven't worked in customer service :) I worked briefly in IT troubleshooting, and believe me, people are stupid.

1019: 516: 4582:

Ok. Is there a way to publicize this poll to all of wikipedia? Village pump? Current surveys? That open tasks template?--

3361:,Doesn't help people to learn how to use Knowledge. If needed, find a way to highlight the standard search box on the left.-- 2977: 2139: 817:

Yes, I like it. (I also think the sidebar search box should be moved to the top of the sidebar, right beneath the logo.) —

695: 4488:

other one was just a mild resistance? Especially in a race so close, we should look at the comments, not only the numbers.--

1469:. Looks better, preserves the categories on the left-hand side. I'm guessing most irregular visitors primarily use search. 4149:

on the Mainpage. That being the case it seems unhelpful to provide a search box that disappears as soon as it is used, now

2555: 439:

Totally. Search needs to be emphasized. I thought that this was one of the main reasons for redesigning the main page! --

4621: 2330: 1633:, i think it looks good and as searching is the best way to navigate wikipedia, why not make it easier for the newcomer? 333: 3886:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

104:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2796: 2411:

No. Redundant and possibly confusing if a new user can't tell why there's two and may think there's some difference.--

3924:

Interesting note: commons has recently redesigned their main page and have included a dsearch box in the header. See

740:

Yes. It gives visitors a direction after reading the predominant title. Knowledge, the 💕! Now - Search and explore!

3983:

the most opposition, and other drafts (many of which were very similar or nearly identical to one another) received

398:

The above comment seems to imply a belief that the second search box would be present throughout the site. This is

46: 3644: 3394: 3094:, the search feature on Knowledge sucks. Really, it does. No point in having a horrible feature shown twice! -- 2973: 1789: 836:

YES. Search is the best way to navigate a Wiki. A box on the main page as well as the side bar makes this clear.

809: 924:

You can never have too many :). As some people mentioned above, it provides a more obvious search for newbies.--

4537:

Well then we'll need a very special bureaucrat. One who can consider both sides, in addition to the numbers.--

3797: 2741:

I think it detracts from the functional and somewhat unique "Go" and "Search" options in the traditional box.

288: 2259:

No for reasons of redundancy. However, the left hand search box should be improved to make it more visible. --

3144: 2054:

No, we shouldn't have a second search box. It's pointless to have it, and it just clutters up the main page.

4618: 3648: 3301: 2327: 1729: 1695: 1191: 805: 415:

If the large up and to the right search box were to be on every page (as it is in the Classic skin) then it

310: 2766: 570: 2131: 1774: 1441: 1407: 690: 253: 2548:

No, looks ugly and out of place. Current search box is sufficient--it is easy to find and unobstrusive. ~

4189: 4126: 3707: 3568: 3500: 3192: 3160: 3140: 2899: 2815: 2640: 2579: 2526: 2463: 2446: 2389: 2302: 2209:

No. Users who can't find the search box on the main page would still have to find it on any other page.

1925: 1913: 1519: 1453: 1420: 1207: 980: 896: 440: 228: 3845: 3325:. It means that the links have to be shifted to the right giving a pile of links which is simply ugly. 1770: 1691: 3541: 2718: 1645:, It looks better, and you wouldn't need to scroll down so often if you had a compact browser window. 4652: 4638: 4508: 4493: 4317: 4312: 3411: 3387: 3216: 3136: 2374: 2029: 1634: 1432: 1175: 750: 603: 561: 187: 3597: 2607: 1252: 4693: 4170: 3793: 3703: 3488: 3362: 3249: 3015: 2936: 2887: 2852: 2779: 2774:

no, clutter. one is one too many already, imho (use google instead, taking weight off WP servers).

2481: 2344: 2225: 2166: 2148: 2125: 2088: 2065: 1827: 1316: 1264: 1021: 858: 818: 635: 625:

Yes. We want everyone, new and experienced to be able to browse and search as easily as possible.

532:

Yes, we definitely need to meet the needs of new users of Knowledge, and this is the way to do it.

514: 506: 372: 213: 205: 168: 117: 2564: 2431: 2201: 1558: 1151:

An extra box on the main page makes Knowledge appear more professional, and improves ease of use.

279: 4457: 4218: 3821: 3781: 3720: 3536: 3374: 3309: 3204: 3055: 2860: 2422: 2074: 1754: 1726: 1332: 1304: 1195: 1187: 1153: 761: 645: 473: 350: 304: 299: 2280: 1799: 419:

have my vote. To put it on only the Mainpage seems trickery; now you see it and now you don't. "

4217:

prefer an extra search box on the Mainpage it would be nice to include the number of articles (

2705:

No. It is important for the design to be consistent and not have extra bits in certain places.

1615: 1610: 1303:. Tough choice, but I vote for a second search box because it would probably help newcomers. -- 3745: 3680:

key to liven the search box. That works fine with Safari, I don't know about other browsers.

3585: 3524: 3104: 3083: 2753:

I am not opposed to a second search box, but this one looks too crammed into a small space. --

2599: 2552: 2115: 2014: 2006: 1998: 1587: 1489: 1240: 1220: 1095: 1049: 992: 684: 249: 3487:. Again, redundant. For some reason this box makes the new version of the page look worse. -- 1544:

makes it more balanced to the eye (not that it actually is) and will help newcomers probably

380:

Yes; I think it looks rather elegant, and balances the page, relative to the other version.--

358:

Definitely! People usually don't look at the side of the screen. Usually from top to bottom.

4599: 4523: 4402: 4286: 4225: 4183: 4157: 4120: 3974: 3945: 3735: 3732: 3684: 3625: 3584:. As per everyone else. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Refusing and condundant.- 3564: 3424: 3289: 3185: 3154: 2812: 2634: 2573: 2520: 2460: 2440: 2383: 2296: 2175: 2157: 2046: 1960: 1907: 1852: 1811: 1599: 1533: 1513: 1450: 1344:

Looks nice and makes search easily accessible for newcomers. I also like the article count.

