Wikipedia:User experience feedback/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Search Bar

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Put the search bar back where it belongs. Whoever approved that change is deeply misguided and needs to be terminated IMMEDIATELY for gross stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.153.185 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with dictionary.app for MacBook Pro using OSX

Turning off the new features restores the scroll bar in the dictionary.app —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaling (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nav bar

It would be nice to find something useful to put in the nav bar. The way it is now, you scroll down one page and you have 10%+ used by pure emptyness, which hurts quite a lot on my 1024X768 laptop. Maybe have the menu follow as we scroll down. It would also be a good idea to always have a link that brings you back to the table of contents for easier navigation through the article. Going at the top of the page is not a sure hit, since a long summary often pushes the table of content on the second page. Other than that, the new design look clean, and I like the collapsed language menu (doesn't get in the way if you don't need it, easy to access if you do) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.10.132 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

how wrong is Wikipedia

I can't believe in nowadays and technogy how wrong a network like WIKIPEDIA can be..It states that Mt.Lindsay is in N.S.W and not just over the boarder but half way to Sydney...Come on guys you need a compass and a pair of glasses..Mt.Lindsay is in QUEENSLAND not on the edge of a Sydney suburb...Get it right for god sake..Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.128.3 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The colony of Queensland separated from NSW in 1859. Was the mountain built in the last 150 years? :-) --ClemRutter (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Slowness in article retrieval

It is now more than one week since the changeover.The response time for article retrieval is sometimes more than four times longer than it used to be, and never less than twice as long.Almost as bad,while in search mode the computer gives no indication as to the likely retrieval time and often gives no indication that an article search is in progress at all.Please go back to your old system as this great leap forward looks to me like a great leap backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.160.1 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

David Armstrong

On searching the disambiguation page for David Armstrong I see that the author of that name is missing. He is a highly respected novelist, though not very well known, and on visiting his web-site: www.twbooks.co.uk/authors/darmstrong I note that it has not been updated since 2003! But I do believe he has published more books recently ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.47.1 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

suggestion: put starter cursor into search box

On the whole the new format seems an improvement. I'm disappointed, though, that Wikipedia still doesn't do one thing that Google and most other fundamental Web resources do. Please open your starter page with the cursor already in the search box.

Bill Johnstone Victoria, B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.167.151 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I could not find where I could send you some information. This info is in reference to people born on September 2nd:

1914: Dr. Walter S. McAfee, a black astronomer/astrophysicist who was an integral member of Project Diana that computed whether a high frequency radio signal could penetrate the outher atmosphere of the earth. This was the solution to sending a radar signal to the moon and vice versa. Dr. McAfee performed this calculation on Jan 10, 1946, but he was not mentioned in the news reports about the experiment. He was later recognized by President Eisenhower for his computation and discovery. A federal building housing CECOM's Research, Development and Engineeering Directorate was named for him at Fort Monmouth in NJ.

1952: James (Jimmy) Conners - professional tennis player —Preceding unsigned comment added by WJMcAfee (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Screw the new layout!

Thats all there is to that really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.49 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the new layout!

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.49 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

still broken

Search field is still broken. New layout still sucks. Why haven't you set it back yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.159.118 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The new appearance of your pages.

Two days ago I encountered the 'new' microscopic Wikipedia pages for the first time. Initially, thought it was a fluke or just an isolated instance but I find its now in general use. My vision is limited in the first place and the microscopic text precludes me from USING Wikipedia in this current form. I know I can use the magnifier, but navigating this option for a document of any reasonabl size is exceedingly time consuming, not to mention frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.208.29 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much to me whether the search box is on the left or up at the top, but it would be REALLY helpful if my cursor went immediately to the search box as soon as Wikipedia opens (as it does for Google searches). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.239.163 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the new layout!

egs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.49 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia on the Playstation 3

Dear Wikipedia,

Since your recent changes to the site, I have encountered numerous problems when viewing articles on my PS3 browser. I am not very gifted with technical issues on computers and such, but I love using Wikipedia, especially on my PS3. It allows me and my family to browse the site as a whole on the TV when we can. The issue is that two large gray bars appear when opening an article and span all the way down to the bottom of the page, cutting off a significant portion of the article's text. This only occurs on my PS3 browser, my computer's browser handle's the changes just fine. The problem appears to be stemming from the new "Article" and "Read" tabs at the top of the page. I will check to see if it is perhaps my browser settings that are at fault but I can't be sure. If one of you guys could look into this issue if it hasn't already been brought up, I would sincerely appreciate it. Anything you could do to help me would be great.....oh wait, you've already helped me with free knowledge. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Your faithful and greatful user, TheDirtyBaron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDirtyBaron (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki need to show how many times a page had been viewed or seen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.64.81 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Rid the new layout !!

123!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.49 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note for moderators.

I was trying to edit a page based on my knowledge and as given in the IMDB. I was warned for the last time. This is ridiculous. Why am I being warned when I am trying to give my best to share my knowledge? I don't know much about Wikipedia membership and all. I tried to become a member but it didn't allow me to login from the proxy I was using. It would be nice if there is a space at the bottom for writing down reasons for changes and a captcha. In every case there is a way to restore or build trust. Same should be the case with the blocking systems too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.243.22 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that it is almost always inappropriate to add external links to personal Facebook profiles (links to Facebook Pages should be OK -- here's one reason why). Wikipedia has unfortunately become less welcoming to new editors in recent years; don't be discouraged. Try leaving a comment on the talk page of whoever warned you and explain why your edits were in good faith, if indeed they were. Also, leave edit summaries describing where you got your information from so that other users can add references if you don't know how yet. As a general rule, I think it's wrong for editors to delete accurate information and use a warning without first searching for a reference themselves. WP:DONTBITE! Best Regards. --Albany NY (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Go here to create an account.

the new format

I can't read a word of the new format. I am a senior citizen. I'm sure others have a tough time reading the fine print. Why oh why did you try to alienate readers this way??? I shall not use your (service) in the future and have very bad regard for your addle-brained editors. I would like to use stronger language to express how very upset I am but I want you to CNANGE IT BACK. [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.204.114 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied by email. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

dear sir / madame i find the new print very hard to read ... am not sure if any other persons have commented on this issue but if just wished to bring it to your attention ..

to be able to read the screen properly, i must now get very close to read the small print prefer the look of wikipedia before all the changes...

sincerely, david p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.82.121 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Language menu

I really don't mind if I have to open the language menu ONCE and then it will stay open. But when I have to do it everytime I restart my computer (or browser? I don't know), I get really annoyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.16.95 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dvorak Keyboard & Esperanto

Greatly enjoyed your article on the Dvorak keyboard. I've been a strong promoter ever since I first learned about it's existence a number of years ago and still have trouble understanding why it is not promoted and taught more widely for people just learning to type. I was not aware that this keyboard layout was already available on my Mac since I'm running OSX-10.4. I'm going have to go look for it now, thanks to your information.

I was also delighted to see that you also included Esperanto in your list of languages as I've been a strong supporter of this language ever since I first learned about it as a result of my amateur radio contacts with other hams around the world and the ease of learning Esperanto instead of dozens of different languages instead. As a result, I feel that due to it's simplicity and ease of learning, I feel that it should be taught as the first second language in schools and then whatever other language desired after that.

One last comment. After completing reading your Dvorak Keyboard info. I wanted to send you this comment but with your new format it took me so long to get to this screen I almost just gave up. Virtually every time I clicked on your "Contact Us" it just took me to some other screen and not here.

H.B. Corcorran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.219.47 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please fix whatever got changed that no longer allows access from a Blackberry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.250.103 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ireland Problem

Im sure that there are bigger problems going on at the moment but ive noticed for the past few months that the WIKIPEDIA logo and globe thingy (top left of all wikipedia pages..... duh) is severely off centre. Again, this means very little to me I just thought someone should know.

I doubt its just my computer becuase weve 1 old and 1 new (virus free) and they both show this problem. Also a couple of my friends see this problem too. Now it might be something to do with the fact that we are all in Ireland or that we all use eircom coz i know they occasionally fiddle with certain pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.231.148 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Newly Created Stack Jones Page

we are new to wikipedia and are trying to make a nice page about an artist stack jones.

this page has been attacked by a small group of people that are obviously connected to each other, and perhaps even the same person/persons using the different sign in names.

the artist is an american, and all of the attacks are all coming from great britain, that in itself should send up a red flag.

the vandalization of the page, began with gbfan and phantomsteve. they were asked to stop vandalizing the page, and from that first contact, instead they stepped up the assault.

the moment phantomsteve was asked to stop vandalizing the page, he set the page for deletion, and didn't even attempt to follow any of the wikipedia deletion guidelines, which included notification, and suggestions of improvement or how or what to improve.

most notably -- information that has been deleted is not properly edited, it leave the article in shambles and statements left vague or ambiguous and citations deleted, and links that are there for corroboration -- removed as well.

its apparent we are new, and we are learning the rules, as we have emailed many times asking for guidance. and it is equally apparent these two (if they are not the same, as they seem to protect each others interest in an abnormal manner.) have colluded with others, and their friends to have the page deleted.

the stack jones page is an ongoing effort to meet wikipedia's criteria. we have added pertinent links, wikipedia links, and these people remove them, and apparently give no thought to the damage they are doing.

newbies should be welcomed, not beaten down and violently attacked, and collectively condemned. a cursory search of each one of these persons pages show they live lives as malcontents. they openly admit to damaging articles that don't agree with their political point of view. this is dangerous and really undermines wikipedia, which we have relied on in for research in many other unrelated matters.

these people should be admonished and reigned it.

wikipedia is for all, not for a few malcontents, that have an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackjones (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you neglected to notify either myself or GB fan (talk · contribs) of this conversation, however....

Stackjones (talk · contribs) left a message on my talk page asking me to leave the Stack Jones article alone - which was strange, as I had not edited it at any point prior to that message being left. I then looked at the article, and realised that none of the first 4 references looked right, and looked them up - to find that they did not verify the information provided. I then spent time looking at the other references (which likewise did not verify the information provided), as well as trying to locate suitable references, which I was unable to do. I then took the article to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stack Jones and notified the above editor here (and in fact, the notification his still on their talk page). The editor removed the AfD notice from the article, and an IP address (which later claimed to be representing the company) also did so, as well as blanking the AfD itself - I make no comment on any connection between these two. I have asked the above editor to find reliable sources which verify the information in the article, and/or leave a comment at the AfD - instead of which, they make claims about myself and GB fan 'vandalising' the article - even making a report at AIV! I would welcome anyone to look at the article and the AfD, plus this editor's edit history, and the edit history of the article. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know - but as far as I am aware, I have spent time looking for reliable sources for the article, I have notified interested parties about the AfD, and been polite to the above editor (and the IP address). As my history (and that of the article, GB fan and Stackjones) are all available publicly, I leave it for you to judge if my treatment (or that by GB fan) of this article and user are unfair. I will also notify GB fan about this conversation. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this article on NPP when it was initially moved from the userspace to the mainspace. My edits all along have been to improve the article because without ever checking believed that the sources included in the article verified the information in the article. I cleaned up the article and fixed some MOS problems and tagged the article. I became involved again in the last few days when User:Stackjones and an IP were removing the {{autobiography}} tag from the article. I reread the article and found some passages that I did not believe were directly or indirectly related to Stack Jones. I removed these, I also quoted that some of the infomration was unsourced and negative and stated that it did not belong per WP:BLP. Then User:Stackjones and the IP stepped up their attacks calling me a vandal. I have never attcked them and have only been trying to make the article more encyclopedic. I welcome anyone to review my actions concerning this action and welcome all feedback. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Stackjones (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) has been blocked for harassment. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New Wikipedia has become slower

Hi Team, this is to discuss with you that I am experiencing some issues with the new Wikipedia. It becomes very slow and stops responding eventually when I click on a hyperlink or open Wikipedia. I use broadband Internet connection and Windows XP with IE6. This might be an issue with the IE6 compatibility. However, I really would prefer to get rid of the issue.

Thanks for your concern.

Apurba Bayen Kolkata India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapurba (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

best of best

You are the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.220 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

view statistics

Interesting... to see those who embrace change, those who are willing to experiment, and those who recoil from the proposed change and are unable to remain civil.

I can not access the view statistics that used to be provided on the history page for an article. I hope that is not going to be eliminated. ----83d40m (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The page statistics are present -- checked after another editor made an inquiry and it is visible today, it was not a day or so ago. Thanks to Ktr101. ----83d40m (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

edit conflicts

It may be that the difficulty encountered as an "edit conflict" when there were system updates to a page -- have been eliminated, if so that is a significant improvement. At least I noticed that a page updated regarding tags while I was editing and had changed when I came back to the preview without a conflict that interfered with my edit, I was able to continue without any issue. ----83d40m (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackberry 4.5 Operating System Unable To Read

Never Mind - A solution was right above my entry!
~QwerpQwertus |_Talk_| |_Contribs_| 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Box

Can you please put it back where it was before?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.44.127 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Different languages?

I liked having the different languages down in the side. however, can you please have a link on the side or bottom to switch from english to simple english?

kthxbai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.66.136 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The "new" Wikipedia Page SUCKS!!!

The new Wikipedia page SUCKS!

Screw the pony show of fancy skins!

I am ONLY INTERESTED in the INFORMATION that is contain in the Wikipedia articles, not something stupid like MySplat, Fakebook or Twister!

The new page takes longer to load and does not function well on older computers. It also misdirects with the least of mouse error also.

I come to realize a while back that "newer" or "latest" is not always better.

Microslop proved this FACT when they did away with XP and when to Vista and Seven. Vista and Seven both suck all to hell. XP is still the reigning OS King!

In the SAME FASHION, the older version of Wikipedia worked very well, in my opinion!

So, let's upgrade Wikipedia and go back to what works: the last version!

PLEASE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.116.99 (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New Appearance

The new apperance is not working for me - only a few words fill my whole screen. I have to scroll down to read a single sentence! Is there a way I can reduce this font size? Another thing - there seems to be problem with alignment, with for example, 'Search' partially covered by 'Discussion' srk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.6.221.4 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

en.wiki-software disfunctional!

sorry, dear en.wikipedians!

the new software is almost completely disfunctional! at least over here in bad old germany! everything just lasts an eternity...................... waiting so long for every click to have a result makes the en.wiki in many cases unusable, and - at least - spoils the fun! so go back to the old software we have over here (also a matter of compatibility!), or solve the bugs! thanx!!!

hilmar another error: the signature-button above does simply not work... so my user name is HilmarHansWerner, 22.5.10, 14:57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HilmarHansWerner (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Which browser and operating system are you using?

The signature button is supposed to work. I just checked it with the new and the old toolbar in the Firefox browser.

The slowness problem is reported in Bugzilla, Wikipedia bug-reporting tool. See bug 23612 - en.wikipedia with Vector is reported to be slow. The developers will be able to solve it faster if you can add information to it about your operating system and browser, about the pages which seem slow to you and about the time it takes to load each page.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

of course I am using an old browser (IE 6) - but many people do... just EVERY page is far too slow - you can go and get a fresh cup of coffee from your kitchen and make a pit-stop on your toilet... (concrete enough??) that's probably because thousands of basically useless css-scripts are being down-loaded... many people complain about that, in the meantime also in germany... stop this sense-less hobby-horse of I don't know which powerful wiki-mafiosi... sorry! :-( --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stumble on Wiki

Wikipedia should have a stumble button. There is so much cool random information on here, it would be fun to stumble it. For instance, I would have never seen "Han shot first" or Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo etc. Please add this feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.40.53 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a "Random article" link under the globe logo that does exactly that. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

love the new look

I love the new look of Wiki, thanks for updating it. It looks much better, easier on the eyes, its just better overall. Thanks for updating. I LOVE the new look. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyxmoxie (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

YOUR NEW PRINT IS TOO SMALL!

Your new print size is so small that I can't use your website. I can read the small print in the New York Times with my eyeglasses, but I can barely make out the words on your new pages. I don't even have such bad eyesight, so I'm sure many others are having the same problem. It's ridiculous because the print on this page is still very easy to read. Change isn't always for the better. Please do something so I can continue to use your website - and please do it ASAP!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkstar42 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New layout

New layout is since, just please put the search box back on the left, 95% of people only use the search feature and top right is the farthest away from where your mouse happens to be.

