Community Central

This page was made from the first 2036 comments on User blog:Sannse/Your First Look at the New Wikia. --◄mendel► 21:10, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

wow! That looks awesome! When will this become available for all wikis? --KiumaruHamachi 15:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing after the Beta testing. I still hope wikia's arn't forced to use this, and have the option of reverting back to the old --AlienGamer 16:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
We haven't got a definite date yet, the Beta testing comes first, and that will start soon! --Sannse 00:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
beta testing first --Happy65 18:23, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. --Axxonnfire 15:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am speechless. Great job on it! --CodExpert 15:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Will there be an option to change it back to the current look? --Axxonnfire 15:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Want to know. --OpenBSDWiki 15:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
That would be nice to have! --Darkcloud! 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Hope so --Jeffwang16 17:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully --Carzmoviefan 20:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Can't wait to see it live on a wiki. --Brambram 15:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nice! --DinoQueen13 15:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound good... --OpenBSDWiki 15:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Coolio! --Koukishi 15:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Awesomesauce --TheManOfIron 15:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree lol --EDFan12345 16:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Im too set in my ways, let's see how bad this throws me off..!:D --RazoE 15:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I know. I don't like when things change. Lol --TheManOfIron 16:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I actually kind of like it, let's see how it looks in action... --Pcj 16:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! --Um2k9 16:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there should be an option to revert back to Monaco and Monobook skins if I decide I won't like it. I look forward to trying it out though. I'm just a bit curious where all the links (recent changes, special pages etc) are by looking at the picture. --Solar Dragon 16:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks excellently. Great job. --Misiek95 16:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. --ShienTheBest 16:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


No. -- 16:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If it messes the skin of my wiki... :/ --Matias arana 10 16:12, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Does it? --Waiyenoo111 11:21, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Nice! One thing I notice from the image, is that toolbar, I hate that style of toolbar that move with the user's scrolling. --Lcawte 16:14, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this is going to be a mandatory change, and that support for Monoco is going to be dropped fairly soon. Why force this on us?

Monoco and this new skin are both very "busy" layouts full of roundrects, buttons, gradients, etc. Why on earth won't Wikia offer a version of Monobook or Vector that we can set as our wiki's default skin? --Ademrudin 16:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Cool, but like the way it is now. --Collector1 16:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I literally fainted seeing that. That's really cool. --Akbaboy 16:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, look, I can reply to a comment now! FINALLY no more "@USER-EXAMPLE:" anymore! --Jeffwang16 16:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

What's supposed to be that? an encyclopedic article or a blog post? It does seem to a blog post rather than an encyclopedic article.

Did you know that almost every mirror sites of wikipedia (sites that mirror wikipedia's content automatically and includes ads to earn money) have the same look as the screenshot you posted? Is this the new Wikia's New Style? --Ciencia Al Poder 16:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I hope it will be only for new wikis and requests. --Creatureboy11 16:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. --Katrina the Rich Girl 16:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't wait to see and use the new look applied... --Nitrobot 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I can say that the wiki is better the way it's now. But will the skin features be gone anyway? --Divinecross 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks and (hopefully) behaves fairly well, but I'm too used to the current wikia layout. --Rostov-na-don 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Gawd no! I hope this fails like Quartz! Well I suppose it looks alright but I really don't want Monaco to be dropped. Don't go around it like you did with Monobook, keep Monaco - all our skin design may take a long time to replace! --Tigernose 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks awesome. Can't wait to see what it looks like on my wiki. --J.Severe 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Way too much "stuff" for my taste. I want to keep it simple when I edit, not with a bunch of images and others that squashes my edit window.

That said, I'm glad I can still edit in Monobook. --Gourra 16:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's very beautiful and very modern! I will wait for this design! --Hitsugaya Toshiro,Fuji Shuusuke 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Will Oldschool MonoBook wikiprfia skins still be available? --Mystic Monkey 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I like Monaco! --Stelios7 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I support. I have nothing bad to say about it as of yet. --Sk8r dan man 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not too bad looking, but i'm hoping this is a preference option for users rather than the standard skin. --CommanderTony 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

this design is awesome

i like it very much --Jadenyukissn47 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

All i say is the wiki is WAY better the way it is now i really dont like it i like the way it is now im sorry --Maplepool 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Amazing 0_0 --Bentendo 16:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not the most open to change, but I'll get used to it. --ILoveGonzo 16:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i like it --Clair+eli 16:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like Wikia 3.0! --Edfan12 16:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I love it! It looks more nice to the eye! --Sasank5678 16:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well if we can choose between monaco and this design in your could be asome!!! -- 16:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's alright. --Imadoofus 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Who gets to beta test it? I'm interested. --CoD addict 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Don't liked it. The actual one is better. --Snetonobre 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I looks great. *sigh* Im gonns miss how our wiki looks now. --TDAwesome15 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks very clean, but I'm wondering if anything works with Javascript disabled?

What is the Monaco transition plan? --Fandyllic 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The prototype doesn't look good without Javascript, but you will still be able to edit without it (if you don't use the Rich Text Editor)

We will be releasing on a few wikis to start with, then on others as everything is finalized. But the Beta testing comes first of course --Sannse 00:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation, your level of suck has now exceeded the fabeled level of nine thousand. --B14 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad at all. I do think it loses a bit of the "wiki-feeling" though. --Tedjuh10 16:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

All it's doing is moving stuff... Not needed, but we'll just get used to it... --FerrelShadow 16:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like the design!It looks like you are shrinking down the size of the text,it looks like we are going to have more space! --Dionnefamily 16:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Looks good --Xtremetony 16:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this new layout will still be smashed over with adverts and hidden trojans just like the current one has been on ffxi wikia for years. -- 16:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. --Mark Staffieri 16:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. /: --SmartiesTubesOnCatsLegsMakeThemWalkLikeARobot 16:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

cool design, but what will happen to the main image of the wikis? they are squares, and i don't see any space for that... Also, this design was already finished July 1(as seen in right under corner)...:) --Joeytje50 16:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

As long as I can still view it from my Nintendo Wii, I'm okay. And hopefully the badges dissappear from Lostpedia with the new "facelift." --HorribleEyes 16:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like how the advertisements don't mess up the articles now. Very nice. --Bentendo 16:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just took another look at it and I'm a fan of the new "topbar". I was afraid they'd mess up the sidebar like they did with Quartz but it's great! I hope the widgets on the sidebar are not mandatory though. --Tigernose 16:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if want. --Duskey 16:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i like it --Warpanda13 16:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

What I'm not a fan of this the huge bar at the top with a list of other wiki hubs being really eye-catching - when I would want the wiki in hand to be focus not other wikis and hubs. --Tigernose 16:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, great job everyone on Wikia! Can't wait to see it on Brickipedia. --Nerfblasterpro 16:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the picture, it seems like we're going to have to change the logo... AGAIN! :0 That's okay though, because I always preferred the longer logo anyway. --Bentendo 16:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is something. The logo space is not the same size! --Solar Dragon 16:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thats purty cool there --Chowder205 16:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait to give my opinion once things get under way. I'll try to be nice, though. XD I like some ideas, and am not sure about others, so I'll wait and see.

Is it at all possible for the user to select where the main layout is? I'm left handed (only with a mouse, ironically), and find it incredibly easy to work with the left side of the layout because of that. --Sprinklemist 16:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

There definently needs to be the option to maintain the current Wikia format for the site, controllable by the Admins. Otherwise, this is going to anger me, and likely screw up a lot of the stuff on the FFXIV Wikia. --Zyeriis 16:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's unnecessary. --Avolling 16:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zyeriis, plus I see no problem with the current one --Bioshock123 16:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It truly sucks. --ToShootToKill 16:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

nice :) --Euiko~boreworm 16:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC) what's the purpose here?? --Honeyrose34 16:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of those bottom of the screen toolbars, but this one looks functional. Overall, I like it. Just hope there's options to customize it the way we like (so, for instance, removing the bottom of the screen toolbar <_< >_>). --Ravenhol 16:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Whats the point. Wikia is fine as is. --Airzel-of-haos 16:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice but feels a bit forced. It's gonna upset some people who put a lot of hard work in making their wikias unique. --Mugiwara Franky 16:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. You know what they say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. --KoopaKidJr. 16:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

God dammit I hate this new interface crap! Keep it the same dammit! --RailTUg 16:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I do hope the MonoBook skins remains as an option. --Sandahl 16:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KoopaKidJr. --Cpl. Dunn 16:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

well from the screen shot it seems awesome but need to see it on my own to really comment. --Linkdarkside 16:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

As long as the old skins are still available, I can cope. --Pikmin Master 16:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, wasn't the homepage changed not too long ago? What are these changes for? I'm absolutely confused. --Molokaicreeper 16:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed and like it but my only problem is that there won't be anymore Monaco. :( --Akbaboy 16:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

WHAT? No Monaco??? I'll DIE! --Molokaicreeper 16:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so upon some reflection, here's some specific stuff that I don't like about the new layout:

  1. The right column, good lord, that's about 1/3rd of the width! And the navigation bar at the top is way too eye-catching. The content should be the main focus, of the page, everything other than the content should be subtle and "in the background". Navigation should not try to draw your eye away from reading the page.
  2. Toolbar: Seriously? A floating toolbar? With notifications? What is this, facebook?