1128: 1104: 974: 890: 583: 579: 427: 338: 328: 287:

Keep, makes it easier for newcomers to find the search box, even though it is redundant. --

222: 196: 4651:

But we also need a minimum of 70% support to remove it from the proposed main page design.

4662: 4634: 4565: 4489: 4437: 4386: 4361: 4242: 4066: 4026: 3988: 3965: 3833: 3656: 3451: 3408: 2734: 2695: 2680: 2318: 2284: 2240: 2183: 2024: 1936: 1884: 1836: 1712: 1646: 1501: 1416: 1086: 941: 925: 870: 747: 741: 723: 714: 713:

number here) articles". Maybe "the" rather than all. But I TOTALLY agree - I'm luvin it!

599: 407: 390: 204:

Not because it's be particularly useful but it looks much more aesthetically pleasing. --

1036:

I feel that the extra search box enhances the design and appearance of the main page. --

4573:

I know. Default to status qou. (I feel pretty sad here and you were right about 50/50)

4427:

As for the article count - it being there doesn't imply it is the most important thing.

4009: 3475: 3265: 3003: 2775: 2742: 2538: 2511: 2340: 2220: 2093: 1980: 1823: 1619: 1570: 1470: 1345: 783: 770: 663: 654: 501: 491: 261: 4414:

1. Anyone wanting to search again and again is quickly going to notice the second box.

3820:. It would just be an unnecessary distraction--we already have both "go" and search". 448:

Yeah so did I. The whole reason I hate the main page is because it doesn't have it.

4630: 4611: 4583: 4538: 4514: 4462: 4251: 4203: 3925: 3911: 3869: 3769: 3757: 3666: 3463: 3436: 3338: 3306: 3298: 3277: 3067: 2961: 2947: 2931: 2857: 2849: 2836: 2663: 2412: 2192: 2070: 2009: 2001: 1989: 1751: 1658: 1545: 1366: 1357: 1328: 1037: 828: 732: 467: 458: 449: 381: 208: 179: 4574: 4556: 4476: 4428: 4394:(after edit conflict) Then one click later when it vanishes would seem to make the 4376: 4342: 4095: 4044: 4013: 3929: 3809: 3350: 3228: 3119: 3096: 3043: 3027: 2827: 2754: 2706: 2592: 2549: 2490: 2403: 2355: 2250: 1894: 1868: 1670: 1582: 1482: 1396: 1236: 1163: 953: 910: 881: 846: 626: 542: 533: 359: 316: 240: 156: 1786: 4272: 880:

Yes. Nice design, and new people will probably see that box first. Give it a go!

4690: 4596: 4520: 4399: 4283: 4222: 4167: 4154: 4108: 4083: 3681: 3622: 3552: 2990: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2670: 2625: 2624:

No. Redundant, and results in inconsistency between pages. No need and awkward.

2365: 2270: 2260: 2055: 2043: 1971: 1957: 1945: 1849: 1757: 1595: 1285: 1140: 1074: 965: 837: 672: 617: 569:"Redundancy" will help new users, and it will be easier to find the search box. 551: 482: 424: 325: 165: 114: 54:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4417:

2. Anyone who doesn't notice it (and keeps going back to main page) would have

3857: 3448: 3238: 2800: 2730: 2690: 2654: 2616: 2472: 2106: 1375: 1116: 867: 855: 588: 4341:

numbers - I can see the point in dropping it if the number was embarrassing).

3898:

It should be strenously emphasized, that we are concurrently working towards

3078:. The one on the left is enough. It'd be nice if that one could have "search 1594:

Yes, it makes it easier for newbies to see that they can search for things.

315:

numbers - I can see the point in dropping it if the number was embarrassing).

4686: 3635: 3609: 3512: 2875: 2499: 2210: 2083: 792: 779: 403: 130: 4517:, minimum of 70% support for the search box is needed for us to include it. 3326: 1219:, it's redundant but if that is a common new user confusion then fix it. 3780:. Inconsistent with other pages; gives an unprofessional design idea. -- 3655:

which defaults to the English search and is focussed on the search box.

1162:

Yes. It's more obvious and helps users find a search location faster. --

2563:

No. I think that the extra search box would be only a waste of space.--

1401: 1532:

Looks Nicer, increases site usability, clearer for newer wikipedians.

2326:

Any users will be quite capable of finding the existing search tool.

1365:

User has less than 50 edits (Hence the presumably relevant comment).

178:

Keep, friendlier. Reminds me of amazon.com, which is a good thing.--

2717:

It's inconsistent and looks out of place. Two on one page is silly.

991:

Thereby making zir more qualified to make the statement ze made. —

2354:

No thanks. I think it would be confusing to have 2 search boxes.

3880:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3227:

Keep it simple. But do try to highlight the regular search box.

371:. At worst they'd click "back" if they need to find it again. -- 129:

Please note that this decision applies strictly to the proposed

98:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal.

3634:

Google. So why not change it? I don't see a downside to it...

1500:, Looks very good, better than the previous drafts I've seen.-- 598:

especially if we can get the article count in someplace else.--

155:

Absolutely! Searching is the most efficient way to find stuff.

3902:

the left-hand search box, with a colored border or highlight.

33: 2960:

It seems silly and redundant to me to have two search boxes.

1979:

No need, just confusing and aestetically not very pleasing.

4271:

Sorry, I missed it. I agree with David Levy, we don't need

2848:

to look at. *poof* The top search box isn't there anymore!

2459:

No. Redundant, confusing, and is esthetically unappealing.

3958:

box even closer to the first search box's location in the

3373:

The one search box is enough and none extra are needed.

3184:

Beyond that, having multiple search boxes is redundant..

1935:

It's already in the menu, why include it another time? --

349:

the addition doesn't hurt the appearance at all for me.--

3462:. Redundant, and the main page looks better without it. 771:

Lcarsdata - http://ronline.hostingrpaid.com - My website

578:

Yes. It'll be a great help for new users and visitors. -

4436:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on both issues. —

3960: 2147:

No. Sidebar search box is consistent across all pages.

2038:

No, a crutch that disappears with the next click - now

1952: 4564:

Too close to decide = no consensus = no search box. —

560:

Yes, It well be more immediately noticed by newcomers.