That did not need to change and frankly it's not just you it's most website, they think they HAVE to change so they completely revamp everything losing cherished features fro 1000s of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.121.202 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New look and feel screwed up access for IE6 users. Goodbye Wikipedia!

The older I get the more upset I get with the people who are constantly "pushing". It's not enough for these people to apply their skills and creativity to make the world better. They aren't happy unless they can "push" others to accept their vision of how the world should work. Thus the spread of websites that block users of older hardware, OS's, and browsers.

I thought the Internet and the information on Wikipedia was supposed to be for everyone, not just those able to afford the latest hardware. Would it have been such a big imposition on your web designers to try to maintain at least limited usability for people with older systems and machines?

My machine runs Windows 2K and IE 6. It has given very good browsing service, and despite it's age has shown no signs of slowing down. I always depended on Wikipedia for information, and I was even planning a donation. Not anymore. Your new website freezes my machine.

I'm sure your answer will be, "install a newer browser". Don't you think I'd be running a newer browser if I could? Next you'll say, "Buy a new machine.", or "Install a new OS." I don't know why I should have to dip into my very limited funds to buy a new machine, or a newer, bloated OS which will slow down my machine.

I hope your users with new hardware appreciate those new fancy bells and whistles, while they think about the many thousands of people are now locked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbosticks (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained

Hello,

Why are some words(links) in blue and others in red?

More generally, Why do unexplained matters like this beset so many websites? Has the idea of a *Key* been forgotten?

I trip over this sort of thing constantly. It makes surfing very slow.

Thanks for your attention,

Paul Lister

Redlinks are links without a current article. Most of the time they are suggestions for new articles. Bluelinks have articles. Here is a link to a manual on wikipedia, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Hope this helps. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A comment.

Hello there, I like the new features of Wikipedia, I find that it is a lot easier to edit or contribute to an entry. The only thing that is frustrating about it is that I'm unable to find a log out button. May be I can't see for looking. Regards Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjohnrowe (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, the "Log out" is at the top right hand corner of every page right next to "My contributions" ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New layout

I cant remember when was the first time i started using wikipedia..but i personally prefer the previous layout than the new one..maybe because im still not used to it..

I have a suggestion for improvement..I got this idea while doing my revision using wiki (which im really not supposed to do..lol)..if you are reading anything on wiki, youll find many words (the blue, underlined words) linking the page to other pages related to that words..I think it would be a good idea if we could see the definition@brief description on that word, without ever need to click on that word to see what exactly it is..

For example:..A vasovagal episode or vasovagal response or vasovagal attack[1] (also called neurocardiogenic syncope) is a malaise mediated by the vagus nerve..

The article is about vaso-vagal response..there are links for "malaise" and "vagus nerve" in this sentence..instead of clicking on the word to know what is "malaise" or "vagus nerve", it would be great if we could just roll our curser over the words and then a brief definition of the words will appear in a small box, without needing the person to navigate to another page..

Isnt that a good idea..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.9.138 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you create an account and are logged in, you can enable navigation popups to do that (in your preferences). Enjoy! --Albany NY (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is in Small fonts, Slow to Load on Mobile

Hi Wiki,

I surf Wiki on my phone very often.

Noted yoűr recent enhancement , but I find that Wiki is in Small fonts, and is Slow to Load on Mobile IE.

I have no issues going to other web pages such as google, where the font size and load speeds are faster.

Please look into this and restore the former font size and speed. Thanks.

From [email protected] •••••••••••••••••• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.129.58.48 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

website new layout

Dear Sir or Madame:

First of all I use wikipedia at least once or twice a day. I find the site very informative. But I DO NOT like the repositioning of the SEARCH BOX to the right side justified. Ir had been more convienant in it's left justifed positions. It is still a really good site inwhich I will enjoy using as source of information site. Please keep up the good work.

Sincerely

William Pollard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.3 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of font

The current font is uncomfortable for reading. The earlier one was better.

Vipin Prasad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.166.207 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Nobody can read this during more than a quarter of hour without get eye-strained. At least, give the option to change change the letter size. 88.14.252.76 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Pablo Bouvier

I agree. Plus, since I use a black windows theme (black windows and white fonts), since the wikipedia did not set a font colour for the text, it uses the windows default colour. The result: most of the text I see as a white font on a white background. I can read only if I select the text. (CyberTigerrr (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't mind the font itself as the size. Any way to increase it so this old man can read it easier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.143.70 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED to make the text SO SMALL that you CAN'T read it ???? ABOMINABLE !!!! Wikipedia was FINE until they started screwing around it! And the download speed to view a page is like the early 1990's dial-up of 56kps!! WHAT's WITH THAT ????

Problem accessing Wikipedia via BlackBerry since new look launched

When the improvements to Wikipedia were launched I was immediately unable to access Wikipedia from my BlackBerry. Prior to that I had no trouble. I have gotten messages that say something along the lines of "java language uncaught exception", and now am getting a message that says "a problem occurred while trying to render the page". I know how fussy BlackBerrys can be and have tried a lot of possible fixes and changes to the settings on my device, which haven't helped, so I want to rule out there being something in the script for Wikipedia pages that might have changed to cause this to happen. Is there? As it is, I am Wikipedia-less unless sitting at my computer--painful! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerushaViolet (talk contribs) 16:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Try using http://en.m.wikipedia.org instead. It is the mobile version of Wikipedia. TheDJ (talk contribs) 17:09, 21 M, that works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerushaViolet (talk contribs) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Temporary solution for Blackberry user having problem with rendering of the new vector pages: go to your Blackberry browser options and turn off "support style sheets". 194.154.227.13 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New appearance and going back

Please add the otpion of going back to the old webpage format without having to register.

I apppreciate that you are trying to simplify the website - I particularly appreciate that you are trying to reduce the load time. However, I too am having problem with font size. It was the zoom function. In my case, the text was way too big. I work from a laptop without a separate + or - key and having to use the the shift key to get to it, does not work with zoom on your website. I can scroll and get a workable font size but the scroll wheel has only limited size selections. The whole thing is a pain in the backside.

I would love to have the option of using the old webpage - at least until you get the bugs worked out. I will not register, for principle sack alone. Please give everyone a simple way to use the old webpage.

(Any chance your webpage designer worked for Microsoft? They seem to have the same attitude toward users, too bad.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.96.17 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that notion.

Or better, put the search box where it used to be.

PS - Who was responsible for that decision. I want the names so I won't hire him accidently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.22.128 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the problem is being worked on by the Usability team. Don't think it's being left alone—there are plenty of little things to fix, particularly cross-browser issues. Could you note which browser shows this problem, please?

Secondly, everyone has a simple way to change back: they can register an account and change it in their preferences.

Thirdly, an alternative to registering is not provided for a good reason: it makes Wikipedia more efficient. Wikipedia uses heavy server-side caching of pages, so most pageviews are served without re-rendering the page. For anonymous users, these pages are identical, and so can be served efficiently by caching. For registered users, the additional burden is offset by their (relatively) small number, some partial caching, and the fact that they tend to make more and useful edits. Providing anonymous users with the option of using another skin would greatly reduce the efficiency of caching—it would put much more load on the servers. It is in the interest of Wikipedia's readers for the servers to not be overloaded. Since downtime is more damaging than an awkward font size, you have to register to change back to Monobook. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Search box

Great job! I love the subtle re-design. May I suggest you add the 'onLoad focus' attribute to the search box. It makes for much faster use being able to paste straight into it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.44.43 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See this FAQ entry for an explanation. I recently added a link to the suggestions there, this one, that will give the search box focus using JavaScript on page load. If you usually access Wikipedia by bookmark, try bookmarking that link instead. Hope that helps… {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you have done to reformat your pages has made it impossible to read them on Blackberry browsers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.164.103 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, because it's much more efficient to have the page load and automatically place the cursor in the search box - which is why, after all, that we're coming to Wikipedia predominantly. Thus we immediately start typing in our search instead of mousing or tabbing over first.

My thoughts

I don't know if this has been expressed on the last 50 sections (sorry, I don't get paid to read through all that) but how you couldn't make a syntax highlighting editor for Wikipedia is beyond me. Additionally, the fact that anonymous users have to login to get rid of the new interface is just down right stupid. However, I do like the new interface, and think it is good work. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New changes crash's Blackberry's

"Uncaught exception: java.lang.ClassCastExecption" Since a change Blackberry's crash. Makes the site worthless. Not a blackberry problem. But I would guess that Iphones are ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.46.97 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Far too editorialized.

I have noted on several wikipedia pages that the editor (whoever that is) adds an inordinate amount of personalized persuasion to certain topics. For example, of a man is a scientist who is in support of intelligent design (ref; Dr. Steven Meyer) he is considered "controversial". Whereas an evolutionist such as Richard Dawkins is considered by wikipedia to be a legitimate scientist. Wikipedia clearly tries to discredit the intelligent design scientist while promoting the evolutionist. The absence of a balanced report on each of these men (Meyers-Dawkins) leads me to believe that wikipedia is promoting a political and social agenda of some kind instead of just reporting well rounded facts on each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.107.52 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does distinguish between fact and a point-of-view. It tries very hard to help newbies, understand the system and to have the courage to register and logon, so they can have their own talk page where discussions like the one you are trying to provoke can be conducted. See WP:POV for more information.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins IS a legitimate scientist. Does that clear things up?

Elegy for Wikipedia

Herewith: The Litany of Complaints whereby I lambasted Wiki for its foolishness of late!

Regarding the “Turn new features off” questionnaire-thingy:

“What did you like about the new features?”

This question (somewhat arrogantly, IMO) presumes there’s something to be admired about INESSENTIAL alterations – but since Wikipedia asks… I didn’t actually “like” ANYTHING (i.e. I liked precisely NOTHING!) about the “new features”; although that’s not to say I “disliked” the changes, necessarily – I’m indifferent to merely STYLISTIC overhauls, such as slight decrease in font size (the alteration is all but imperceptible, to my eye). However, I can see why the repositioning of the “Search” box is a bit of an issue for many (perhaps most) Wiki-users: its previous, left-situated position placed it alongside similar functions, associated links, the “Toolbox”, etc., whereas now it’s isolated, marooned in the upper-right corner... which cannot but necessitate a fair bit more mouse-movement – and thereby increased risk of RSI? (Dubious “LOL”.)

Thus, such merely STYLISTIC tinkerings are of no great concern to me.

HOWEVER, when it comes to alterations which affect the actual FUNCTIONALITY and ease-of-use of Wikipedia (and I must presume that FUNCTIONALITY HAS DEFINITELY BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED by changes “merely” stylistic, despite the stylistic changes ultimately being INESSENTIAL?) – why, then, the question simply MUST be asked: Is change inevitable, or good, or to be welcomed?

Short answer: NO! Change for change’s sake is but one of the myriad petty evils (yes, EVILS!) which afflict this ever-striving-to-be-ever-more-“Modern” world of ours...

“What did you dislike about the features?”

Like I intimated in the “Like” answer-box, I’ve encountered some issues with the general functionality and ease-of-use of Wikipedia, since “you” (i.e. Whoever Decides Wikipedia’s Future!) implemented change-of-skin and other such unnecessary “new features”.

My chief concern is that Wiki is now extremely slow to load: each and every one of the Wiki webpages (the Main Page(s); Searched-for Results pages; associated links; etc.) not only take a frustrating amount of time to load (ten, twenty, thirty – and counting! – seconds is the “norm” now; whereas BEFORE: before the changes were implemented? Pages would download pretty well instantaneously!), but also, the painfully slow-loading Wiki pages seem to make such unreasonable demands on my PC (judging by the increased whirring of internal cooling-fans, etc.) that I worry it’s going to blow-up sometime soon! But this “compromised performance” isn’t attributable to any deficiency of my PC’s hardware or specifications, if you ask me – generally, it performs very well! No, the “strain” it is increasingly being forced to endure is more attributable to the CPU-draining demands of the RAM-gobbling, badly-formatted, “innovation”-bloated webpages Wikipedia is now, foolhardily, seeking to foist upon its would-be users... and to be honest, much as I would LIKE to like Wiki, let me assure “you” that I shall not be shelling-out on another expensive PC (and numerous items of peripheral hardware) simply to surf Wiki every once in a while! (Like another frustrated Wiki-user rued, in their own Elegy for Wiki somewhere in your “New Features: Complaints Archives”: in the past I’d contemplated making a monetary donation to Wiki... but not any longer: “you” seem to be not unlike New Labour and the awful legacy Gordon “In-The-Kingdom-of-the-Blind, The-One-Eyed-Man-is-King” Brown has bequeathed us: basically, you abuse power, and make SUCH a hash of things, no sane person would want to “invest” in you any longer!)

By the way, my PC’s OS is XP; and I’m sticking to IE6 as long as possible (I did try IE7, but found Bill Gates’s similarly incessant “tinkering” – making changes where none were needed! – altogether disagreeable; his motivation is purely materialistic: compromising the USB-connectivity of multitudes of hardware appliances, thereby forcing people to unnecessarily “update” everything they possess simply to complicatedly comply with MS Vista’s demands?! Nooo, I think NOT! Not only morally reprehensible behaviour from Bill Gates, but also environmentally-damaging arrogant imperatives, to boot: just think of all those old, “outdated” printers and modems, etc. junked in already-overflowing rubbish-tips!)

Anyhoo, if I were you, Wiki, I’d seriously consider a volte-face, and BUCK THE TREND of Change for Change’s sake – after all, WHOSE needs, exactly, are you addressing? If you frustrate your would-be users, they necessarily won’t remain users for very much longer (even if they WANTED to remain users; yet I suspect many people, like me, will only Sign-up with Wiki to make their point; conduct a few final, wistful Searches; and eventually jump the sinking Wiki-ship as it flounders towards the jagged rocks of CERTAIN OBSOLESENCE!)

Anyhoo! Whether you pay heed to my advice, or determine to continue doing damaging things to your lasting (or should that be: short-lived?) detriment, is very much up to YOU, Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcpswf (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the new appearance...I used to be able to type in what I was looking for and find it - now I type in what I'm looking for and I'm directed to a site - but you have to log in to get the info. I don't have problem becoming a 'member', in fact I did...I'm now a member and when I typed in what I was looking for, I was directed to THE EXACT SAME SITE AS I WAS BEFORE BECOMING A MEMBER! Not impressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie mae500 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

pooop u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.233.177 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

"You are actually editing it and if you press Save, your changes will be publicly viewble – immediately"

What sort of English is that? It sounds like something written by and for a ten year old. And the spelling is "viewable" anyway. Richerman (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

i am honest this is boaring show...all flop anchor's...i bet out of 100 may 5-6 people like this show...don't mind but try to improve this show...nothing to learn...everyboby is laughing fake...that shilpa flop look's outdated....all cheap dancer's compare with boogie-woogie,indian idol....etc...at the end non family show...dresses are flop outdated only male judge is ok...other's are non famous judges ...PLZ TRY TO IMPROVE THIS FLOP SHOW.....THANK'S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.115.244 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems except this. When I click on coordinates I go to a selection page. This is nice and open and fair and stuff. But you can get the same fairness with a better UI. Why can't you just select your map API provider in the settings and then all coordinates open in that default mapping solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with this whole feedback system. You shouldn't make it public. All these people are idiots and you are letting them feed off themselves and their short sighted vocal minority existence. You have to force change upon them and let them adjust and then they won't even remember how it was. Every major software system that updates experiences this. The key is to not give these people a voice because everyone else loves it and they wont bother speaking up because they see the benefit and will give it a chance to adjust and the majority wanted the change for awhile and are pumped now. So just remember that. Rukaribe (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New design and functions proposals

1) I think, that Search box should stay on the left side. Ideally decrease the size of Wikipedia logo and place the search box under the logo. I usually read more articles and have several columns on the screen beside, to be able study the informations interconnectly. And in this new design it means, that I will need to resize windows horizontally to get to searchbox, because it is covered by some other menu :-( or it covers some other menu. From this situatation I prefere to be able to hide the left menu too.

