Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/Talk:Main Page

New skin

 * How do you turn the damn new skin off? Where is my search box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure The new skin can be turned off if you're a registered user. (Just click "Take me back.")
 * The search box is in the upper right now. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The new logo is horrible!!! I'm sure keeping the classic logo on the Nahuatl Wikipedia --Fluence (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are unregistered users able to turn off the new skin? Jonathunder (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. f o x  19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I switched back- I've only just got used to having the admin buttons where they were- I don't want them moving around! not that this is the right forum but... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You people do realise if you actually want anyone involved in designing the skin to read your comments, in other words the people who can actually make a difference and actually give a damn, you probably should use the feedback system they designed rather then posting messages in some random place which they will almost definitely never see, right? If you can't find it, try clicking on 'take me back', 'new features' or 'learn more' or visit this link . Edit: Just realised the feedback only works if you have an account. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. I told 'em I like my buttons where they are. :) I'm sure some (even many) people like the new look, but I'm just awkward like that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there an on-wiki community discussion of this? Is there one now? Jonathunder (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I filled out the feedback form, but have some comments that don't fit into its rigid boxes (and some comments on the form itself). Is there somewhere on-wiki (or on Meta) I can leave them? Modest Genius talk 23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a long beta where any logged in user could try the new layout. This was advertised at the top of every page for a while.  Presumably there was discussion about it to.  (Not sure where, I never noticed any bugs or problems, so I didn't care about the discussion.) APL (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there was. I tried the beta for a few days, then switched back. That doesn't help the fact that there is either no on-wiki place to provide comments, or its location has not be publicised. Modest Genius talk 13:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are various places in the usability initiative website to post comments however they haven't perhaps been that well published in the rollout. Some may feel the usability initiative should have a place at each specific wiki but it's perhaps difficult for the usability initiative to have to check comments in ~270 different wikis so a centralised location is probably better. Only choosing certain wikis where they check comments is likely to piss off the wikis that are left out Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikimedia server? In which case it's essentially the same thing (yay unified logins). Where is this phantom website? Modest Genius talk 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Usability:Main Page. I read somewhere SUL wasn't working at one time, however I never created an account but am able to log in so I guess it's working now. Actually I see it in merge account anyway. There are a bunch of places to leave feedback but really the ones I found I found from following links on their main page so probably no point me linking to them however Usability:Talk:Prototype and the links in the headerbox on the right and Usability:Your Opinion may be the most relevant. Well I also found Usability:What's new, questions and answers and its talk page. Bear in mind while I presume there's a resonable chance people involved will read your comments there doesn't appear to be a great amount of participation by those involved so don't expect a definite answer (probably particularly at this stage where they're dealing with the roll out and all the undiscovered bugs that have emerged). Nil Einne (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Modest Genius talk 13:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New format SUCKS
PUT THE SEARCH BOX BACK WHERE IT WAS!!!!!

