Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/VPT

Moved from WP:VPT. WARNING: The moving of these discussion topics were done manually through cutting-and-pasting and MANY topics of dicussion related to the skin change were inadvertently left off this page due to the topics already having been archived. For complete topics of discussions related to the skin change, see the following two archives:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 75
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 76

Redrose64's gripe list

The change to Vector from Monobook has produced the following usability issues for me, in no particular order:

• some (not all) monospace text shows smaller. For example, these four template demonstrations all show in a monospace font, and under Monobook, all showed the same size as each other: {{tlx}} {{subst:tlsx}} {{template:tlu}} {{subst:template:tlsu}} (the size that {{tlx}} shows here). Under Vector, they clearly don't.
  • Both show the same for me on Vector and Monobook using Safari 4. The tt, code and pre elements are explicitly enlarged from the normal monospace fontsize to somehing bigger, by local CSS in both skins. —TheDJ (talk • contribs)
    • I've now tried other browsers. Google Chrome gives similar results to Firefox 3.6.2 (tlx/tlu normal, tlsx/tlsu small). The curious thing is that Internet Explorer 7 shows tlx/tlu small, and tlsx/tlsu normal. Viewing the page sources shows the three to render the page from the same HTML, so clearly they're interpreting it differently. Closer inspection shows that tlx/tlu are formatted using <tt></tt> whereas tlsx/tlsu use <span style="font-family:monospace;"></span>. Time to take that to the template talk pages, I guess  bug in template --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• If I decide to abandon an edit I could previously click the back button, or go for alt-left. Now, it asks me 'Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page? Leaving this page may cause you to lose any changes you have made. If you are logged in, you can disable this warning in the "Editing" section of your preferences. Press OK to continue, or Cancel to stay on the current page.' and I have to click "OK" (or press Return). It's annoying as it stands, but if I am several previews deep, I can't just go back, back, back etc. as I could before - it needs to be back, OK, back, OK, etc.
  • You can disable this dialog in your preferences. —TheDJ (talk • contribs)
    • Well the OP themselves mentioned this is specifically noted in the warning so I'm not really sure what the proposal is here. Other then using the skin I have limited or well no involvement with the usability iniatative but as I remarked below I'm not surprised by the warning and think it makes sense so I doubt it's going to go away. Logged in users who don't want it should just turn it off as the warning itself suggests Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      •  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• In the same way, if I'm in preview mode, and decide to try out a bluelink to ensure it goes where it should, I get the same silly message. Didn't get that before, under either situation.
  • Same answer —TheDJ (talk • contribs)
    •  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• There is too much horizontal distance between the tabs at the top. Too much mouse movement when going between "history", "discussion" and "edit".
  • There are gadgets that can fix this, but i don't know their name atm. Someone please look them up ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs)
• The "Watch" star now needs me to look directly at it to decide if it's blue or white. Previously I could just catch it out near the edge of my vision and the difference between "watch" and "unwatch" was large enough to not require a direct check. I've even found myself mousing over it to see what the tooltip says.
  • I think you just need to get used to it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• The difference in colour between unvisited links (previously blue, now bluish-indigo) and visited links (previously purple, now purplish-indigo) is now too small to be clear; and both have become so dark that it's difficult to pick them out from the black.
• {{reflist}} has gone to 100% font size from the previous size (80% I think). This has made reflists about 25% larger
  • Both skins use 90% for Reflist. Depending on your browser however, a fontsize can be 1px larger or smaller in the new skin however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If both skins are 90% for Reflist, then why is it that in the old skin references were noticeably smaller than normal text, but in the new skin references are the same size as normal text? —Lowellian (reply) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I have loaded the same test page in monobook and in vector and the font sizes for reflist are noticeably different. Apart from the first, which uses a bare <references />, the style is applied using <div class="references-small"></div>, which is what you get when using {{reflist}} without parameters. I have examined the common.css which shows that in both skins "references-small" is achieved using the style "font-size: 90%;", so something else is overriding this for Vector. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The base fontsize has changed (not visibly, but still in actual value). Where the difference between 90% and 100% was 2pt in fontsizes, in vector it is now just 1pt. Fonts get rounded to px sizes and this is causing the effect of what you see. The Reflist has however still 90% set. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubtless I'll be back with more later today. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I answered some of your questions, hope it helps ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet; have commented on some. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• in the search box: the autocomplete second-guess feature (generating the scrolly list) is much slower; the individual suggestions in the list are shorter than previously; they show head and tail of article name instead of just the head.
• diffs show in smaller font, much more difficult to read. Less serious is that the text is now vertically centred in each row, so if a line is significantly extended you look right-and-up instead of just right.

Well, It got 24 hours, but I'm not happy. Monobook, I'm on my way back to you... --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Popups seems to be broken

And I suspect it might be related to changes that have been made independently of the switchover to vector: See Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups#Vector_skin_incompatibilities —Soap— 14:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It works for me on Vector and has so for the last few months. Please make an accurate bugreport, detailing browser you use etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I posted on the thread I linked to. I don't think it's browser-related, since I tested out two browsers, and also it seems rather intermittent (sometimes it works, sometimes not). The problem that Xeno's having is worse than mine, though. —Soap— 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it working for you on Special:Contributions? –xeno^talk 14:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Though note that contributions pages etc contain a LOT of links. It may take longer than you expect for popups to finish loading on those pages. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even working on [1] (still on monobook, mind you). Not to mention this was never an issue before. –xeno^talk 15:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Most browsers have error windows, those might be handy to consult. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"popups is not defined" showed up in the error console at one point, but I've since cleared the error console, tried loading speical:contributions again and now the error console remains blank. –xeno^talk 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, that's caused by your use of my tophide script, which was working with popups until the change, so not sure what changed... Anyway, I'll look at it later, you may want to disable it until then (or not, if you prefer it to popups on Cont pages :P). Ale_Jrb^talk 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. On that note, I was thinking the other day: there should be some kind of "hook" for popups that will get it to continue to work after such scripts do their magic. –xeno^talk 16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the new style busted popups real good. However, potential work-arounds are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups#Support for the new WP layout?. Dl2000 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Open tab in new tab

I can't seem to rightclick and open the new Vector tabs in new IE tabs/windows anymore. When I'm looking at the article, I tried to right-click on "Discussion" so that I could open that in a new tab and see both article and talk page. The little popup menu doesn't give me that option, just "Save as background", etc. It works if you right-click the links at the top (My watchlist, etc). Is this a new "feature" of Vector, or is there a way I can fix this? Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is bugzilla:23490. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Were none of the beta testers using IE? –xeno^talk 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was heavily tested, because it was the most difficult browser to support. However I guess no one ever tried this specific action. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The tab option works in Firefox 3.6.3 with Windows 7. Xtzou (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Workaround for IE: Middle-click will open these in a new tab, even though the normal right-click options for links are not available. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin options

I can live with most of the changes, but I really despite having all of the admin options crammed into a drop down menu on the far right, rather than strung across the top of the page as they were previously. Is there a way to reverse this? The new drop down menu is also forcing scripts like User:Animum/EasyBlock into hiding. --auburnpilot talk 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Click the handy "take me back" button and go back to the way it was before! –xeno^talk 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That, or importScript("User:Amalthea/VectorMenuToTabs.js"); Amalthea 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just what I needed. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to do this without JavaScript, just using CSS? It seems like it should be possible to do so. —Lowellian (reply) 23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably—you'd simply have to set the styles for the vectorMenu class to be the same as those for the vectorTabs class, I suppose. It's simpler to do it in JavaScript, though, because in JavaScript you can do it in as little as* one line: document.getElementById("p-cactions").className = "vectorTabs"; … (*Some extra code might be needed for some edge cases) while in CSS you'd have to add much more code.