2) The informations I am looking for on wikipedia are usually in languages different from my native or in each language are different details about the article. The most articles are in english only, so the link to the English version should be bold if not on the 1st place. Each user prefere different language and should be able to bold his favorite languages.

3) Some pages are heavy reading in foreign language, so in the Language bar should be button to autotranslating e.g. by translate.google.com , etc. to English or to my native language.

4} Images, animations, structurograms, graphs ... there should be something like Subtitles in movie, but linked like new vector layer directly to the proper 'place' on the object, to be simple for translators translate descriptions of these objects. And for wiki users to understand their meanings. There should be automaticaly generated numbered list of 'places' as wide table in different languages under the object to quickly learn it and be able to see similarities in different languages. And if I click on the one line, its number will be highlighted on the object.

Thank you for considering my proposals and I hope you will do more ergonomic wikipedia design. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.59.157 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Icon top left icon is misplaced - covers half of the word 'Article'

In Internet Explorer 8.0.6001 the Wikipedia Icon is shifted about an inch to the right, works fine in Opera 10.53 and MozFF 3.6.3 Regards Rory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.195.200 (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem viewing the logo and the page tab, which I think you are referring to as 'Article', in Internet Explorer 8. What is the resolution of your screen? Will you try shift + refresh and see if the problem goes away? --Shuhari (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

finding someone

tonight while waching an episode of mid sommer murders there where two mail actors one of whitch was actor robert swann i went on new wikipedia to see if thay were brothers first i tried to find cast but found no access point then i typed in robert swann and acording to wikipedia he does not exist under new features until now i have never had this problem so i see no point jn using wikipedia any more as the saying goes if it ant brock dont fix it something wikipedia should cosider most ergently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.229.204 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

random article.

wikipedia has allowed me not to have bought a encyclopedia set. thank you. any who.

random article could make a page layout with post before and after alphabetically . thought that would be cool.

thanks for you.

?kg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.88.198 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Usability Team: Please consider posting a "Read" notice after each section

Dear Usability Team, I was wondering if you would consider posting a Read by Usability Team notice at the bottom of each section after you read it. This might exert a strong placebo effect and go a long way towards calming angry posters. It would go even farther if you could try to personally respond to each good-faith concern raised (though I realize this would be pretty time consuming). Thanks and best regards, Albany NY (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikpedia Last Update.

I have just read the Wikpedia summary on Ray Charles that stated it was last updated on May 24/2010. Well as I write this it is still May23/2010. I happened to come across this info while doing some research on Hank Snow and it made reference to Ray Charles which I read. respectfully Dale Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.211.1 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Genre"

Please add "genre" option for each motion picture (film) on the right column so in addition to quick information about the film, a person can know what genre it belongs to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.82.173 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New Features page - error?

On the page headed "New Features" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch) it looks like there is an error in the sentence "We have also introduced a table wizard to make creating tables easier and find and a replace feature to simplify page editing." Probably it should read "We have also introduced a table wizard to make creating tables easier and a find and replace feature to simplify page editing." But I don't see any provision for editing the page. I hope this is a good place to report the apparent error. Steve Wise (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear usability people, please fix the typo! If you decide against using the wiki model for a page, it's really important to proofread and fix errors quickly. The above comment and many other compatibility and speed issues on this page suggest that the switchover was implemented without adequate testing, which deeply troubles me since ~12 percent of the world's Internet users rely on Wikipedia [1], and there was (as far as I know) no reason to switch ASAP. Let's not forget the international users, the disabled, those with atypical/older browsers, and those with slow connections. Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearances are irrelevant. nothing created using this group input format can be trusted to be true, accurate or factual, or relied upon to be relevant or useful. wiki is a reference for losers, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomeguy52 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

the search widget

needs to go back to the left - or at least duplicated where it was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.226.120 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the previous comment: most of the page links are on the left side and the search box on the right side of the page is not convenient at all. --Luigi-71 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply link in discussions

The discussion boards behind the article does not have a REPLY link. It is therefore not immediately clear how one can participate in the discussions. Presently I was looking to detail stylistic problems with the article on the computer science term: "Vistor Pattern." While its discussion page is extensive, as a casual user of Wiki, I don't see how I may contribute my reasoned insight into that flow. Perhaps the links that facilitate that should be more obvious (i.e. similar to the Edit link, perhaps).

--X21J (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

LiquidThreads extension will add the reply button, but at the moment there are several bugs to fix. You can try it here. --Virgolette (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Navigable table of contents

Hi!!!

Currently, if we put a [[link|text]] in the header of some section of a wiki page, the TOC shows "text" but the "navigable table of contents" shows [[link|text]]. I think it should show only "text". Helder (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Search box location

Search box location should be changed back to left hand side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.123.174 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you bash a photon into an atom, the best we can meaure coming out is a photon.

Our perceptions of reality are limited by our perceptions.

Therefore E=Mc^2. DUH

send detail about epidote stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.55.42 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobiles/PPCs/PDAs and the search box

Where is it? It was there a week or two back. Now there is loads of stuff I really don't want to know about which I faithfully scroll through only to find no box. There's even news stuff, for heavens sake. In case my bookmark was no longer the home page I tapped the home page link. NOPE, I was already there.

I went to Yahoo and did a search. My first hit was to an article in Wikipedia. So I accessed that. I wanted to look at something unrelated, but there was no search box there either.

So, how on earth am I supposed to use this site via my mobile or ppc? Somebody has been very silly. Please put it back, on every page, at the top where mega scrolling is not required.

Regards, Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.4.174 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New page

I use the sight on every day, and it keeps changing back and I can not find the ICD codes. I do not like this at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.188.236 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Button

May 24, 2010

Dear Sir or Madam:

I believe the edit button on Wikipedia is a problem. As I was searching the Wikipedia internet, something caught my eye. A swear! I clicked on the edit button to change it but I couldn’t. I think you should take the edit button away. Thanks! You have my full support!

Sincerely,

Noah B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.80.75 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is little point to Wikipedia without an edit button for people to improve it with! :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 00:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just Letting you know how I like It

I love the new wikipedia it is AWESOME !* (: <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.250.125 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

George Hernandez has a sister unexpectlly Victoria Hernandez And George need's to find out some informanion about her. He and his 2 friends Boy-friend Orlando Nielson and Keely found out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.44.160 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

collapsable things wont uncollapse

I am using "Konqueror 3.5.10 (Using KDE 3.5.10)" and have gone back to the old skin because none of the things that are apparently supposed to be collapsed menus will uncollapse, nor will what I am told are drop down menus drop down. My first is in ptarmigan (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Love the new interface

Hey Guys/Girls, Just wanted to say that I really really like the new interface. It makes using wikipedia so much faster. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.148.24 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You must have a wonder computer - usually the new style is much slower. I want to get rid of that useless "reformation" but I cant. It is said, that one has to click for the old style but I cant find such a button. So, I started to use Wiki in German, French or Spanish - good-bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.74.130 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A simple toggle that would benefit many

Hey guys,

I like the new "tab" approach you are taking, but I find the lack of a black background option surprising. While black text on a white background is preferable with reflected light (a book) it is not best for projected light (monitors/TV displays). Though many do not enjoy a black background for their websites (I would not suggest it as a default) it is in fact preferable for many users, and a simple toggle should require very few programming resources. I will continue to donate to this amazing website, and hope you take my humble criticism to heart.

Michael McConnell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.100.6 (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar... RETURN TO THE LEFT

Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE put the Search Bar back to the left side of the page!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.63.74 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has the text size all of a sudden become so small you can't read it? It was fine before. Now in order to make it legible, you have to change your text size preferences, but this applies to the whole Internet, and I then have to shift it back when I use other sites. It was fine before. ALSO -- why is there now this panel on the left-hand side? It didn't used to be there, and it takes up valuable space and distorts the layout. Best wishes, Christopher Phillips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the old version better, since there's still list of languages on the left frame which provide the same information for the requested phrase (of course in another language). I need that feature, because sometimes I know some terms only in my language, I want to know what term is used by other language. I am an English-speaking researcher in Germany, I know the technical terms mainly only in English, I need to know what are those technical terms in German language as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.73.1 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Font

The new font is a triumph of compactness. (That's the good news.)

The not-so-good news is that they, uh, took it a bit too far. While more information can be packed onto a page, it is difficult - even painful - to try to read it.

I enjoy and rely on Wikipedia. Perhaps there could be a display option which includes font size.

Thanks for the opportunity to give this feedback.

-GMH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmhohl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing the list of languages an article is available in! This is an important feature, especially when working on translations / translation projects!! Please provide a flip menu on the new pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.91.173 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry, correction. An expandable menu seems to exist, but only IF there are translations (just tested a couple which obviously did not have languages menus)... makes me happy, thanks. Other than that I do like the "cleaner" look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.91.173 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you did to Wiki

Un-do it. Not only has Wiki become insanely sloooow. But I can't even access ANY of the sites from my Blackberry anymore. All it ends up doing is either crashing my browser or crashing my phone completely. It's not good at all. I love Wiki. It's always been the ideal search engine for me. Now, it's just a HUGE incovenience. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.233.6 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a spoiler tag feature.

Well, I couldn't figure out where else to submit this, so this seemed like the best place. I would like to suggest a spoiler tag feature. I'm sure I'm not the first, I'm sure I won't be the last, but it's a feature I've wanted to see implemented into Wikipedia for a long time. Basically, there are Wikipedia pages for EVERYTHING, which includes movies, tv shows, video games, books, etc... Well one thing all of those have in common is they have plots (with a few exceptions), and sometimes people want to get some information without spoiling the plot for themselves, that's where spoiler tags would come in handy. Reddit has a great spoiler tag system on some of their subreddits (see /gaming/ or /starcraft/). It's really pretty simple. To provide a real life scenario, I was reading about this new T.V. show called Generator Rex, and I was reading through the information about the characters. Well I found out that one character is a spy, which totally ruined a future episode for me. Now if that little tidbit of information were covered by a spoiler tag, I wouldn't have put my mouse over it, thus, not revealing the spoiler, thus keeping part of the plot a mystery to me. Seeing as there are so many pages on various shows, movies, et cetra, I think this would be a very valuable feature. I've done a little research on this, and haven't seen anything, but if there is already such a thing, then I apologize for suggesting an already implemented feature.

Anyways, thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.57.180 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler tags used to be pretty common on Wik pages, but they seem to have disappeared. I support bringing them back.211.225.30.91 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

searchbox

With the new searchbox one has to click on the word "search" before right-clicking to paste the name one's looking for. The old box (if I remember correctly) was clear to begin with. The trouble with the new layout generally is that it's a techie "improvement" designed to impress other techies instead of ordinary users. What else can I tell you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.255.232 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My issues with Vector

I could probably get used to most of Vector but there are a few things that are off just enough, or quirky just enough to make me strongly consider Monobook again. I won't go into the search bar, as I've commented in the appropriate place there. In the usability front, the "Toolbox" on the left is now a collapsible menu. Ordinarily thats fine, but it always defaults to Closed for me, and I make rather heavy use of "What links here" and "User contributions" when on RC Patrol. I'd prefer it were always open, either by a Preferences setting or a vector.js tweak.

The second issue is with my userpage. I have the "rollbacker" icon placed in the upper right, same as many RB'ers and Admins do. In Monobook, I had also added on some DYK Icons which appeared to the left of the RB Icon. In Vector, those now are moved down into the rest of the page so they overlap my userboxen. I know a lot of others do the same thing, and now it seems that formatting has changed. (My understanding is that the "top" of the page has been moved down from a css perspective).

So yeah, I'm strongly considering going back to Monobook. If nothing else, I will always know for sure when I'm accidentally logged out, as the skin will go back to Vector, so maybe its not all bad. I would like my userpage to display properly to Vector visitors though... Arakunem^Talk 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There already is a preference option to disable these if you want
Use templates that are based upon {{top icon}} that and that are compatible with multiple skins instead of just with monobook.

Any change will always have fallout. Standing still in development is much worse however. There are many solutions to many of the problems people are experiencing, it is just that it will take them a while to learn those solutions. But they have learned solutions for monobook in the past, often without even realizing, so it is not as if this is anything new, you are just being confronted with it now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I hear you, and thanks for the tips. I glossed over the "Enable Collapsable Menu" as I was in a "disable" mindset so it didn't click that unchecking that box was exactly what I was looking to accomplish! Self-trout for that one. The Top-Icon template may be what fixes that problem (Oh no, I have to do WORK???) :) Even so, the icon placement problem would not be a vector-killer in itself. Thanks again for the tips. Sticking with Vector at the moment. Arakunem^Talk 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiding the language links and the tools is not development.

What problem was that supposed to solve? Who ever complained about them?

It must not be possible to show them - that should be the default.

See bug 23497. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New Features Problem

As a person who for some odd reason spends his spare time on Wikipedia researching on random topics, I'm very annoyed by the bug that destroys my browsing capabilities. The site does not function on the PS3, which I use more often then my computer because it loads quicker and is closer to my bed (for night browsing). I tried making a new account and turning off the features, but the login button doesn't work either. Is there any way this problem can be fixed?

For now, try using the mobile version. We're looking for a fix for the PS3 rendering issues, and may redirect PS3 users directly to the mobile site as an interim solution.--Eloquence * 00:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

the loosers in this series are not the car owners that have their vehicles repoed but the actors who make this series such a joke.......talk about dumb and dumber this show is dumb dumber and dumbest....what a cast of stupid people studid camera people and i just bet stupid show directors producers etc....this show is a waste of time and the people who star in it are just taking up valuable space in this planet....what a total waste of time

Please stop choosing headline "news"articles about people being killed. The regular newspapers cover that. Tsunami fine, bus crash - no.

these statistics are not the exact information of muslim population in some counties like Saudi Arabia, Libya Western Sahara,Qatar have absolutely 100% muslim percentage rate. and there are also countries with having signifant mistake in muslim percentage rate. sorry. please research correctly and focusingly. khaled zareh

Languages: could it be customizable?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses Wikipedia in 2, 3 or more languages, and I hope I could have a 3 (or whatever languages you use) buttons field to change from one to another. Looking for the right language in the (gladly) long list is not very efficient, as the list is not always the same, and sometimes not ordered (why?). Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lampak/MyLanguages may be useful to you. --Virgolette (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Move function is not visible (or gone?)

The move article function appears to be gone in the menu. It's logical location in the structure would be advanced but I don't see it!Americasroof (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

   Derek Obama.
   ATC Trading.

"Move" is under the drop down arrow, next to the star and the search box. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (although that's not entirely intuitive)Americasroof (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic language in pdf

I would be grateful if you fix the Arabic language in the pdf (Download as PDF) arabic is written from right to left, in the pdf file is from left to right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.144.46.57 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Still Not User Friendly

Regarding any changes made to the Wikipedia site, I still don't find it user friendly. I was trying to fid a way to "edit" a page. I was unable to find any function or functions on the menu for editing. I looked up in "Help>" I did not find the informaton on it to be clear. It rambles on and on, and the point and/or points, if anyu, are missed or not understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by COLA1956 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting a new feature, really fixing a problem.

While reading an article on Wikipedia it is almost always necessary to follow links defined in the article in order to get a basic understanding of what that specific word is about. I've asked and this "jump" usually makes people lose their focus on what the first article was about, causing a lot of hassle.

My suggestion is something like a pop-up window, showing the first paragraph of the linked article when the user clicks a small character or image beside the link, you know, just like the article excerpt the Babylon dictionary retrieves from Wikipedia for a specific word.

As you professionals know, care must be taken not to make this windows appear on link hovering or something like that. Also, Wikipedia's clean, fast and mostly text-based UI is what makes it great to use; this pop-up window must not be an exception. I know I'm telling you things you know better than I do, but I just want to make sure.

I believe this will significantly improve ease of use and overall user experience for millions of people using Wikipedia.

Thank you for gathering all of human knowledge as a free resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.225.30.101 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups? Users can enable them after creating an account. Since elements of the Wikipedia UI aren't always professionally designed, popups only work with hovering; right clicking may be a better way to go since an icon beside each link would look obtrusive. Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both!! Nice sentiment and tip.