I want a place where I can host a simple wiki, with a plain Monobook/Vector style skin that's easy to read and use. This is getting further and further away from that. --Ademrudin 16:47, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agree... main focus should be contents. All the fancy clutter around the text is nothing more than that... fancy clutter. --Wild Whiphid 16:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with it is the scrolling sidebar. PLEASE make it an option to disable the automatic scrolling. --Bentendo 16:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Clean, simple, shiny, very Windows Aero-ish. I have to say, it's well designed. -- 16:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it looks very well organized. --CodExpert 16:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Is it OPTIONAL or will it be a forced transition? I'd like to see if/how it works when completed, but from what I see now, I really hate the fact that it says "added by ..." under the picture, that's just clutter. --Wild Whiphid 16:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Forced. --Matias arana 10 16:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, awful. I wish they would consult the community before making such decisions. --Max21 16:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Nearly all of the comments dislike this format. If they had checked with us first, they'd know to make it an option or leave it off. --Flapjack18 17:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Its ok, but I believe the Monaco should stay optional. --Wormulon 16:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

change is inevitable i suppose... --Cerez365 16:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think some change would do good. --Mays 16:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think lots of changes would do good. --Staffan15 17:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
I believe almost a complete change would do good. And by complete change, I mean for the NEW one.
No offense to anyone when I say that, of course. It's just my opinion. --Flapjack18 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Bigger header + fixed width = Less content space.

What is the fixed width? 800px? --Duskey 16:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This prototype has a fixed width of just under 1000 px</a> --Sannse 00:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Don't change anything, wikia is fine as it is. Or if you really want to do it, then give an option to be able to change it back if we want to. --RazielZero 16:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Flapjack18 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Still, I won't be critical of this interface until it is brought out. But I still think it should be optional. --Wormulon 16:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, I've seen worse. However, one think that really urks me, and it does this with a lot of websites, is the toolbar at the bottom. REMOVE IT! --Oliverandtoad13 16:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I hate this skin... it doesn't really look like a wiki. --Staffan15 16:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

but it's optional! --Brainulator9 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
@Brainulator9 It might not be. I haven't seen anything saying it is. Have you? --Flapjack18 17:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a chance, but it's not like some other sites, where you think, "Man, if only we had this, it'd be perfect!" Nothing's really wrong with the current format. I happen to like the way it is now. It's going to be like YouTube's transformation all over again. What's the point of "new fonts"? Why do we need a toolbar? Why can't we just check our user page when we log on? I mean, if someone makes a really popular blog, (and I've seen this happen on numerous people's accounts) and a few people strike up a conversation with a new comment every few minutes, will you keep getting alerted every time? That'd be pretty annoying.

I say it MIGHT be worth a shot. And I use the term loosely. However, we really aren't in need of improvements. This better be amazing, or it should have the option to retain the current format. Otherwise, I will NOT be looking forward to this. --Flapjack18 16:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like the current layout more. --Isdrakthül 17:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Also, it will loose its wiki-feeling. --RazielZero 17:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I dislike this....alt --Danesland 17:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping Monobook. --Milo fett 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Long live the King! --Modred 17:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

There are too many unknowns to have an opinion just yet. I'd like to see a functioning version of it on another wiki before optioning it to be used in my community.

Also, I believe the right-hand column situation was attempted once in the past, and abandoned. Was this true? If so, why was the previous attempt disregarded? --Peteparker 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we tried a right hand navigation with Quartz. That version just didn't work well. We think this horizontal navigation, above the article, is much more comfortable to use. --Sannse 00:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Where's the opt-out page? --Darth Culator 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yah I want to know that too --Bioshock123 17:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it! --Bruxacosmica 17:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If this is anything like the new gallery, the staff will go ahead despite the majority of people disliking the new layout, and ignore calls to revert. --Anno1404 17:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

We'll see, guys, we'll see --Istoria 17:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Great. ANOTHER new look. Probably gonna lag my computer again too --1337doom 17:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good!! But not good enough --BlitzGundam 17:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like current format better, although we'll probably get used to the new one soon enough. --Daltondarkstar 17:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I LOVE IT! --Brainulator9 17:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

ok... --GTAvic 17:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

hate it --Mehdontgiveadamn 17:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, we should get the option to stick with monaco. Wikis spend a LOT of time customizing their skins, and this layout is missing the wiki-like feel --Seahorseruler 17:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I just found on the FAQ page:

Is the new design going to be mandatory? Yes. The new look will be the default for Wikia. We will continue to support Monaco as a personal choice for a limited time while people move to the new version.

I'm glad they'll still support Monaco, but only for a limited time? I don't know. I guess it's too early to say anything too bad-related just yet. Who knows ... it might turn out to be good (he said halfheartedly) ... --Flapjack18 17:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I want to stay with the current one --Drwhokid 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Current one is 20 times better --Drakeh 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it looks like Facebook. --Staffan15 17:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOO GOD NO! --Lordbowmen 17:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I LIKE THE MONACO! {scrolls down a couple of feet} SO DO MANY OTHERS! MOH NAH COH! MOH NAH COH! MOH NAH COH! --Draconai 17:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think current one is 10000000 times better than that. =/ --Super Mario X 17:12, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Um... no, sorry. This looks like a blog, not a wiki. I don't think it will have the ammount of custumization options the Monaco does. You guys do not even ask the community if we want them, but you always present them as facts. Search inputs on the right side are awful. I hope that your gigantic link bar with links to other wikis at the top of the page, that is bigger than the navigational links within the own wiki ,will only be present on Wikia's homepage or are we supposed to advertise the other wikis in big letters? --Matias arana 10 17:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yah, they did this when converting to Monaco. --Tigernose 17:17, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious. --Starman125 17:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No monaco? God, I just hate this worse and worse, why the hell would they take out monaco? Plus, this one has no truely useful improvements, and most of the comments are saying it is bad --Bioshock123 17:17, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

not bad --Lg16spears 17:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE A WIKI. If you don't care ban my account forever. --Jeffwang16 17:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks are not what matter in a wiki, contents are what matter. --CodExpert 17:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious. --Starman125 17:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not bad but it could be done better. --OhstaWiki 17:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I assume monobook's still going to be supported. --Randomtime 17:23, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

ummmmm..................let me think about this as long as articals dont change im okay with it --Casecr 17:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it's moving further away from being what it's supposed to be: a wiki. --Gourra 17:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia is changing, wikis will change too. Maybe for the better, or for the worse. The main thing that matters on a wiki is it's contents, and I see this as much more organized then now, which can really help readers. --CodExpert 17:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i prefer it like it is now --Jane and alec 17:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

As long as Monobook is still supported, it's fine. If we don't get a choice, then lolololol. --Karate Jesus 17:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see. Personally, I'm prepared to try it, although I will not judge it until I see it for real. --Gallifrey102 17:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's...okay Sannse, but I kinda like the wiki how it is, and I kinda don't. I vote yes. --Iamsofakingcool 17:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Monaco is better. Image "added by" MUST be deleted, because wikis are encyclopedias, not galleries. --SiPlus 17:36, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you implement this change I will never even visit any site which has anything in the slightest to do with Wikia ever agaib, --George A 17:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a forced change, I object. My main objection is to forcing a fixed page width. Whether you believe it or not, whether you care or not, not everyone who visits a wiki looking for information will have an up-to-date display. The same goes for people who participate on a wiki. Allowing a dynamic page width accommodates a range of users, from those who have the latest and greatest display to those whose displays are not particularly late or great. As someone who definitely falls into the latter category, and can't afford to get out of it, I've appreciated being able to read and contribute just as well as someone with a newer and fancier display. Forcing a fixed width tells me and those like me that we're not really welcome here -- it lessens the sense that Wikia and the information on it is for everyone. If you can't or won't allow individual wikis to choose to keep Monaco, at least let them choose to use a dynamic page width.

I also agree with those who say that the focus of a page should be on the content, not the navigation. --Dharden 17:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why does Wikia have to come up with a new feature labeled as "improvement" to "encourage new users to join the site" every other month that in the end many (if not most) people dislike? New users will not know the current layout, so how would a new layout attract new users? And why does the current layout not do so? There is no logic in that reasoning.

I would wish that Wikia would stick more to the rule "Never change a running system", and if changes are planned, Wikia should ask the community first if they want that change and not present the changes as facts. After all, the community has to live with them. This also implies that changes should be optional as much as possible (which would even cause more diversity among the wikis).

Search bars on the right are awful. Wikipedia demonstrated it the bad way with their new layout. Why does Wikia have to look like a Wordpress blog or Facebook page? There are enough sites with that layout out there to get bored by it. The eye-catching advertisement for other wikis at the top is an absolute no-go (the currently visited wiki should have focus and not other wikis) as is that toolbar at them bottom. --Faern. 17:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if I had the money to pay for a wiki rather than use wikia, I would do that. Actually... I might do that now. Here's what wikia should do: Make it so that the admins can make monobook as the default skin for all users. If this new look makes users leave my wiki, then I am DONE with wikia for good. (How come uncyclopedia can have monobook?) --The thing 17:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a parody of Wikipedia, which uses Monobook. --MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Sorry. The old layout is better. Ditch the new layout and keep things the way they are.