I'm using another option: my nothingthree.js script does some intelligent tab-moving, so e.g. if there's a deletion template on the page, the "delete" tab automatically moves into the tabs from the menu. The unprotect tab moves out if the page is protected (and gets the protection status appended to the tooltip text). It works pretty well, so far, but I'm a relative newbie to JavaScript, and I don't know how it'll fare in Internet Explorer (I don't have access to IE). Try it, and give me feedback :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Google toolbar spell check not working

Has anyone else seen this behaviour with Vector? When editing an article, pressing Google Toolbar "Check" the text box changes to a light blue background as usual, but all of the text appears to be squashed into a line a few pixels high at the top of the edit box. Clicking still gives the menu to exit, so the spell seems to have loaded correctly. Using IE on XP. welsh (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it by unchecking "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" in Preferences->Editing. welsh (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Logged as bugzilla:23518, but might just be an issue that Google has to fix, the developers will have to see what can be done.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Main Page search

When you load the Main Page, the search box is automatically selected. However, the "Search" background is still present, and typing a search term types over it, making it unreadable. The workaround is to click out of the box and back in before searching, but this is counter productive and creates the problem it's trying to address: preventing a user from needing to click in the search box to search for an article. While most people can figure out the workaround, people who aren't so computer-literate may just avoid Wikipedia because they don't know what the problem is. Also, since the Main Page is the first page for most people, it seems that keeping the "Search" text in the box until they type in it would be a good idea, so that everyone knows it's the search box. Even if the glitch is fixed by removing the background when they box is automatically selected on pageload, there is still the problem of keeping the "Search" text in the box until the user types in it. That, or do you think by having the box selected everyone will be able to figure out that it's the search box? Either way, it's a minor glitch, but should still be addressed.  Shardsofmetal  22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a gadget enabled to force searchfield focus on the mainpage perhaps ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I cant seem to replicate that problem. Is it possible youre blocking Javascript somewhere? I believe that it takes Javascript to get dynamic text effects like that. I also dont have the search box automatically selected when I load the page. —Soap— 00:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Take me back came back

So I clicked "Take me back", left my feedback and went back to the old ways. Yet the "take me back" link has decided to pop up again. Does this mean new features are being re-enabled behind my back, or have the "usability" team completely failed at coding something correctly yet again? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search, not "Go"

I miss the "Search" button, than brings up search results, even if there is a page with that exact title. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

By fiddling about, I have found that the magnifying glass icon to the right of the search box does that. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not for me, it doesn't. I think you have to click on the "containing..." link at the bottom of the suggestions list that is generated as you type.--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, perhaps I misunderstood - if you click the magnifying glass without typing anything in the box, that takes you to a search page which behaves as a search.--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are times when I know there is an article by a given name, but I want to search for the phrase instead of going to that exact article. I do this, for instance, if I've created a new article and am then looking for where I should create wikilinks to it. LadyofShalott 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When the bugs are all fixed . . .

could someone make an announcement? I have no idea what coding in the many preceding sections that represents "work arounds" means or how or where it is used. While there are obviously many experienced programmers on WP, there are also a lot of the rest of us who only know that things aren't working anymore and lack the skills to make individual fixes. (The worst, for me, is that no matter what size of type I project on the article pages, the font size in the editing screen is teeny tiny and I, for one, can't read it. IE7) I have wasted hours trying to get things to work, resizing pages, losing searches and desperately seeking some plain-language solutions, all to no avail. You shouldn't have dumped this on the unsuspecting minor hordes until it worked. Isn't that what beta versions are all about? What was the rush? This is making Microsoft look professional. I've gone back to the old version. Let me know when it's safe to check again. Thanks Bielle (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if people don't know how to fix a problem themselves, its important that they report things that are noticeably broken. It isn't safe to assume that the people who know how to fix things also know everything that's broken. As for beta versions, there was one, that's what the "try beta" thing was that was available since (I think) last August. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I did try the beta version. That's how I knew to reference it. I can't see any improvements. I gave up on that after a day, too. Many of the things that are being reported here as broken seems to be really basic parts of the site. Didn't anyone click onto the edit screen in IE? How could someone not notice that the font scaling on page presentations is either about 8 pt or 18 point? (It's not as if IE7 or 8 were little used systems.) There is no middle range that also wraps the text. I always thought that the "Discussion" tab was confusing to newbies when all the commentary refers to "talk pages", but that's a walk compared with a star. Imagine being on a public computer and suddenly discovering that the "log out" button can't be found. Who would think to resize the page to find it? I know we are all volunteers, and I do not doubt everyone involved gave it their best shot in the time available but what appears obvious was that not enough time was taken. I ask again: what is the rush? Get it right, then roll it out. Bielle (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that it should have been kept in beta until more kinks were worked out. LadyofShalott 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Spacing in edit window

Was the spacing of text in the edit window changed from single-spaced text to (approximately) 1.25-spaced text as part of the new interface or is this a bug? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That was intentional in the beta versions of the skin, so I assume it's intentional now. (I actually rather like it, apart from the occasionally-malfunctioning text selection?—which leaves superfluous highlights in the inter-line spaces—in Chrome. I don't exactly know how to replicate this, though.) TheFeds 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to undo this one? I ran back to monobook after a while, but I can't get the edit window to be compact again.—Kww(talk) 06:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you still using the new edit toolbar? I believe that is what sets the 1.5 line spacing (yes, it took a while to get used to it). If you want to keep the new toolbar but get back the original line spacing, add #wpTextbox1 { line-height: normal !important; } to Special:MyPage/skin.css. PleaseStand ^(talk) 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me. I'm mystified as to why people want to have less text on the screen. Now if someone could give me the handy cheetsheet for reducing the font a point or two, I'd be thrilled.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I likt it as well. Makes it a lot more legible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Vector issues board

Right now, all of the issues that users are having with the change are scattered around this page (often with rather non-descriptive section names) and other pages, or worse, just not reported because people assume its already been reported or they don't know where to go. It might be useful to create a centralized place for problem reports so that we can at least keep track of what's definitely been fixed, what might be fixed, and what's still broken. It might also be a good idea to link it from the watchlist notice so people know to make reports. If people think this is a good idea, I'll set it up. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Tisane (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. It would certainly help ease the mess and makes things a bit smoother. Linking to this new page from commonly-visited pages related to Vector would also be needed to direct users there, such as adding a link to Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do it. I like the name of "Vector feedback" though, as it allows for suggestions for the new skin as well as problem reports; if that behavior is not desirable, then we should also include a link on this new page to where it would be desirable. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that opinionated feedback/suggestions should be separated from reports on issues with the layout; it would be a mess to have people arguing over the new look while other users are trying to bring attention to an actual problem. That's my view, at least. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the view I thought of as well; it's a problem that happens frequently enough on this particular board, imo. --Izno (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The "official" feedback page is usability:Talk:What's_new,_questions_and_answers --Cybercobra (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite tempted to create a new page on the usability wiki, e.g. usability:Issues from the English Wikipedia rollout. We ought to have discussion on the talk page, and then identify and summarize the details of each issue on the topic page. That would be helpful. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 05:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Right click on tabs in New features messed up