Isn't EVERY word a potential link? Currently double clicking any word highlights it. Is it possible to make a double left click jump to the best find on that word? (click n drag to select phrases). If it's possible it could save u a lot of work? Either way thanks for providing this awesome app. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slkr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New interface breaks Wikipedia access from Blackberry

Hello.
I really like Wikipedia. And having access to it from mobile phone is priceless.
Unfortunately, accessing new UI at http://en.wikipedia.org from Blackberry Bold 9700 does not work anymore - browser shows the following error message:

HTTP Error 413: Request Entity Too Large —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.82.126 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the mobile site work for you? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ is the address. It's not perfect but it might be a workaround for you while the UX team works these things. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just tested mobile site and it works, thank you for the tip! Would be nice if that link can be easily found... And still hoping the main site will be fixed soon - some functionality is not available on mobile site. --69.136.82.126 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New Interface is bad

extremely uncomfortable in every way, no one likes it sometimes modernization sucks this is definetely the case so please make it possible to switch between the 2 interfaces freely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.110.9.219 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You can switch between the new and old interfaces by logging in and selecting the option to take you back to the old interface.Smallman12q (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

no longer works on the PS3

well i am saddened to say that the site no longer functions on the PS3 browser, which i use a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanity99 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanx a lot wiki

Hi Wiki,

First of all thanx a lot for all your help , if there is anything called as a guardian angel, then wiki u are the one for me. I am also so sorry that I could not contribute money for you, I am helpless as I don have it myself, but I promise you that once I have got enough I will be happy to contribute, I really want to.Wiki keep on helping me and the other crores n crores n crores of people just like me. Loved your effort n am still loving it. Thanx a looooot wiki. You are simply the best.

Your loyal n everfaithful fan, Sheron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.83 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not bad; I prefer Monobook.

The new layout isn't bad, but I personally prefer the "Monobook" theme which was previously the default theme. I found myself reverting back to the previous theme but using the new editing tool bar alongside WikiEd.

I also had an issue with where the buttons were placed at the top of an article or page, I noticed so were missing, or at least I think so and a few gadgets didn't work with the Vector skin.

Hope this helps, --Necrojesta (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. the people who comment should really read back the comments they submit. Use proper grammar and vocabulary and maybe even real words; why would someone take aboard your suggestion if it is written mostly in abbreviations?

Edit: Apologies Wikipedia, it seems the links I couldn't see have either been added or were there all along. Gadgets work with it better now after I try it just a week or two after.

Wikipedia desn't work anymore in the Playstation 3 web browser!

I used to spend HOURS navigating wikipedia on my Playstation 3's web browser, learning countless interesting things, and i'm sure a lot of other people did too. Now it doesn't work anymore as the vertical bands ("Read, Edit, View History") cover the text of the articles!

Please fix this because Wikipedia is an immensely important resource especially for young people, who are more likely to use a Playstation 3 to read it (in comparison to older people).

In my opinion Wikipedia was just fine the way it was before; what did this last update add, apart from a change in the location of the search box?

Please make Wikipedia work again in the Playstation 3's web browser because you can't cut out an audience of 35 million people! (see the latest data at http://www.vgchartz.com/ )

Long live education!

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.241.29 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: the solution of switching to the old version of wikipedia by logging in is not possible because the "log in" button is unresponsive in the PS3 web browser (and anyway people shouldn't have to log in just to view articles on the PS3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.245.2 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

i really think its great i also wanted to know why on diary of a wimpy kid(film) it says that ian valles plays greg it should be zachary gordan but the page looks better. now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.253.134 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Font Size Precludes Further Use

I am a heavy user of Wikipedia, and have been for some time. This includes professional use.

I have given your responsible parties adequate time to fix the font size problem, and return the site to its former (readable without modification) text presentation. I will not change the browser font size twice each time I use the site. You've had thousands of complaints on this -- probably tens of thousands.

I am saddened that I now have to find another source for the information I need.

Shame on you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.148.216 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Response time

The new webpage layout is TOOOOOOO SLOOOOOOOW to load. It's very frustrating to try to access to more than, say, four or five articles.

Was the change really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.247.241 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Slow page loading

Am having difficulty believing that Wikipedia has still not reversed its changes at least as a temporary emergency measure until the slow page loading issue is dealt with. At the head of this section, it says, "The team has worked hard to ensure that the new features do not result in a decrease in performance." Apologies but the team has failed miserably.

'Wiki' means 'fast'. The changes strike directly at a fundamental principle on which the site was founded. What's amazing is that it's not only contributors but also everday users that are affected. When considering the comments on this feedback page, the team should not forget the missing posts from those who were put off from posting becuase the 'contact us' page was too slow to load. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.249.179 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite tool

Although a Insert current date button has been added, I would love if a similar calendar button is also added infront of date. --yousaf465' 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Width of Paragraphs- What is going on?

I started a new page and copied and pasted some of my content in as paragraphs. Now the new page is one line deep and a mile wide. The paragraph was inserted as one long string and is much too wide for the page. I tried typing the paragraphs manually and saving them but still, they don't work. I put it in plain text and then pasted it back and still nothing.

The page is Salt Lake CAP

Furthermore your articles on how to insert a picture are useless. I still can't figure it out. I uploaded a picture and saved it but putting it in my article seems impossible and frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.49.114 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the first character on a line is a space then all wikiformatting is turned off and the text does not wrap. Do not try to indent the first line of a paragraph. To indent an entire paragraph, begin with a colon (:). ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Java Scipt Errors for Blackberry Users

Hello Wikipedia,

Up until you made these changes my husband was learning a ton! He had seizures growing up and as a result he has a very low IQ. I was so thrilled when I showed him your site and he would go to it just like a child, hungry for knowledge! He searched for answers like I never thought he could. He was learning and talking passionately about things he read here. I've been searching for an alternative but unless we can pay the $14.99 for the app, we're lost. Could you please bring back the functionality for Blackberry users? It would open the world to a 38 year old man like you can't imagine.

Just a plea from his loving wife.

Thanks for reading.

Aislinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.212.56.64 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Aislinn, it's very motivating. If you point your BlackBerry browser to "http://en.m.wikipedia.org/", this should work - it's our free mobile version of the site. We're working on debugging the BlackBerry issue which occurs on older BB models, and hope to have a solution in place soon.--Eloquence * 17:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

same article in other languages

Hello there,

what happened to the list of links to articles on the same topic but in other languages in which the article is available (it used to be on the left side of the screen where the toolbox is now)? it was a really useful tool :/

could You please reinstate it?

thanks in advance and have a nice day

RAF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.122.185 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

found it, forget I asked -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.122.185 (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the best thing ever

I read it till my brain fries out

thanks for creating the best thing on the net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.44.37 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Search Box!

I preferred the search box on the Left. PLEASE, move it back. I just do not like where it is currently located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.177.90 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it back the way it was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.52 (talk • contribs)

Search Box Important

I would love it if the "search box" could be moved to the center just like Google. And somewhat bigger. This is the most important feature on the Home page. It is used constantly and should be made to look and feel like its important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.3.66 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone no longer auto detected and fed mobile site

I like redesigns, but i get redirected the mobile site about only 30% of the time now. where before it was 100% of the time without fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.249.78.241 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the redesign. The mobile site is currently under severe load and the redirect was disabled yesterday to ensure that users who access the site directly via "http://en.m.wikipedia.org/" continue to get reliable access. A new server is being pushed into rotation this week and should resolve these issues shortly.--Eloquence * 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mobile site no longer works on Android phone

For a long time I have been enjoying Wikipedia Mobile on my Android phone (TMobile Cliq). Suddenly it has stopped working. I have tried clearing my cookies, but it appears that my UserAgent string is no longer recognized as mobile (or some similar problem).

What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljantonio (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems in Page loading

New wiki got a great look, congrats!!

Problems: 1. Page load is very slow compared to old Wiki. 2. Opening hyperlinks are very slow.

Is there any alternate links available to continue use the old wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.176.193 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

Thanks wikipedia.u have helpe me a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.45.224 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Search textfield

I founded the navigation much better when the search textfield was positioned on the left side of the window.

Thank you

A wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.137.217.230 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

White fonts

I use wikipedia on windows XP and firefox 3.6. However I use a black theme on windows (it's a modification of the original theme, no 3rd part program or theme). Since the windows are black, the font is white. That means the default font colour on my computer is white.

With the release of the new wikipedia interface, the font colour is not specified in the code of the pages, so it uses the default colour. However the background colour was set, white.

So the result for me is a white background with white fonts, turning wikipedia unreadable for me unless I select the text. This didn't happened with the older wikipedia interface.

This can be "easly" fixed by only specifing the black font (RGB#000000 in HTML code) on the wikipedia text. However I don't know how that would be done on wikipedia, and if it's that easly.

I count this as an issue since other people may have a windows (or other operationa systems) theme where the font colour is not black, so changing the wikipedia font colour undesirebly. (Not to mention how annoying is having to select everything to read)

I can provide a screenshot if needed. (CyberTigerrr (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Bright eyes..turn around bright eyes was derived From the soundtrack of a small circle of friends. 1980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.45.203.88 (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Random article

While not specifically about the recent changes this is about a change that I would have liked to see.

In the past I have enjoyed using the random-article feature. It has led me to topics that I would not normally have searched for or discovered.

However, in recent times many, many of the pages, in combination, are effectively lists. Lists of places, communities, people, events, books, albums, competitions etc. Many of the pages are very short - effectively stubs. Now when I use random I have to skip over many pages to find anything substantial.

It would be nice if the random article link allowed me to filter out some of the more obvious groupings.

I understand, in principal, the problems of categorization in wikipedia - but it would be nice ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon.g.beck (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dial-up with slow ISP

Took about 4 minutes to get to be able to log in and another minute to complete that and be ready to search (using old style). What a waste of time. I have no access to high speep internet....forget about satellite...cost to much and still would not be able to play games online. Wikipedia used to be my favorite research site....now I avoid it. I am using wal-mart connect which uses internet explorer 6 which provides me with a version of netscape at 24K BPS. The text on the new version was too big. Everything is so slow I might as well go to another site. Also if I connect to wikipedia from a link it takes a long time and I still get the giant type which is hard to read. I will use wikipedia as little as possible and will not donate again. Gary Venturelli Miami, AZ USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyventurelli (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This website was very very VERY useful while I was doing a project on Jason Aldean for my choir final I use this website for all my projects about famous people and the way they lived and why they became famous. Thanks again for this very useful website!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.176.20 (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone problem

Doesn't automatically go to "en.m.Wikipedia" etc on my iPhone anymore. Very annoying as this is one of the few mobile versions of a web site that is decent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.241.172 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Searchbox to the MIDDLE

Old habits die hard. But this should never get in the way of improvment. I liked the new position of the search box. But I will love it better when it is in the CENTER - not of the page, but of the upper section. Google knows it best. I wonder how many people actually stop and read the first page of Wikipedia. You should understand that wikipedia is just another Google, only with better content which is carefully edited. For this reason, the purpose of the first page should be to take the user to his/her destination as fast as possible. And this can be achieved by putting the search box not on the left, not on the right, but in the MIDDLE of the upper section.

I was glad to see that the search box moved to a more comfortable place. But reading the reactions, I realize the strength of the habits. But don't worry or be intimidated, this too will pass in a year or two. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are happy with the current position but are not expressing their opinions. It will be better when you "googlize" your search box's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokhansezgi (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The time is midnight on June 4 - June 5. Of the 7 news articles on the Wikipedia homepage, 4 involve killing, 2 involve resignations, and 1 is neutral. THAT'S what I want to read about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.223.244 (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Article about Rochville University

Dear Publisher,

There is an article published by your organization in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochville_University" refrering to Rochville University as FAKE. Our search has founded that "rochvilleuniversity.org" is an ACCREDITED University by BOUA and UCOEA. You may verify this your self. You need to cross-check your facts when it involves accusations before allowing publications. The information on your Wikipedia web site is baseless. Wikepedia is heading for legal battle. Wikipedia has to retract this publication immediatelly without delay, and make all damaging corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.37.1 (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New version of WP discouraging page creation for non-confirmed users

Hi there, I noticed that with the new front-end, if one is not signed in and searches for a string for which an article does not exist, the search results no longer offer to create the article. I think this is very discouraging and even confusing. I believe that it's long been policy that unregistered users cannot create new articles. I am not disputing that, but if that is the case, I think we should make it clear to the searching user that they can create the article if they register an account (after they become confirmed perhaps? I forget). It could even be a recruitment ground, if you hold a "recruitionist" view. What do you think? Thanks. 123.225.212.94 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A new software change has already been made to account for that. Unfortunately It has not been deployed yet. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

PS3 browser

There are serious display issues now while using the browser on PS3. We all know the browser isn't great, but some functionality would be nice instead of the messed up pages we are getting now. I assume it's either the php or css encoding that isn't compatible, so could you fix it or ask Sony to make our browser wikiable?!

Joey Schmidt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.86.56 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.85.5 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

3nd Mircea Voda Regiment photo license

It is from an album made by 32nd Mircea Voda Regiment for my ggrandfather General of Division Aristide Razu ,which was the Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division which comprised 32nd Mircea Voda Regiment.So it is a gift of the Romanian Army to him.

Andrei Radu Georgescu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristiderazu (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ksenia Sobchak

The article about Ksenia Sobchak was translated incorrectly. There are many mistakes in terms of grammar and style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.191.37 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Kseniya Sobchak. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Puertorican Major League Baseball Players

While searching in this page I found out that you have missed Edgar Martinez-Seattle Mariners in your list of Puertorican MLB payers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.32 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.102.237 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

PS3 and Page Layout —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.197.18 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Couple issues

I have a couple of issues with Wikipedia:

1. I sometimes view the site using a Sony PS3 but the pages do not display correctly any more, perhaps this is a CSS problem or relates to a PS3 update? But this wasn't a problem previously.

2. For a long time I've found the layout is difficult to read as the lines are far too wide, which causes the text to blur and become difficult to follow. I'd suggest using a blocked column format - like a newpaper - where the reader can process the text more quickly and is easier on the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.197.18 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The PS3 issue is a known problem, a fix is being worked on.
Thank you for the suggestion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it Come under Copy Right Voilation / Piracy ?

Dear Readers,

I have a question regarding Copy Right law in Meddle East(UAE), actually I m working in Abu Dhabi & we have more than 50 people Staff & all have computer, now my company want to update the existing Soft ware with new i.e. Win 7 & MS Office 2007 with latest antivirus program, now the problem is this I went to market & bought the CDs & installed on all the computers. Now somebody told me that this is illegal in this country & I have to buy 50 CDs for each User, can anybody having authority on this subject guide me or suggest the alternative as this is going to be too much costly...

Best Regards Muhammad Waheed [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.40 (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Most software companies provide volume licenses (one license for multiple computers) for companies. You can easily buy them online and it is usually cheaper than buying individual licenses for each computer that you have. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

partition war crime

jinnah killed around 1lakh sindh at the time of partition of india but this not mentioned in history of pak pak belongs tosindhis & not to muslims alias middle east nationals dont publish lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.126.19 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

back/forward arrows

Why have they been blocked out/disabled? I often use Wikipedia to read random articles, for general knowledge and feed back and forth. But with the arrows disabled, can no longer do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.157.92 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are you using them exactly, and what browser are you using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agreed with the story

The story written here is not agreeable since it is described on the basis of hypothetical approach. Khas is not composition of Bahun and Kshetri. Khas is Khas who have many identification. Every one should reach their orgin and study their culture, religion,language, script, wearings etc. Some one is trying to make fake history of Bahun and Kshetri. Khasas are not entered into hindu caste system till now in Khasan(Karnali, seti , bheri). There are so many proof of Khas who are not the composition of Kshetri nor Bahun. The Story is too bias to Khasas. Be honest to tell actual story about khasas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.250.131 (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Khas. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

wrong date of birth!!! lennie hastings

i would just like to let you know that lennie hastings was in fact born on the 27th of january not the 25th i know because he's my grandad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.82.86 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Search Box

I am not impressed with the change in location or functionality of the search box. It does not seem to provide quick and access to articles that was inherent in the original version. If you insist on keeping it out of the way at least restore the original operation of the search box.