3964:. Also, the text wraps in the 800x600 resolution. — 239:

Sure. It's redundent, but it would help newcomers. –

4145:

realize that the second search box would be present

3856:

I thinks it makes it look less symethical and ugly.

2765:

I am sure the space can be used for other things. --

2191:

No. Redundant, not needed. Takes more bandwidth. --

1844:

Superm401, I can't believe that you believe that an

273:

of the idea, it sounded like loser talk, but then I

4591:The news of this poll got published in this week's 3940:attention to the most important part of the page: 2615:No; redundant, looks bad, may confuse some users. 1867:It may be repetition but it looks better with it. 541:Yes, looks better without taking up too much space 3423:, as above: redundant and potentially confusing. 3406:I like the look of page without the search box.-- 804:Yes- For sure, will help new users find articles 4375:ashamed of the number of articles that are here. 4356:of our articles, rather than bragging about the 3643:I've seen this discussed in several places. See 3499:. Redundant and confusing. Looks unprofessional. 3182:it does not attempt to respond to the same call. 1997:Completely unnecessary - just repeating tool. -- 406:(if the design is approved by the community). — 135:. If included, the additional search box would 3014:Move your mouse about 2cm to the left instead. 3385:redundant and confusing, but a nice though. -- 3215:Redundant, confusing. 1 page == 1 search box. 2489:No. One is enough. Two would be confusing. -- 2081:No, unnecessary. The box on the left is fine. 964:. Newcomers can miss the small box on left. -- 368: 3652: 3551:. Duplicatation. Page appears unbalanced. -- 1431:. It looks nice and would improve usability. 8: 4202:Excellent idea. I second that suggestion. -- 2662:No, pointless. Dep't. of Redundancy Dep't. 2898:Redundant, unprofessional, waste of space. 2402:No. Looks too tasteless with it there. -- 2165:No. I find it inessential and redundant.-- 1139:I agree an extra box is definitely better 1115:Extra functionality at no aesthetic cost. 4555:close. Well, except, of course, Jimbo :) 3844:. It looks less cluttered without it. -- 3511:. A less cluttered front page is better. 1374:This user does have less then 50 edits -- 854:yes. More entry points is always better. 731:Yes. Why decrease functionality? Add it! 3262:a camel is a horse designed by committee 1970:The search bar in left bar is enough. -- 550:Nice and eye-catching for first-timers. 4533:If its gonna be a request for adminship 3026:Emphsize the left searchbox instead. — 2317:Its better the way it is now, cleaner. 1988:Redundant, confusing, muddles layout -- 616:Redundancy is a good design principle. 1073:It makes the main page more complete. 402:the case; it would appear only on the 52:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3596:. Poor placement. Messes page layout 3337:, Redundant and visually unapealing. 2886:Unified design, keep it proffesional 111:no consensus to add it, therefore, No 7: 2471:No, it's redundant and confusing. -- 1094:Yes, I agree, second box is better. 1085:a second seach box is a great idea. 662:Yes, easier for newcomers to find - 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Usability 3447:. Simple and consistent is better. 1956:for a moment for an illustration. 73:Second search box (main page only) 32: 4551:could make a decision when it is 3288:, same reasons as stated above -- 2218:Nah, looks cleaner without it. — 1950:(Grocer is right, switch over to 1315:It would definitely look better. 1048:it will be helpful to newcomers.— 4595:which is very high visibility. 3792:, redundant and unnecessary. -- 1756: 909:Yes. More helpful to newcomers. 587: 582: 164:Aesthetically, it looks better. 37: 4398:search box even more obscure. 3832:. Repitition isn't the answer. 2811:design looks better without it 1657:, especially good for noobs. -- 1127:easier for new users to see. -- 2972:Redundant, per everyone else. 2156:No. I like the one-box format 1948:08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1848:search box would be helpful. 746:Yes, helpful for newcomers. -- 324:Anything to help newcomers. -- 145:Include the second search box: 1: 4699:04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 4666:00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 4656:18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 4647:12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 4625:19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4603:19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4587:18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4578:14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4569:13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4560:13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4542:12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4527:01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 4502:22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 4480:13:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 4466:02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 4441:22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4432:22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4406:22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4390:22:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4380:22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4365:21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4346:21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4327:22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4290:21:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4255:21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4246:21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4229:21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4207:21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4196:20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4176:21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4161:18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4133:18:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4112:20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4099:20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4087:18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4070:17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4048:17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4030:16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 4017:16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3992:20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3978:17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3969:16:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3949:16:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3933:02:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3915:22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 3908:Highlight left-hand searchbox 3873:03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 3861:03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 3849:00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 3837:23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3825:21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3813:20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3801:17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3785:11:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3773:06:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3761:06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3749:03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3739:02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3724:02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3712:23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3688:20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 3670:04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 