With the new features (and using IE8) we can't right click the tabs on top of the page anymore to open the page in a new browser tab or page. The two most essential right click menu items are missing. Can/will this be taken care of? DVdm (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Big annoyance when you are in the middle of a discussion page edit and want to open the article page in a new IE tab (or vice versa). Similar problem with "View history" tab - when in the middle of editing an article I quite often want to use right click menu to open the history page in a new IE tab, and now with Vector that isn't possible. I tried Vector for a couple of days but I have gone back to Monobook, and this is the main reason why. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same (and only) reason here, but I gave it a mere couple of seconds. DVdm (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle-clicking them should open the page in a new tab. Although I must say this is not an acceptable long-term solution. --.:Alex:. 11:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Laptop on lap with no mouse so no middle button (and although I expect there is some Vulcan salute key combo that is equivalent to middle-click, I don't really want to know - reverting to Monobook is easier). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That'd be Ctrl-LeftClick. Live long and prosper. — Richardguk (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, likewise use Shift-LeftClick to open a new window. Handy for the laptop user, but requires both hands when working with a (two button/no wheel) mouse. DVdm (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo discussion

As Commons is the central staging area for the Wikipedia logo, and in order that other language Wikipedias are involved, I'm hoping people will bring continuing discussion to this talk page on Commons. I also want to let you guys know that everything is being heard, and there is some enlightenment among the staff that there are problems with the new logo that need to be addressed. Thanks for your participation. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, maybe you could list it up in "Centralized discussions"? thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How to turn off the "improvements"

If you find your ability to edit Wikipedia paralyzed by the "improvements", as I did, here's how you can turn them off. It says:

Notice something different? We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia. Learn more!

Click on "learn more". Then scroll all the way to the bottom. You'll find something to click on that will cause you to see pages the way they appeared before the alleged improvements. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also the "Take me back" link that's right beside the "New features" link at the very top of every single page (if you're logged in). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The impertinence is, that you have to register, to go back to the old layout. Several Browsers cannot disply Wikipedia anymore after that change, and the "improvers" like to force everybody to register for getting back the possibility to use or even display wikipedia! There has to be a possibility to change the layout without registering! 7:52, 20 May 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.164.65 (talk)

How do you log out???

Before the new skin existed, when I wanted to log out, I clicked on "log out". With the new skin, there is no evident way to log out. I can log out of my account on the machine I'm logged in to, or I can turn off the new skin (I accidentally found out how to do that).

Doubtless there's some secret drop-down menu somewhere for this purpose. Maybe I'll accidentally discover it at some point. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

....OK, I accidentally found it. If I alter my window geometry, it appears. And alter it again and it disappears. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hotel California springs to mind. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Or Hotel Wikipedia, as the case may be. Tisane (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I once stayed in a Hotel Califonia, they played that song constantly, was quite worried they were trying to tell us we couldn't leave--Jac16888^Talk 22:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused; for me, the "log out" link is in the exact same place as it was before. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have to log in to turn off "usability improvements"?

Is there a technical reason as to why users have to be logged in in in order to access the old usable interface? Or is forcing people to have an account in order to have a usable interface part of the "improvements" and the sardonic humor that has evidently permeated the corporate Wikimedia Foundation?Smallman12q (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't log in, your account can't be set to use a different skin. This is not old; the only thing that's changed is that the default skin isn't okay with some people now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, there should be something like the "View this page on regular Wikipedia" on the mobile version, considering how the new skin sucks in comparison to the old one. -- Karunyan, 20:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New search field cutting off my typing

In the new search field, when I type, it often stops me from typing the last few characters. Just now I typed "smell" in the search field, and the last "l" didn't come through. I think it's because of the auto-suggestion box that pops up beneath it. My "enter" key came through fine, and then it told me it couldn't find the smel article, and would I like to look for smell instead? This has occurred 3 times that I have noticed. I don't remember this occurring in the old skin (which I use by default because I dislike the new skin aesthetically). Windows XP updated to the latest with Windows Update; Firefox 3.6.3. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Search_clips_off_last_few_letters_in_Vector (i.e. look up) --Cybercobra (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with font resizing

I'm comfortable with the new skin except for one fact - the fonts are a bit to small for me. How do you re-size it (using a personalized CSS script)? -Ian Lopez @ 01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Query "answered", see my talk page. -Ian Lopez @ 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The new search box cuts off characters

Hi! There is an issue with the search box of the new user interface. Previously you could jump to an article by entering the name in the search box and pressing "enter". However, if you do this in the new search box and type quickly, characters will get cut off from the end of the article name.

For example, type "umbrella" fairly quickly into the new search box and immediately press enter. Instead of being taken to the article "Umbrella", you will be taken to "UMB", "Umbre" or similar. If it's of any importance I'm using Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows XP. 90.149.37.62 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

See upthread. In particular, it has been logged as a bug.--SPhilbrickT 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the box must be extendable with a CSS hack, and I've asked also if someone might know how to do it. Someone at [email protected] might also be able to recommend a way to do this. kcylsnavS ^{screech} 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/vector.css kcylsnavS ^{screech} 15:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I rarely search, so I'm not using such a hack, but it's easy enough to try something like the following:

#simpleSearch input#searchInput {width: 15em;}

The default is 9em; 20em is probably the biggest you'll need in practice. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Watch" star

Can we come to a consensus that this doesn't make any sense and should be changed back? It's less usable for new users and has no advantage for experienced users. It conflicts stylistically with the FA star. And it's the only icon in a menu of text buttons. You don't mix and match text and icons in the same menu. In fact it's the only icon on any of our navigation tools. It's a nonsensical style choice and doesn't reflect the desire to give users (especially new users) a transparent, usable interface. —Noisalt (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope we can reach such a consensus. The star is ridiculous. And arguments about "friendliness" don't wash, because most readers will never see it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was done like this because certain languages (like German) have a very long translation for "watch this page" or just "watch". This ended up causing a ridiculous amount of space to be taken up. The star frees the space and makes the Germans happy, but not us I guess. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...So give the German-language projects the option to do that. We don't need it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the German Wikipedia is still using Monobook, so you can see for yourself that "Beobachten", the term used in the German interface, is not wasting any space at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[By the way, this reminds me of the change from "+" to "new section" on talk pages. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)]

Heh, I was the one who implemented that change… yet I personally overrode the default to use "+" again… anyway, I agree that the star is a poor choice. I think we ought to make sure the Usability team is aware of our concern, and in the meantime, it's not too hard for users to change it back with JavaScript. I've changed it back to text and moved it to the bottom of the drop-down menu, personally. Check the ⚡ in my signature for my scripts. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I heartily recommend Nihiltres's script to easily patch up problems with Vector. I'm using it myself, though it hasn't gotten me to stop bitching about all the things I have to patch up. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Section dividers bleeding into Infobox

Please could someone confirm this for me? If I view Pamela Anderson under the Vector skin then the first two section dividers bleed into the Infobox. Under the Monobook skin they don't. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that in IE 8 the lines below the headings continue to where the infobox is. Svick (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They do that on Monobook as well. Or at least they should. Vector Monobook. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not for me, using IE8. Under the vector skin, the section divider lines go right through the infobox. Under the monobook skin, they stop at the infobox. I have a screen grab I'd be happy to send you. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You can use http://imagebin.ca —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - please see [2]. The line underlining the 'Early life' section goes right through the photo in the infobox. Have I made myself clear now? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. There is also a line under the "tabs" at the top that shouldn't be there. If someone else can confirm to be seeing the same problem, I'll file a bugreport. In the meantime, please try logging out and see if you have the same problem (if you don't, it might be some CSS or something that a gadget or userscript is using, that is the problems). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, I can confirm this happens in IE 8 on Vista: screenshot of vector, screenshot of monobook. (I don't see the line below tabs in vector). Svick (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally forgot about this: Now filed under bugzilla:23663. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New look

Guys,

I know a lot of work has gone into the new look and there is an understandable reluctance to roll it back, but I don't think we have any choice. The interface is *unusable* at the moment. The search box keeps cropping my text, not to mention the fact that the focus for the cursor should be in the search box when a page is first loaded. Also, as mentioned above, there is a problem with right clicking the search box and pasting something into it.