THanks

John Morgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.141.112 (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of bands is the dumbest thing you could do

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) § Deletion of bands is the dumbest thing you could do

The pages take easily 10 seconds or more to load, EVERY TIME, no matter how long or what they are. Despite your saying all caches should be refreshed by now or whatever you suggested was the likely cause, the problem persists and it really makes using your product and site a waste of time I do not want to waste. You folks should have tested your changes in your own sandbox in a real way before going live. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.106.232 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

too long to load

One of the great things about wikipedia was that it was easy to use. I loved the links from one article to another and loved the spontaneous way could I click the highlighted text to learn about so many different subjects. Now it takes forever to load. It really has discouraged me from using wikipedia. P.S. I disabled the new features -- not any faster. Sorry. Not a great change in my opinion. James Ferguson

As of June 7, 2010 -- Pages still load extremely slow The same format is used on http://www.blazemonger.com/GG/Gentle_Giant_(album) ...and it is Fast. When I go to French-Language on here, the page-loading is Fine, but I am not French. What was gained, by this "new" version ??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby8430 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE !!! I could take a vacation to Tahiti, and come back, and STILL wait for a Wikipedia page to download!!

What in the heck have they done to louse up this PREVIOUSLY excellent informative website ???

ABOMINABLE !!!

Please, Wikipedia.... do a "restore" and go back to your previous functionality !!!

I also agree. If my only CPU is overloaded it takes my browser forever to render. Especially for editing, I used to be able to click edit and start typing straight away. Now I have to wait otherwise Firefox thinks I'm searching. Seriously, revert this Javascript mess. Thanks. 123.225.212.94 (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Seriously slow. It just like beauty without brains. Takes too much time to go from one article to another and sometimes my internet explorer gets hanged. Slowness is more noticeable than the new features. Please rollback

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.152 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Expandable menus are uncomfortable

I find it very uncomfortable that the navigation menus at the left of the page have to be expanded before they show the meaningful links.

English being my second language, I use the "Language" menu all the time. Having to click twice is really unnecessary and irritating.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.48.131 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have exactly the same complaint. 123.225.212.94 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages are a problem- I have written before about just wanting to access the major wikipedias. In my ideal world, when I select a language- that would be written to a cookie- and that language would automagically appear as an option on every future page I visited (switch off by deselecting in my preferences). The other languages would be available through a expandable menu, this isolates me from Volapuk and other wikis that are only useful to a native speaker. The search box, and the languages would be on the left panel, but would float down and sticky themselves on the level of the text entry box when in edit mode- but till then monobook is a real improvement on vector. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

visual quality

visual qulity has really gone bad. Does somebody enjoys looking at disabled person? No! But due the picture resolution optimizations done throughout the page, the overall feeling when visiting Wikipedia has turned to peeeeee. Not its like "disabled professor" - you don't like to see him, but ok, since he is smart you can try. If Wikipedia won't turn its graphical interface back to "humane", it will loose huge audiences. The client is Human! [not a 5 year old phone with GPRS]. hope you do improvements, otherwise I'm gone turn my heart other direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.61.178 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tab bar

I hate the way the tab bar is split - Project page and discussion one side, all the rest the other. I tried to get used to it, I really tried. But it stays as irritating as ever. And as far as I can tell the read tab duplicates the leftmost one (I have a horrible suspicion this is because the leftmost one is so far away). This is just too awful. I feel like if I tried to explain why, I'd just get a lecture from a self-opinionated geek. Please, trust me and offer a left-justified tab set with no duplicates. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right; I suspect that a professional usability expert would have realized that moving the tabs to opposite sides increases mouse movement and hence inefficiency (same with the search box, since most of the other navigation in on the left). Attention admins: Why has there not been an update to this talk page header since mid-May? Best regards, Albany NY (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I too dislike the splitting of the tabs. I am used to the tabs on the left, and the ones on the right are so far away on my 1440x900 monitor that I sometimes forget they are there. I have no strong opinion about the "read" tab. Hashproduct (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is slow

I love Wikipedia and recommend it to countless people, but it has progressively gotten slower. The new interface didn't alter that. Much of the slowness seems to come from the massive amount of scripting in even the simplest pages. Some of this has to do with the look and feel (surely unimportant compared to the information) and cute toys like the popup search terms as you type text into the search gadget. Things like that are great for people on high-speed connections with fast computers, but most of the world is still on slow connections and using slow machines -- perhaps even half of us in who are in first-world countries. Seems Wikipedia's ideal of information for all is becoming information for the rich. That's sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam e (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i like wikipedia all my assignments are based on it thank wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.130.30 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

today (10th june 2010) it's not working correctly on IE, firefox and chrome

i go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

- wikipedia does not show - searchbox does not show - the navigation on the left side will show but only below the article! IE 7.0.5730 Chrome 5.0.375.70 beta firefox 3.6.3

and btw: why don't you hire somebody to realy redesign the site and make it pretty and usable? somebody inovative. it still looks like MS in the early 90ies: from techies for techies. i don't mind (because i am a techie) but i know many people who do mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.81.48 (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually DOES show, but the Navigation menu's in the side panel seem to have been alligned at the bottom of the column. Small pages show the information 'correctly'

JanEnEm (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Refreshing the pages now will show that the good guys at WP have solved the problem ... JanEnEm (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't work for me (Firefox 3.5.9) Hellinalj

Pages not working properly.

Many pages are not displaying properly (in Chrome). EG:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debussy puts the side panel below the main text and the body text up to the top, overwriting the search & tabs. Might I suggest that the testing has only been done on wide screens, leaving those of us with 'normal' screens unable to use the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.197.149 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Return to main page

It no longer seems possible to return to tne main page directly from the article page when one wishes to seek another article. This seems very inconvenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.118.50 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Errors under Opera

When I use Opera 10.53 the layout of the new Wikipedia has some errors. The title (on the top) of the article is cutted at bootm. The buttons Article/Discussion under the title cover some text/description of the article. The left panel Navigation/Interaction/Toolbox/... goes down (under entire article). And the main bug: The search area goes down, under entire article. I think, there are some problems with your CSS rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.16.189 (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Safari 5 layout issues

As with previous comments on other browsers, the new workout is not working on Safari 5, article and discussion tabs overlying article title. Navigation and search appearing under the article, not on the left.

Same issues seen with FF 3.6.3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.218.145 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Same with FF 3.5.9; also, the left menu bar appears at the very bottom left of the page below the article. Julian Gilbey (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

English

Windows may have been the big PC OS seller, but why do we have to use micky mouse Language? OK for the young but it is the old people that have the most to give regarding information. How can you call navigation ( looking through ) why not use the Queen's English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.141.64 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Text loose tag colour when printing

I often use Wikipedia as entry point for research on unknown fields. In long articles, I tend to print the article to optimize analytical work. Before, differentiated colours allowed to quickly identifying additional entries to explore; now, flat black colour results in undifferentiated text, loosing in the way precious content meaning. Exporting text to word (Copy/paste) partially solves the problem, but is time consuming and tends to include some html code, sometimes requiring additional reformatting work. Which has been the added value for such change? Please revert to previous layout! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.202.5 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Remarques

Bonjour
Un clic sur «» n'insère plus automatiquement les espaces après le « et avant le », comme cela se produisait avant.
D'autre part, je suis allé faire un tour sur http://prototype.wikimedia.org/s-6/index.php?title=San_Francisco&action=edit, pour voir. C'est pas mal, mais il y a un gros problème, en ce qui concerne ma façon de contribuer sur WP. Je passe beaucoup de temps à lire des articles qui m'intéressent. Je suis en général en mode prévisualisation. Dès que je trouve une faute d'orthographe, une faute de style, une coquille… je la corrige dans la zone d'édition. En général, je ne lis pas directement dans la zone d'édition, car ce n'est pas très agréable. Je lis donc la prévisualisation et, dès qu'il y a une faute, je sélectionne une zone de texte autour de la faute, la recherche sur la page, ce qui m'amène directement au bon endroit de la zone d'édition ; je corrige, puis retourne à l'endroit de la zone de prévisualisation où j'en étais par la même recherche. Avec les raccourcis clavier, ce va-et-vient entre la zone d'édition et de prévisualisation est assez rapide. Mais sur l'interface en projet visible sur http://prototype.wikimedia.org/s-6/index.php?title=San_Francisco&action=edit, ça ne sera plus possible. Ce sera vraiment la galère pour corriger les articles !
Enfin, je voulais savoir s'il n'y avait pas un forum de discussion francophone sur ce sujet.
Merci de vos réponses :-) --78.250.187.217 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit toy overheads

Not everybody has 10 Meg broadband, a multicore CPU and a huge screen. The edit views take unpleasantly longer to open and fill more of the upper part of the screen with guff than before. I have turned off virtually all edit toys in my preferences to try and reduce these problems, but too much remains. Here are a couple of ideas:

First, I can't turn off the "standard non-wikiEd toolbar" until after it has loaded - all those endless icons to wait for, until the "turn this thing off" icon finally come up. That's just crazy, it's the wrong way round. Since I never use it anyway (too far from mouse/cursor - it's quicker to type the code), can an option to disable it be added to the user preferences? The option needs to prevent its download until overridden and not just hide it from view, or the speed saving would be lost.

Second, the code highlighting seems to delay the appearance of the raw text. I'd like an option to turn that off too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't like this at all

It's like the new YouTube, messy and hard to read. Also, several errors and mistakes on the site. --FnH (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages tab

It should be uncollapsed. Wikimedia should promote different cultures. Collapsing this tab just puts a wall to people who don't know about other versions of wikipedia/wiktionary/...14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.236.14 (talk)

Change for no reason

I didn't like the changes to Wiki, which did absolutely nothing to improve the pages, and seems to have been done for no reason other than the sake of it. I want the search field back on the left where it belongs. Now, the pages are being displayed incorrectly. The left sidebar items are at the bottom of the page, as is the search field. Or at least, they are sometimes. When the search bar appears at the bottom it doesn't fill in with suggestions as I type.

What a mess.

Peter Ward 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

Many pages are broken (independent of used browser)

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_%28band%29 Both in Internet Explorer 8 as well as Firefox 3.6.3 the menu at the left has no style sheets and is located below the article itself, so are parts of the top menu and the search box. The Wikipedia logo is missing. Edit: ok, now it's working in Firefox. Still broken in IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.180.109 (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ACK, some pages do not work, the menu is down at the bottom. After purging the page everything is fine again. So maybe you should clear the cache completely? regards. --194.138.12.146 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Happens to me as well. Works after clearing cache. See screenshot (Note that that page has been purged and works now.) --Simon Brown - Talk Contribs 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Too slow to use

Even when navigating back to a previous page, the wait times are horrible.

Can we have the older FUNCTIONAL version of wiki please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.105.97 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

EXPORTING TO WORD DOC

Not necessarily a comment on the current layout, but I believe there should be a way to export the Wikipedia articles to *.doc. 125.7.53.124 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

search bar

just my opinion the search bar should be back on the left. navigating with the forward and back buttons, as well as typing URLs happens up there, and it's slightly irritating to go all the way over to the right. A minor issue but it's definitely better on the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.10.239 (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

new format

I am sorry but I hate your new format. It is too big and bold. It doesnt fit on the screen well. You must constantly scroll up or down and even side to side to read the article. I feel like the computer is shouting at me. I have perfect eyesite and your new format is just too overwelming. After some time it starts to give me a headache. When I google something and multiple entrys came up I used to go to yours first. I liked the way you had it set up. Now I am staying away from it more. If other people like it perhaps you could offer an option of which format someone would like. Other than that I think Wixipedia is great but please rethink these changes

new person

I more specifically hate the rearangement of the layout. Before I had gotten use to the search bar being on the side, and no the top. The overall changes that have been made get annoying after a while. PLEASE CHANGE BACK to the old layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.92.100 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Making article accuracy apparent

Hi,

As i was reading through many of your pages. I occurred to me that the warnings at the top of the page, while functional, may not paint an articulate view of an articles accuracy.

Perhaps implementing a poll system where users can rate how accurate a page is (v strong/strong/average/weak/v weak). This could then be displayed at the top of the page in a graph or bar.

This would give users an immediate way to realise how accurate a page is. Perhaps only allow the meter to kick in once 100 ratings have been given and reset the poll if over 10% of the page is changed.

Just my 2c.

This might not be the best solution, but I think it should be considered. It's pretty much in the spirit of Wiki. In any case, I support the idea that some sort of rating would be helpful. Kdammers (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

languages hard to navigate

problem: I often switch languages - some info I can get in my native language, some only in English. To switch I have to find my language in long list of languages written in different alphabets - it is tiresome and often confusing. Proposed solution: Give registred user ability to pick his/her preferred (known) languages in preferences. Language links for those languages (usually 2-4) would be in separate, uncollapseable list above default lang list. Mateuszzz88 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Something like this is actually under consideration for the next set of changes to the interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Did they think about?

Did the inventors of the new skin think about performance. I am not speaking about performance on the Wikipedia servers, but I think about performance on the user's computer. Did they think about that in man development countries cheap, not so powerful computers are used? Have we made sure that those users can use the Wikipedia like they used the wikipedia before? I would like to read answers on these questions. If there's any 'no' in the answer the vector skin by default should be switched off and reversed. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a baby stitter and we are now just have dinner but it will be fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhewitt1413 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Search bar

Hello,

at first thank you for your great work so far.

For the new look, I have some requests:

Please bring the search bar back to its previous place on the left side. I am really used to that location. And for that, maybe bring the Interaction bar to the left or right BOTTOM, in combination with the privacy, about and disclaimer buttons. I think it fits better there.

Maybe a "printable version" button on the top of the page? My printer is really running on heavy duty when I use your sites;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.112.252.202 (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the return to monobooks blocked?

I cannot switch back to monobook - why?

I have opted for monobook in "my preferences". --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

ALL: use old version

I suggest that all create an account, then login. You will then be able to revert to the old faster and cleaner style of wiki. You don't even have to leave your e-mail.

I created an account, then moved to the older version. Now I can browse at the older, faster speeds, and the search box is back where it belongs.

Since wiki won't change back, we can all change for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITSRUF (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) makes your pronunciation information virtually worthless.

Your use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) makes your pronunciation information virtually worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.93.223 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Link

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues#Italy, "The Horse" statue in Milan, Italy link goes to a song called "The Horse" and gives no other link to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.241.110 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Add a Facebook Link!

I think it would be cool to have a link that automatically posts to ones facebook page.

Then I can recommend all my friends to check out: Esther Duflo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.65.16 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why create an account?

Why not offer people the choice of which version they prefer? (like in yahoo mail) Don't force people to have to log in to change back, that's too much work, just put a button there. Like: "Take me back to the older version where the search box wasn't moved"!

The should be no technical reason why the users skin preference, could not be stored in a cookie. This would satisfy another group of users. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Enhancing learning

Learning requires repetition.

I would thus like to create my own library of articles that I could get back to from time to time.

I would like to organize this library into subsections under different subtitles and be able to pass on these subsections to my friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheikin (talk • contribs) 09:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The category system can be used for this, up to a point. One thing I would like to see is the ability to transclude a category page into another page, along with the ability to style the content to suit the usage on the other page. For example I might want the pages listed with comments in an upper table with the sub-categories listed in a lower table.

Why cant you leave well enough alone?

I love wikipedia,I hate these changes.Change for changes sake is ignorant. I'm old please leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlemagne420420 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS

Assuming that your goal was to turn the best site on the interwebs into a useless piece of garbage,Kudos on a job well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.101.29 (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not even a single day that i dont visit your site..i mean u guys r just amazing i have no words to express how much i like wikipedia its like i got the whole world under my 10 fingers sorry let me rephrase that the whole UNIVERSE..how do u guys do it???? seperate staff for seperate sections i mean so much of detailings in each and every word (hyperlinks) buy the time u have finished reading one article u have learned so many other things in that process.. AWESOME is an understatment..i would like to know how u guys work just kills me to know that..

