Seriously... I mean Vector is decent, but Monobook is pretty sad.
Seriously... I mean Vector is decent, but Monobook is pretty sad.
Actually that's exactly right. The communities are so large it's nearly impossible to get a consensus on anything to make a change. Because of that, they have made it very customizable, giving the users the option of using the options they want and turning off those they don't.
The underlying code there is trash at this point with tons and tons of flaws and problems that need to be fixed but either can't or can't without significant effort. They do a lot of things I dislike including the toxic atmosphere on several of the communities, but some things they do get right.
Reguyla wrote: I might do that but it's doubtful they will do anything. I could craft something myself in CSS or Java but they won't allow that either. I really think several communities are going to leave over this but I don't think it will be enough to matter to the Wikia staff. That is another good thing about the WMF projects, they are a lot more flexible in what the users can do. If we could take the postives of Wikia and the positives of the WMF and merge them, while getting rid of the worst of both, we would have a damn good project.
Also Special:Contact/feedback. It's just as unlikely to cause changes there as it does here.
I agree and I did.
What I suggested was they allow people to do customizable CSS or Java but require it be reviewed by staff before implementation. I think that's a reasonable compromise to ensure the integrity of the site.
Of course that still doesn't mean they'll do it, but it's worth asking at least.
“ | Actually that's exactly right. The communities are so large it's nearly impossible to get a consensus on anything to make a change. Because of that, they have made it very customizable, giving the users the option of using the options they want and turning off those they don't. | „ |
The customization on Wikipedia and others are the same as Wikia, only the difference is there are more tickboxes in Special:Preference on the Wikipedia and Wikia likes you to use your personal JavaScript page and so forth to make customisations for yourself (starting material is on the Dev wiki). It is otherwise literally impossible to actually customize the Wikipedia and co. further than what you can do on an individual Wiki site unless your proposal is so good, it makes the current Wikipedia's look and function obsolete and ultimately 10% worse.
“ | What I suggested was they allow people to do customizable CSS or Java but require it be reviewed by staff before implementation. I think that's a reasonable compromise to ensure the integrity of the site. | „ |
So, what you actually suggested is remove more restrictions outlined in the customisation policy to the point it adjusts things listed on the customisation policy (which are there to ensure the site remains functional)?
That first part is sort of right but not quite. In Wikia, the TOS says users cannot create their own JS or CSS customizations. Wikipedia allows it. Another thing I like is that people can see in Phabricator the changes that have been done, suggested, etc. but in Wikia we have no idea whats going on.
On the second part, close but not quite. What I suggested was allowing people to do customizations but have to vet those through Wikia staff to ensure they do not hinder the sites performance or functionality beyond the expected outcome of the code. For example, eliminating the giant footer or restricting the ads to IP's and accounts that don't have an established history of editing the Wiki or based on a certain criteria...autoconfirmed even.
1. I assume you can do anything with your JavaScript or CSS if it was on your personal page and was not used for malicious purposes on Wikia and Wikipedia. Am I missing something on a help page? Other than that, Wikia does have a Github, though I do agree that it is less intuitive compared to Phabricator.
2. Fair enough, though I believe they don't allow that for a reason I am not aware of.
Wikia restricts it more. Especially removing the ads, they really don't like people doing that and even if the outcome isn't malicious it can get you banned.
Since there are already some people who don't want me around, including some fandom staff, due to my status on the WMF projects, I don't want to take any chances. Some would ban me for things they would let others do or let off with a warning. I was banned from Wikia discord and IRC just because someone from the WMF projects asked for it here. So it likely wouldn't take much.
...I thought you could do whatever to your personal CSS/JS, just not the site one? 0_o (Particularly because the site JS requires approval here, which means you can't slip anything under the table.)
Tupka217 wrote: The idea behind it is that many people lack the attention span to read an entire article and just want a quick overview with visual embellishment.
Be that as it may, I don't think, say, a video with clips of random Steven Universe episodes is an accurate breakdown of its episode list. (And most people coming to a list article are probably looking for something specific that they'll find in the text, anyway, not reading the article like a book.) So the site needs to get better at what kind of videos are served where or at least have better intelligence/discrimination over what pages that would actually help to have a video on.
Just going to copy and paste with some editing.
The change is awful. Edits no longer show as opened when clicking on something from the recent changes or otherwise. Pages are also much larger than they should be. There's not even a button to get to your own contributions with this awful skin. Oasis is ugly and harder to navigate too.
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.
It takes 3 clicks now to get to the file history of an image instead of just 1.
SeaTerror wrote: Oasis is ugly and harder to navigate too.
Monobook was also easier to view since it wasn't so cluttered.
Liar. Oasis is the superior skin and that is a fact, not an opinion.