MediaWiki talk:Sidebar

Ok, y'all - try to get everybody you know who's actually AROUND to participate in this discussion. Go tell people on their talk pages, ETC, thanks. We need to get what we want on the sidebar straight here - the links section is easy enough to mod, but the rest of it will take some major changes to do what i'm thinking. Really, I see two major sections - the 'navigation' section(s) (we may expand that into two sections, see below) and the 'rest' of it. Anyway, keep talk about the sidebar itself to the 'rest' section, and stuff about what exactly to link from the navigation in the 'navigation' section thanks. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Rest of the sidebar[edit]

For the rest of the sidebar, I see a few other sections that are necessary.

You are here / logo[edit]

Q: What should be in the top 'declaration' section? Thoughts:

I, personally, was thinking something like a logo for the wiki, then a declaration of three important facts about the page: What network your on (EnterWiki networks with a link to meta), what site your on (DDO wiki with a link to home page) and what page your on (with a title like the one removed up above). I feel this is the most important section and should probably logically go at the top. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Looks good to me -- Tihocan 12:16, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Personal tools[edit]

Q: Where should the personal tools go? Should they have icons? Thoughts:

Because of the way the system works, changing the actual content of the personal tools box would be nigh-impossible for right now. Too much work for me, at least. However, the questions remain - icons or no icons, and placement. I say remove the icons - they are pretty, but they take up precious height. And placement? After the logo box, after search, after navigation, but before toolbox. Just some thoughts... (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

I'd say no icons. Although I don't use it I think it should be top, otherwise some people will miss it, and it can actually be useful sometimes. Tihocan 12:17, March 10, 2006 (EST)

The icons are only necessary if you're concerned with drawing the user's attention to them. Near the top is good, but I don't know if this or search & navigation should come first. Dedridd 13:10, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Search[edit]

Q: Where should the search go? Should it have a title? Thoughts:

I am feeling that search should go right under the logo box, as it is the best resource for a user to find a page. Also, I think perhaps the title should be removed, as it is pretty obvious (at least to me) what that box does. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Yes, top right is pretty standard. However, I would not remove the title, just maybe make it appear next to the box if we want to save space. Tihocan 12:18, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Search needs some sort of title so people know what it is for sure, because every site has their search engine interface somewhere different and looking different. An alternative, if you really don't want to do the title, is to give some color to the magnifying glass icon (and maybe a tooltip that says 'Search') to make it stand out. As far as location, I'm tempted to say to keep it in as close proximity to the Navigation box as possible (either above or below), as they are very related. People will mostly likely look at the links in the Navigation section first (especially if it's going to contain the Classes, Races, etc links), and if they don't see what they want they'll hit the Search box. Dedridd 13:10, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Toolbox[edit]

Q: Where should the toolbox go? Thoughts:

Like the personal tools box, this one would be mighty hard to actually change the content of - it is dynamically generated per page like the personal tools one. Really the only question is do we want it, and where should it go? (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

As I said below, I find some use to the What links here and Special pages links, thus I'd keep the toolbox (if they cannot be moved to the utility section, which was what I had in mind). At the bottom, since it's not used by many people. Tihocan 12:19, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Yeah, keep it, but it's the lowest importance, so all the way at the bottom. Dedridd 13:10, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Navigation[edit]

This section is site-specific, can't have other site's contributors add to this discussion. People from other wikis, ignore this section - your wiki will have its own discussion about it's navigation later on when it's big enough for it to particularly matter. This is kind of split up into two sections, see below. The main questions that don't fit in either section are:

Q: Should the two sections be separate 'modules' (the rounded-corner white blocks with grey-on-yellow-gradient-background) or should they be glomped into one module? Thoughts:

I was thinking that two modules would take up extra space, and with the length the SB is already approaching this is a bad thing. However, with two modules, things would be more differentiated between utility and content, between wiki-stuff and information. Really, no opinion here - need some other opnions. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

I would prefer two modules, first one for typical user browsing (direct links to the main sections of the site), second one more utility-oriented. Personally I never use the user toolbox, I think it could be made smaller, maybe even moved to the top right of the top banner (like with the older skin). Navigation and Search modules would be first (not sure which order is better, currently search is not really useful with categories disabled by default). Tihocan 10:23, March 10, 2006 (EST)

The only extra space that would be taken up by having 2 modules is the header/title of the module, which is only about the height of one link. And it makes it more intuitive to find the link you're looking for if they're broken into usage groups. I use the toolbox, but admittedly not super often - putting it at the top would be just fine with me. Just make sure the typical user browsing one is above the utilities one, and then I don't think height is an issue at all, as the lesser-used utility ones (for editing contributors or power-users) will be the ones that are off the bottom of the screen. Dedridd 11:04, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Q: Should the links have individual icons, as the user section currently does? Thoughts:

It is a possibility, but it would make things more complicated to change, and add a massive amount of length to the SB (something like 6px above and below PER LINK). More opinions needed. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

No. Tihocan 10:23, March 10, 2006 (EST)

No. They're ok where they are now in the user section and make those stand out a bit, but no others, please. Dedridd 11:04, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Site navigation[edit]

Q: Exactly what purposes is the navigation section trying to achieve, and exactly what links should it have to achieve those purposes?

I want to keep it small - just the essentials to help people navigate the main parts of the site. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Oh, I think I misunderstood your definition of "utility" and "navigation". For me, navigation was exactly what you have above. It would have what there is currently in the Template:Navigation template. Tihocan 11:23, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Opps, switched the titles now (-; (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Note that, if you plan to have links to home and enterwiki network at the very top of the sidebar, then the links Home page and Community portal are not necessary anymore. Tihocan 12:16, March 10, 2006 (EST)

True about home, but community portal is a different page - it's supposed to be a sort of second home page - like the browse portal is a second home page just for readers, the community portal is a second home page just for editors, with current community projects (when / if we get big enough) and announcements and discussion links and stuff. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

In such a case I would remove the Community portal from the navigation tab, and move it to the utility tab (as it's editor-oriented). Tihocan 12:29, March 10, 2006 (EST)

I was thinking that it's a specific page instead of a special page, so I put it in the nav section. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

Well it all depends on what we mean by navigation and utility. What I had in mind is one module user-oriented (navigation), one editor-oriented (utility). Since most visitors are user-only, they would mainly use the first module. But it's only my point of view, if you guys think a different partitioning would be better, np. Tihocan 13:14, March 10, 2006 (EST)

I was operating on the assumption that nav = users and util = editors as well, Tihocan, so you're not alone on that one. O_o Dedridd 13:25, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Current proposed links:

Home page
Community portal
Classes
Races
Enhancements
Skills

Utilities[edit]

Q: Exactly what purposes is the site utilities section trying to achieve, and exactly what links should it have to achieve those purposes?

I find the site navigation much more important to member usage than the utilities - most of us, by know, just type the name of the page we want directly into the URL. Also, some of the links currently on there are somewhat unnecessary - I just started the list below of some better ones I think. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

The two links I use regulary are Recent changes and What links here. The Special pages link can also be useful. Tihocan 11:28, March 10, 2006 (EST)

See the toolbox section above, when I add it. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)

I like the current proposed links. I use Recent changes a ton; What links here and Special pages I find useful, but not as often. I'd be fine if they stuck around in whatever incarnation the Toolbox occupies in the future. Dedridd 11:35, March 10, 2006 (EST)

Again, the toolbox is kind of unrelated, see above. (post by Peerless - see his talk and contribs.)