Suraj [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.244.252 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the new interface. I think it is as basic and weak as your content. To be precise, it is missing a single important tab, and set of policies for that tab.

The interface is missing a 'Possibilities' tab beside the Articles tab.

This is because you don't allow original research. This is because you are a tertiary source. This is because Wikipedia isn't at all concerned about the truth of the information it publishes. This is a series of factual statements based directly upon your own policies.

Therefore I don't like the new interface, and subsequently, nor do I like Wikipedia, except as a weak reference of quality no different or better than that of an old or ancient encyclopedia. Sorry. --Xenek (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenek (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

keep the new interface

please keep the new interface, I love it, its much easier to read and looks better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyxmoxie (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

input text cursor should default to search box when loading main page

I have to click the search box or hit tab to enter the search field upon loading the main page.

Um...

Why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.134.206 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

REGARDING THE SEARCH BAR

I Would like the Wikipedia search bar to be on the left side as it is difficult and irritating to go up the page to the corner and then search for information.The font below the Wikipedia logo can be made bigger as well.Please try to amend these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.209.141 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the search button: please AT LEAST add an option to have it at the left (above corner) again, as it was.Mpvdm (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFS

Sir/Madam:

One more name for AFS : American Foundry Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.183.102 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

latest Wikipedia kills Mozilla with Javascript on

The present version of Wikipedia (June 14, 2010) causes my (old) Mozilla browser to either hang, or just plain drop dead. Something similar happened maybe a year ago. I submitted a bug report -- a challenge -- and the first response was "old browser -- tough". Fortunately, the later responses suggested turning off Javascript, which worked. Since Mozilla has the "feature" that only one copy can be running, and the Jvsc switch is global, I spend a fair amount of time flipping the setting (five clicks each way). A month or so after the original Wikipedia problem, I accidentally forgot to flip the switch before using W, and discovered the problem had gone away: W was now safe to use with Jvsc. No clue what the original problem was. But something you've done in the last ten days has brought the problem back.

I suppose this is an improvement to the user interface.

Rich Schroeppel are see ess at ex em eye ess ess eye oh en dot see oh em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.57.249 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This problem should be fixed now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

:-(

So terribly inconvenient to find the information out there on top. Replace, if possible, as it was, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.248.44.11 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Printer Friendly Version

Printer friendly version was a feature I used alot with the old format. It appears to have discontinued with the new version. I think this is a mistake. Please put it back.

Thanks, Michael Cockrell [email protected] Dallas, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.117.127 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigate to Page when Exact Match Exists

The search hints are an awesome addition, but when they are used to search for the exact title of a page, please navigate directly to the page. Otherwise, they are not actually saving any time.

Thanks, Stargazer712 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargazer7121 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Take me back, Please..

I can't find the "Take Me Back" thing "on the top" of any page I've encountered in my quest to "take me back"...please, please take me back!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.166.48 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

speed and font size

Hello Wikipedia,

I reference Wikipedia on an almost daily basis and find it fantastic. Unfortunately I find that the font is far too small to even read on the updated version and it is significantly slower.

I much prefered to older version as it ran as smoothly as one could hope for.

You can always zoom in. On Firefox and Internet Explorer, it's [CTRL]+[+]. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The searchbar,

I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT I WANT IT ON THE LEFT

CHANGES SUCK, SO CHANGE IT BACK. I'LL NEVER US WIKI AGAIN, & YOU'LL BE SORRY WHOEVER MADE IT, PLEASE GO FIX IT BACK BECAUSE THAT SUCKS

I WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFTI WANT IT ON THE LEFT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.121.50 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

YAY! I support this post. "If it aint broke, DONT fix it!" it was fine on the left.. put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.144.158 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I work left-to-right: enter search on the left, see result to the right. I can see why it doesn't fit in the nav menu column tho, I'd like to see it at the left hand end of the tab bar, rather than the right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Caylem: Why force me to drag my mouse over to the other side of the screen, whoever designed this needs shooting. you don't separate main functionality like this! Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.83.153 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do too. The new search bar is in an awkward place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Netscape user

For various reasons, I'm stuck with an iBook G3 under System Mac OS 9.2, and I browse with Netscape 7.02. Since the recent changes, I can't access Wikipedia *at all*. Going to www.wikipedia.org gives me the bouquet of languages, but then, clicking on any of them provokes an "error of type 2" crash, and Netscape quits. Same (painful) experience when trying to reach *any* specific Wikipedia page, in any language.

Of course, there are worse things in life than being deprived of the Wikipedia: I could get blind, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.97.87 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame, that "Usability Update" simply excluded Mac OS 9 users. That even Netscape 7.x and Mozilla 1.3 or iCab (which is 2 years old) have no chance to display Wikipedia correctly, or crash at all, is a bad sing for Wikipedia. Gladly the Classilla team fixed the problems of Wikipedia two weeks ago, and you can download the new Classilla and use Wikipedia at least http://www.classilla.org. Providing a simple monobook possibility - without creating a login - would be the better way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.134.25 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

the new, invisible Wikipedia

I've been look at Wikipedia for quite some time. Perhaps even years. Had no problems reading anything until lately, when I noticed that pretty much all the text had disappeared.

Looking into it a bit I found that the color attribute, which defined the color of text, is missing, which means that the text is always going to be whatever color the user's browser wants, not what Wikipedia wants.

I realize that neglecting to define the text color is popular today but don't you all want the users to see the pages the way you want them to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.236.250.213 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I suffer the same problem. I already contacted here, but yet no solution. The beta wikipedia seems to be fixed tho! (CyberTigerrr (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

The search box up in the corner isn't helpful. The browser's search is already there. If it can't be where it was, at least remove it completely. And where did the 2nd search button go? If you clicked them once you knew already what the difference between the two was - and afterwards the save you a lot of mousing around on the screen.

The fonts got smaller. The overlay was much clearer before, better font-background contrast for the side and top box. At least the language-box is unrolled now (comparing to the first new version) and you don't have to click and wait before being able to look for another language.

Before just plugging in the new layout as default, a referendum would be the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wopp (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You requires that a user transcribe a pictograph in order to enter a link or other material. What about those of us who have images turned off? What are we supposed to do? Go running for help to mummy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colormere (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Search box on the left please

Please can you put the search box back where it was. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.112.44 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Puzzle Globe Logo

I like the new puzzle globe look, but I've realized you don't have the new version on the SIMPLE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. Could you fix this? Thanks! Shnupbups (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

so far i havent had any troubles or problems with the new layout, the biggest thing that annoys me is the location of the search box, i actually really liked it on the left in the middle.to me it seemed like it was faster that way, the box was closer to where my mouse already was and so on. but besides that my reason for posting this was to say that i think you should implement a bookmark feature, or maybe tabs, so that i can move from one page to another but still quickly recall an article that had helpful links within in or just get back onto topic. a tool like this would come in handy for someone like me who uses wikipedia primarily for entertainment purposes rather than as a purely referencial site. i can follow a trail of interesting links all day but i end up losing a lot of good stuff as i move from one page to another. i'll start going down one trail and then either cant remember what page a link was on or even what i was looking for in the first place. plus i think it would benefit those who use your site purely referentially as well since they would be able to have multiple encyclopedia pages open at once. this is more than likely in the wrong place but i trust that an administrator somewhere could help me out and redirect it to the proper area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.0.197.74 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job!

Way to fix the PS3 compatibility, guys! Nice to be able to read in bed again, and the Vector fonts are much easier on the eyes than the old version. Since I have eyes and can adapt to minute changes, the search bar location isn't an issue, and the suggestions are usually pretty useful!

Still quite a bit slower to load than the original, though. And still unable to click the "sign in" button. Hope these issues can be ironed out, but no major problems anymore. Thanks!

66.185.213.175 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC) (InedibleHulk)

No WIKI search bar in English version

Since some weeks it appears no field for entering searched word - what is wrong? How to help? Thanks for advise in advance: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.63.169 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It has moved to top right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

please

Please stop testing this new layout on us. It's no improvement. Bring the old one back. Especially the search box. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Location of search box on home page

I find the new location of the search box to be less convenient than the previous location. This is because the browser controls I use most often (address box, 'go' button, etc. are towards the left side of the browser window, so I end up having to mouse around a lot more.

Even though this seems trivial, I notice this every time I open the home page to search on a topic.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.156.77.12 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Add a "Quality" and "Complexity" rating to the top of every article

This might be an old suggestion, but has Wikipedia considered adding a simple 5-star rating system for 1) quality of page content (regarding readability and accuracy, although perhaps this should be frozen for controversial pages), and 2) complexity ("headacheyness") of content? These ratings could be displayed each as a typical 5-star widget indicating what the overall audience of this page would rate it as, and they would be click-able so that you can add your own rating.

This could be an interesting way to categorize pages to make them more accessible and more useful to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunt.topher (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Small to Read Font Size

If no one can read the type because the font is too small then the "Free Encyclopedia" is not worth anything. I have 20/20 vision and needed an magnifying glass to find and read the 'how to' contact you area. Of course the topic I wanted to learn about will now be researched via other sites. If you continue to use this 'too small to read' font I will not be back.

Fortunately, my monitor is reasonable sized (20"). And, fortunately, 24" or even 40" is relative cheap nowadays. Furthermore (also of course because not everybody can't afford a new, big monitor), the web browser Opera has a nice feature: just hit a specified button to enlarge the whole contents of the webpage (text AND pics). I use the =-button to enlarge 10%, and the --button to reduce with 10%. Default: +=enlarge 10%, but that's not convenient - then everytime, you'd need to use the shift-key. I use the - and = buttons very often. Much more convenient than using the scroll-button on the mouse. Furthermore, i think wikipedia should not change the font size already chosen by people in the browser.Mpvdm (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed other sites using a very small font. Do you save money by doing this. or is it that no one proofs the site they create.

On many sites the font is (way) too small. They should just use the default size set by the user. Many webmasters only look at how they themselves want it. Especially on many forums and such, the next- or previous-page button (often numbered) and such, are way too small. I really hope Wikipedia never will turn into such road...Mpvdm (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just love the new skin/layout - except for the new font which I find hard on the eye and not as easy to read as the previous font that was used. Not only does it appear to be slightly smaller but the letter spacing varies somewhat which adds to the difficulty when reading. I see that the problems with the font are being worked on, that's good but please bring back the original. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey1940 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First I thought that the Search box had disappeared ...

Then I found it in the upper right corner. Well, that's probably the worst place where one can put it. So, pretty please, move it back where it was before. That's where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Old System Was Better

I want the old Wikipedia back. The search system in the old system was much, much better. The new system takes three or more steps to get to where the old system took you in one step.

The "geniuses" who think they've "improved" Wikipedia have done no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcking1948 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Font stupidity

I have stopped reading Wikipedia altogether since you guys "fixed" something that was not broken. I refuse to read in GIANT font or tiny font which is now the only two choices; and I refuse to jump through any hoops in order to read Wikipedia in normal font. Very many people access through public computers in libraries and such. These computers cannot be altered. You guys will obviously never admit that the changes effecting font were stupid.

Nobody likes to work and reading Wikipedia is now work. Many people will now just ignore Wikipedia and read the next best site.

207.151.38.178 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

.mw-panel placement

IMO .mw-panel should be placed at the bottom of the page, allowing content to be the first thing encountered when scanning the page in reading direction. That would also make dynamic hiding of parts of the sidebar unnecessary. --SvartMan (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why oh why oh why ...?

Put the search box back to its previous location! We're trained to read from left to right, and the left-hand area of the page is the natural place to start reading, typing or clicking. It also makes sense to have it in the "index" section: the reason it was there in the first place is presumably because the original designers THOUGHT ABOUT IT and concluded correctly that it was the natural location.

Agreed x1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.63.36 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why ignore criticism?

Why do you completely ignore criticism about the new layout? Why not dare a real, representative survey? Are you so scared that too many people hate the layout?? Or so arrogant that you think it doesn't matter if people don't like it? --70.17.143.113 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism isn't being ignored, believe me. There have been plenty of bugfixes already, and some more interesting ones are still in development, for example the search box in sandbox 3 that automatically expands on use, to deal with the (valid) complaint that the search box was too narrow.

A representative survey probably hasn't been done yet because of the logistical, financial, and/or methodological problems involved. I won't bother trying to explain the complexities of doing a proper survey, but it takes a lot of work (and by extension, money) to do properly, and there are enough simple bugs to fix and simple improvements to make that it's not yet prioritized. There has been usability testing done, which supported the changes, though the small sample size (for practical reasons) makes it … less than ideal, for proving much.

It's not a matter of fear or arrogance about who likes or dislikes the new layout, it's a matter of iterative design. This design has involved a fair amount of thought, and it will be progressively improved. It already features a number of objectively-tested improvements, for example the move of the search box, which is well-explained in this tech blog post.

In any event, any change will provoke both positive and negative reactions. People often dislike change—whether because they're comfortable with the old or displeased with the new (and neither necessarily follows from the other), people will express disappointment with things that are, objectively, better upon revision. Give it time, and both further improvements, and sheer force of familiarity, will alleviate the problem.

I'm just a volunteer, no one "official", in case you're wondering, but don't worry, these concerns aren't being ignored—there's simply much to do. Best wishes, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 07:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Nihiltres. Surveys can be a useful tool, and we intend to use rapid surveys in some areas (e.g. determining the ideal default font size), but we're also looking at metrics like edit/save ratio, search volume, click numbers on particular navigational elements, etc. We all tend to have lots of intuitions about user interfaces, but intuitions are often wrong. We hope to get a better sense of the overall impact of the changes soon.--Eloquence * 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Return Search box to left!

Have to add my voice to clamor over search box location. Locating to the right is as clumsy as it is counter-intuitive. Surprised this ever got agreed and approved, considering all the big editing brains and user service mavens over there. Return it to the left and bring back the good old days!Wads47 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Ragglecat

Differentiating navigation bar buttons

The buttons on the left are higher in the hierarchy of user interface. I think the appearance should reflect this. Instead of giving a bookmark look, a switch look would look better for the buttons on the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.237 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Left, please

I hate that the search panel was moved to the top right. Please, PLEASE put it back! I had to disable ALL of the new features, some of which I liked, just to put the search panel back where it was! I use to use Wikipedia all the time, but now It's just too hard to use! How's this, if you put the search panel back before 7/10/2010, I promise to donate $10 dollars to Wikipedia. Please accept my bribe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Professor Stonecold (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Need much more improvement

It's yet not easy to search ,most of the sites are available ,but few arent ....needs very very very very little changes.. but the services and all are very well--180.215.173.127 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you

Kudos to everyone involved in creating this website...I found the information that I was looking for without having to dig out books and go to different websites.

I was able to copy information into my document that I was creating with ease from your website. Only one problem occurred, which is unrelated to your website, is due to formats in your documents such as text linked to images was causing Microsoft Word Processor to close when paste function used. I did find a solution and that is to copy information to a notepad, which removes formats and it copies perfectly to your new document in Microsoft Word Processor is the software program that I am using.

Again Kudos to everyone.

Thank You

Treasia Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.245.127 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Button for Latex Environment

I can't find the button for the Latex environment. Perhaps I haven't looked proper but if this is right, the button should be add again. (For me personally it isn't important, I know the tag, but I don't want to correct the math formulas of all new authors:) --Flegmon (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The issue is quite simple: Nobody seems to like what some developers have done. Go back to monobook as default and start a discussion about each and every change. You have covered some good features under a lot of rubbish. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Two problems with the new interface

1) I have to click "advanced" to be able to get the REDIRECT magic button. I don't want to have to do that.

2) There is no button to add things to my watchlist. Where is the "Watch" button?!?! fish&karate 10:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not ? you use it all day long ?
It is the star icon at the right of the History tab. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the button I use most frequently. Why do you have to click advanced to get to it now?
That's a really stupid idea. Why change it from "Watch" to a star? A star is not the universal code for "watch", or even "bookmark". That needs to be changed. fish&karate 10:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "watch" change, and I have a solution in my user scripts that changes it back from an icon and moves it into the drop-down menu. See the link on the symbol in my signature for the documentation. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 21:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

As a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life I have to insert regularly long lists of species in a genus. With the new features, switching between the white background of the article and the black background of "Insert link" hurts the eyes, especially if you have to do this many times in a row. Just try it a hundred times and you'll see what I mean. I propose that you alter the background of "Insert link" to a more eye-friendly color.