Google changed, then youtube. Both were for the worse. Don't be the same as them. --Fujiwara no Mokou 17:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Are all wikis going to be forced to have this? I personally don't mind it, but the wikis should have the choice. --Master Fredcerique 17:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. It looks way too cramped and I'm worried about even more lag time with older computers. I do hope the change will not be forced. --Icelilly 17:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nice work it looks like a better version that i can't wait to see. --Kick-Ass 17:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikia trying to become the new Facebook or MySpace? I actually thought that this was an encyclopedia. 9_9 --Xd1358 17:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just love how people always overreact to changes to Wikia. "OMG, teh Wikia iz comign liek Facebook."

Regardless, I would like the community activity thing to be customizable.

Its doesn't seem bad. --MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we have a choice to choose a new or old layout. Who like the new then he/she can chose the new. who like old, then chose old. I think this feature's very important and excellent. --NavaRose 17:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should be able to choose if we want to use the new layout. A lot of people are use to it looking the way it does and then they might stop using them because of the new layout. Who knows really? But I still agree that we should have a option. --Enzio 17:51, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Right-hand toolbar is far too wide. Content (i.e the important stuff) is squashed in too much as a result. --Jtomlin1uk 17:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The aesthetical enhancements aren't very practical. If you guys wouldn't mind, I'd suggest that once this system is implemented for all Wikis, we get to choose between the old and the new Wikia formats. --AssassinLegend 17:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Assorted criticism:

Toolbar - things that stick to the bottom of my screen distract the eye and make me think of suspicious popups. No.

Layout - I hate a right hand column taking up a third of my user page, it looks tacky. When I'm trying to do a wiki project which is meant to be serious, it shouldn't look like a two-bit blog. And those buttons are way too garish.

Navigation - The current layout is fine, though it could do with some tweaking. That doesn't mean change it.

Notifications - Why? Most wikis don't have a community with hundreds of messages going past every minute, and fewer users are receiving the same amount at the same time. Why not the usual big orange bar? Change it so it'll say who it's from, of course, but don't give me some crappy popup.

Community activity - Okay, could be useful, but why not add that to the current layouts?

Look through the posts - as of writing, six of the eight pages of comments are negative. 75% - at least - of us, the people who are going to be using the skin, don't like it. At least half of the remainder want it to be optional. To throw away what must be months of work would be a waste, and it would displease those 12.5% of us who like it, but for God's sake, keep our current skins as options.

And Faern has a great point. --Fegaxeyl 17:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i like this look but i have a way better idea of a new layout that will blow your mind it go be off the wall if i get a chance to make it reply soon please. --Princeofdarkness13 17:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

im liek it but theri a way better one in mind an di have to agree with nava rose on this one --Princeofdarkness13 17:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it and I think it's nice. I don't have anything against it and nothing really else to say. --Bellatrixisawsome 17:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Meh --Hazard141 17:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Join the Wikia's IRC channel (help) to discuss online the topic. The channel is booming with this. --Ciencia Al Poder 17:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The toolbar is far too wide if you ask me. As Fegaxeyl said, the toolbar will make be think of pop ups. --Xlunalovex 17:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It is immediately obvious that there is less room on the page for content in this new layout.

I'm pretty sure Wikia's hands are tied: they aren't making enough money with the ad system they have right now, and have contractually agreed with their clients to periodically increase advertisement space. Or something like that. But you can't talk business to a community of wiki editors, you have to sell it like it's an important improvement for the content. It's just that, in this picture here, it's not an improvement. --Blue Rook 17:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me where you found out about the ad system not making enough? I'm curious. --MarioGalaxy2433g5 18:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

New view of Wikia is nice, imho, but it will be better if we can choose from many views. Also it will be very nice to have some keyboard shortcuts to work in the Wikia (for example such actions as Creating, Editing, Saving and Deleting an article)... --Hodzha 17:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but why is that necessary? Sometimes when you change things, many other actions become a lot more complicated.

I would prefer it if Wikia would take a look at those awful changes that were made to the galleries. --Sompeetalay 18:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

  1. Navigation
    Too large. Period and end of story. We do not want to see that at the top. We want to see the article content. The user testing performed for Wikipedia quite simply illustrates this.
  2. Layout
    Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that fixed layouts are not the answer. In fact, it hasn't even been demonstrated, especially in this blog, what problem that is.
    Wtf? Why are we going back to what is basically the pre-Monaco skin (Chrome, IIRC)? It has the same problems too: The ads fix the width of the sidebar, which makes the sidebar consumes the main content. That's bad. We're in the habit of making and reading encyclopedia articles, not in perusing... whatever's in the right hand column. Get that crap out of my face.
    That said, being able to more cleanly customize the colors will be excellent for contributors who do not understand CSS.
    I certainly hope this "font" thing is simply optional and will be implemented along the lines of the colors, with preference to the default.
  3. Community Activity
    Way to be ambiguous. What tools are these? Where can the documentation for them be found? Let the community decide whether they will positively impact the WikiaTM experience.
  4. Toolbar
    I'm really... unsure. Facebook had a toolbar. They did away with it. MySpace still has a toolbar. Wait, why am I discussing social networks? Wikis aren't social networks. Back to main issue: I don't think this is necessary, but I don't feel strongly about it.
  5. Notifications
    I like my orange bar. It's in my face. Do not take that away from me. Bad things happen to the people who take away my orange bar. *murderous gaze* Do not annoy me with "notifications". --Sky2042 18:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Here, here! It does seem they are trying to change Wikia into a social networking site. --Solar Dragon 18:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not too bad. --Knuckleschaotix 18:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, so many negative (and justifiable) comments! Wake up, Wikia! --Klow 18:17, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, I guess.

I guess the only thing I would change is putting the searchbar back on the left where it belongs. --YoshiEgg 18:17, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nice call!!! That Search bar is kind of handy and like it just the way it is, --ALAKZAR 18:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Is everything optional, or are we forced to accept all of the changes? --Dream Focus 18:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it looks cool, but where is my easy one-click navigation and what is with all these extra "features"? "Create a new wiki", "Like" on facebook, "Share" on facebook etc, a massive bar on the right which does in no way support navigation for experienced users. This wouldn't be the first case of killing a user base by forcing a mandatory skin which makes navigating overly complicated compared to before. I don't want a hundred extra features, I want toolbars which support optimized, easy and fast editing, and all the tools at my disposal.

And making it mandatory is just a suicide move, you might have a lot of new features, but with such a drastic change like this you'll necessarily alienate a large part of your userbase, and this doesn't even take into consideration the possibility of a bad drastic change. If you really want to implement this, don't make it mandatory, and make it highly customizable with the possibility to enable and disable features on will. I will really just rage if I have an "Entertainment" and "Gaming" and "Lifestyle" button on top of my page, which then proceeds to open in javascript which will feel frustrating for anyone without an incredibly top-notch connection.

And one of the major things is actually moving the search-bar up left, making lazy and convenient surfing ever harder because it does really feel like a ton of useless and extra work when you have to adapt your surfing methods to a far-placed search bar (compare monobook).

On the contrary, this probably will make it easier to find new users, but I don't think you can afford making these your primary marketing group.

Then I was going to point out that positive criticism isn't always as thoroughly considered as positive criticism, which I could explain with a lengthy wall of psychology, but nobody cares.

Oh, because this is totally the right place to ask, could someone who bothers (after all these kind words) please change my name to "Dandybot", and if that's taken, then "Dandydandy", "Dandyel", "Messy Chaos", respectively, in that order of plan B's ^______^

Have a nice day, and sorry for the tl;dr! --Chaos Messenger 18:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Zapwire 18:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Chaos Messenger: please can you use Special:Contact to request the name change? We'll be able to look then. Thanks! --Sannse 00:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I now offically think this sucks hard.

Opt-out plz?

--Zapwire, not signed in -- 18:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

seems fine --TeriffiedToxic 18:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It looks really cool! --Areishia 18:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I really hate the bars at the botto of sites: since I don't use social networking and it makes scrolling lethargic.

