Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-22224-20180521161500/@comment-1940096-20180530040829

Cheeseskates wrote: I love making large responses! LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

Not even the fact that OVER 80% OF ITS AREA IS NOT USEFUL CONTENT?! As I said, there is nothing "actually" wrong with that. It is a subjective preference and content that can easily be ignored. LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

I don't know how I can ever reason with someone who thinks this insanity is anywhere near acceptable. Perhaps the reasoning is not as concrete and factual as you expected. What you are detailing are not actual problems that do nothing but harm the user and reader. It's a style you can dislike but have the chance to get used to and even like. This is not possible if issues such as destructive advertisements are common, but it is possible if such ads and features are not intrusive and easily ignorable if you are not focused on that particular element at that moment. LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

Yes, Live Chat is junk. No one uses that. When I have something to say, I go to the Talk page. Plenty of people use the live chat. You just don't use the live chat. That does not mean, as a result, it is actually junk. It is you who thinks it is junk when it is a competent feature. Real-time responses that have usernames and avatars separate the comments are easier to comprehend (for me) than a talk page where indents and signatures are the only way to make the page comprehensible. I also find article comments to be more comprehensible and neat than a talk page, and that isn't even the live chat. Overall, it is a subjective preference rather than an actual issue which you are trying to pose this as. LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

Yes, Trending Articles is junk. Major waste of horizontal space, which some content absolutely needs. I can't stress this enough: that column plus the margins take almost half of the screen's width. Besides, it's a distraction from what I want to read, the content of the page I'm on. Can you provide me with an example where Monobook gives content the horizontal space it "absolutely needs" over Oasis (can probably test it on your Wikipedia sandbox page or elsewhere?) I can understand tables, but the issue with tables already is it is not very mobile-compatible (that is an actual issue to those primarily on Mobile). Therefore, I wouldn't use tables to present data like that. LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

Yes, Fan Feed is junk. Three screens worth of visually chaotic crap that I didn't want to see in the first place! Again, why do you want me to move away from the information that I actually want? I went to that page because what I want is in that goddamn page, leave me alone! 1. Since it is the purpose of the advertisement to garner clicks, there is always the possibility that what you might see might not be what you wanted to see initially, but what you might see might be something you thought you never wanted until you checked it out.

2. You don't have to move away from the information you actually want. The fan feed is at the bottom of every page and article comment section, so again, you have to go out of your way to actually view this fan feed. At that point, the fan feed is content you wanted to see and potentially click. Makes sense to me. LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote:

Yes, Recent Activity is junk. It's only very mildy useful for admins, and completely pointless for the vast majority of readers. And again, not worth sacrificing the horizontal space. This would be fair if this "necessary" horizontal space you keep mentioning has been demonstrated to me. I otherwise like the smaller margin space since I don't have to have my eyes run a marathon from one side of my monitor to the next. Refer to my essay example I mentioned earlier.

Again, I am only hearing issues that are at worst a subjective thing and at best easily fixable while remaining on Oasis (like ignoring the content you don't want to see) and without external scripts (though scripts do help a lot). The actual issues are otherwise minimal, mostly unnoticeable, and rare (minus destructive advertisements).

To add to Monobook's "subjective" flaws that I noticed (without screenshots because this is easily testable):
 * The content being stretched to the right will only favour me depending on the monitor I am using. Otherwise, the content will be unreasonably stretched out, making paragraphs minimal and, therefore, images on the article would be too close to each other. If my monitor is too small, then Monobook scaling the content to the small screen can make pages too long vertically and makes paragraphs exhausting and the images only present in one column or otherwise too big to even fit properly. Of course, this can be fixed by zooming in or out of the page and having your device/browser remember this. Otherwise, the presentation will depend entirely on my monitor and how the page handles its content afterwards.
 * Adding to this, because the content depends entirely on the scaling of a user's devices, I can't tell if something looks bad because it is their screen making it look bad. I would have to edit consistently and check up on how it looks for the user, then in the meantime, the content looks bad on another screen. Oasis does not have this problem because the scaling is intended to be the same for everyone on two types of screens: "normal", "tablet", and "XL" for "extra large."

Would be happy to discuss it.

SeaTerror wrote:

"Oasis is ugly and harder to navigate." Demonstrate this, please. Citrusellaeditswikis wrote: I think lack of a choice (outside of avenues that may cause less technically-inclined users to recoil, like PseudoMonobook, which requires you to add something to your user CSS, which can intimidate someone not familar with the process) is still the biggest problem.

Slightly separate note: referencing that screenshot, the "whitespace" for some reason (I can't for the life of me figure out why exactly because it seems to be Wikia-specific ) causes me to get distracted on not just a regular level but a disability one (it's a fine line). That's a little more mucky than subjective preference or easy ignoring, but it's also something that not too huge of a population is going to be dealing with versus preference issues.

That's a fair reason. FANDOM has offered their help, so I hope things turn out good for your experience someday. Hopefuklly, something on the Dev wiki like PseudoMonobook will be satisfactory in the meantime.

When trying to edit an article from an older reversion there's no way to just click the edit button again to get to the current version. You have to click the article title link THEN click the edit button all over again instead of just having one click.

There is also absolutely no way to get to your own contributions like you could easily in Monobook. You have to either type it yourself or find a page you edited.

Pages no longer open as "viewed" like they did in Monobook as I already mentioned in my first post.

Monobook was also easier to view since it wasn't so cluttered.