3660:09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3639:02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3629:23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3613:22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3601:20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3589:16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3577:15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3556:13:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3544:13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3528:09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3523:. Redundant and confusing. -- 3516:09:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3504:07:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3492:07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3479:05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3467:05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3455:03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3440:01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 3428:23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3416:22:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3399:21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3378:20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3366:19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3354:19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3342:18:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3330:18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3316:04:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 3293:16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3281:16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3276:. Not as visually appealing. 3269:12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3253:12:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3242:11:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3231:21:41, 24 February 2006 (PST) 3220:05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3208:04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3197:03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3167:02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 3123:23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3111:21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3087:21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3071:20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3059:19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3047:17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3031:17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3019:16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 3007:14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2994:13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2982:12:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2965:11:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2951:07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2942:04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2938:You found the secret writing! 2903:04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2891:02:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2879:02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2867:00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2840:00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2835:it's ludicrous, it's absurd-- 2819:22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2804:18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2788:18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2770:17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2758:16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2746:16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2737:16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2722:13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2710:13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2701:13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2684:09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2674:09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2658:03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2647:03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2629:01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2620:01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2611:00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2602:23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2586:23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2572:User has less than 50 edits. 2568:22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2559:22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2542:17:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2533:21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2515:17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2503:17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2494:16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2485:15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2476:15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2467:20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2453:21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2435:10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2426:09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2416:07:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2407:05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2396:04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 2382:User has less than 50 edits. 2378:04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2369:03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2359:02:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2350:01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2334:22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2322:21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2309:21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 2288:20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2274:20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2264:20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2255:19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2244:11:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2234:No. Need search box to be in 2230:10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2214:09:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2205:02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2196:00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2187:00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 2179:23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2170:22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2161:21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2152:20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2143:19:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2110:19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2100:19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2077:15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2059:14:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2050:14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2034:11:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2019:11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1993:11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1984:11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1975:10:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1964:14:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1940:08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1929:07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1920:20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1906:User has less than 20 edits. 