Saying "it's easy enough to work around this, use Ctrl-V instead" is hardly satisfactory - millions of people use this site, and it is not intended for use only for technically literate people. I work in web development and if we delivered a solution like this one to the customer we would lose the contract.

I suggest a complete rollback to Mono skin for non-logged-in users until the problems are resolved, otherwise the reputation of Wikipedia will suffer. Or am I missing something? Thanks — SteveRwanda (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PS - another favourite bug - the search box occasionally interjects "Null" in place of what has been typed. I'm not sure exactly what the circumstances are which lead to this, but the stats make interesting reading: [3] - the Null article, which typically receives 1k-2k visits per day received 28k yesterday alone! SteveRwanda (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject my two cents: how are the problems supposed to be found and fixed if nobody uses the skin? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's almost 9AM in California, people who will look into this are only just getting to the office I presume. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the search box focus: see the FAQ at the top of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Find and replace

The new find and replace editing function is a great addition but I can't get it to work in IE8. In Firefox, it appears on the right-hand side of the editing toolbar, when the 'advanced' button is clicked. In IE, however, it doesn't appear there. Any ideas? Everything else about the toolbar seems to work. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any such function in IE. Another problem with the advanced toolbar is that the "heading" drop-down list drops down behind the edit window, i.e. it's invisible (it didn't the first time I tried it, but now it's doing it consistently).--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does IE8 have the "link insertion" wizard as Firefox does ? Cause IE had trouble with dialogs, so i believe it was still disabled for IE. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "link" icon in the edit box works for me (it brings up a rather strange kind of dialog, but it does work).--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Disabled in IE due to a bug bugzilla:22878. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Black lines

Im getting black lines all over the top of the page [4], what gives? (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100308 Iceweasel/3.5.8 (like Firefox/3.5.8)) 129.67.86.23 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New skin

Section renamed from "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhh!" — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

Everything's changed! Unofficial kvetching thread. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it sucks. To get a non-crappy version back you'll have to register. Q ^{T C} 06:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh god it was awful. I really, really appreciate the intention behind it - to make Wikipedia more intuitive, newcomer friendly, and in line with other web applications like blogs and Facebook - but the implementation was just horrid. Functions represented by icons inexplicably different from the standards in other applications? "Watch this page" turned into a star, for no apparent reason, on a toolbar otherwise made up of words? "Move page" the only item on a dropdown list with no indication that that's where you'll find it? "Edit this page" shuffled off the top right and made significantly smaller and less obvious? I was open to relearning things in the name of making Wikipedia more accessible but not so much to a seemingly arbitrary reshuffle of key functions with no clear rationale for the changes. Someone let me know when it's fixed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind putting the search bar at the top so much...but dear god, the entire interface is ugly now. I liked how it looked before. After I post this, i'm heading to my preferences to switch it back. Silverseren^C 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of search, has anyone worked out how to search for text under the new interface? (Rather than "jump to page with this title")? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Click the very last line in the drop down that says "Containing" Q ^{T C} 07:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a drop down??? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There were drop downs all over the place, it was like playing Chutes and Ladders, man. Silverseren^C 07:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jebus, you have to type into the search box and THEN the drop down appears? So the motion is mouse move/click/keyboard/mouse move/click? With the space you're moving over filled with up to 10 mostly unhelpful autosuggestions? With the result that the screen position for "containing text" and the mouse move needed to reach it varies from search to search? Why would you DESIGN that? Also the rollover text on the magnifying glass is incorrect; it suggest the default option is text search rather than title search. This is basic UI design stuff, people. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading back over the research supporting this it's pretty clear that they're trying to make the search function and the autosuggestions work like Google (as that's how most casual visitors get to the project) but I think it misses some pretty basic things about what makes the Google search function work (central location rather than shuffled off to the side, frikkin' huge text size, bolding in autosuggestions to highlight difference, and search functionality buttons being AROUND the search box instead of in it). - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to buck the trend, I think the new interface is pretty cool actually. You'll get used to it. (Though there still doesn't seem to be a direct link to the article history from the discussion page, etc. And I would move the "current-page-related" links like What Links Here from the toolbox to the drop-down list at the top with Move and Purge, now we have such a list.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the whole I am sure it will be fine. I can barely tell the blues apart with the new shading though: ordinary link, interwiki link. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd just been trying to puzzle out why somone had used a load of external links, and now I understand what was really going on. 86.177.125.182 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The links on the left don't show on Konqueror -- where do I report that? Niels E (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this new skin is hideous. The most annoying thing about it for me is the large gap of whitespace between the top two rows, which was never there in the old skin (see next topic below, where I ask for a solution; I would prefer for them to kill it entirely in the base skin, but for now I'll settle for someone helping me find a way to reduce it via my user CSS). This whitespace is not only ugly in and of itself but also shoves down the layout of the entire page, significantly reducing the amount of text seen onscreen on small resolutions. —Lowellian (reply) 08:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Why have the font sizes of {{reflist}} and block quotes been altered to 100% (as opposed to 90?)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the research driving these changes I'm guessing it's because small text gives off the impressions of "complicated", "academic" and "not for you". Large text suggests accessibility. Not defending it, just answering the question. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should continue to follow its own previous practice of setting references and blockquotes at a reduced size. Look at any scholarly paper or book. Block quotes, footnotes, endnotes, and references are almost invariably in a smaller font than the main prose of the text. Otherwise, especially in articles with a large number of citations, the citations overwhelm the space of the article. —Lowellian (reply) 08:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, forcing references to 100% is one of the things the got slam-bang right. Function over form, always - and decreasing font sizes never increases functionality. Now, if they had only used this principle elsewhere, the skin might be better in general. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, decreasing font sizes does increase functionality when it helps distinguish block quotes from main prose and prevent the references list from being as big as or bigger (space-wise) than the actual article prose. That's precisely why printed books and papers reduce the size of blockquotes and footnotes. —Lowellian (reply) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

100% is good. I have normal short-sightedness, and the smaller text is awkward even for me, for many it must be a major accessibility issue. Block quotes are set off from the normal text I believe. It doesn't matter if the references are bigger than the article. WP is not paper. There have been repeated calls to dump the 90% and they sort of get half hearted consensus then get forgotten. Rich Farmbrough, 10:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Jumping in here real quick. Reflist still uses 90%. That is an English Wikipedia setting that has not changed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, kids. Nice attempt. Put on a new users hat then just look at this page. The one thing they want is a searchbox- so that needs to be as near to the top left hand corner as possible and visible. When designing a page like this you have to factor in the clutter that is added to every page. Using a GA star to mean Watch is perverse, and do IP users get to play with the drop arrow (that has now just disappeared) to do renames. If they do find the About button- they are directed to Help:About- a page with a disgustingly obtuse lede..work needs to be done there! Ok- now the editor- two clicks where one once did. Then there is the text size change- a teenagers approach to eyesight! --ClemRutter (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just switched back to the old skin after putting up with the new one for about an hour today. Old skin looks much better. Whitespace at top of page gone. Search returned to left side. From a visual and usability point of view the new skin has no advantages for me. Is there any agreement to force the new skin on passing visitors? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. The new skin is presented to anyone not logged in. –xeno^talk 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So I understand, but why? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard, the reason was "because we paid $$$ for it". ;-) Regards SoWhy 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at my response and your message again, I'm not exactly sure what I was trying to say. –xeno^talk 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reducing whitespace above row at top