Since you've hid several needed functions in it, me and several other editors won't like it one bit. -- 18:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

New stuff happens every day. I'm in for the makeover. --SonofSamhain 18:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I do like the layout, it looks neat, but there are some things bothering me. I feel the top bar is far too large. If it was a tad smaller, it wold look lot better. Some of the side boxes telling you other information about other things are too large as well. I feel that they too should be cut down in size so more information on the actual page can be put on. I know that this is in the Beta stages, so it could change. I will just have to wait and see. --MadHessa 18:23, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Neat-o It's cleaner --Lindsay Greene 18:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

A-mazing! ^_^ --Umagic65 18:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not looking forward to the change. I'm the kind of person who enjoys "old school" layouts and designs. --Daniel Smith 18:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Style, I kind of like it! --Sacorguy79 18:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The new layout looks awesome. Looking forward to it! By the way, does this apply to all Wikias? --Protostealth 18:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Bentendo 18:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted my application. Really psyched and hope I get accepted. Quick question though: If I'm not accepted, will you send me an e-mail telling me? --Bentendo 18:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Probably. You never know, well, xept the people who are working for Wikia --ALAKZAR 18:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I hope the old one still satys, I like it :3

But this looks pretty neat too. --Gheiter 18:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I kinda like the original wikia better. (Format wise) :• sorry --ALAKZAR 18:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and still in addition to my previous wall of text, the size of the ads in the logged out version are just horrific, absolutely horrific. Thank god for adblock! :> --Chaos Messenger 18:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

New one looks more advanced and a little less simple. Looks Nice! --TheDarkKnights 18:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

One thing that wikia should change is: Considering I'm only 11 years old, I use my I pod for the Internet all the time but they should make it so the I-Pod Touch and I-Phone get the search bar on the side! On the other hand it might just be Safari? Is it? --ALAKZAR 18:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

So, you are 11 but have a Wikia account even though you should be 13 before you get one... Hmm, isn't that breaking the rules a bit? --Solar Dragon 18:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Dude. You should seriously change your post. You could get blocked for telling people that you're under 13. --MarioGalaxy2433g5 18:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
phones and iTouches have their own skin if I recall. --Zapwire 18:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like it if category pages could be prettier. --Smallpox 18:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a mobile version for the iPod would be very handy! --SSJ4 Lewich 18:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

je --Karolci0a 18:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

eww, i like wiki it how it is now --Tdwtfan 1001 18:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

OMG!!!! AWSEOME --Megamind663 18:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

AWESOME! --PhineasxIsabella4EVA 18:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i wouldn't saw "ew" but I do agree with Tdwtfan 1001, I like how wikia is now... --Joshweiser22 18:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wut about my i pad --Storm Ninja 18:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It should work. --Zapwire 18:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wake up Wikia! --ToShootToKill 18:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

huh --Callofduty4 20:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to make sure this doesn't screw the galleries up again. I'm STILL fixing all of the image pages on the Nintendo Wiki. Yeah the galleries look better now (a lot better, so thanks for that), but there had to have been a better way of introducing them. --Bentendo 18:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

As long as I can keep using Monobook to browse, I will have no problems. Personally, I have found Monaco to be overly complicated and flashy, and I feel more or less about this as well. But like I said, as long as I have Monobook... --Pip25 18:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the old one. --Muppetfan 18:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Thanks 4 Telling Every Wiki This News!!! I'm From Sonny With a Chance,Suite Life,and Camp Rock Wiki (All Disney Kid shows) So Thanks :) --Neneg 18:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, TBH, i like i the way it is. --Bumblebeeprime09 18:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

New one looks AWESOME Im from Call of Duty,Red Dead,Grand Theft Auto, All gun wikias lol Thank you! --RoughHunter15 18:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No. --The Short One 19:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the other people who are accustomed to the old look. Can't we just stick with the old look since it works? --JeremyCreek 19:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... --DarthRishi 19:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It looks cleaner, and more spaced out. I am not a senoir in wikia, familiar with what these changes bring, so I cannot say much, but this looks good!

I also wish to thank you guys for sending me these updates, even though I only joined recently. Makes me feel like a real part of this place :D --FluffySkies95 19:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

nice --Turbo fan23 19:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Worst thing I've ever seen in my life. Thanks! --AuronKaizer 19:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm, this reminds me: right after i joined the site Moddb it was updated to a new version. Now right after i join wikia it's gonna be updated... coincedance?

I think the new version looks cool, mainly because i haven't gotten use to the current/old version. --Admiral165 19:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Any possibility that the new look can be a preference so that people who like the old look can keep it?

I've been here for almost a year and I'm rather used to it. --Swampert rox 19:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

So have I, and I agree with your idea, except I am against the change altogeather, but your idea would help --Bioshock123 19:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Keep the old look --Lord DooDoo 19:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
HAI BIOSHOCK! IT'S ME! XION! And yeah, that's a good idea. I mean, I might not like it, but I get used to change. XP --XionXIV 19:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This will bring all wikia's into the future with a glossy sleek look. Right? --Andromeda Vadum 19:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No, no and no! There isn't a shoutbox, and it looks just like a wordpress blog. This is the worst thing EVER! --EternalMagma 19:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like what I see in the screenshot. If there are options to change things in the new layout, it may work. But if the huge bar on the top and the huge bar on the right cannot be adjusted as we need, no thanks. I prefer the current skin.

I don't see a wiki as content-only project. I try to design the pages so that they look attractive as well. The screenshot implies that my design options will be extremely limited in new version. What am I supposed to do with such a small article space??? --IcecreamKitten 19:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i like it --Patrice Phoenix Clarke 19:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't think a whole lot needs to be changed. I've kinda adapted to the way Wiki is now and with all these new little features being added, it'll make it more difficult for users, I think. I'm glad Wikia is advancing and adding new features, but let's just not go overboard.

I think a good feature (which I've talked a bit about before) that should be considered would be an administrator-only forum on wikis, so the administrators could discuss the problems of the wiki, unruly editors, and other topics they might not want other users (and possible vandals) to see. I think that would be a very useful thing to do. --Kirkland22 19:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: what will be the size requirement for the logo? I'd like to start creating one. --Bentendo 19:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

thats awesome --Baileybap 19:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good Good --Deangelo.stevens 19:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hey fucktards, if you take away my monobook i'm gonna be pissed. Forcing one skin on everyone sucks massive cock, let us use monobook if we want plox --TahiriVeila 19:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, mind your language! --Solar Dragon 19:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...language is kinda uncalled offense ^^' --Indigomarch 19:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Dude, unnessesary --Lord DooDoo 19:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
ROFL.... --H3xas 19:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
I just learned a new word! --XionXIV 19:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
But seriously, I agree with what the others said. --James26 04:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Was that really necessary? --DaL33T 23:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please don't make this a mandatory skin. There is a reason I already prefer monobook to monaco (because it, in my opinion, is way less ugly) now I get an even uglier skin, with which it is even harder to navigate for an expirienced user like me (I became a bot in hitting recent changes.) Honestly wikia, I know this has been said quite some times, but this probably is a good way to get rid off half of your userbase.

Goodbye, and goodnight. --Brandnew 19:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

interesting, i may have to do some experimenting to get stuff the way i want it but it looks like it will be fairly easy to get used to. --Votehim 19:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Luma451 is not going to like this --Double c 19:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nice! It's looking less and less like Wikipedia... --Phin68 19:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Judging from all of the comments you might want to rework this. From the ground up. --Killr833 19:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

OLD ONE IS BETTER ( SORRY CAPS STUCK ) --H3xas 19:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. :-) --Numbuh3 19:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

meh --Cpatain Rex 19:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Old is so better but it'll probaly confuse me. LOL --Tyenss 19:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! --LEGOCityManiac11 19:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

make it look more like wikipedia, and less like corporate bullshit --Tyfosken 19:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I'm so-so. To be honest, I don't really care too much one way or the other so long as it doesn't ruin page formats on anyone's wikis...

But maybe it's just me, but I DESPISE toolbars that follow you around as you scroll down. Creepy little insects. Ugh. Zey are so ANNOWYNG!!! --TheSlicer 19:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with EternalMagma.... --StaraptorEmpoleon 19:53, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It does not look that good. Sorry. --LEGOCityManiac11 19:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, don't like it. Much prefer the normal layout. --The Tapestry 19:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

A few (important) pages on my Wiki have several categories (up to twenty). They won't all appear at the top of the page, will they? --Bentendo 19:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No, on the prototype it's just the top three categories that show. --Sannse 00:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Um, how are the top three categories determined? This doesn't sound too useful... --Pcj 01:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but I think the current one looks way better. --Bereisgreat 19:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Everything the current layout does right, this does wrong. That is all. --Xykeb Zraliv 19:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty shitty. The basic tools being hidden in a pop-up menu on the bottom right is a joke, and "Like, Share, Follow" shouldn't be on the list at all.

The search bar is in a terrible place (Yes, wikipedia screwed up and failed at search bar placement, doesn't mean you have to do it as well).

You are sacrificing editing power for... well, I'm not sure exactly. You're just getting rid of it for no reason and adding useless bullshit like "start a wiki." What if I don't want to? What if I just want to keep editing the one I'm already on? I get the impression that your response is "tough shit, use this terrible design anyway."