A second proposal : in these lists we always have to insert a link and, when its concerns a genus, species or subspecies, we also have to italicize the selected words. Just look at the article Acanthochitona to see what I mean. This is a painstaking job that takes a long time. I propose that you create a dedicated button that performs this task with one click on the selected word(s). This can save a lot of work and precious time.

A third proposal : There is already a button to insert a table. Why not create a button for inserting columns that formats automatically the selected text into 2 or 3 columns ? . JoJan (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I only wanted to say that what it bothers me from the new stetics is that you can't change to wikis from other languages. I swear it had been very useful for me. I beg you have it in mind. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.118.183 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons link at bottom of page (redirect to faulty site

At the bottom of all associated Wikipedia web pages have to broken redirects. 1) Creative commons goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. 2) GNU.org references a phishing site.Ptw007 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Ptw007 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1 is by design, for 2 we need more info. — Jeff G. ツ 05:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Font Size -- No Longer Using Wikipedia

I'm certain you have received thousands - tens of thousands - of complaints on the new minuscule font size of your pages. I've wrote about it initially. I will not constantly change the font size back and forth, all day long, to view Wikipedia pages. Annoying and time-consuming. I have to assume you are not going to remedy the siutation, so my heavy use of the site is ending now. I will use other resources. I'm not happy about having to do that, but you are obviously unconcerned about the unreadability of your pages.

Editing of Articles

I've noticed that soon after a current event, existing articles immediately get edited to make mention of/comments on a recent event.

For example, the entry "Mississippi Canyon" was edited to include the oil spill. I was interested in a geologic formation only.

The same with the heading "Blowout Preventer". I was interested in the device only.

There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper!

Making life harder

Why double the clicks (from 1 to 2) to get to the printable version? I use this extensively and it's just a pain. Is the LHS real-estate so valuable you have to reduce basic functionality.

(In case it matters, yes, I do donate).

msb

New Interface

Dear Wikipedia,

The new interface is not as smooth as the old one. The user editing section was far more intuitive before it weas changed. In a language that is written from left to right it makes sense intuitively to have the search bar on the left. I think the new layout also makes it more difficult to tell which tab of the page one is on.

Wonderful site, amazing content, getting tired of every article being tagged

I'm just wondering if there are people who feel compelled to tag each and every article with something, anything, even if the tag itself is incorrect. I visit this site often, and can't remember the last time I saw a page without some tag along the top. It's starting to feel like there are people just tagging every article to satify some need in themselves and not to actually improve anything. Most of the articles are extremely well written and contain enough information to understand the subject matter. Maybe there could be people who could tag the taggers?

Suggestion - random articles

I really enjoy the random article feature but I think it would be nice if there was an option that allows us to specify in which category we would want a random article. For example if someone is only interested in random articles about sports and history, they can check these 2 options and this way, stop having less interesting articles when they press on random article.

font size ... please

It's been a couple of weeks since the change and you haven't addressed the font size issue yet? I'm in my 30's, use a computer 12+ hours a day, and have 20/15 vision, but the new font size makes my head hurt. I never realized such a small change could have such a big impact on usability, but I'm starting to avoid Wikipedia if I can find similar info elsewhere.

a wikipedian (wikipedaholic)

so many times,,,i read a medical wikipedia article...i discover an error..i fix it...within few seconds. if it were in encyclopedia britannica it would take days to be fixed....

the idea of wikipedia ...is bigger and greater than what we can imagine...iam sure if its will managed ,,,,it will change the history of man kind

Problem testing reference I have added before I save.

When I attempt to test my references when viewing a preview of my edit; I am warned not to do so. I never had this problem with the old interface.

retarded

you need to make everything that is directly searched for to come up anything w just one of the words is just wasting my time please fix this or you are all not helping me!

Welcome Message

On 27 May 2010, I've received this "Welcome Message" :

Welcome!

Hello, Malikussaid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I began to panic until Jeffrey Mall tell me what is going on. For newbies like me, it feels like "you forget to do something listed above, please fix it in future". Can Wikipedia show this message at the time user is registering? (or any other ideas?)

TYPOGRAPHY & LEGIBILITY

PLEASE, EVERY single Book about Typography teach you, that bold Typefaces are DEFINITIVELY NOT legible and made for reading on screen. HEADLINES - OK - NAV - OK - LAYOUT - DISCUSSIBLE... but the TYPEFACE is a catastrophe for reading longer articles. More then ten Lines of Text look like a big black block on the screen. Letters of the Headlines are too bold. Small letters are bit blurred not crisp. think about serifs. I beg you get a typographer or consultant ... and solve this. (working on MAcbook Pro, Firefox 3.6.3)

search

I am not happy with the autocomplete in the search box. Please bring it back to how it was before. It is wasting my time trying to guess. I am using wikipedia as a work tool and you made it more difficult to use —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions

See also Wikipedia:User_experience_feedback/search_box#Search_Box_Autocomplete. Helder (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks,

After some requests about the javascript that moved Monobook's searchbar to the top right, I wrote a script that does the opposite in Vector (everyone has their own preference :D)

Vector search bar into the navigation column, check it out here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Krinkle/Scripts/VectorSearchNav

Use it by copy/pasting the two lines to your User:You/vector.js

Can also by installed as a Gadget ofcourse ;-) Krinkle (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Correcting a story then it is dleleted

I corrected factual errors on a page on Kauapea Beach (Secret Beach) Hawaiian island of Kauai. There is a paragraph on naturism that is inaccurate. I fixed it myslef and soon after what I typed was deleted and the article reverted to what it said before. What is the point if it can be reversed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.145.243 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference template forms

I really like the ability to automatically generate reference templates without messing with preferences. However, I think the fields could be better organized and explained. The date the work was published is important enough to not be an "extra" field. What is the star by the Work field, can can we fill in the accessdate automatically without the icon? Does it fill the preferred format? The archive fields, which must be used together, are not placed together. What is DOI? Is there documentation? The feature is useable, but it's cumbersome. (And what ever happened to hiding or coloring references once they're inserted?)HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adding articles to the Watchlist

I want to comment on the "star" addition at the top of the interface, which is used to link an article onto someones watchlist. Whilst I (now) understand why this was done (to minimize the tab width), It is confusing to have a symbol in place of something else, and no explanation as to what it is there for unless you go looking for one.

I spent 35 minutes last night trying to find the place to add an article onto my watchlist, before resorting to asking the #mediawiki IRC channel @ freenode if they'd actually added a watchlist link, which is when I was told that it was the star.

It's not so bad now I know where the button is, but do you think it would be possible to add a gadget into the Preferences on wikis using Vector, so that you can choose whether to display the Star, or have the word "Watch" in the interface instead?

For new users, it may be easier to give them the choice of how to customize the interface to their own wishes, so they know where everything is :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the temporary confusion. :) The star was chosen because it's become a common symbol in many applications (both online and offline) to flag important things. Examples include starring in GMail, the star used for bookmarks in Firefox and Chrome, favorite-tagging in some music applications, and so forth. For a new user who has no mental model of the functionality in Wikipedia, it's hard to see how the new icon is more or less discoverable than the old one. And whether you're a new user or an experienced user, once you've figured it out, you've figured it out. Therefore customizability doesn't IMO add to the discoverability or usability of the feature. I'm sure there are some folks who dislike the star on aesthetic grounds, but that falls into the usual territory of individual CSS/JS customization.--Eloquence * 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Eloquence - I was considering customising the interface, but since I know little to nothing about CSS or Javascript, and some of the people I've asked aren't sure which one would actually need to be used, it's not easy to figure out. If you could indicate whether it would be Client Side or Javascript which'd do this, that would make it easier. I intend to customise it to put the word "watch" there, instead, as was in Monobook. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you found the right talk page to post that request to. If you want to play yourself, you may want to take the German script for moving the search box as an example to learn from.--Eloquence * 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

dear sir ฉันไม่รู้จะติดต่อ คุณ จอนได้ที่ไหน ฉันคือคนที่ถูกถ่ายโดยดาวเทียม และต้องการความช่วยเหลือ ที่อยู่ ของแนคือ <email address removed for security> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.93.65 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I ran the above, in Thai, through Google Translate...The result is below:

"dear sir, I know Jon will get you anywhere, I am a person who was taken by satellites. And to help address the Nasdaq is <email address removed for security>." - I have no idea what he is on about, but if someone here knows Thai, and can translate this properly, we may find out :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At first I would agree for the statement 'who figured it out figured it out' and then it is good that this symbol saves place in the bar. But for a new user I think it isn't intuitive as before. Before you had several Buttons of same type in row, one of them 'watch' where you had a slight imagination of what it is for and the rest you figured out by just hitting on it or moving over. Now it is difficult to identify this as a Button and even if you have this connection with star and important things, I don't see the connection to 'watch'. --Flegmon (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Losing the tab marked "Watch" is a really dumb move, it is counter-intuitive, and is enough in itself to make me stop using the new interface. Presuming that because you know a star symbol has a very specific use in a limited number of applications, everyone else will, is not a good way of doing things. Using the word "Watch" to add to one's watchlist is very, very easy to understand. Replacing it with a star is not. There is a reason we don't still use pictograms for communication. fish&karate 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your font problem .....

I cannot read your web site. This is not my problem, it is your problem - that is if want people to be be able to access your web site. Why are you soliciting users to help you debug the font problem? You got the programmers - so just get it done. Better get it fixed then. - S. Davies, San Jose, Ca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davies01 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As being a newcomer, just to introduce myself and uo ßay hello to everyone.

My particulars : name: dk pandey, 59yrs, male, Education : B. Tech. In Agri. Engg. Retired from Govt. Job. Hoby: to make friends and to play chess. Feel free to cotact me at <redacted email> . . . . . . . .T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.179.142 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Spell-checker and default formats

I wonder is it possible to include a spell-checker and syntax checker in the wikipedia menu, or maybe a program that controls or reformats words in a standard way, or at least allows you to check where you where you have done it wrong? User:Jurriaan 25 June 2010 2:06 (UTC)

Most modern browsers and/or Operating Systems support spell-checking and they are a lot better at it, than any spell-checking that Wikipedia could probably provide. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speed issues with Wikipedia after implementation of new look

After implementation of new look I noticed a sudden and dramatic slowing of the speed of loading most pages on Wikipedia -It is frustrating - I spend alot of time looking at the progress bar at the bottom of the page. I have an older computer but a high speed DSL connection and am not experiencing these problems on other websites. It's a disproportionate time to load mostly text pages - something's (still) wrong. Earlier posts indicated some problems have been resolved - but I would disagree. Thanks. Bob - 06-25-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.106.37 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Line heights

I experience Wikipedia as a very user friendly tool. Pages are simple and scanable.
Yet whenever there is a word with an annotation^[1] the whole line is pushed down a bit.
Paragraphs loose a consistent line height. Which looks a bit dodgy.
This can - in my view - easily be changed by increasing the global height of a text line a bit, so that superscript text fits and no longer forces lines down a few pixels.
Alternatively the css could be changed; decrease the font size of annotation numbers.
kr LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.90.198 (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bug in Internet Explorer, which we unfortunately have not been able to work around reliably. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in need of adult supervision!

What do you do when consensus flies in the face of logic and sanity? According to the overwhelming majority of the editors involved in the discussion, the following is synthesis and is not allowed in Wikipedia:

"Pufferoos are a brand of cigarette. The Surgeon General has warned that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health." (reliable source)

(Because the Surgeon General did not mention "Pufferoos", by name, in a reliable source about smoking being hazardous!)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_addition_to_NOR_policy

It's NOT synthesis, because "Pufferoos" are cigarettes. It seems like censorship when stuff like this is deleted. I keep expecting a voice of reason and authority to step in and do something, but I'm beginning to see that Wikipedia is basically mob rule, and it's not pretty. Funny, but not pretty. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

GoN. We have already talked many times about your forum shopping. If you want to work with others, try to reconsider your position rather that running to every noticeboard you can find and claiming that you have been wronged.--Terrillja _talk 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the count of different forums now, Gon? And you're still 0-fer. It's synthesis. You're wrong. It's that's simple. Ravensfire (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming I've been wronged. I'm claiming Wikipedia is a like a playground full of bullies with no teachers in charge. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the child in the playground upset because he didn't get his way. Since he can't possibly be in the wrong, it's everyone else's fault. It's never, ever his fault. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the example above is clearly not synthesis, no matter how many people say it is. The result is that according to the current policy, in an article about a brand of cigarettes, you can't point out that they are health hazard, because it's unlikely someone has done research or published an article on the health hazards of a particular brand of cigarette. The current policy is ridiculous, and is being used as an excuse for censorship. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I should say the way the current policy is being INTERPRETED is ridiculous. The current policy doesn't seem to address cases like the one above. I've tried to fix that, but my proposal was shot down. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Favorite feature

Hi,

It would be great if you could add a favorite feature.

Thanks!

Yoav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.172.177 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

waste of time

i used to use wikipedia alot. but since all that changes in look, feel and usability i'm avoiding it where i can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.210.202.241 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Look

OMG, I'm now going blind trying to read this new look that has been created in xxx-small font. C'mon, seriously? Unless you are in cahoots with the optometry profession, please bring back a bigger font or this entire site is worthless. If you can't read it, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.134.238 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

GIANT FONT SIZE ???

??? WHAT TO DO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.45.105 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Preview-related

I've complained before about, IIRC, things that aren't working right in the preview, but since then, i've noted that i always, or perhaps nearly always, have to preview twice before the changes are reflected in the preview window. Just now it took three times, for two successive sets of changes.
--Jerzy•t 22:30 & 22:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Pages are very slow to load since new format

Pages appear to start to load normally - i.e. a 'window-full' appears, but then it locks, as though it had hung (not-responding) and it will stay that way for anything between a second or two or up to 10-30 seconds (depending on the page, the PC and the browser in use). This is amazingly slow considering that a page, even a long page, would never take more than a few seconds to load even on a slow PC with an older browser (e.g. IE6) before this new format was introduced. Even with a new (fast) PC and later browser, the new format is often slower than the old format was on a 12yr old PII machine running W98/IE6! Does that put it in context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.171.121 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Three minutes to login. Terrible performance. Basically making it too frustrating to use. blackcloak (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Log in page remembers username, even though "Remember me" was unchecked

I recently noticed the log in page remembers the username that was last logged in. It didn't always do this.

Other websites I use, like youtube.com, facebook.com, and mail.google.com, don't do this: I uncheck any "remember me" box when signing in, and make sure to sign out when I'm done. When I sign in again in the future, the username box is blank.

Consider making Wikipedia behave the same way: An unchecked "Remember me" box during sign in and a specifically requested "Log out" should mean the username box is blank on the next sign in. --Bavi H (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the autofill feature of your browser ? You probably accidentally approved to remember the information. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, MediaWiki has behaved this way forever (the cookie responsible expires after 30 days). Someone may want to write a bug report some day. Perhaps someone already has. It's one of my pet annoyances when I'm on public computers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, I verified it was a cookie before posting here. (I never use and always disable any auto-fill features in my browsers.) 2. I could have sworn this behavior started in the last month or two. Previously, I remember typing in my username every time I log in. 3. I thought this was an appropriate place for user interface "bug reports"? Do you think we should search for or file a report somewhere else? --Bavi H (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't really comment on the efficacy of this page. My first reaction would be to check bugzilla (see WP:BUGS). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK and being PBF.

Dear people, What would you say are the + & - of having a UK dedicated Wikipeadi and would you / your IT / web developers-contributors support such a stance or not?

Secondly, on your alphabetical HELP system is it possible to insert [ with some help ] a PBF section [ PBF = PlasticBagFree ]there are now well over 200 UK PlasticBagFree campaign groups.

Tony Langham Founder S.C.R.A.P - www.salisburyplasticfree.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandaddy1946 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Search box doesn't work in Windows Mobile 5/6

You have added a funky search box, however you have funcked it up and now it doesn't work. It doesn't appear in the IE browser at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.145.36 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia turing into wikibloat-ia

Now the main page takes ~500k to load.