At the top of the page there is a row of links for various functions ("[username]", "My talk", "My preferences", "My watchlist", "My contributions", "Log out"). Below that is a row of tabs for various functions ("Project page", "Discussion", "Read", "Edit", "New section", [star], [down arrow], [search box]). Under the new Vector skin, there is a large gap of hideous whitespace between those two rows, significantly more than the whitespace between the rows under the old Monobook skin. This whitespace is not only ugly in and of itself but also shoves down the layout of the entire page, significantly reducing the amount of text seen onscreen on small resolutions. How do I edit vector.css to reduce that whitespace gap? (I would prefer for that whitespace to be killed entirely in the base skin, but for now I'll settle for someone helping me find a way to reduce it via my user CSS.) —Lowellian (reply) 08:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think

#page-base { height: 3.6em; }

does it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that shifts the page up into the tabs. The massive waste of space is between the tabs and the Username line. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, confirmed that #page-base CSS line does not work; it reduces the space after the second row, not the space between the first and second rows, resulting in the page title getting shoved into the tabs. —Lowellian (reply) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dragons_flight/vector.css shows tweaks for my personal preferences, including moving the page up (the first four blocks do this). Dragons flight (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks, User:Dragons flight! I've figured this out now, and can offer some simpler code than what you have for those that just want the tabs moved up. It appears that Vector defaults to

#left-navigation { top: 40px; }
#right-navigation { margin-top: 40px; }
#page-base { height: 80px; }

wherein #left-navigation controls the left-aligned tabs, #right-navigation controls the right-aligned tabs, and #page-base (#head-base can be substituted here for #page-base for an identical effect) is the background area above the article content. So to reduce the extra whitespace, just reduce the three values above by the same amount. For example, reduce the above three values by 20 pixels:

#left-navigation { top: 20px; }
#right-navigation { margin-top: 20px; }
#page-base { height: 60px; }

and we end up with the requested effect. :) Again, #head-base can be optionally substituted for #page-base instead. —Lowellian (reply) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my twopence worth - I knew if I came here and typed "whitespace" into page search I'd find this thread. No self respecting page designer can hope to get away with such stuff on a public site! I can't believe you need any more help but if you do, I'm watching this thread. And here's a screen shot for anyone who can't see it: File:watchlist_whitspace_screenshot.png Trev M ~  13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New logo

The logo in the top left seems to have been replaced with this new one, which is smaller and less well defined than previously (at least in Classic skin). Is there any reason for this? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The logo has been replaced in the Vector skin too. I would also like to see the old logo back! This new logo is tiny and lacks the clear lines of the previous version. —Lowellian (reply) 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, if you prefer the old logo, add this to your personal CSS file:
#p-logo a {background-image:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/b/bc/20100513062230!Wiki.png) !important;}
-- Prince Kassad (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was the logo changed in the first place, though? We should just revert the logo to the previous one so that everyone doesn't have to make such a change. Looking at User:Dragons flight's side-by-side comparisons below, it's even more obvious how much smaller and blurrier the new logo is. —Lowellian (reply) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See [5]. The partial, short version is that the old logo contained errors (bad glyphs) that we've known about for years but had not bothered to fix. In addition, they wanted to replace the commercial font used with a open source alternative, and produce a new version of the logo that would print better at large sizes, high resolutions. (I don't know that those explanations really explain all the changes, but that's the gist of what they said.) Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's one other thing: The new logo is based on an actual 3D model of all the pieces, fitted together into a ball. This is in contrast to the old logo, which was basically a bitmap image, like a drawing. (I guess it was originally rendered, but that seems to have been lost along the way.) One could bring the new 3D model into an viewer and revolve the view around it, spin it, animate it, etc. This is why the new logo can be scaled and will render well at any size -- a computer model is an abstract description of how to make something, rather than a picture. This also means that touch-ups (especially PNGs) are unlikely to be viewed as acceptable. Modifications to the original 3D model are in order. Fortunately, I think that's quite doable, and in keeping with the spirit of the new logo effort. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Having worked with the SVG, I'm not sure there actually is a full 3D model. The way gradients were used (e.g. a single radial gradient for the whole surface texture), the way the edges between pieces were filled with continuous fills, and the use of solid tones in the lettering, suggests to me that someone may have created a full 3D wire frame but then flattened it and painted it in 2D. Actually, it would be pretty hard in general to have a 3D model with a light source and diffuse reflection and have that come up with a vectorized image. Generally the surface textures would need to render as bitmaps rather than gradients. Of course, if someone can produce a full model they could prove me wrong. My guess though is that this is a hybrid that started as a wire frame but then was colorized as a flat vector object to provide greater ease of scaling in the final product. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The new logo

A bolder variant of the new logo?

The old logo

I also found the new logo to be rather blah, so I've attempted to create a bolder version, shown above. Dragons flight (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yours looks much better. I like the original logo the best though, mainly because of the better font and the better 3D effect on the indentations between puzzle pieces. But if we must go with the new logo your version is definitely better. We should switch to it. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I welcome people improving it further (one of the advantages of SVG). What I've done is really only a crude first pass. I agree that the tile edge effects on the original are definitely the best of the bunch. Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that your version looks better than the current one (which somehow reminds me of Uncyclopedia's potato). I do wonder if something with the high contrast of your version, but size closer to the current one, might not work even better, though. (Also, your version has a glitch in the tile borders to the right of the "И" tile. I added an image note to the commons image page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say that the middle logo in the example above is WAY better. I recommend that you propose them to change it to that in light of the concerns about the blurriness of the new one. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the glitch. (I'm not actually sure how that happened, or why I didn't notice.) Dragons flight (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The personal CSS fix does not work for me. It seems that Wikipedia overrides my setting and shows the new logo anyway. Clearing cache en refreshing did not work either.—Totie (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that I really don't like the new logo, especially because it's significantly smaller than the old logo. To me, shrinking the logo communicates that Wikipedia itself is shrinking. I would strongly support any redesign that got the logo back up to its original size. –Grondemar 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at Wikipedia today, I almost took my contacts out - the logo can't be that blurry! Maybe if the new logo were the size of the old one, and the characters were darker, the fuzziness would go away. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I really agree on the new logo - why is it so small and blurry, with no illusion of depth? I understand the purpose of some of the fixes, but it really is horrible. Warofdreams talk 12:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

new logo

letter alignment

plus bolder lines

I think that the new logo looks sort of irregular. I can't quite put my finger on the problem, but I think that bringing the "W" and "Ω" back into alignment helps. My gut feeling about the "bolder" version above is positive, too. Paul (Stansifer) 12:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (edited to add a boldenated version, too)

I also have to agree that the new logo is subpar. I'm not sure why it was changed at all, to be honest. However I came looking for some code to fix it and that's what I got (thanks!) :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I too found the logo to be a bit disappointing, particularly that it lacked contrast/definition. The improvement above is a good step, but more can probably be done. I understand that it's now a render from a complete 3d model. Anyone know where the 3d models are of the new logo? The definitions of the puzzle edges can probably be improved with a bump map. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

oh, it actually has individual pieces [6], I guess we can forget bump mapping it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• The new logo is bleh. Thanks, Prince Kassad. –xeno^talk 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• The old was a POV-ray model I believe, just that they've lost the sources. It misleading to call the old one 2d though. — Dispenser 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, it was only kind of a 3d model, I thought. E.g. I thought the characters had been painted on after the render, etc. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Fixing the errors in the logo is important, and these changes should be kept, but there was no reason to make it so tiny and unremarkable.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the change in size and definition were due to corporate thinking. If you take a look at our article on logos, simplicity is apparently a virtue, ie. less complex edges and color ranges. I think ours was simple enough as it was though -- and highly successful. Everyone loved our logo. It weren't broke, so it shouldna' been fixed. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the new logo is terrible, have mentioned it in the feedback form. Wish that the old logo would be brought back. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have unanimous consensus... File:Wiki.png can simply be reverted to an earlier version if needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Change it back to how it was! Out of interest, how was User:Catrope able to change it all? They don't seem to be an admin, and only have just over 100 edits... ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently he's a bigshot. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Juliancolton, you may not change it back. [7]. Prodego ^talk 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The refreshing of the logo is welcome and i thank the volunteers for the improvements, but the version that is currently displayed is not optimal. Of the versions presented in this discussion File:Wikipedia-logo-bolder2.svg looks the best to me.