1898:07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1889:07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1872:03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1856:22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1840:22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1831:22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1815:21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1803:20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1793:20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1778:19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1762:07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1743:06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1716:01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1704:00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 1674:19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1662:18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1650:18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1638:17:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1626:16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1602:04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1590:03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1574:02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1562:01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1549:23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1537:23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1525:21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1505:18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1493:16:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1474:10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1460:05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1445:05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1436:04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1424:02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1379:03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1370:02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1361:02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 1349:23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1337:23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1320:22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1308:21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1296:20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1268:18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1256:18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1224:16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1211:11:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1199:08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1179:07:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1167:05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1158:04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1144:04:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1132:04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1120:03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1108:22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1099:21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1090:21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1078:21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1068:20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1041:20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1025:10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1013:20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 987:20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 973:User has less than 50 edits. 969:19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 957:18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 945:17:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 929:17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 914:16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 903:20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 889:User has less than 50 edits. 885:16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 876:00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 850:22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 841:19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 832:19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 823:19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 813:18:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 800:18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 787:18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 774:18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 765:17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 756:16:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 736:14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 727:12:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 718:11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 708:08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 676:08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 667:07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 658:05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 649:04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 639:03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 630:03:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 621:02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 612:22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 593:22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 574:20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 565:20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 555:18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 546:17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 537:16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 528:10:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 495:10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 486:08:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 477:08:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 462:05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 453:05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 444:05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 431:04:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 411:04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 394:04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 385:04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 376:03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 363:01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 354:01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 344:23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 320:21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 292:20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 283:20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 265:19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 257:19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 244:18:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 235:18:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 217:16:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 200:16:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 191:15:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 183:13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 174:07:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 160:07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 139:appear elsewhere on the site. 123:04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 109:The result of the debate was 4278:written! at the top of our 2271:Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 2200:It just doesn't seem right. 1103:Yes - much better useability 457:Yes how can you not have it 85:4:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 68:The design options include: 3563:. Confusing and redundant. 3178:potential technical problem 1481:, per most of the above. - 269:I must admit, when I first 4714: 1924:And this is relevant how? 1251:! It will help new users. 827:Yes. Keep both of them. -- 634:Yes. I don't see why not. 3987:more combined support. — 3904:Please give your opinions 1440:Yes, agree with 128.175. 1243:• 17:24, 23 February 2006 3883:Please do not modify it. 3868:redundant, i vote no. -- 2653:No. It'll be redundant. 101:Please do not modify it. 3942:Draft with better focus 3082:" on top of it though. 2826:completely unneccicary 2439:User has <50 edits. 1186:per most of the above — 4515:Requests for adminship 3266:The magical Spum-dandy 1810:. Strongly prefer it. 1669:, as per above user.