You can make the skin as terrible and ass-backwards as you want, just don't make it mandatory. Monobook is a thousand times better. Just leave that one available and I'll be happy. --Auron 19:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Those hubs you see on the top of that screenshot are already completely useless and don't even touch most wikis on Wikia, so I hope before this becomes mandatory that major issue gets fixed. --Surgo 19:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it --Sandstar1051 19:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

way better --Gleefan13 20:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Can we choose what Wikis will look like that cause i do not like this. --HazeShot 20:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the look of the tools being hidden in a popup menu, I'd rather they replaced the "Like", "Share" etc buttons. --Callofduty4 20:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's alright, but the whole "Create a New Wiki" thing is sort of over done. And I'm hoping that all of these features you listed above (if we don't like them) we can disable via preferences. --The avatar 20:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)'s not that good sorry. --Lego1piece 20:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! --Steevenusx 20:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

If this change is forced, I'm leaving wikia forever. It's ridiculous. And I agree with Auron and Ngng. --StaraptorEmpoleon 20:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You can do many good thing but please consider the main important rule: never to destroy compatibility for the old wikis when you add new features. Not everyone of us has time to rework everything when your new fancy stuff destroys the original framework (it was and still is a problem for that rich text editor, which is a failure in my opinion). Please make all your new features OPTIONAL and noone will ever say a word against them. --Ngng 20:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No share bar, it's annoying and no moving bar as along as you scrolling, please! --Firedealer 20:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It looks sleek and shiny --BobaFett2 20:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like it the way I have it. Don't want things to change. :( This always happens. Just like fb. --Amy Romines 20:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i don't like it please don't add it.,if so please add something to user preferences to change it back to the original one. --Monster2821 20:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm too use to want we already have, but if I not opposed to it, but there should be user preference like Monster 2821 said. --Drogo Agent of Voron 20:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Does not look promising !!!!

  • Main Text area reduced from 3/4 page to 2/3rds & talk of fixed width (which gives as many problems as it fixes as small monitors or high resolution / wide screen ones will be a nightmare to use)
  • Horrid overpowering top bar linking to the the favoured 3 hubs
  • loss of toolbar
  • gain a block of over powering latest changes bits / feeds on the wiki like the new hubs got & was also forced into users pages with the mypage idea.

Only good bit looks like the tabs hiding next to the wikis name

Not looking good in first view, as page layout are all going to need updating as infoboxes in the middle of pages will look odd now with the new menu replacement bits on the right of the screen

Could be a big que to leave Wikia for pastures new or even go back to editing wikipedia (if they has not added a new fangled look as well).

Or perhaps it will help cure my internet editing addiction by making me pull the plug on my broadband connection in frustration and just go cold Turkey & find a new hobby in the real world. --BulldozerD11 20:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a load of bullcrap. DONT CHANGE IT!!! --Khortonworld 20:23, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be great!!! --1smash18 20:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

yeah this is bullcrap like Khortonworld said --Monster2821 20:25, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, not again... --Vegeta391 20:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Thecrazyweirdo 20:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No, don't fix what isn't broken --MowatMan 20:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Kirkland22 20:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

DON"T CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Thecrazyweirdo 20:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

WTF --Josegiraffio 20:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current interface =S --Oli4burggraa 20:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

change it, and leave an ability for readers to choose if they want to use the old or the new interface :D? --Chessm 9000 20:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

AWSOME!!! What is going to happen? --Charbel2001 20:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

they'll update the skin of the wikias... --Chessm 9000 20:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

yes --Gülfem 20:42, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

cool --Sonic568863 20:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Have an option to keep old interface...makes users less mad! --ComputerGuy890100 20:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, all that wants this reply with "we want both" :D --Chessm 9000 20:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
we want both --Daniel990 21:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks cool, but not for wikia. keep it the way it is :) -- 20:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this one --Potroast42 21:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

My instant response!!!

First, I don't understand why you're moving the sidebar to the right, except to change things just for the sake of changing them. As others have pointed out, it's going to force infoboxes into the centre of the page. In the wiki I've been working on, we have thousands of pages with infoboxes. Up till now, it's been "sidebar left, infobox right". People need to be able to read the main text down the centre of the screen.

You're now providing only 2/3 of the screen for our text, instead of 3/4. With infoboxes and pictures, we need the space.

The big band across the top is basically useless. Okay, you want to provide a clear way to link between wikis; I get that. Again, though, you've spread it out so it takes up too much space. People need to be able to work with and around the wiki they're currently looking at. With that big, bold header, you seem to be suggesting that the really important thing is to quit looking at *that* wiki, leave and go elsewhere!

A lot of people have put work into creating an attractive logo for their site. From the example you give, you aren't putting that at the top of the sidebar any more. Again--this is a layout issue. Sure, it gives you the full sidebar; but at the cost of all the work *we've* put into layout. It's going to affect every page we've got.

As others have said, this is okay as an *option* for those who like it. (And people with smaller wikis may love it.) It definitely needs to be only an option, though. From the comments I've read, I'm not the only one who feels that way. We need to be allowed to keep the old design if we prefer it. --Greer Watson 20:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Allow an option to keep the older interface. It's much easier and straightforward. People that don't have accounts on Wikia should probably be set to the newer interface. Please consider an older interface option. --YukiiNagato 20:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just a few recomendations of basic features. Not really layout related:

Multi-File upload: This is a must, I am working on a gallery and the reason nothing is done is because of the painfull job of uploading every file-by-file.

Sound Files: This is something that I doubt will happen. With a MediaWiki system you can upload Audio files to playback on your site. Although with MediaWiki your site is on your own domain so... Yeah

Mult-lock: You should be able to Lock or unlock all pages with a click of a button instead of going to EVERY page and locking or unlocking it. Its annoying.

HTML, BBCode: This is another thing I would love to see if integration of HTML and BBCode in Source mode. How many times have you seen something you want or even need to replicate but can't because of these limitations. --THE GMoD 20:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the change --Besttrueblood 20:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

noooooo!!!!!!!!!!! I LIKE THE MYSIMS WIKIA BETTER!!!!! --Smiley4913 20:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

uh... um... eee...Lets see,hmm YES! i guess bakugan unreleased wiki could have that.That's my first wiki.I'll think about it for my second one --GaiaDrago 20:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

please dont CHANGE it!!!!!!!!! --Smiley4913 20:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

what!?? NO! DON'T DO THIS YOU WIKI PPL! PLEASE! --Pufflezzz 20:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

ffs staff, do you actually LISTEN to your users instead of corporate bullshit? --Firebird 21:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

O_O i didn't just see what you sad did i? --GaiaDrago 21:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Horrible, I hate it.

Sorry guys, but I do not like this at all. --Webkinz Mania 21:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

STOP. NO. NO. NO! --Blackout0189 21:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just for good measure: WIKIA IS NOT FACEBOOK 2.0, STOP TURNING IT INTO SUCH. --Firebird 21:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

just terrible! --Ross2009 21:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it :( (And Hi Webkinz Mania!) --Ale-Alejandro 21:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn it into just another social network --Smonocco 21:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

*Do you want to become a fan of this page?* --Rostov-na-don 21:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the new interface design is inappropriate. Difficult to get used to basically.

I far more prefer the current design. It is far more simple, and familiar. --Atop 21:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Don't even try to change it. You'll make it as bad as Failtube. --Superjustinbros. 21:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha that was funny. Is there even such website. --Hopeless Dragon Lord JZX 21:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
you mean youtube? and how is it fail? --Ragnarotico 21:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes old is good, REMEMBER THAT!!! --Movieguy5000 21:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The talk page suffices for the notification :P Also, how is one to experience Wikia if not through initial hardship to learn what to do, to become flexible and ingenious. (And PLEASE get rid of the bloddy Toolbar! I don't want Wikia to end up as a Facebook x 2) Other than that, it's fairly pleasing aesthetically, but still it's not my cup of tea; I like the current layout a tad better. --Rostov-na-don 21:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Umm... yeah I really dont like how the NEW wikia looks like. It looks like if a grandama made this but not the cool type of grandma. Just like Superjustinbros. said Failtube. I mean if they wouldve added some yugioh cards as the background. --Hopeless Dragon Lord JZX 21:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to make it "better." You're just changing it for no reason.

I think most people can agree that we like it how it is, and there is NO reason to make all of these ridiculous changes. --Freehugs41 21:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The original is better. Please don't end up like YouTube or Wikipedia. I'm begging you, plz. --Javilus 21:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It kind of looks professional, but remarkably pushy; It tries to find a way to impress you by annyoing you. To tell you the truth, it resembles WikiHow :P --Rostov-na-don 21:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Pure Awesomeness!!!! --BNSCLeader 21:27, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks professional, but I rather have it old school. --Bluestripe the Wild 21:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

meh --Jilk 21:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up the point that wikis, at their very roots, are encyclopedias. The point is to create a database on a topic, not to try to rival MySpace or Facebook. Ever. The "Like", "Share", "Follow", etc. functions have no place on a wiki.

I honestly don't see a single good reason why support for the Monaco and Monobook skins should be dropped. I've been using Monobook ever since I joined Wikia way back in 2006 because it was simple, basic, never gave off lag, and was ultimately a skin for editing, which is what editors do. The addition of the Quartz (later replaced) and Monaco skins were good options to add for users' own preference, customization and whatnot, but coming up with a new, flashy, and apparently advert-covered skin (Monobook is advert-free) that will become a mandatory skin is just an awful choice.