Regards. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on things: User:DragonHawk/2010 logo. Briefly: I think there are objective reasons why some people are reacting negatively to the new logo. (1) ball is slightly smaller compared to the text, (2) puzzle edges less distinct, (3) lower contrast between symbols and background. These may or may not be "problems" if one is not comparing to the old logo. If they are considered to be worth "correcting", I think that can be done on the 3D model, not just by touching up the image (PNG/SVG). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with DragonHawk and all others above. To the list I would add: (4) The off-center characters (within each puzzle piece) makes it appear unbalanced (especially at the angle we use).
  Please fix these common complaints, people in charge of this who didn't ask for preliminary feedback anywhere prominent. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Come up with a consensus on which improved version is wanted, drop it into PNG format and any admin can change it (well unless certian other changes go ahead then any commons admin can change it). In short we need a fairly definative "fixed" version rather than appeals to foundation bods.©Geni 18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We need the foundation bods on board, in order to get the logo for all the Wikipedias fixed. See commons:Wikipedia/2.0 for the expanding sphere of problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia logos are somewhat "special". The WMF excludes the logo from the usual GFDL/CC license grants. I think it's even a registered trademark. So "anyone can edit" may not apply -- unilaterally changing the image that's displayed for en.wikipedia.org may not sit well with the WMF. I suspect the WMF would be quite open to comments/changes/etc., but they may want to do it in an orderly, all-sites-at-once fashion. Or they may not care. Point being, be wary of assumptions. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree 1000% with DragonHawks' reasons for why the new logo sucks. Perhaps this should be taken to a non-technical pump as a petition to the Foundation to do an overhaul? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I never said the new logo "sucks", nor is that my intention or feeling. As far as petitions go, WP:DEMO, WP:CON, and WP:PETHARM. Discuss, don't vote. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important that The Powers That Be on this logo issue are aware of how disappointed folks are about the new logo. You can register your support for the old Wikipedia logo on Facebook. nohat (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New logo is awful

This new logo is awful. It's smaller, poorly defined, and lacks the old italicized typface. The new logo is a punified version of the old logo. I also don't recall any consensus as to changing to this logo.

There is a glitch in which switching back to the old view will still leave you with the new distasteful logo.

To add the old logo back, add this line to your Monobook skin

#p-logo a {background-image: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Wiki.PNG) !important;}

Anybody else think this new logo is just bad?Smallman12q (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on the new logo. The previous logo, which I created, was certainly not without its flaws, but the new logo suffers greatly on an aesthetic level: it is too small, the anti-aliasing is very low quality, and most importantly, the sense of texture created by the edges of the pieces is completely lost. Finally, I am rather disappointed I was not included in the process to revamp the logo. No attempt was made to reach out to me to let me know this process was even being undertaken. Very poor job on all accounts. nohat (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a blog entry expanding on my objections to the new logo. Please read it if you care to know more of my thoughts. nohat (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder if you were a part of the process - the Commons files just credit "Author:Wikimedia Foundation", without any clue that this is a derivative work. Having said that, while I have my problems with the new logo, I am quite glad that the Devanagari text (and the other quibbles) got fixed in this version. Hopefully someday we can get a logo with the better parts of both versions. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smallman12q above. Consensus should have been sought before any logo change. This change should be reverted until consensus can be found over a new logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footyfanatic3000 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Er... why should the Wikimedia Foundation ask us about their logo? I'm sorry, but I really do think that we (as a community) think too highly of ourselves at times; in matters specifically dealing with the encyclopedia and its content, yes, the community should have final say. The logo, however, is a matter of corporate branding, and I can honestly say that no good has ever come from design-by-committee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community.

-Jimbo

Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the community consensus.

-Jimbo

Given that you're a bureaucrat, I'm rather surprised by your remarks. As can be seen at meta:Logo history, the original Wikipedia logo design was the result of a contest/collaboration and was subject to debate and subsequently consensus. The new logo was pushed top-down from the Wikimedia Foundation onto Wikipedia. Also, your statement is ambiguous in that that this is their logo...this is the logo owned by the Wikimedia Foundation for Wikipedia. The new logo is not the new logo for the WMF which evidently has not yet "enhanced" their logo.

I've also pointed out several quotes out of Jimbo Wales "Statement of principles" for what they're worth. Smallman12q (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What does me being a bureaucrat have to do with anything? I'm just remarking that corporate branding is an area that I think the Foundation overriding community consensus on. Perhaps I'm mistakenly assuming that the new logo is the new "official" logo for the project, but it doesn't change the fact that the logos are Foundation-level matters that I think the WMF is well within its bounds to ignore peoples' comments over. (similar to the reaction that some people had at a recent MediaWiki software change that flipped the 'hist' and 'diff' links; I recall seeing people being in a "we weren't asked for our opinion!" mini-uproar, despite the fact that local consensus doesn't matter in regards to the software in the slightest).
Feel free to make snarky HTML contents all you want if that will make you feel better, but it's totally unwarranted, and not especially appreciated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The rendering

The 3D work is admirable, and I'm glad we finally fixed the language problems. But the rendering is awful. I don't know who approved this, but I'm going to guess he's never met a graphic designer in his entire life. It's 1990s-style work. The contrast is absolutely too low for a logo. Logos should have clear high-contrast objects and subtle gradients. This is the opposite: it has low contrast between objects but a very extreme gradient. Any gradients should be subtle, not consume the entire object. The globe should be much lighter, it's too dark and so you have dark gray letters on a dark gray ball. And the texture of the letters and cracks is completely gone. Dragon flight's "bolder" version above is a tremendous improvement, but we can still do better.

Here's the other problem with this logo: It looks blatantly like an SVG image. Vector format is great for normal logos (one- or two-color vector images), but our project's logo isn't a normal logo, it's a photographic-style image. SVG doesn't work for it, and shoehorning a photographic-style image into a vector format will never look right. Why does the logo even need to be a server-side SVG if you can't click on it? Use the 3D software to render an actual PNG that looks right, with actual cracks between the pieces and actual gloss on the letters. The site's logo should look good: it should look like this sign.

I understand there's always a need for a vector version for professional publishing, etc. That's totally fine, but keep it internal. Don't use it as the site's header if there's no vector functionality in the header itself.