-- 1449:Oops, got logged out. 1018:Around 580, actually. 499:Yes, per Cohesion. -- 391:The Human Spellchecker 4547:There is no way that 4511:at the outset that: " 2989:Just seems redundant 1263:. Better useability. 50:of past discussions. 4607:Also, I added it to 3900:visually Emphasizing 1689:comment was added by 1512:Useful for newbies. 936:I came here to vote 4507:It was stated by -- 4250:Agreed per David -- 3719:. One is enough. -- 3066:. One is enough. - 3038:Instead go back to 2669:No, one is enough. 2633:User has 11 edits. 2373:No. Its redundant 2292:No, its pointless. 1893:Utterly redundant. 1206:, it looks nicer. 791:Yes. Looks better. 369:multilingual portal 289:CannotResolveSymbol 78:No extra search box 4619:Christopher Parham 3297:User has 2 edits. 3080:number of articles 2519:User has 2 edits. 2328:Christopher Parham 2063:No, per Dposse. - 1769:- looks cleaner -- 1408:My "Great Project" 4324: 3926:commons:Main page 3710: 3653:www.wikipedia.org 3153: 3139:comment added by 2786: 2699: 2032: 1967: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1707: 1624: 1419:at the library -- 1335: 1064: 1009: 522: 62: 61: 56:current talk page 4705: 4696: 4616: 4610: 4316: 4282:Mainpage. ;-) 4173: 4006:looking for info 3963: 3885: 3706: 3621:would be nice. 3539: 3501:Metamagician3000 3304: 3195: 3188: 3152: 3133: 3130:It's redundant. 3107: 3099: 2939: 2934: 2929: 2924: 2919: 2914: 2855: 2778: 2693: 2597: 2347: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2114:No, per Robert. 2096: 2091: 2086: 2073: 2068: 2028: 2012: 2004: 1955: 1949: 1926:Metamagician3000 1760: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1682: 1623: 1613: 1585: 1522: 1516: 1457: 1331: 1245: 1208:aliceinlampyland 1176:Donar Reiskoffer 1070: 1053: 1015: 1008: 996: 873: 865: 797: 753: 705: 703: 698: 693: 591: 586: 525: 520: 511: 504: 472: 341: 336: 331: 307: 302: 211: 171: 141: 133: 120: 103: 83:This poll ended 41: 40: 34: 4713: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4694: 4629:I'll put it on 4614: 4608: 4535: 4171: 3959: 3895: 3890: 3881: 3537: 3389:Reflex Reaction 3302: 3217:Pavel Vozenilek 3190: 3186: 3134: 3105: 3097: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2922: 2917: 2912: 2853: 2593: 2498:No. Redundant. 2375:Cheesy123456789 2345: 2126: 2119: 2116: 2094: 2089: 2084: 2066: 2064: 2010: 2002: 1951: 1880: 1635:Random articles 1611: 1583: 1520: 1514: 1455: 1442:213.249.234.229 1433:Political Lefty 1417:User:Grenavitar 1233: 1065: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1002: 871: 859: 793: 769:Yes. Add it. -- 751: 701: 696: 691: 689: 524: 517: 510: 507: 502: 470: 339: 334: 329: 305: 300: 209: 169: 152: 131: 127: 118: 99: 93: 38: 30: 29: 28: 12: 11: 5: 4711: 4709: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4605: 4534: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4415: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4232: 4231: 4221:) statistic. 4213:Although I do 4210: 4209: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4136: 4135: 4115: 4114: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4020: 4019: 4010:KISS principle 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3952: 3951: 3936: 3935: 3920: 3918: 3917: 3894: 3891: 3889: 3888: 3876: 3875: 3863: 3851: 3839: 3827: 3815: 3803: 3794:King of Hearts 3787: 3775: 3763: 3751: 3741: 3726: 3714: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3603: 3591: 3579: 3558: 3546: 3530: 3518: 3506: 3494: 3489:FlyingPenguins 3482: 3474:. Redundant. 3469: 3457: 3442: 3430: 3418: 3401: 3380: 3368: 3356: 3344: 3332: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3283: 3271: 3255: 3244: 3232: 3222: 3210: 3199: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3125: 3113: 3089: 3073: 3061: 3049: 3033: 3021: 3009: 2996: 2984: 2967: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2905: 2893: 2888:GrapeSteinbeck 2881: 2869: 2842: 2830: 2821: 2806: 2790: 2772: 2760: 2748: 2739: 2724: 2712: 2703: 2686: 2676: 2667: 2660: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2622: 2613: 2604: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2561: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2535: 2505: 2496: 2487: 2478: 2469: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2428: 2423:Samuel Wantman 2418: 2409: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2371: 2361: 2352: 2336: 2324: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2276: 2266: 2257: 2246: 2232: 2216: 2207: 2198: 2189: 2181: 2172: 2167:SpacemanAfrica 2163: 2154: 2149:Murray Langton 2145: 2112: 2102: 2079: 2061: 2052: 2036: 2021: 1995: 1986: 1977: 1968: 1942: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1922: 1900: 1891: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1817: 1805: 1795: 1780: 1764: 1745: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1685:The preceding 1676: 1664: 1652: 1640: 1628: 1604: 1592: 1576: 1564: 1551: 1539: 1527: 1507: 1495: 1476: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1438: 1426: 1410: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1351: 1339: 1322: 1317:Pixelanteninja 1310: 1298: 1270: 1258: 1246: 1226: 1214: 1201: 1181: 1169: 1160: 1146: 1134: 1122: 1110: 1101: 1092: 1080: 1071: 1061: 1055: 1054: 1043: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1022:Playstationman 1016: 1005: 998: 997: 959: 947: 931: 919: 916: 907: 906: 905: 878: 852: 843: 834: 825: 815: 802: 789: 776: 767: 758: 744: 738: 729: 720: 710: 678: 669: 660: 651: 641: 632: 623: 614: 595: 576: 567: 558: 548: 539: 530: 523: 518: 508: 497: 488: 479: 464: 455: 446: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 387: 378: 365: 356: 346: 322: 312: 294: 285: 267: 259: 246: 237: 219: 202: 193: 185: 176: 162: 151: 148: 107: 106: 94: 92: 89: 81: 80: 75: 60: 59: 42: 31: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4710: 4701: 4700: 4697: 4692: 4688: 4667: 4664: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4654: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4623: 4620: 4613: 4606: 4604: 4601: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4585: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4567: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4540: 4532: 4528: 4525: 4522: 4518: 4516: 4510: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4481: 4478: 4473: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4464: 4459: 4454: 4442: 4439: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4430: 4426: 4420: 4416: 4413: 4412: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4388: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4378: 4373: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4344: 4328: 4323: 4319: 4314: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4291: 4288: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4274: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4256: 4253: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4211: 4208: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4194: 4192: 4188: 4186: 4181: 4177: 4174: 4169: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4134: 4131: 4129: 4125: 4123: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4110: 4106: 4105: 4100: 4097: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4085: 4071: 4068: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4049: 4046: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4018: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4002: 3993: 3990: 3986: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3976: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3967: 3962: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3937: 3934: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3916: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3887: 3884: 3878: 3877: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3864: 3862: 3859: 3855: 3852: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3840: 3838: 3835: 3831: 3828: 3826: 3823: 3822:Theshibboleth 3819: 3816: 3814: 3811: 3807: 3804: 3802: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3786: 3783: 3782:Gennaro Prota 3779: 