Seriously... I mean Vector is decent, but Monobook is pretty sad.
Seriously... I mean Vector is decent, but Monobook is pretty sad.
Perhaps they (Seaterror, that is) meant "wiki farms that use MediaWiki", of which there would be a higher likelihood of visual overlap because out-of-the-box Mediawiki comes with Vector and Monobook (among other skins). Many on the (incredibly-non-exhaustive, I believe, but OTOH might be exhaustive as far as notable services by enwikpedia standards) list you linked don't use MediaWiki at all so of course they're not going to look like it unless they have some sort of equivalent skin on that farm's software. (This isn't an angry declaration or something. I'm just trying to lay out why a wiki farm that isn't Wikia wouldn't use Monobook or Vector.)
This, for example, is a different listing on mediawiki.org that is only allowed to list MediaWiki wiki hosts. (Note: It's still quite possible for a Mediawiki wiki to not look like Wikipedia anywho because of what that farm offers. Case in point: *points at computer screen*)
Citrusellaeditswikis wrote:
Perhaps they (Seaterror, that is) meant "wiki farms that use MediaWiki"...
Yeah, I don't read what people mean... I read what they write.
Fandyllic wrote:
SeaTerror wrote:
Fandyllic wrote: ..., but many of them don't look like MediaWiki/Wikipedia.
This is blatantly false.
Prove it.
Here's a link with a list of wiki farms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services
Show us how most of these look like Wikipedia... from my accounting... at most half do... the rest don't.
Actually the burden of proof would be on you since you made the original claim.
SeaTerror wrote:
Actually the burden of proof would be on you since you made the original claim.
Okay... here it is from the first table.
LYRIC-Stormwatch wrote: It doesn't waste half of the screen's width with white space and a column of garbage.
Definitely agree with the garbage comment!
I understand this thread is essentially dead but, I wanted to add two things that seem to be skimmed over when talking about Monobook.
Monobook provided a faster connection. Older computers/browsers and countries without decent internet could access Wikia sites much easier.
Some people used Monobook because it was much easier to read black text on a white background. I see wikis with blue text on purple backgrounds. Do you know how hard it is to read that when you're colorblind?
That'd probably be hard to read when not colorblind. You should be able to address that with administrators to get it changed, unless they're not receptive, same as if someone made that change to Monobook (not all wikis' Monobook skins were using the default colors--the wiki I admin, for instance, used a color scheme close to its current Oasis scheme, though it looked better in Monobook). I presume you could theoretically do it yourself, too, if you could mess with the proper CSS in your personal CSS file but not every lay-user can do that and it's pretty complicated (and not as far reaching) compared to the theme editor for the overall site.
I've been trying to hammer in the accessibility angle, though, since there is a lot in Oasis that doesn't mesh well with my brain. PseudoMonobook and some other edits help some but not completely. But I'm pulling my hair out over every change I'm seeing from Wikia now that I'm actually considering broaching the idea to the wiki I run of moving to another wiki farm so maybe I won't have to worry much longer.
Oasis has less issues running now than it did some years ago, but I notice that even on my relatively-current computer/browser, certain actions that would be speedy on Monobook take appreciably longer in Oasis.
Imdill3 wrote: Some people used Monobook because it was much easier to read black text on a white background. I see wikis with blue text on purple backgrounds. Do you know how hard it is to read that when you're colorblind?
FANDOM has started working on that recently to get that in the public eye. Nonetheless, I've seen some wikis that are bad. Some of my own wikis are bad (I'm trying to get stuff done). This could be something for a staff blog to raise attention.
Citrusellaeditswikis wrote: That'd probably be hard to read when not colorblind. You should be able to address that with administrators to get it changed, unless they're not receptive, same as if someone made that change to Monobook (not all wikis' Monobook skins were using the default colors--the wiki I admin, for instance, used a color scheme close to its current Oasis scheme, though it looked better in Monobook). I presume you could theoretically do it yourself, too, if you could mess with the proper CSS in your personal CSS file but not every lay-user can do that and it's pretty complicated (and not as far reaching) compared to the theme editor for the overall site.
I've been trying to hammer in the accessibility angle, though, since there is a lot in Oasis that doesn't mesh well with my brain. PseudoMonobook and some other edits help some but not completely. But I'm pulling my hair out over every change I'm seeing from Wikia now that I'm actually considering broaching the idea to the wiki I run of moving to another wiki farm so maybe I won't have to worry much longer.
Oasis has less issues running now than it did some years ago, but I notice that even on my relatively-current computer/browser, certain actions that would be speedy on Monobook take appreciably longer in Oasis.
I still say ease of use is the biggest issue. If something use to take one click in Monobook it shouldn't take 2-3 in Oasis.