Change for the sake of change is not improvement. There are millions of people who have used the left search box many times a day for years. It is ingrained in habit and muscle memory, it worked and looked perfectly fine on the left. Change it back knuckleheads. Sec.tek (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a terrible thing to do to users to change their interface for no reason without warning.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelDC (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I HATE it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.220.209 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I HATE it when people post messages to completely the wrong place where they're only likely to be read by people who don't give a damn and can't do anything about it and also when people post a new message basically saying the same thing as the previous message by someone else right above their new message we're they've already been offered advice on what do to. But after a long time on Talk:Main Page, I've learnt to live with it. Maybe you will too for your hate... Edit: While this is still the wrong place and it's unlikely anyone useful will read what you say here I stroke that portion out as I'm not sure how anon users are supposed to offer feedback, if they are at all. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you register an account, which can be done here, you have the option changing back to the old format. Simply clicking on "Take me back" on the top bar, and clicking the "Turn new features off" button at the bottom of the page will restore the old format. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants a conspiracy theory to dwell on, it is my educated belief that the new skin was created by Userist administrators to weed out nonregistered users, either forcing them to register or making them leave Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have I gone blind, or has the "watch" "unwatch" button disappeared? I had to switch back to the old format temporarily, just to unwatch a page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was replaced with a button of a star. When I first looked at it, I thought it indicated a featured article. Perhaps an icon of an eye would suffice better, though that just might be my humanist bias creeping in there.--WaltCip (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. And apparently the "move" button was also replaced with an icon. Must have been obvious to the people who designed it... --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No way to search for hours to find whether blabla... Forget it, you could have avoided this in a very simple way: Leave it as it is/was. Switch this b....it back to its former version! Do you really need to follow any pseudo enhancement in style if Google offers one? e.g.: I was always glad that I did not have to select a larger character size when using en.wiki. NOW I have to select a SMALLER one... Perhaps add a permanent link to "Never Touch A Running System" before trying such disimprovements. NO, don't try to save this nonsense by dozens of patches.. ROLL BACK!!! yours, TomCat from Europe -- 87.180.201.11 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, the "page views" and "number of watchers" links have disappeared from the talk pages. Worse yet, going "take me back" to the previous version does not bring them back- they appear to be gone for good, and I used them ALL the time. That's a bummer. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As a point of interest, this new layout has been around for months, it was simply in "beta". A lot of us have been using it voluntarily since then.  (By the way, The timing with Google is almost certainly a coincidence. This project was started long before it was known that Google was rolling out a new look.)
 * The logo is new to me, though. In the spirit of joining in with all the complaining here (since I like the layout.) I'll mention that it doesn't really look like puzzle pieces anymore, to me It looks like a solid plastic sphere with a jigsaw pattern painted on. Hmm.... Zooming in on it I find that the jigsaw puzzle isn't beveled into the shape of the sphere, it really does appear to simply be painted on as a texture. APL (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the new logo either. It feels less professional than the other one, more like Uncyclopedia's logo. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is new: the search box isn't working properly in Chrome, a search for "john pilger" brings up the search results for "john pi" even though I typed the whole thing. Is it just me or is this a problem with the new format? Happens maybe 1/3 the time, but enough to be really annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.135.216 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, works for me (Chrome 5.0.375.29 beta on Ubuntu 10.4, logged out to get all that Vectory goodness I opted out of when logged in). I repeated searches for "john pilger", "david cameron", "gordon brown" (all search words lower-case), and got the correct articles each time - I cycled through several times, so maybe 9-12 searches in total). Sorry I couldn't be more helpful or bring better news! TFOWRpropaganda 20:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends how quickly you type. Sometime the autosuggestion cannot keep up and part of the word is cut off.  There's a thread on this over at WP:VPT, it is perhaps the most annoying of the problems with the new search box - Dumelow (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This one? (if so, it looks like we'll need to wait for a fix) ...and does this mean I type slow or fast? ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry should have linked before, forgot how many search related problems there were! I meant this thread which has resulted in this bugzilla report - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thanks for that, apparently I type slowly... Interestingly, it looks like the issue affects more than just Chrome... <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>propaganda 22:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You could get rid of the left menu bar altogether and provide more reading space...just as a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.239.11 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New format ROCKS
Just for the neutrality (and pollution of this talk page), I'm gonna say it. I love the new format. No, this is not a joke. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Yes, I really mean it.

