Wikipedia talk:Unsolicited redesigns

licensing/copyright
This page is an excellent ideas!

I wonder if the licensing/copyright issue of redesigns should be noted? I'm not sure all designers are familiar with or appreciate Wikimedia's licensing model. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a good point indeed. The fact that we usually cannot use these designs directly without asking and going through some kind of rigamarole is one of the problems they prevent. Steven Walling &bull; talk   04:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * in what sense did you mean? simply that the designs aren't well-licensed, or that they don't grapple with how to properly do attribution/show the CC license information? I wrote a little bit about the latter problem in a blog post that David Gerard just added to the page, but I'm not sure it is very productive to treat it like a problem - I'd rather frame it as a challenge that we'd like to see outside thinking/feedback on. LuisVilla (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LV: It's been a while, but I think I was referring to basically both issues that you mention: (a) the designs themselves often are not released under a compatible license for re-use; and (b) the designs often re-use the Wikipedia logo, which can be problematic. Any guidance you and others can provide in this area is definitely appreciated.
 * I think these redesigns and re-imaginings are great and should definitely be encouraged, but if we ultimately can't use the designs due to copyright issues (unclear copyright, unreleased copyright, etc.), that's a pretty big bummer. If we can guide people to release their designs freely and to also think about how to properly incorporate attribution/license information into their designs, I think everyone will come away better off. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes from Atlasowa
Yes, thanks for writing this page! Regarding the recent design study http://www.wikipediaredefined.com, this has got quite some attention on the german internet. A german wikipedian has used it as an inspiration to build a user style (he has asked people to test it and was featured in a videocast ). I think the most interesting thing about those redesign ideas is what we learn about readers and infrequent users (and designers): They have no idea they can already change the style (after login) and they hardly ever use the left side toolbar and therefor don't miss it. Compare The most interesting or substantial comments I read on the Wikipedia Redefined idea: The other thing to be learned: People love to discuss eyecandy and this is to a large extent bikeshedding, not really helpful in terms of usability of Wikipedia. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiWebApp,
 * Wikipedia-Beautifier addon,
 * userstyles.org Wikipedia (readable, hyphenation),
 * userstyles.org Wikipedia Tribute,
 * Moving Brands: Wikipedia,
 * designmadeingermany.de wikipedia-redesign 2010,
 * Redesign Wikipedia Project for Parsons the New School for Design, NYC 2011 etc. (Maybe we should collect links to those redesign studies, for reference?)
 * neilk on Hacker News
 * Quora: Wikipedia: What does the Wikipedia community think of this "Wikipedia Redefined" 'redesign' of the site?
 * Quora: Wikipedia: Why doesn't Wikipedia innovate with regards to their user interface? Brandon Harris, 2011
 * Amir Elisha Aharoni on wikimedia-l

ency.cl/opedia is nice
Does a minimal version really well, IMO. Minus points: mystery-meat nav logos; no other languages - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Magnus design
See meta:Wikipedia redefined. An earlier design idea by Magnus is File:CSS_Stylesheet_explosion_demo_Biology.png, see explanations here: and here:. Great things, have a look! --Atlasowa (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Article title
Although the content seems relatively balanced, the use of "unsolicited" as the term of choice lends a rather negative flavor to the topic. While I completely understand that objectively "unsolicited" is not a negative term it has strong connotations (at least in American usage) of being unappreciated or inconsiderate, such as the common use in "unsolicited advice" to refer to advice that is essentially forced upon an unwilling recipient. Just bringing it up for conversation, especially since I suspect this page will be getting a few more hits than usual for a while because of Wikipedia Redesigned. Brlodi (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree in context - in terms of design proposals, or manuscripts or whatever, "unsolicited" is the usual term for work that hasn't been requested - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Brlodi, I agree. I think the title Redesigns proposals for Wikipedia would be a better concept for a page like this, and unsolicited redesigns (and all the pros and cons) could be treated as a significant subset. It would be useful for this page to have a slightly more general scope; for instance, it would create an opportunity to compare the design thinking that went into unicorn and contrast it with some of the mistakes made in other redesign proposals. Instead, under the current title, that redesign has no proper place on this page. Ping @User:Jorm (WMF), @User:Nemo bis. -Pete (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed by using the term "proof of concept". "Proposals" is too generic, because there are also proposals which have been implemented, for instance Monobook and Vector and all the iterations of the main page of each wiki. --Nemo 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In grammatical English, that should probably be "proofs of concept" - it's the proofs that are plural. I'm really not convinced it's a good name for the page even then - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Restored previous title, pending actual consensus for a change. I feel confident that changing the title to a grammatical error would not be something that could reasonably be assumed to achieve consensus, for example. Also reverted text that changes the meaning of the page - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit it, I left my typo in place to see if someone was going to correct it. :) I don't see anyone opposing a new title and just in this section there are three of us considering the previous title inappropriate, so I've restored the new title without typo. If you disagree with it, please explain why. An alternative would be a simpler "Redesign drafts". --Nemo 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And you've put in yet another grammatical error. And I have quite definitely objected to your ill-considered move and edits. If you aren't good enough with English not to put a grammatical error into the title twice, then please stop trying and wait for actual consensus for your idea - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * True, I've been hasty in the proofreading of my titles. I felt I had already contributed enough of my time to this page. --Nemo 14:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Unsolicited" is the most precise title proposed thus far. "Proof of concept" suggests, at least to my experience, a version under test to confirm or withdraw an approach that has already been provisionally chosen. Similar to a breadboarded prototype or a TV show pilot episode, but not quite so far advanced. It should be applied after one or at most two candidates have been chosen for proof. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So, should we use "Redesign proposals" as Pete suggested? Nobody opposed his suggestion in months. --Nemo 14:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made WMF proposals separate. We could mix them in, but they are of significantly different status than unsolicited outside proposals - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where would this go?
A blog post about the problem with Wikipedia redesigns - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great essay - I've added it to the bottom of the list as a Seealso. –Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the "problematic" section; seemed odd to have it where it was. LuisVilla (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"problematic" section is not very constructive
The "problematic" section is pretty passive-aggressive/not very constructive - basically it says "no" without any suggestions of how to get to "yes" (if you're a designer) or much good discussion of why Magic Hasn't Happened (if you're a regular reader). I might suggest reframing it by splitting it into:


 * why haven't we adopted these designs? could include:
 * list common mistakes/problems made (e.g., actually discuss the "important design considerations in point #2 of the current list, such as #6 and #8)
 * links to the work we're already doing
 * if you're thinking about doing an unsolicited design, how can you make it helpful?
 * e.g., relate it to winter
 * be creative about the attribution/CC problems

I may try to give a pass at that at some point, but leaving it here for discussion in the meantime.LuisVilla (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually really like the candor/bluntness of the "problematic" section of the page, but I agree that parts of the current page content can probably be re-framed or re-worked to be more helpful and less negative. While I don't doubt the intentions of the people working on these redesigns, being honest and straightforward about why they are (err... universally) rejected is helpful and appropriate, in my opinion. But we can find ways to be tactfully upfront and direct (even though it's often quite difficult to do in practice). I say be bold! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been bold. LuisVilla (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Beautiful, thank you! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you a paying client? If not, nobody has to defend their point to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.203.247 (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a gallery
See also mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)