Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Archive 3

New prototype?
Recently, I read the following article: Geoff Graham, "Behind The Curtains Of Wikipedia Redesign", Smashing Magazine, 26 June 2023.

In the article are shown two screenshots of a different version of Vector 2022, respectively in the very first and in the very last images of the article, which in my opinion is far better than both the currently deployed version and the Zebra version. In particular, in the version shown in the article, the ToC is placed inline just as it was in Vector Legacy and the user's and reader's menus and buttons are better organised. What is this version? Will it be available in the future? Æo (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Æo, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022. — Qwerfjkl  talk  21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Æo (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What happened to MediaWiki?
In the past, these kind of changes were done through updating the MediaWiki namespace. See also: Namespace.

One of the nice things about this was that devs could do their thing, and local wikis could modify it directly.

In particular, what links are listed where. And many other things.

The devs really should be using this functionality. Otherwise, it comes across like they are acting in fiat, fait accimpli. Which, I think it's fair to say, is what we saw in the last roll-out.

And then the "visual layout" RfCs can be a lot more straight-forward.

While I do very much respect the devs for all the (often thankless) work that they do, the "look and feel" should be an on-wiki decision, not an arbitrary dev decision.- jc37 21:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the problem might have to do with the initialization and configuration of wiki settings. If the wrong value is put into one of these messages, then it will crash Wikipedia. There is a solution for this.
 * Miraheze has options to modify a wiki's core settings through a front end, this then updates the configuration in "LocalSettings.php" or smth. Maybe Wikipedia could have this as well? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the things we are talking about, they aren't things that the average editor would be changing. And the namespace is protected, in any case.
 * But anyway, that's the point of the MediaWiki namespace - a place to configure "local settings". - jc37 23:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the MediaWiki namespace only hosts strings of text to use and customizations in addition to the skin. It was never meant to be able to change the skin, nor any actual preferences. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think that would solve the problem, just change where/how the shitfight happens. In fact it could be even worse, we could have a fun wheel war over what the default skin is. The reality is we have two sides, both with strongly held positions, both with large numbers, over something that is a fairly subjective preference. We were never going to reach a consensus that made everyone happy. -- Chris 09:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Longstanding protocol when there's no consensus is to maintain the status quo. Instead, the WMF decided that nanny knows best, and interfered without the community's consent and without even warning us properly of their diktat.  There's not much we can do now, other then reminding the WMF that they have lost our respect and should no longer expect our co-operation when they need it. Certes (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, there wasn't no consensus. There were two RFCs, both closed with consensus to implement (with some cavets sure). And compared to previous changes of this nature, I would say the WMF went out of their way to consult and try to work with the community about the change. Anyway the fact that we're debating this is precisely the point I was trying to make. You can't make a technical solution to this, it would just shift the shit fight away from the WMF to somewhere else. -- Chris 03:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)