Great work, you have now limited wikipedia to those fortunate ones who have adsl2 or fibre connections.

So you decided to screw the rest of the world, as long as you can see how clever and bloated you can make it for yourselves.

Good one. (Thats is a sarcastic remark there to the left) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.145.36 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I change the font? Your default font makes my reading unpleasant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.25.147 (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fighting complacency

Last night, I used a colleagues PC. We have to reduce the number of keystrokes needed to log on. I tried again to use this vector skin- but it is just impossible. So I had to log on (23 keystrokes in my case) go to My Preferences-> then Appearance and then hit the Monobook button. A further 5 keystrokes. Wikipedia became usable and I was able to show the guy what I wanted to show him.

Four points to make:

If you stick with vector you forget just how appalling that skin actually is.
Heavy duty users have switched back to monobook a long time ago- so the number of comments here from the experienced will continue to decline, not because they are accepting vector- but because it is merely a bad memory.
The community is split- which is a bad thing
It is the new user that gets the negative experience

Short of the blindingly obvious solution-( 0 keystrokes) I have one very serious suggestion. Add a button to the portal for ip users to say 'Traditional Interface' so they can leave the lunacy.( 1 key-stroke). For those how have not tried the vector interface as an ip-user: there is no Take me Back button, the New Features Page, that occurs here,- gives a page of wikispam, and a link to revert that is only available to logged in users. ( 25 Key-strokes) --ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That would require that the foundation doubled Wikipedia's caching capacity, which is not realistic (cost and effort wise). You have not explained what problem you were encountering btw. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Extra grey sidebar

On my last visit, (Sunday 27th June), I noticed that the article I was viewing had an extra sidebar on the left of the article, to the right of the normal one, and partly obscuring the text of the article. This sidebar was in a light grey, and contained no text or images. Putting the mouse cursor over it brought up a "hand" cursor and a yellow help bubble that indicated it was a link to something, but there was no link to click on, or any way to remove this extra sidebar. The page was also a lot longer than the actual article needed, with a lot of empty space at the end.

We are using IE6.0.2600.0000 on Windows98 (yes I know that's ancient, but it worked OK before). Also, things are now slow (on dial-up) since the changes. I think I preferred the old interface (although I appreciate those who edit pages might prefer the new one).

Roy (in the UK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.66.224 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Parental Control

There does not seem to be a simple way to allow children to access wiki. Maybe graphic images could be tagged by image name or by some attribute, by the submitter or by editors? Maybe part of the upload process could have a check box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.67.34 (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a cultural neutral parental control system, which is one of the primary reason, that Wikipedia is not censored nor is it a 'parent'-approved version of an Encyclopedia. Also, kids are smarter than parents and often easily evade parental controls on websites. An effort has started to see what technical measures and ideas are available and what can be done to counter concerns in this area, but is is a very complicated area, both ethically and technologically. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Images have tags, and any number of tags could be added to an image to accommodate various cultural differences. Also, it is an age-discriminatory stereotype that children know more about computers than their parents. A parent with administrative rights on a box can give a child a standard user account to browse with, and very few children would be able to hack the admin password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.67.34 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing discriminatory about that, because it was scientifically proven. Even the Family Online Safety Institute has repeated such research results. Besides, this goes much further than just sexual content (which seems the limit of 'graphic' for many people). It goes as far as hiding images of muhammed in articles because parents or readers in Iran do not want to see those (because we don't discriminate). Such is a delicate matter with a lot of problems, that not a single organization has fully solved yet. Wikipedia is not censored and is not child safe. Nowhere do we state that we are. If you want to control what your child is exposed to, than at this time that will have to be enforced with direct supervision, or adding wikipedia to your computers filter software so that your child cannot access it. In the mean time, like stated, Wikipedia and its volunteers are looking into methods that would satisfy both parties (those who do not want to be limited in free speech, and those that want to protect their children), but this is a long and complicated process that most likely will take at least two more years. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why hide as much as possible of the functions in the edit-window? Why this bland, boring contrast-lacking layout? The tabs separated at a very RSI-promoting distance, why? What's wrong with a more user-friendly interface, also for uninlogged? Not to mention the searchwindow which is now easy to mistake for the google or whatever in the browser - do you want people to migrate away that bad? 95.34.215.67 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (btw - where are the ~'s hidden now?

Color problem

Some users reports difficulties with the colors. It seems like it can be because of light blue on blue/gray background. Same problem existed earlier, but it seems like the new Vector skin has increased the problem quite a lot. Jeblad (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dimming of background

Some users reports strain on their eyes from the dimming of background when they use the link wizard. Could be the increased contrast. Jeblad (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Its really very useful and more attractive and user friendly now ever before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylansmith (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Title separated from text it refers to

In the current configuration, the major titles are separated from the section the refer to by a line, which also puts them in the same section as the text above. Despite the fact that some people do this, it is misguided. It is easier to read when the line separator is above the title, putting the title in the same visible section as the text it refers to. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pixel style in maths

In recent time math formulas on Wikipedia are shown in worse resolution. Also some of the math graphics, for example the animation on the Cycloid page, have worse resolution. The question is whether Wikipeda have changed from scalable vector graphics (SVG) to portable network graphics (PNG)? And in that case why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fribacka (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the rendering of Math formulas has not changed over the past years, although their backgrounds are now transparent. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update "Soomra Dynasty"

In above page the book titled "An Illustrated Historical Atlas of Soomra Kingdom of Sindh" has been used as "Source". I am the publisher of that book. Almost whole book (text, Maps & illustrations)is available at our website http://www.snc-pk.webs.com Please acknoledge

Regards

Umer Soomro Founder & President, Soomra National Council - Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.120.33 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

UI elements missing (in Vector skin)

especially the one to move pages. --Jhartmann (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding photos

I can't find the instructions for adding photos. Please direct me to the correct set of instructions. Thank you. Anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisulip (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload Kwiki (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Languages

Comment: I like that the languages section on the left hand side is hidden now by default - it is not something that is used often, so showing those (sometimes 20+) links clutters the page unnecessarily.

Idea: Ok, first I am going to make a few assertions based on no evidence... In general;

Not many people use the language links (see comment above)
Of the people that do, they do not use it very often.
Of the people that do, they only use a few (say 2 or 3) languages.

If what I guess to be true is, then showing all the languages to a logged in user is showing too much information. I think it should only show the ones you are interested in.

For example, lets say I am interested in two languages; English (main) and Japanese (secondary). Every now and then I will want to look at the Japanese version. So I expand the languages section (as I already mentioned, I like this part). But then I need to find the Japanese link. If it is a good article, then it will have many links. So it will be somewhere about two thirds at the bottom of a two page list. Not easy to find.

So my suggestion is something like this: Have a means to specify the languages you are interested in. Perhaps a preference section. Then the languages bar will show those languages that you are interested in and hide the rest. If the language is not available, it will tell you that it is not available. By saying that it is not available (explicit), it avoids the current situation where you are not sure if it is not available, or you just cant find the link in the 50+ item language list. It would also make it easier for people to link two existing articles. So maybe the language section could look like this:

(+) Languages

English
Japanese

(note, that plus sign (a triangle in the current vector skin) at the front of 'languages' would let you expand the full list of languages). If a Japanese version (in the above example) is not available/linked, it would provide visual feedback somehow (maybe it wont be a link, or it will have some extra text).

--Boy.pockets (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't tie column widths to _font_ size; leave proportional to page _width_.

Don't set the width of the left navigation column (and boxes in the text) in terms of the font size. Leave it proportional to the page width (or leave the browser free to choose the width).

Setting those widths in terms of the font size means that the main column of text becomes much narrower as one increases the font size.

See the page at at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_Grey, enlarge the font size, and watch the main text column almost disappear.

(Don't take more and more space for the generic part of the page (e.g., that left navigation column, which is on every page anyway). Let the browser allocate the space to the main content of the page.)

216.1.16.126 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic pronunciation

The phonetic pronunciation provided at the beginning of some articles is useless to me, and to anyone who is not privy to the secret code used to write them. Okay, I am sure there is a page somewhere in Wikipedia that explains the secret code. Shoot, there is probably a whole section on the subject, but I am NOT interested in learning the code. All I want to know is how to pronounce the word. Merriam-Webster has a nice feature: they provide an audible example. That might be more than you want to tackle. Using good old dictionary pronunciation guidelines would be an acceptable alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.211.16 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment level

I think that the default interface should implement the code at User:Pyrospirit/metadata. One of the biggest problems we have with getting people to trust Wikipedia, is that they don't see us trying to maintain the quality of the articles. I showed another user last week, and he had no clue that you could do this and thought it would be very useful. If you implemented this code, or something similar, it would tell users alot more about articles on the main page. Right now we only show them GA and FA symbols, why not the whole range, that way we can increase awareness of all of our efforts in assessing articles? Sadads (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a massive pain to add a stub image to over one million articles. The GA and FA symbols encompass only a few thousand pages in all. They are also constant enough that a change in their status would be noticed. If you took a random article and expanded it, sometimes the stub template isn't removed from the page. Other times, the article's talk page isn't changed to reflect this change. GA and FA articles are more constant so that when they are nominated for their status, someone manually changes the template. If you respond to this and I don't, feel free to drop by my talk page with any questions that you might have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

I did some work on the old browser, it does not show up on my watchlist. How do I get it to post?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Special characters

In the "Special characters" menu, there are only special characters for Latin, Latin-extended, IPA, Symbols, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Bangla, Telugu, Sinhala and Gujarati. Why these? I have written articles about things related to South-East Asia, so I would have liked to have seen also Thai, Lao, and Cambodian script be available in this menu. Why aren't they, are they considered less culturally important than these four Indic scripts? It also puzzles me that you have chosen to include four Indic scripts, but have not chosen Devanagari which is used to write Hindi, the official language of India.

It also strikes me as a weakness to sort the Latin characters alphabetically and to divide them into the two arbitrarily defined Unicode categories: Latin and Latin-extended. It would probably be much better for users if the characters were divided into language subsets, so that, for instance, a person wanting to write about a Vietnamese topic could go to the Vietnamese subsection and find all the characters needed to write Vietnamese there, rather than having to switch back and forth between the two categories Latin and Latin-extended. V85 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of your requests make perfect sense. Can you please report them to Bugzilla? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you comment Amir, I have now done so, bug 24257. V85 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

proper display when hanging the flag in a vertical position.

the stars are always displayed at the top, left corner when hung Horizontally. therfore, this is the front of the flag. no matter how the flag is displayed......this is the front of the flag. if you have a painted flag on any piece of material, this is the side that is painted.....again, the front. there is only one side that is viewed. so hang it in the vertical position......the stars are on the top right. thank you, jan hoover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.218.132.5 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the search box - i need to click on it twice to get the cursor active!!!!! VERY FRUSTRATING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.2.176 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cites

I will try to edit content for cites so the censor lunatics don't intervene.. I hate cites. Is there a specific APA or MLSA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.68.46 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Links

I think at the top of each page, wikipedia should have a link to the actual web page of that subject if available. If it doesn't have something close to a web page then it should have a link to the google page of that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.220.142 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We tend to place those links at the bottom in the External links sections. Usually it is the first link in that section and it is labeled as "Official website of.....". The reasoning is that a page should describe the topic, not be a link guide towards that topic. There are other websites that are much more suited for being linkguides. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

donate?

could we make it easier?? paypal in the bottom right corner?

This is a good suggestion and I think it is already in consideration. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Miami medical

I think you are making a big mistake by dropping the MIAMI MEDICAL show. I am a pretty good judge when it comes to picking a winning TV show and MIAMI MEDICAL in my book is a keeper. Please reconsider continuing it. I don't think that you will be sorry. Yours truly, John Lewis 818-289-9923 [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.116.241 (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Micro font

Over the weekend I've been unable to use wikipedia on my work computer which has Microsoft Office 2007 and Internet Explorer 7.0. The font on the screen was so small that even when I turned my computer to the lowest possible resolution, I still couldn't read a thing. As soon as I turned off the new features, the features returned to ALMOST normal. They are still smaller than usual, but not impossible to read.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You have likely turned the fontsize of your browser down, by accidentally hitting the keycombination for that. See MS training page for more information. Control key + the mousewheel often changes the fontsize as well in browsers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

D0h! You are correct... it only affected WP (and I noticed today one other page)? But it is now back to normal. Thanks.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MOONRAKER JABAR SPEED MANIAC

MOONRAKER INDONESIA http://www.facebook.com/moonrakerindonesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker indonesia (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed problem

There should be some option to turn of animations. This is important for mobile devices. Perhaps there should also be inserted some marker in the page to let scripts be aware of mobile devices and act accordingly. Only when there is valid reasons to believe the device can't handle the ordinary user interface the request should be redirected to the wap-version. Jeblad (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mobile devices are normally directed to the mobile web portal. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read that again, and what you ask is simply impossible. It assumes that there is some sort of performance metric or standard capabilities tag in the mobile space and unfortunately there is no such thing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vel, then I have coded some impossible javascripts! ;p Plainly, the mobile portal ~~sucks big time~~ is a little bit less functional than I might want it to be. It works for some of the simplest mobile devices but it is way off for serious use. Jeblad (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your patches are welcome in bugzilla:. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am experiensing speed problems with new interface, it's so slow that even opening this edit took 25 minutes, I can't log in either bacause of slowness since someone was 'wise' and put up some sort of safety mechanism that stops login if it takes too long, I don't give a damn if my account is compromised by login taking forever, as long as I can switch back to old interface, which I now can't, thank you very much. 80.186.203.66 (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like pages started loading as they used to in past, I'll leave my comment the way it was and add this one to let ppl know problem was solved. 80.186.203.66 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary preview

(Thanks for fixing the maddening need for hammering the Preview button!)
I continue to hope that the long-established preview display of the edit summary will return. Often a good summary includes a lk to a page, or to a talk section, but these are easy to screw up, and the only remedy other than catching them in the preview is to do a dummy edit after having saved the broken link!
--Jerzy•t 07:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar

Problems with dictionary.app for MacBook Pro using OSX

Nav bar

how wrong is Wikipedia

Slowness in article retrieval

David Armstrong

suggestion: put starter cursor into search box

Screw the new layout!

Get rid of the new layout!

still broken

The new appearance of your pages.

Get rid of the new layout!

Wikipedia on the Playstation 3

Rid the new layout !!

Note for moderators.

the new format

Language menu

Dvorak Keyboard & Esperanto

Wikipedia Ireland Problem

Newly Created Stack Jones Page

New Wikipedia has become slower

best of best

view statistics

edit conflicts

Blackberry 4.5 Operating System Unable To Read

Search Box

Different languages?

The "new" Wikipedia Page SUCKS!!!

New Appearance

en.wiki-software disfunctional!

Stumble on Wiki

love the new look

YOUR NEW PRINT IS TOO SMALL!

New layout

Related Article Drop Down Menu

New look and feel screwed up access for IE6 users. Goodbye Wikipedia!

Unexplained

A comment.

New layout

Wiki is in Small fonts, Slow to Load on Mobile

website new layout

Change of font

Problem accessing Wikipedia via BlackBerry since new look launched

New appearance and going back

Search box

My thoughts

New changes crash's Blackberry's

Far too editorialized.

Elegy for Wikipedia

Spelling

New design and functions proposals

Wikipedia Icon top left icon is misplaced - covers half of the word 'Article'

finding someone

random article.

Usability Team: Please consider posting a "Read" notice after each section

Wikpedia Last Update.

"Genre"

New Features page - error?

the search widget

Reply link in discussions

Navigable table of contents

Search box location

Mobiles/PPCs/PDAs and the search box

New page

Edit Button

Just Letting you know how I like It

collapsable things wont uncollapse

Love the new interface

A simple toggle that would benefit many

Search Bar... RETURN TO THE LEFT

Text Size

The New Font

Whatever you did to Wiki

Suggesting a spoiler tag feature.

searchbox

My issues with Vector

New Features Problem

Languages: could it be customizable?

Move function is not visible (or gone?)

Arabic language in pdf