I don't particularly care if the skin is released; just keep the previous skins proven to be useful before making a huge gamble on behalf of the users. --Chiafriend12 21:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

What they really should do is make a "reader" skin and an "editor" skin. Ultimately, pissing off editors is a bad thing, because they improve the wikis, not readers. --Fandyllic 23:03, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I like the way it is now. --Pizzahut101 21:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I Like the way it already is --SaveMeBarry 21:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see xhtml 1.1 validation than new design, but if it will validate and have new design that would be nice. --Daniel Letalis 21:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

COOL! I love it! --Ferblover 21:43, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It look so new and freash: --SallyGirl 21:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it staying the way it is. --J-man Zelda Fan 21:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

idk dont care i like both so whatever happens im happy with it --Ragnarotico 21:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This better not turn into chaos badges on bakugan wiki --GaiaDrago 21:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care for it. Please don't change it. You don't "Like" an article. It is a page for information. This is like when Youtube changed their format without the consent of the users. --SupcomMonroe 21:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Don't change it, because it would take me forever to get use to it, and besides, I would never be able to find anything I want. --DarkPuppet13 22:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wow that looks great. --Manyman 22:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't... atleast let the people who have worked so hard on their Monaco skins to still be able to have them for as long as they would like to, please I love Wikia the way it is now, and it would just make the users stressed out because they would need to design everything from scratch again, if you want to update Wikia, please let the Monaco skin always to be available and not for a "limited time" only! :( --YaMoreMedia 22:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

....can we opt out? --Snugglemuffins 22:26, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I wish. But it appears not, sadly. Unless we can voice our opinions enough to where the staff actually hears us. --Kirkland22 22:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

cool, i like it --Beta Max 22:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hate it hate it hate it! ='( please Wikia don't do this to us.. where will we find Monaco?? please don't make such inforcment on us! ='( This looks like a blog.. and this will not by far "more customised" than Monaco =( ...don't take the monaco away from us. -- 22:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

This simply boggles my mind. All of the fuss and stuff that happened over Monaco and with Staff working their asses off to get people to accept it as the default skin, and all of the work that went into getting people to customize individual wikia Monaco skins, and now we're being told that Monaco and those custom skins are being thrown out the window eventually for something that is the "next big thing" (just like Monaco was)? Ridiculous. --Greyman 22:29, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

it looks cool --*eclare* 22:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree more @Greyman , Seriously... we worked so hard with our designs on our wiki's and now.. we need to work on them again??! please just let the Monaco option be available to choose once available... don't force this on us. -- 22:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Could we get an "anon" screenshots with full ads? Found it, it's at File:LoggedOUT for blogpost.jpg (thanks, Deltaneos, for telling me to look at the image caption). --M.mendel 22:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh no don't be like youtube and change everything just like that. Many people are going to hate it. --Bmoreravens12 22:38, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

And another point, and one I know that I'm not alone in thinking: I'm so goddamn tired of wasting valuable time customizing skins. All of that time could be better spent on a wiki's content. Not every one gets paid to edit wikis and the vast vast majority do it in their spare time as a hobby. At the end of the day the editor's edit because they want to work on content. And I honestly don't care how "easy" the new skin may be to customize -- that's not the point. All of that time spent customizing Monaco skins is now wasted and we're (admins) are being told "too bad, so sad" from Staff about our Monaco skins and, essentially, our time and to simply start from scratch again. So, what? In 18 months is Wikia going to get the "itch" again to "update" and want to change every thing again? It really makes one want to reevaluate things. --Greyman 22:44, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well said.
It took awhile for the Monaco customization help pages to be that good. There better be drafts for help pages showing up for this new skin well before it gets released. Wikia's history with working with the community is not great. --Fandyllic 22:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've grown to dislike toolbars, they slow things down and they never go away. I also do not have a widescreen monitor.

As others have said, I hope this isn't mandatory. Even though I am no expert at coding, and slowly learning things about Wikia articles. The way many have set up pages is the way people online are comfortable with reading / scrolling.

Due to the Menu being on the left, people like to put infoboxes to the right. It seems like the articles are being squished, in favor of putting more ads.

= I am all for having an easy "sleek" wikia to work with, but not at the expense of removing what made wikia so comfortable to work with in the first place. --Bunai82 22:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Please, --SuperFlash101 22:49, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Awful... just awful :( sure, the design looks clean... but no! this is nothing to do with a wiki this layout, and this is nothing I want to use, please let monaco be on Wikia.. this can be the default sure, but let the user choose which theme they want to use.. this is just.. awful! :( -- 22:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The older one is way better. come on wiki don't! --Ajsnipes 22:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ is pretty weak. --Fandyllic 22:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

We'll be adding to that over time... we just wanted to get the obvious first questions in there to start with. --Sannse 00:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

T^T I personally don't like the new changes. I don't like it when stuff gets all futuristic-y and fancier and stuff. While I am using Windows 7, the only thing I like about it is the bar at the bottom with very quick access. I don't like the new Microsoft Word, and I HATE the new MS Paint. I really wish that we could be able to choose which one we want to use...

PLEASE tell me we're at least still allowed to use wikitext. I really don't like the rich text format. --RandomDude101 22:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, wikitext will still work. --Sannse 00:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It appears the vast majority of editors who took the time to comment on this blog are against the new changes, so I hope that sends a clear message to the staff. --Kirkland22 22:57, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

no i dont like it either, our opinions should count --Zangetsu20 23:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

FAQ as of 17-Aug-2010 4 PM Pacific[]

Why are you changing Wikia?[]

It’s time for an upgrade! We want to give Wikia an up-to-date look that will enhance every wiki and encourage new users to join the site.

When will the new design be ready?[]

We have a ways to go yet. We are about to begin the first stage of beta testing, and will be working on the design as we start to see the results of that. Then it will be time for a staged roll-out across Wikia. Check the blog for the latest information.

Can I keep my color scheme?[]

Yes. The new design will be fully customizable and it will be even easier to create the look you love on your wiki. We are also creating a bunch of fun new pre-set themes from which you can choose.

Is the new design going to be mandatory?[]

Yes. The new look will be the default for Wikia. We will continue to support Monaco as a personal choice for a limited time while people move to the new version.

What about Vector?[]

Vector is Wikipedia’s default skin, and as we’re not them, we won’t be using Vector on Wikia.

How can I be involved in the testing?[]

We are still taking applications for the Beta program. Please let us know if you are interested in helping with this. --Fandyllic 23:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think that it looks much nicer and that it will help the interface a lot. --Calebddd 23:01, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been told repeatedly that these comments are where Wikia staff will look for feedback, prepare for the torrent. --Fandyllic 23:06, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

GO FOR WIKIA STAFF -- 23:10, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I hate it. No room for Wiki logo and looks horrific. --Bara Magna 23:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO! This is a problem. And what of our sidebars? Our WikiText Editor? Our main page? WHY? --The Inexistent 23:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You could look here to save time: Forum:Wikia’s new look - User questions

I will be posting these into the comments one at a time. --Fandyllic 23:16, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The trend in browsers is to consolidate toolbars, use fewer of them, and to make them narrower. More links in less space. A single, narrow toolbar with many drop-down menus is the way to go. This makes for more space for the content of a page.

For the same reason increasing the width of the sidebar is guaranteed to annoy many editors. It doesn't matter to me which side it is on. But most blogs give you a choice. Balance your need for ad space with editors' ability to jump ship to another wiki farm.

Wiki farms with integrated, interwiki watchlists will attract many editors to them, because each wiki will have the userbase of all other wikis. I suggest working on that more. --Timeshifter 23:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to the Wikians, who said please stop making stuff mandatory. You do realize Wikia had a mandatory skin change only ONE YEAR ago right? I don't want "handy modules", I want the unique skin my wiki has now, not some robotic forced layout that every wiki here is going to have now. It's just disrespectful, that's what this is. The time some of us put into these skins over the past year to look right with your "mandatory" requirements...and now we have to start all over.

And please be honest. It's so obvious ad real estate is why this is happening (again). --LordTBT 23:23, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keep at it and I'm sure you can piss off the whole community with b.....crap like this. Lemme guess... we get more ads on the page this way? --ShmEk 23:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yay! the scrolling toolbar is something I was working on with a template, glad to see the new look is pretty neat. Basically "thumbs up" :D --Darthkenobi0 23:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry to say i agree with many of the comments below. I've been flaoting around wikia's for many years under several different names, and have seen many changes, many of them good, but just as many bad. I just hope that this one goes smoothly... --Zrac123 23:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

ok? i think it kinda sucks. --Deathsculler 23:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

id yous this skin for my wikis.. ill let the users vote to make it fair --Astrotorical 23:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

D! :D! I can't wait!! --Brookelas 23:50, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Uh... this would mean I would have to rework 90% of the pages on my wikia. Or adjust the colors to suit the current theme. --Bobofango 23:54, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You'll still be able to customize the colors to suit your wiki. --Sannse 01:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I have a a new feature idea just as great as this! --GaiaDrago 23:55, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

i don't carefor the jungle --Dewface 00:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice! Is this for ALL of the wikis? Warrior Cats Wiki will look great if so. ^_^ --Sageleaf 00:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, do we have to rework alot of the MediaWiki messages? I hope not. --Jeffwang16 00:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

photato has new leaves --Mkpaulo 00:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, crap. I have nine Wikis, extensively customized to an extent, and then this? Don't tell me that I have to customize them all over again... D: --Herald of meridian 00:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The staff blog is a ridiculous place to keep all comments, as the comments are in the stupid "blog-comment" style, and can't be sorted wiki-style into section headers discussing different issues. I'm starting to think Wikia really doesn't get it --Randomtime 00:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... Again? Why don't you just keep it. I've been impressed with some changes, but just as disappointed with many. --EliteMaster117 00:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hate it. Where's the sidebar? There isn't one! Why do you have to change the skin every 2 months? I don't like sites that change their skin every 2 months, or even every 6! And now we get those stupid things on the bottom of the screen that you can't get rid of! Where's the history button? Or the talk page link? WHERE IS IT? I refuse to use this. It's horrible. Completely horrible. --Bwog 00:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's like Windows Vista XD --GTAAAF 01:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hate it too --Saamirt 01:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, PLEASE give us the preference to switch back to the "Old Look" if we do not prefer the new.