Here's a question: Who made the logo decision and how do we make absolutely sure they get in touch with this discussion? Step 1 is to replace it with a brighter, higher-contrast image. Step 2 is to render it properly. —Noisalt (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Striking my comments, as a very good discussion is going on at Commons:Talk:Wikipedia/2.0 and I like the new proposal. —Noisalt (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; keep the vector version internal and put a PNG on the main page. Experienced Wikipedians will change it back to the old version and forget the new one, but what about all the casual and anonymous users? They deserve a more attractive logo.--Albany NY (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Boldify it, 3D the lines better, line up the letters, fix any bad letters, add an Elvish character (inside is OK), I don't care about the size, and make the puzzle pieces different colors . . . and I'll be happy. Not that I'm unhappy now. kcylsnavS (kalt) 12:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problems are these:

• The highlight is too small, meaning it looks less realistic. It should be rendered with wider, less strong lighting.
• The joins between pieces look flat. On the old logo, there was a slight indent between two pieces.

N4m3 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The new logo looks terrible on the iPhone. Why don't we just put the old logo back? It was far superior in almost every way. –xeno^talk 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to have the vector skin editor include the "cite" button?

I miss the "cite" button in the editor toolbar, which in the monobook skin used to pop up a {{citation}}-template-family-editor for quick adding of reference information. Can this feature be made available in the vector skin?

We need to encourage editors to add references, and we need gadgets which make it easy doing so. The new "reference wizard" does nothing to enhance adding of proper references, neither for regular content contributors (bad) nor for "drive-by"-contributors (very bad!) and should be modified to include the buttons you got when you clicked "cite" in the monobook skin toolbar.

Related questions to think about, though less important to me:

• Is a book icon appropriate to symbolize the "add references" option? Will one-time or irregular contributors who use a website, a (news)paper or television as a source identify it as such?
• Should an icon be used at all to symbolize the "add references" option or shouldn't it rather be spelled out as to make it appear more prominent? Many one-time or irregular contributors add unsourced content, I guess because they are unaware of WP:V.
• Shouldn't the reference wizard include a "help" button linking to WP:CITE or some similar page? Once you opened the reference editor, you can't access the page you are editing, including the "Help" menu in the editor toolbar. (Which wouldn't be of any use for someone who doesn't know what reference information he is supposed to include anyway).

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You should take this to Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the tick against refTools in My preferences -> Gadgets doesn't work in the vector skin. But adding "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');" to your vector.js file brings it back. See Wikipedia:RefToolbar. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That brings back the old toolbar, but doesn't include the cite button with the new one. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it worked for me. My vector editor toolbar now has (from left to right): bold icon, italic icon, link icon, embedded file icon, reference icon, "Advanced", "Special characters", "Help" and "Cite". The "Cite" is a dropdown which lets you choose cite web/news/book as before. --Bruce1ee^talk 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I have created User:Skäpperöd/vector.js‎, copied "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');" to it, and nothing changed (still standard new toolbar without "cite"). I then checked out the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" box in "My preferences", and then I got back the old (enhanced) toolbar which includes the "cite" button. I contribute via FF. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also using Firefox. Did you refresh your vector.js page after changing it (using Ctrl-Shift-R)? --Bruce1ee^talk 12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I did press Ctrl+Shift+R very often. On the vector.js page too. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me, thanks Bruce1ee. Maybe the problem is that you have enclosed the line of code in quotation marks, have you tried it without? - Dumelow (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have tried without. I probably need to disable/enable something in my preferences? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have refTools ticked in My preferences -> Gadgets, try unticking it. --Bruce1ee^talk 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I did now, refreshed everything, still the old toolbar. In "My preferences/Gadgets", I have checked Navigation popups, Friendly, Twinkle, "After rolling back an edit...", and "Compatibility function to run scripts". In "My preferences/Editing", I have checked "Show preview before edit box", "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)", "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes", and "Enable dialogs for inserting ...". Nothing else is selected on these pages. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the cite button on the new toolbar despite trying all of the above. I've noticed that when I go to edit a page, Internet Explorer notes that one item is still remaining to be downloaded (it appears to be an image of a bracket) so perhaps this has something to do with it? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be that there is an issue with IE and refToolbar. IE requires a special mode of the script, and that wasn't really tested I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The new UI for the edit box seems to have been a mess:

• How were WP editors included in discussions?
• IMO the new UI is less easy to use than the old one. In the old UI, all the edit box facilities
• Changing UIs forces users to re-learn, i.e. it has a cost in time and effort. Jakob Nielsen has written about how he was critised for changing a UI that was working well.
• Disabling refTools was disastrous. I won't hard-coding citations, so I won't edit articles until refTools is back. And I mean via Preferences, not by messing with obscure bits of JavaScript - we're editors, and most are not programmers.

I'm thinking of setting up an RFC about getting refTools reinstated. Any comments? --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reftools works just fine for me, using it as a Gadget, Safari 4. Now please can everyone when reporting bugs, for once just name what browser and OS they are using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can do it from here. You are not using reftoolbar as a gadget, nor have you transferred your scripts in your monobook.js to your User:Philcha/vector.js. Just install the gadget and remove importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbar.js'); from you monobook.js and move importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js'); to your vector.js. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reftools certainly isn't working for me (using IE). I have been using the cite button in Vector skin with no problems until this morning. Now I can see the toolbar, but when I choose the "cite web" or "cite news" bottons, nothing happens. I've imported the script to my vector.js page and the reftools box is checked in my preferences. The signature button has also stopped working and I've had to revert to the old school method of typing four tildes. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've fixed the refToolbar gadget. I've confirmed my fix in IE8 and FF 3.6.3. The problem was that Gadgets and user scripts are loaded in different places in the <head>, gadgets are loaded before some of the UsabilityInitiative scripts that refToolbar depends on. It also appears that the dialogs have been re-enabled in IE (IE 8 at least), so anyone using the new toolbar with the dialogs enabled in preferences should be using the new script - User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0. Users using the new toolbar with dialogs disabled will be using a modified version of the old script and users using the old toolbar will be using an updated version of the old script - Wikipedia:refToolPlus. Mr.Z-man 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.6.3 on Win XP.

I tried disabling refTools in the Gadgets tab of my Prefs, then shown an article and CTRL+F5 to force refresh, then re-enabling refTools in the Gadgets and then forced refresh of article. I see no refTools. Even if there is a workround that requires only Gadgets, how many editors need to be informed. The UI development was not thoroughly regression tested. --Philcha (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything in the Javascript error console? (Tools->Error Console). Mr.Z-man 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I cleared the Javascript error console then opened this edit box (VP tech) and got 10+ If I knew how to paste the list in 1 lump here, I'd do that. As it is, I suggest one of the vector devs with FF replicated the list. --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried all of the above, but I still don't get a Cite button. Using Firefox 3.6.3 on Windows 7. There are plenty of messages in the error console, how do I tell what is relevant? Most are warnings; one error "mw.usability is undefined"; expanding this, the following is highlighted: mw.usability.addMessages( { "cite-section-label" : "Cite", RolandR (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this is VERY useful. Looking for a solution now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please bypass your browsercache and try again ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I've tried that, and it makes no difference. RolandR (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the top of this section about the new 'basic' reference icon in the enhanced toolbar, I agree that it's a bad idea because it makes it too easy to add references and other what-nots with absolutely no attention at all to proper citation formatting, being totally oblivious to WP:CITE. It's already a pain to cleanup refs in articles as it is, now the icon makes it an even bigger headache for anyone dedicated to WP:CLEANUP. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Amen. How can we get the technical staff to do something about that? Skäpperöd (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've lost the Cite button (it was there yesterday under vector - see above). This my setup: Firefox3.6.3 on Win7; new toolbar with dialogs enabled in preferences; refTools in gadgets disabled; importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js'); in my vector.js file; there are some css java console warnings, but nothing relating to refToolbar that I can see. I hope this helps. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it's working now – I cleared my browser cache! --Bruce1ee^talk 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I switched to version 2.0 and, while it didn't work at first, it now is. I presume the delay was something to do with my browser cache. Thanks for the help and advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, copying Brucelee's example above, I now have this working -- thanks, Bruce. But the buttton still seems to offer fewer options than before; have some of the templates been removed? RolandR (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now that the Toolbar itself has been modified, ad this has nothing to do with the new look. RolandR (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem, but followed the instructions above and now it's working. I have a new problem though: I had recently started using refToolPlus, which has some really cool new features. I guess there's no way to incorporate this into the enhanced editing toolbox? Lampman (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Preview warning now in black