3776: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3747: 3742: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3725: 3722: 3718: 3715: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3678: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3668: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3627: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3604: 3602: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3590: 3587: 3583: 3580: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3559: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3540: 3534: 3531: 3529: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3517: 3514: 3510: 3507: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3483: 3480: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3461: 3458: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3443: 3441: 3438: 3434: 3431: 3429: 3426: 3422: 3419: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3405: 3402: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3384: 3381: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3367: 3364: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3352: 3348: 3345: 3343: 3340: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3314: 3311: 3308: 3305: 3300: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3291: 3287: 3284: 3282: 3279: 3275: 3272: 3270: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3256: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3243: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3230: 3226: 3223: 3221: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3209: 3206: 3205:Flying Canuck 3203: 3200: 3198: 3194: 3189: 3183: 3179: 3176:, there is a 3175: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3157: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141:128.175.87.94 3138: 3132: 3131: 3129: 3126: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3072: 3069: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3053: 3050: 3048: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3034: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2995: 2992: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2956: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2935: 2930: 2925: 2920: 2915: 2909: 2906: 2904: 2901: 2900:thejabberwock 2897: 2894: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2870: 2868: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2856: 2851: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2838: 2834: 2831: 2829: 2825: 2822: 2820: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2791: 2789: 2785: 2783: 2777: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2761: 2759: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2744: 2740: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2725: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2713: 2711: 2708: 2704: 2702: 2697: 2692: 2687: 2685: 2682: 2677: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2639: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2603: 2600: 2598: 2596: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2578: 2576: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2536: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2497: 2495: 2492: 2488: 2486: 2483: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2468: 2465: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2449: 2445: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2427: 2424: 2419: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2388: 2386: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2362: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2351: 2348: 2342: 2337: 2335: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2310: 2307: 2305: 2301: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2267: 2265: 2262: 2258: 2256: 2253: 2252: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2237: 2233: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2217: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2206: 2203: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2122: 2113: 2111: 2108: 2103: 2101: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2087: 2080: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2053: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2005: 2000: 1996: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1954: 1947: 1943: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1921: 1918: 1916: 1912: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1801: 1796: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1741: 1733: 1728: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1641: 1639: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1627: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1608: 1605: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1560: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1511: 1508: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1480: 1477: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1422: 1421:128.175.87.94 1418: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1386: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1238: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1154:Shardsofmetal 1150: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1058: 1057:CONTRIBUTIONS 1051: 1047: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1032: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1001: 1000:CONTRIBUTIONS 994: 990: 989: 988: 985: 983: 979: 977: 972: 971: 970: 967: 963: 960: 958: 955: 951: 948: 946: 943: 939: 935: 932: 930: 927: 923: 920: 917: 915: 912: 908: 904: 901: 899: 895: 893: 888: 887: 886: 883: 879: 877: 874: 869: 866: 864: 863: 857: 853: 851: 848: 847:Marcos Juárez 844: 842: 839: 835: 833: 830: 826: 824: 820: 816: 814: 811: 807: 803: 801: 798: 796: 790: 788: 785: 781: 777: 775: 772: 768: 766: 763: 762:Bourgeoisdude 759: 757: 754: 749: 745: 743: 739: 737: 734: 730: 728: 725: 721: 719: 716: 711: 709: 706: 704: 699: 694: 686: 682: 679: 677: 674: 670: 668: 665: 661: 659: 656: 652: 650: 647: 642: 640: 637: 633: 631: 628: 624: 622: 619: 615: 613: 609: 605: 601: 596: 594: 590: 585: 581: 577: 575: 572: 568: 566: 563: 559: 556: 553: 549: 547: 544: 540: 538: 535: 531: 529: 526: 519: 515: 513: 512: 505: 498: 496: 493: 489: 487: 484: 480: 478: 475: 469: 465: 463: 460: 456: 454: 451: 447: 445: 442: 438: 432: 429: 426: 422: 418: 414: 413: 412: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396: 395: 392: 388: 386: 383: 379: 377: 374: 370: 366: 364: 361: 357: 355: 352: 351:CountCrazy007 347: 345: 342: 337: 332: 327: 323: 321: 318: 313: 311: 309: 308: 303: 295: 293: 290: 286: 284: 281: 276: 272: 268: 266: 263: 260: 258: 255: 251: 247: 245: 242: 238: 236: 233: 231: 227: 225: 220: 218: 215: 212: 207: 203: 201: 198: 194: 192: 189: 186: 184: 181: 177: 175: 172: 167: 163: 161: 158: 154: 153: 149: 147: 146: 142: 140: 138: 134: 125: 124: 121: 116: 112: 105: 102: 96: 95: 90: 88: 86: 79: 76: 74: 71: 70: 69: 66: 57: 53: 49: 48: 43: 36: 35: 27: 23: 19: 4684: 4552: 4548: 4536: 4512: 4486: 4471: 4418: 4395: 4371: 4357: 4353: 4339: 4279: 4275: 4238: 4214: 4190: 4184: 4153:confusing. 4150: 4146: 4142: 4127: 4121: 4080: 4005: 3984: 3961:classic skin 3919: 3903: 3899: 3882: 3879: 3865: 3853: 3846:72.140.8.253 3841: 3829: 3817: 3805: 3789: 3777: 3765: 3753: 3728: 3721:UrbaneLegend 3716: 3676: 3675: 3618: 3605: 3593: 3586:PlasmaDragon 3581: 3560: 3548: 3532: 3525:Davidstrauss 3520: 3508: 3496: 3484: 3471: 3459: 3444: 3432: 3420: 3407: 3403: 3388: 3386: 3382: 3370: 3358: 3346: 3334: 3322: 3285: 3273: 3261: 3257: 3246: 3234: 3224: 3212: 3201: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3161: 3155: 3127: 3115: 3101: 3095: 3091: 3084:CheekyMonkey 3079: 3075: 3063: 3051: 3039: 3035: 3023: 3011: 2999: 2986: 2969: 2957: 2907: 2895: 2883: 2871: 2844: 2832: 2823: 2808: 2792: 2781: 2762: 2750: 2726: 2714: 2641: 2635: 2594: 2580: 2574: 2527: 2521: 2507: 2447: 2441: 2390: 2384: 2303: 2297: 2249: 2235: 2224: 2219: 2120: 2082: 2042:confusing. 