Otherwise you'll see some users depart in droves. Sorry. --ENG 01:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care for it. The large right section just takes up more room than required, and honestly, having the links and things on the right of the page is frustrating. E-mails have the links on the left, most web sites have them at the top or the left. /Facebook/ and myspace have them on the left. Why are you putting stuff on the right side? It is very awkward.

I don't mind the adding of the toolbar options to the top of the page, that's fine and dandy really. But the right? Ugh. Please, please, do not make this mandatory! --Blind Rabbit 01:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely hate it. -- 01:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

NO! I like what we have right now, because it's calm and reminds me of the old times when everything was good. Reverting it to THAT style would make me go back to the present. Bottom line: it's awful. --Floatingforever 01:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer this format better. I remember when the dashboard on facebook was changed, and i miss the old one so badley! --Heinz84 01:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

hate it --Redmax29 01:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK. I think we should have one that looks more like Wikipedia's. --Blue Ninjakoopa 01:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Facebook Connect button on the logged out view? --LordTBT 01:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Here's what wikia should do: Listen to what users say. If the users don't like it, they shouldn't do it. --The thing 01:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but what if what users like hinder the accessability of Wikia, and what users don't like actually might help? --Bionicleboy3000 01:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make that the new wikia. I hate it! I love what we have currently, and there's no need to change it! --Phantom02 01:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Can't wait. :) --EDN1980 01:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think we just broke the record for number of blog comments in a day on Wikia! We want to thank all of you for your comments, concerns and feedback. We have been trying to keep up with the flurry of activity here, and wanted to touch upon a few themes we see in your comments.
  • Why are you doing this? As we mentioned, Wikia has had great success in the gaming field, but we want to expand our success to other topics and types of communities. We are not changing what Wikia is or does, but rather opening it up to a broader audience.
  • Community input. Over the past year, we’ve ramped up communication to keep the community, both newbies and veterans, informed of changes. As we developed the above prototype, we combed through stats, emails to staff, and user testing results. Many of you have already applied for beta testing, which we’ll be kicking off in the coming weeks. It’s not too late to apply if you’d like to add your input during this phase.
  • Technical specifications. We anticipate making adjustments to the prototype as we go through testing. This means that we can’t give you technical specifications on the final design, such as the logo size, width, or modules. We will be continuing to update the FAQ and will be providing weekly sneak peeks on specific features, along with updated help pages.

We will continue to be in touch here, so please encourage conversations you are having off of this post to move here. Thanks again for reading and commenting. --Sarah Manley 01:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

"As we developed the above prototype, we combed through stats, emails to staff, and user testing results" - And, based on input from the community, you discovered that an entirely new mandatory skin was necessary, not an opt-in/opt-out one?
I'd say this "record-breaking" comments section is a testament to that being quite inaccurate. --LordTBT 02:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
That obviously shows that Wikia does not care about what the majority wants or not wants. Instead they just throw some empty marketing blah blah at us and confront the community with facts which they have to deal with.
What does the current skin have to do with any wiki's topic? Why would the audience become broader by a new layout? Wikis are encyclopedias that are supposed to attract people by quality of content.
Communication usually works in two directions, but you seemingly do not listen and continue to do whatever you want. I doubt that any user suggested that Wikia should become Wordpress or Facebook. --Faern. 02:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
"As we mentioned, Wikia has had great success in the gaming field"
Well, if the gaming wikis are that successful, why don't you let them keep their layout? Or better even, leave current wikis as they are (unless they wish to change their skin) and set this new one as default for the new users and the new wikis - you know, the things that so-called "broader audience" will meet if they come here for some reason.
I feel that Wikia is trying a little too hard to broaden its userbase, and fails to see that some people might have come here because the previous layout(s) (personally, I still use Monobook) were just fine for them.
There will be no single skin in the world that will appeal to everyone - give your users and/or wiki admins a choice. Frankly, I wouldn't even mind ads on Monobook if I could set it as the default skin for KanzakaDex. --Pip25 07:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, expand to other topics and types of communities, but then give us the choice to stay with a skin that make us look like a serious topic to other people. This is what we claim. Wikis that want this new look would have the new look, and wikis that want the current look would have that also. It's not so hard. But please don't force our wikis to resemble to facebook o wordpress. --Ciencia Al Poder 15:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Sarah, would you please write an article about the techniques you use to efficiently review a cacophony of comments like this blog has attracted? I have a difficult time increasing the signal to noise ratio so any tips you can share would be appreciated.
The only "trick" I know about is to view all comments at once and utilize the browser's search feature for various keywords and/or user names. --Najevi 19:46, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

We've loved Wikias for a long time precisely because they were what they were. To change it into something like the page seen above is a move in the wrong direction, I fear. --Daysleepers United 01:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I sort of like but... It should be optional --Man tag1 01:30, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The least that can be done is give administrators the option to choose whether they want to accept the new version or whether they prefer to see Wikia in the old style. Many webpages offer that. --Daysleepers United 01:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is terrible. You are pretty much downgrading to quartz, but with more ads and more javascript menus and buttons, which just make things slower and laggier. Plus, all of the time admins spent customizing their skins, gone, down the toilet. Plus, that huge cross wiki navigation menu at the top is terrible, It just takes viewers attention away from the wiki content. Its basically just a big sign that says "HEY LOOK AT THESE BIGGER AND BETTER WIKIS, COME READ THEM INSTEAD OF THE SMALLER WIKI YOU ARE READING NOW". Monaco, monobook, and even vector are all better than this sad excuse for a skin. --Seahorseruler 01:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just adding to your post here.
Preview it now! --LordTBT 01:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. The layout looks alot neater then the current skin. --Awesome3000 01:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I liked how Wikia looked similar to Wikipedia before, but the new layout does not look very similar to Wikipedia at all. --Amason126 01:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Seahorseruler. And it should be optional. --Drago99 01:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

definatley agree with seahorse --Ilike2m0d 01:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

looks hideous (or as my brother would say: "Hideously unedible" idk why but...), i don't like change, so why can't we just leave it before i start swearing??? --LunaBella 01:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If this is the final look... I'll kill myself. --Matias arana 10 02:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That looks horrible!
I already had to put up with ToonZone shoving everything to one side just so they can fit in Ads and content that I don't care for. Now Wikia is doing the same and that is upsetting... it does not look good at all and it is very irritating to my senses. --Bunai82 07:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you staff people do this? All the wikis are set up and have nice skins and an easy interface and everyone is fine with it, and then you all-powerful wikia staff people who don't even contribute to any of the wiki communities (except for monotonously generic bot welcomes on wikis you've never heard about) decide that you think the interface is ugly and mix everything around so it looks uglier and nobody can find anything. People use and join wikis for the information and communities, and very few of them even care what the wiki looks like, and anyways, many wikis already have customized skins. From what I can tell from the "great" new look preview, wikia will be advertised more and totally differentiating wikis will be linked with wikis about obscure subject that distract the viewer. Personally, I think everybody in the world except for the wikia staff would be fine if wikis stayed how they were for-ev-er and never were <sarcasm type="dripping" action="create flood"> "updated" </sarcasm> to make {{sarcasmstart}} improvments {{sarcasmend}}. (Clears throat and apologizes for truth-some bluntness). Anyways, I think I'm speaking for all real wikia members when I say this. Thus ends this post. --Volatile Dweevil 02:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Kirkland22 02:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you! I couldn't said it better. --Matias arana 10 02:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Seahorse as well.

Listen, I really hope this post gets some attention, because I'm trying to sum up all the posts fairly and come up with a solution we can all perhaps agree on.

As displayed in the comments, the vast majority of editors do not like this new mandatory skin layout, and are outraged that it's mandatory for all wikis. They have explained that they like the current layout better than this new one being set forth. However, some editors have expressed support for the new layout, and that's fine, but it isn't fair to those who do not like the new layout since it's mandatory. I think what we're trying to say is, it's fine to have this new skin if some editors want it, but it should not be mandatory. We would be okay if it were just one of the skin options, but the fact that it's mandatory is outraging us. And we're not opposed to changing things and adding new features, even though it may seem like it. We just believe that the current skin layout is better, and we don't want it to be completely replaced by some undesirable new skin. It's that simple.