Okay, maybe I think the new logo has the globe too little, and the puzzle pieces intersection isn't really clear. Aaaaand its more difficult for me to read an article because the left bar makes more contrast (being gray and everything). But taking out those little issues, I LOVE it. -- Fixman (talk!) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is small, isn't it? Shouldn't Wikipedia be getting bigger balls with time? Lampman (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah totally. And the search box should go back to the left. It looks crazy and is pretty useless on the right. -- Karunyan, 06:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you use it a few times it feels fine on the right. And it's not crazy, it's just. . . different.  And also, I agree.  I love the new format! ShadeofTime09 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Crazy or not, it cuts off suggestions, which is a bit of a problem. Lampman (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Although I do not personally like it, my first comment is to simply ask, Why?. What is it that is supposedly "improved" with this new layout? I see nothing gained. 98.82.22.169 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did they change the skin? It was pleasantly simply before, but now it's unnecessarily flashy and has a clumsy feel to it. Please change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.19.205 (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook does the exact same thing. They go in an move the furniture around, which frustrates their users, and give no explanation for why they did that. For about a week, you go to the wrong place to do a common function and get angry at the developers for moving stuff around. By the time you get used to it, the developers are working another new layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelDC (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I feel that the search box should get a more prominent position. After all, searching is the first thing users do when they enter the site (or so I imagine). - daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.11.214 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the search box should go back on the left. The left side seems to be links and whatnot for navigating through the Wikipedia, while the top is for navigating through an article and its associated pages. Putting the search box on the top messes up that fairly intuitive set up. I don't know where to put this where anyone who might care might read it, but I would appreciate someone informing em of that or copying this over there. 98.185.253.158 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the new skin looks fine, not clumsy and flashy. Monobook is kind of dull, lol. But it could be because I'm used to Monaco. ShadeofTime09 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New Logo comments only
If one looks at the New Features page, one is encouraged to go to the Wikimedia blog to comment on the new logo; apparently whoever placed this link anticipated some rave reviews of the new globe. Well, it's as close to unanimity as I've ever seen on a post with over 100 respondents. And the result? EVERYONE hates the new logo. More importantly, as one wise reader pointed out, the old logo was chosen with community input, and this inferior one was simply imposed on us. As for me, my biggest beef is that it is claimed that this new logo has an enhanced 3-D appearance, but it actually is far, far, far LESS 3-D than the old logo. Where can we go to get the cabal to listen to the people and seek consensus on this (which will certainly see the old logo restored)? 98.82.22.169 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the new logo works better with the vector skin and appears more appealing to the eye ;). Also, would you stop raving so much, please?  YOU and a few other people hate the new logo.  A few dislike it.  A few like it.  A few love it.  ShadeofTime09 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Search box placement on Main page - discussion
When I come to English language Wikipedia's home page I, like millions of others now, encounter the search box in the far upper right hand corner, and after I log in, the search box returns to the much easier to use left side. Yes, well, I am sure conspiracy theorists will note that in the English-language Western World, we read from left to right and in the world of Islamic fundamentalists, who want to take over the world one small victory at a time, pages are read from right to left. Seems like one small victory there and why it was moved is puzzling. Does it work better now for left-handed programmers? 5Q5 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So many search boxes are on the right that one could consider it a right-hander's bias. - Parsa (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I so much agree in keeping the search box in the left column. After so many years using the Wikipedia, this little detail can leave millions of users feeling this is no longer the Wikipedia they loved. Placing two search boxes would be a reasonable solution for both the right and left sided biased users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.32 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Options
There only seems to be a generic "go" search option now, rather than the previous Go and Search. It's like Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky." I tried to search for the term NAD27 in other articles, but I keep getting taken to the North American Datum page. In other words, there does not seem to be a true search option any longer. - Parsa (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. You have to click the magnifying glass icon with an empty field; this will take you to a search page. Lampman (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can do the Search if you wait for the dropdown to appear. The last option in the dropdown is the one that takes you to the search results. --Protron (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't: I just pressed h, waited and got a scrolling box with the last option being Houston which took me to Houston (virtually, of course!). none of the other options allowed me to search.  hello, Hello, Dolly! (film); list, List of counties in Indiana; etc  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

--Jubilee♫ clipman 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not usable / less usable
It seems that the new usability team has reduced usability. Where are "watch" and "unwatch" now? "move"? They seem to be either hidden, deleted or changed to images? What about people that don't have images enabled (like people with slow connections)? They would never know where the lost controls are. How is hiding things supposed to make the site more usable? Extra clicks needed to reveal hidden controls, why? More mouse movement to get from "article" to "edit", why? With all the space in the top toolbar why not just add the hidden controls to fill it up? It would be easier to see all the options with one glance rather than hide them behind extra clicks and then leave big empty gaps with nothing.

If you really want to make it more usable then: Don't hide things behind extra clicks. Don't make it harder to find controls. Don't leave big gaps of nothing. Don't change text controls into images. HumphreyW (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Watch" is the star: watched pages have a blue star, non-watched pages a white one. "Move" is under the arrow just next to the star.  Everything is still there and I suspect that those that disable images get words.  I'll give it a go to see what happens.  I have to say that I am used to this new system now and prefer it to the clutter I used to have with all my editing, Twinkle, Friendly, etc functions taking up most of the top of the page!    --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek... I see what you mean: I just disabled images in Chrome and got... nothing.  Nada.  I can hover over where the images are supposed to be and either get the list (under the !arrow) or a message saying "Remove this page from your watchlist" (under the !star) but I have to know that the star and the arrow are there...  That needs sorting big time!  Worse still: all my images have vanished from the toolbar!  I will have to type my tildes manually.  Oh no!!!  Jubilee♫ clipman  14:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew: I re-enabled my images... --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, now you know what I mean. It is less usable, not more usable, and in many cases unusable. White/blue images instead of text? How is that supposed to be more usable? "move" hidden behind another image? Ridiculous IMO. HumphreyW (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically: WP:NOTBROKEN applied to everything else... --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)