2039: 1953:Classic skin 1914: 1908: 1864: 1845: 1819: 1807: 1782: 1771:Bryan Nguyen 1766: 1747: 1722: 1692:128.2.153.60 1684: 1678: 1666: 1654: 1642: 1630: 1606: 1578: 1566: 1553: 1541: 1534:Lawful Hippo 1529: 1509: 1497: 1483: 1478: 1466: 1428: 1412: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1353: 1341: 1324: 1312: 1300: 1290: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1260: 1248: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1221:JamesHoadley 1216: 1203: 1190: 1183: 1171: 1152: 1148: 1136: 1124: 1112: 1096:EamonnPKeane 1082: 1050:WAvegetarian 1045: 1033: 993:WAvegetarian 981: 975: 961: 949: 937: 933: 921: 897: 891: 861: 860: 794: 688: 685:Vanderdecken 680: 500: 420: 416: 399: 298: 274: 270: 250:zafiroblue05 229: 223: 144: 143: 136: 128: 126: 110: 108: 100: 97: 84: 82: 67: 63: 51: 45: 3425:bcasterline 3290:northyen.dk 3135:—Preceding 2719:ElliottHird 2461:Paul August 2176:PoptartKing 2158:Staxringold 1903:2006 (UTC) 1812:BigBlueFish 1559:Primate#101 1557:menu-bar.-- 1515:Chairman S. 1333:Talk to me‼ 1129:Banana04131 1105:Filceolaire 926:Hamdev Guru 715:Banana.girl 646:User:Jenmoa 580:Charm Quark 44:This is an 4663:David Levy 4653:Kevin Baas 4635:HereToHelp 4566:David Levy 4490:HereToHelp 4438:David Levy 4387:David Levy 4362:David Levy 4243:David Levy 4067:David Levy 4027:David Levy 3989:David Levy 3966:David Levy 3910:thread. -- 3834:zachjones4 3657:Carcharoth 3617:Oooh! Now 2681:NoIdeaNick 2319:Derf noxid 2295:Unsigned. 2241:Carcharoth 2184:Neutrality 2025:Spaceman85 1937:Missmarple 1885:David Levy 1837:David Levy 1739:(contribs) 1713:David Levy 1647:Ms ArtGeek 1502:The_stuart 1305:Dna-Dennis 1275:Newcomers 1188:Zero Gravi 1087:Mrmattkatt 942:Gurubrahma 748:Spangineer 742:hypersonic 724:PeteVerdon 600:HereToHelp 562:Greatigers 521:(Contribs) 408:David Levy 188:Kevin Baas 91:Straw poll 4687:Main Page 4458:6,889,600 4419:certainly 4219:6,889,600 3598:Dodo bird 3476:Lankiveil 3250:κаллэмакс 3004:Trilobite 2813:johnSLADE 2797:WP:WINASE 2743:Thekohser 2539:Estarriol 2512:Estarriol 1981:Batmanand 1824:Superm401 1571:Hibbleton 1471:VMajander 1346:Chrismith 1329:Ian Manka 1281:Newcomers 1277:Newcomers 1253:PSMax8956 819:Catherine 752:(háblame) 664:Palladian 503:Tvaughn05 492:Mikademus 404:Main Page 262:Petros471 214:tianpower 132:Main Page 22:Main Page 4689:itself. 4643:contribs 4593:Signpost 4584:Urthogie 4539:Urthogie 4513:As with 4498:contribs 4463:Quiddity 4422:content. 4358:quantity 4322:contribs 4280:Roadsign 4273:millions 4252:Quiddity 4204:Quiddity 3912:Quiddity 3893:Comments 3770:Melchoir 3758:WookMuff 3704:Ashibaka 3674:Try the 3573:contribs 3464:Hbackman 3437:Radagast 3339:Tiberian 3278:Rangeley 3149:contribs 3137:unsigned 3068:Darwinek 2962:MiraLuka 2948:Quiddity 2837:Dannycas 2664:TheDevil 2482:Larsinio 2413:Bkwillwm 2285:(болтай) 2193:OrbitOne 1990:Quiddity 1752:ceejayoz 1700:contribs 1687:unsigned 1659:NorkNork 1546:SECProto 1367:Csjoiner 1358:Csjoiner 1265:Westfall 1038:Danaman5 778:Add it. 733:JoeSmack 636:joturner 608:contribs 468:cohesion 459:Tobyk777 450:Tobyk777 382:ragesoss 373:Geoffrey 180:Urthogie 24:‎ | 20:‎ | 4477:SFC9394 4429:SFC9394 4377:SFC9394 4354:quality 4343:SFC9394 3906:in the 3810:Benhoyt 3733:Tjohns 3351:Yanksox 3229:Sprague 3187:drumguy 3120:SirNuke 3044:Henrygb 3040:Classic 3028:Aubanel 2998:Please 2828:Vistago 2755:Measure 2707:Robmods 2595:Prodego 2565:Bic1313 2491:Marcika 2432:ThomasL 2404:DMurphy 2366:G VOLTT 2356:Kaldari 2251:niteice 2202:schyler 2121:kantari 2071:iva1979 2030:my talk 1895:Raul654 1727:AMorris 1671:Zxcvbnm 1584:SYCTHOS 1237:FireFox 1164:Siradia 954:Ningyou 882:Filmcom 795:-- Run! 627:Starwiz 543:Jschwa1 534:JACooks 360:Hohohob 317:SFC9394 306:Kendall 280:Rod ESQ 241:Quadell 47:archive 4631:WP:CBB 4622:(talk) 4597:hydnjo 4575:Renata 4557:Renata 4549:anyone 4521:hydnjo 4400:hydnjo 4284:hydnjo 4276:bitten 4223:hydnjo 4155:hydnjo 4151:that's 4109:dposse 4096:Renata 4084:dposse 4045:Renata 4014:Renata 3930:Renata 3798:(talk) 3702:Nope. 3682:hydnjo 3623:hydnjo 3565:vedant 3553:Cavrdg 3409:God of 3375:Raylan 3193:speak? 3056:Manipe 2991:Lurker 2816:(talk) 2671:ant_ie 2626:G-Flex 2341:Trödel 2331:(talk) 2261:ChrisG 2056:Dposse 2044:hydnjo 2040:that's 1972:Jannex 1958:hydnjo 1946:Grocer 1887:07:02/ 1850:hydnjo 1731:(talk) 1596:Dismas 1486:rcadie 1451:Flower 1141:Deyyaz 1075:Tarret 966:TeemuN 838:Lumos3 829:^BuGs^ 810:(Talk) 673:Shanes 655:Coffee 618:Fieari 552:Biglin 483:Jorvik 441:Travis 425:hydnjo 326:AySz88 157:Renata 4187:roken 4124:roken 3858:Jedi6 3746:Frogs 3538:TonyM 3449:Kusma 3239:Gurch 3158:roken 2801:T-rex 2731:Smyth 2691:Whouk 2666:(UTC) 2655:*drew 2638:roken 2617:Tgies 2577:roken 2524:roken 2473:Naddy 2444:roken 2387:roken 2300:roken 2281:IvanP 2226:Welch 2117:Nacon 2107:Jweed 1911:roken 1869:Ozone 1846:extra 1800:j250x 1454:party 1398:ralwi 1376:T-rex 1117:Xoloz 978:roken 911:Bazza 894:roken 806:Brian 722:Yes. 671:Yes. 653:Yup. 417:could 301:James 271:heard 226:roken 26:Draft 16:< 4691:Tito 4639:talk 4612:cent 4600:talk 4524:talk 4509:Aude 4494:talk 4403:talk 4396:real 4360:? — 4318:talk 4313:Aude 4287:talk 4226:talk 4193:egue 4168:Tito 4158:talk 4147:only 4130:egue 3944:. -- 3870:Jeff 3708:tock 3685:talk 3667:Jeff 3649:here 3647:and 3645:here 3636:EdGl 3626:talk 3619:that 3610:EdGl 3569:talk 3535:. -- 3513:meco 3452:(討論) 3395:talk 3299:ςפקι 3164:egue 3145:talk 3002:. — 2974:toad 2876:Tphi 2850:ςפקι 2767:Kash 2696:talk 2644:egue 2583:egue 2530:egue 2500:Nobi 2450:egue 2393:egue 2346:talk 2306:egue 2269:no.— 2221:Phil 2211:Shen 2047:talk 2007:stsw 1999:Ck l 1961:talk 1917:egue 1853:talk 1828:Talk 1787:Grön 1775:Talk 1696:talk 1620:Talk 1521:Talk 1490:Talk 1230:Yes! 1046:Yes, 1034:Yes. 984:egue 950:Yes. 934:Yes. 922:Yes. 900:egue 784:talk 780:Thue 604:talk 474:talk 428:talk 254:Talk 232:egue 166:Tito 115:Tito 4633:.-- 4519:" 4472:the 4372:The 4239:too 4215:not 3985:far 3677:tab 3412:War 3397:)• 3363:agr 3327:Sgd 3307:Иτς 3106:ʏ89 3098:ʀ6ʍ 3016:Stu 2858:Иτς 2776:dab 2715:No. 2608:PHF 2550:MDD 2236:one 2085:Rob 1865:Yes 1820:Yes 1808:Yes 1783:Yes 1767:Yes 1748:Yes 1723:Yes 1679:Yes 1667:Yes 1655:Yes 1643:Yes 1631:Yes 1616:bli 1607:Yes 1579:Yes 1567:Yes 1554:Yes 1542:Yes 1530:Yes 1510:Yes 1498:Yes 1479:Yes 1467:Yes 1429:Yes 1413:Yes 1406:| 1388:Yes 1354:Yes 1342:Yes 1325:Yes 1313:Yes 1301:Yes 1289:eo 1279:!! 1273:Yes 1261:Yes 1249:Yes 1217:Yes 1184:Yes 1172:Yes 1149:Yes 1137:Yes 1125:Yes 1113:Yes 1083:Yes 962:Yes 868:nni 681:Yes 571:Dan 400:not 275:saw 206:Cel 150:Yes 137:not 4695:xd 4645:) 4641:• 4617:. 4615:}} 4609:{{ 4553:so 4500:) 4496:• 4461:-- 4325:) 4320:| 4311:-- 4172:xd 4143:do 3975:WS 3946:WS 3928:. 3866:No 3854:No 3842:No 3830:No 3818:No 3806:No 3796:| 3790:No 3778:No 3766:No 3754:No 3729:No 3717:No 3665:-- 3606:No 3594:No 3582:No 3575:) 3571:• 3561:No 3549:No 3533:No 3521:No 3509:No 3497:No 3485:No 3472:No 3460:No 3445:No 3433:No 3421:No 3404:No 3383:No 3371:No 3359:No 3347:No 3335:No 3323:No 3286:No 3274:No 3264:. 3258:No 3247:No 3235:No 3225:No 3213:No 3202:No 3191:- 3174:No 3151:) 3147:• 3128:No 3116:No 3092:No 3076:No 3064:No 3052:No 3036:No 3024:No 3012:No 3000:no 2987:No 2980:) 2970:No 2958:No 2908:No 2896:No 2884:No 2872:No 2845:No 2833:No 2824:No 2809:No 2799:-- 2793:No 2763:No 2751:No 2729:– 2727:No 2556:96 2553:46 2508:No 2364:-- 2134:|| 2095:rt 2027:| 2017:| 2015:rd 1878:No 1826:- 1790:sv 1773:| 1725:-- 1702:) 1698:• 1518:| 1488:| 1291:On 1239:• 1235:— 1204:Ja 1196:as 1062:• 1006:• 952:-- 938:no 821:\ 808:| 782:| 644:-- 610:) 606:• 423:" 252:| 210:es 197:WS 170:xd 119:xd 113:. 87:. 4661:— 4637:( 4492:( 4385:— 4315:( 4191:S 4185:B 4128:S 4122:B 3736:✎ 3567:( 3481:. 3393:( 3313:☻ 3310:☺ 3303:Д 3162:S 3156:B 3143:( 3102:ɑ 2978:t 2976:( 2933:O 2928:n 2923:h 2918:o 2913:J 2864:☻ 2861:☺ 2854:Д 2784:) 2782:ᛏ 2780:( 2733:\ 2698:) 2694:( 2689:— 2642:S 2636:B 2581:S 2575:B 2528:S 2522:B 2464:☎ 2448:S 2442:B 2391:S 2385:B 2343: 2304:S 2298:B 2283:/ 2140:m 2138:| 2136:c 2132:t 2130:| 2127:e 2090:e 2067:S 2011:o 2003:o 1966:) 1915:S 1909:B 1735:● 1711:— 1706:. 1694:( 1683:— 1622:) 1618:( 1612:O 1598:| 1484:A 1456:■ 1403:k 1393:D 1287:R 1241:T 1213:. 1192:t 1066:• 1052:• 1011:• 995:• 982:S 976:B 898:S 892:B 872:☯ 862:e 856:D 702:φ 697:ξ 692:∫ 687:∴ 602:( 557:. 509:e 471:★ 340:^ 335:- 330:^ 230:S 224:B 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll - Knowledge

Index