The warning you get when previewing a change

"Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!"

now appears in black, which makes it look as if it was part of the text. It should be re-colored, either red as it used to be or with a colored background like the "new messages" bar, to elevate it from the actual preview text. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You can always change it. Put div.previewnote { color: #c00; } in your skin's css page, and you can play around with the colors to get one you like. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed this in all 8 months of use. Good catch, logged as bugzilla:23519. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New font size

...is too small. Seriously, this impacts usability in a big way. /wangi (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been using Vector for some time now and I do not believe the font size (even for content) is any smaller. In fact, the font size of the text on the tabs looks bigger than the size used for Monobook. PleaseStand ^(talk) 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the original poster is seeing (maybe you used to use some skin other than the previous default of Monobook?). I only started using Vector today. The font size is the same everywhere, except in blockquotes and references, wherein it got bigger (to my annoyance; I would prefer text in blockquotes and references to be smaller, as it used to be and as is currently being discussed above). —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok; compare:

• 
  Screenshot of Wikipedia main page using (old) monobook skin
• 
  Screenshot of Wikipedia main page using vector skin

I'm not aware of anything out of the ordinary in my browser setup (FF 3.6.4, Windows). Thanks/wangi (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Font sizes in watchlist etc. are also smaller. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The time in the watchlist is ridiculously small. Even with my reading glasses I find it a strain to read. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed to Monobook instead of Vector largely because of this font issue. Yes, it is smaller in Vector, and unpleasantly so. LadyofShalott 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Results seems to vary depending on the browser and OS, so please provide these details.

When one report a bug, one should always provide as many details about the issue as one can. If the developers can't reproduce the bug, they won't be able to know where the problem is and won't be able to fix it. For your sake as a user, please always state you browser and OS. So the devs will be able to fix you bugs, and you'll be happier. ;-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed today that the font size is smaller than it was last week, although I'm using the same browser and haven't manually changed any preferences. After some trial and error I've found that going to my preferences page and changing the skin from Vector to Monobook seems to restore the previous appearance. It would be nice if this were documented somewhere.Jowa fan (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dodoïste - as mentioned above the screen shots are from Firefox 3.6.4 running on Windows XP - let me know if there is any further detail required. Thanks/wangi (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with editing under New features

Hi. When I edit when the "New features" are on, the edit toolbar buttons do not function. When I turn "New features" off the old-style edit toolbar works fine when I press any of its buttons. I use Explorer 8 and Windows 7. Can anyone explain this? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem, with IE8 and Windows 7, none of the buttons on the edit bar work, like the 'sign' button, etc., so I guess I'll be going back to the old style until it's fixed. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Funandtrvl. Yes, the sign button, the bold button etc., no button works. Funny thing is the "New features" edit toolbar works with Windows XP and IE 8. So it must be a Windows 7 incompatibility. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't working here either, using Vista and IE8. And surely there must be more than three people with either of those combinations, who are therefore having the same difficulty? Are they all raising the issue somewhere else? N-HH talk/edits 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I would like to know if there is another forum for such problems to be raised and hopefully resolved. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have switched back to the old also. There does not seem to be any discussion. There is just a feedback form to fill out, but no responses to questions. I am very disappointed in the "new look". It is not worth losing functionality to have an interface that is harder to read. Xtzou (Talk) 17:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I had bad experiences with the "new look" on commons. Failure to clearly indicate the place community can discuss the "new look" is disappointing; I turned it off after few minutes. It may be good for new editors, but I don't see why any old hand would want to use it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tested this in IE8 on both Windows XP and Windows 7 Starter, both in normal mode and compatibility mode, and it worked every time. I have purged the JS cache to be sure, so I'd appreciate it if you could try again. --Catrope (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went back and set 'my preferences' back to default, purged IE8 and my Java settings, and then the edit bar buttons worked in IE8/W7. Then, I starting adding options back to 'my preferences', and everything worked until I added the gadget "refTools", and then the edit bar buttons did not work anymore. When I removed the "refTools" option and purged the page, then the buttons worked again. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The gadget "refTools" is one I use frequently so I consider it crucial. Xtzou (Talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the "refTools" gadget but after I purged the IE8 cache the edit toolbar works in the "New feature mode". Thank you very much for the suggestion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very much possible that a good cache purge is required. reftoolbar was only fixed late yesterday, so if you don't purge, I guess you might still get the old version. Also, only the gadget and MrZman's version are fixed, if you are using another version directly, it might be broken as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now it's working, however, I had to turn off "enhanced toolbar" in 'my preferences' to make REFTOOLS work, and unfortunately, refToolbar 2.0 for the enhanced toolbar doesn't work in IE (as of yet). --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I did find a page where you can comment about the new toolbar: [8] and the new Vector skin: [9] on 'Wikimedia Usability Initiative', for those interested. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) ...one more: User experience feedback. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you just want to leave feedback to them team, there is a specific [10] which is linked to from the 'learn more' and 'new features' pages and also more or less the same as what you get with 'take me back'. While it doesn't provide a method for discussion, it may be the best way if you just want to provide general feedback. (Well that must be what it's designed for right?) Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for finding that link!! Hopefully, they won't use the feedback forms for TP!!! Although, I'm still getting some weird stuff, when I click on the button at the bottom of the Wiki markup insert page, I get the warning window about navigating away from the page. Is anyone else getting this too?  :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I get that too. I think you can turn it off from edit options in preferences. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I can't find the option to turn that off (the warning box about navigating away from the page) in the preferences area. Do you know where it might be? --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My preferences -> Editing -> Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes (the last in the long list of "advanced options"). Hans Adler 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you know I've been resetting everything to get the reftools to work and I think some mischief-making thing went in there and goofed everything up. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector search issue (no, ANOTHER one)

Just to add to all the other random problems with the search function, it appears that real autocompletion is broken now. It used to be possible, if you wanted to search on (let's say) "the end", to simply type "th", wait for "The" to be autosuggested, press the down arrow to select it, press the right arrow, and get "The" as your typed input, with autosuggestions based on the whole word rather than the two characters of the word that you typed. For long, but common words, that's a real timesaver. Likewise, you could formerly select "The Egg" from the autocompletion menu, delete the last two characters, and amend it to "The End" if that's what you wanted to do. Quite useful if you get an autocompletion that's almost correct.

For some reason (the reason being bad design, a lack of testing, and arrogance aplenty to explain why the bad design was never tested) this no longer works; you can only search on suggested autocompletions, not amend them. That is serious damage to usability, which could have been avoided simply by avoiding it: the functionality was there, and someone removed it. That someone was being paid actual money to improve usability, needless to say. Most of the usability degradations (like the inexplicable star in place of the simple word "watch") are easy to fix on my own, but I don't have a spare search function lying around, so I would hope the one we have gets fixed. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed as bugzilla:23521, but without all the editorializing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah. The editorializing was the good bit. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)