Is this too much to offer? --Kirkland22 02:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That interface looks cool. I hope it works great. I might've missed it but, are regular members allowed in its beta? --WoWDeathknight 02:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please apply here! --Sarah Manley 21:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


MAKE IT OPTIONAL! --Volatile Dweevil 02:08, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Will Monaco "accent" and "color1" CSS classes still work with the new look still work? or will the templates need to be rewritten so they will stay within the theme colors? --Roguebfl 02:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The least you could do is make monobook an option again, and if you are going to go forward with this style (monofail, maybe?) at least keep monoco as an option too. --Volatile Dweevil 02:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)



Just FYI… caps lock and multiple exclamation points don't really help your cause, it just makes you look desperate and immature, sorry. But I agree with you somewhat, and I certainly hope our voices are being heard. --Kirkland22 02:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I know, but I am totally desperate, the staff never listens --Volatile Dweevil 03:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
We are reading every comment here - we are definitely listening. --Sannse 21:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Reading doesn't doesn't tell us the value you give to a comment or how it sways decision making.
You really should have had more info (or at least more and better screenshots) before announcing. --Fandyllic 00:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wanted: dialogue and clear advantages[]

Sannse, reading and listening is not enough. The idea of a dialog is to tell the people whom you are listening to what you have understood, so that any misunderstanding can be cleared up and controversies nipped in the bud.
The only response I've seen that I would qualify at an earnest attempt at a dialog is Sarah's, and even it fails to indicate that you have even noticed the foremost problem that has been raised in these problems: the transition from Monaco to UnnamedNewSkin.
The skin change will cost all of the wikis a lot in terms of retraining editors and users to the new interface, and tranferring the wiki's custom styles to the new skin. To make us buy in, I'd expect you to explain how the new skin offers clear advantages to our editors, our readers, and, if you're really honest and open, to Wikia support staff and Wikia marketing. You have fallen far short of this; mainly you've given us a new "look", and since most of us invested heavily in our present look, it's no wonder this announcement is received in terms of cost instead of benefits.
Btw, you could have stated on your initial blog post (this one) which of the features visible on the screenshots are already available on the new Wikianswers skin; it would probably have avoided some of the confusion.
Side note: is there an easy way to track whether I've received a comment? Unlike a talkpage, the blog comments have no table of contents, so the only way to find a comment and any replies seems to be to load the blog page (with useskin=monaco), allow "all comments" to load, and then use the browser to search for it. On a talkpage, I'd click on "my" topic in the TOC (and that works in monobook as well). This makes comments really unsuited for following any kind of discussion. The lack of a "preview" function and the propensity for important comments to drop from sight quickly doesn't help, either.
--◄mendel► 11:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Note: This blog comment is duplicated on Forum:Your First Look at the New Wikia (discussion)#Wanted: dialogue and clear advantages; feel free to reply there. --M.mendel 11:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Not a bad layout! --Singapore123 02:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

YES! SOME PEOPLE LIKE IT! BUT OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MONOCO!! MAKE IT OPTIONAL!!!!! --Volatile Dweevil 02:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's MONACO --GTAAAF 02:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Monoco, Monaco, whatever. Monoco sounds cooler --Volatile Dweevil 03:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

make it optional --HazeShot 02:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have covered so many downsides in my previous comment (check my contributions to see it). We don't want it. Leave us with monaco and monobook. --Seahorseruler 02:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Are you making an effort to improve load times with this skin? --Pcj 02:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is always our goal to improve site speed. --Sarah Manley 21:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like Monaco. Ditto HazeShot. Having it optional is a great idea. --LordMaster96 02:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HazeShot. Optional choices are always the best choices. :l --Ebony. 02:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... it will take some getting use to, but it'll work. --FalcoPunch 02:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Optional please! We're optimising our frontpage to work with the current layout. --KennyWhee 02:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that this is optional. It shoves the tools that would be useful for an editor in the corner or the page, while shoving the community aspect of wikis in the face of the user. Without a strong and regenerating community, wikis will decay. However, wikis should be encyclopedias first and social networking sites never. --Sandwichman2448 03:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

How about you make a think to see when people are oline and offline? Or you can make it so they could have a back round? --CullenLoverForever17 03:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hope it's optional. --Bm Vivi 03:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

it'll take some getting used to but I'm sure we can make it work --Blackwing-John 03:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do hope that it is optional, as I rather like Wikia the way it is... :-\ --ZEM 03:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for my previous comments, but I am so desperate to make this optional, because in truth the whole issue is in the power of the wikia staff. --Volatile Dweevil 04:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I Hate the look, the changes seem unessary. Don't fix what isn't broken --Fury 133 04:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of the others, it doesn't seem to be needed. Make it an optional change! --13621 04:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

how about having a friend page or something like that so you can add friends --Caridee 04:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i want to have friends on here they should make it an option --Fang's girl 04:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
agreed --Supuhstar 04:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Make it optianal!!!!!!!! --Drago99 04:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

@ Caridee On your userpage you can write a section that says My Friends. --Drago99 04:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i dont like it --Fang's girl 04:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like half the focus has shifted away from the text, drawing the reader's attention to a lot of other things on the page. It would be great if this could be optional. --James26 04:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just hope my Monaco CSS will still work. --Supuhstar 04:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Alot of it probably won't. Just a fair warning. --Fandyllic 16:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i dislike this with a passion --Admrial Thrawn 04:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Why does almost everyone on the internet do this? --Drsdino 04:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

make it optional --Shadow.slayer320 04:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

LordTBT, thanks for the link! As shown there, the skin is much cleaner and more pleasing than the mockup "backyard jungle" picture. --Ademrudin 04:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I should note that is not the new skin, that is an old skin Seahorse referenced called Quartz that appears very similar in look to this new one. --LordTBT 05:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good grief! I hope it's optional, it better not be forced upon any wiki community if they don't want it. It seems that nearly every user who has commented here says the same. --Knowzilla 05:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nice but I hope it will be optional too --Attoy 05:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

yea-yea hope it's optional.. --0O00O00O0 06:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! --Dusia 06:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, no reason to be scared of free change to something that will eventually work better. I just hope that there's Wikia helpers ready to help if any help is needed changing the js, css and such if needed. We won't really have any idea of how it works out until the beta. I am curious however to find out if old code (such as making admin's names a different color in the recent changes and the code I added to change the size of a poll to place in a box on the main page) will still work if transfered to over to the new skin. --SawBucks 06:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

not bad looks better than the style wikipedia and its other sites use. --JohnnyLightning 06:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'll try it, and I'm not hating it yet. But I really dislike the idea of horizontal navigation and the right-hand column; you had that in Quartz, and was extremely unsuccessful... --Chicken7 06:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

A mandatory change over! Please make it an opt-out option. I'm sure many wikis will prefer to keep the Monaco or Monobook. --Thebrains222 07:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! But at first I'll be somewhat confused. --Gebezis 07:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

or just put it in as a new skin? i dont really like horizontal navs. --Richmond2010 07:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to say this, because I actually think this is quite nice! It sort of reminds me of the Quartz skin that wikia use to use before Monaco came into use. By the way, I was wondering if the new website will use the same url or use a new one. --Gourleyo 07:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This won't affect URLs at all. --Sannse 21:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Unlike YouTube's dreadful change, this one looks awesome and for the better! --GlueTube365 08:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, DON'T BLOODY FIX IT. --Ldude893 08:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, great skin! --Technobliterator 08:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks awesome!! --Timmah911 08:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

LOVE IT! --Adellaharl 09:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Look's good. --Twilight Blaze 09:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Can you improve wikis? --Mvtech 09:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

GREAT! --Speedlion 09:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, looks good guys. --Aeneass 09:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nice! --Snapecraft 09:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was: nice WordPress skin. I'll reserve more detailed feedback for later, when I've had time to let it "sink in". --Porter21 09:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

My exact same thought. Original, it isn't. --Fandyllic 16:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, why that's canny mate. Spot on. --Crescendospectredragon 09:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

cool --Kefkavonclown 09:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Omg! Epic! --Parsonsda 10:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

At least it isn't like how youtube "improves" their site xD --Dragongirl66 10:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks lovely :) --KratosGodofWar 10:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Home page presentation is fantastic. Better than Wikipedia. eheh --VidenteWikia 10:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU ALL? It's just gotten rid of nearly all the best stuff like the Shoutbox, AND IT JUST LOOKS LIKE WORDPRESS.

no offense --EternalMagma 10:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Staffan15 12:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Volatile Dweevil 14:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
agreed as well --Volatile Dweevil 14:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
True --EDFan12345 16:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It looks horrible, leave the MMKB and other wikias so how they are.The future of wikian sites will be ruined if it will look so. Seriously and ironically meant --DeathTanz Mantisk 11:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The new Wikia skin appears at first great, but taking in what other users have stated, the fixed page width is a down turn assuming it is kept. It uses a social site scrolling toolbar, something I would rather not use. I would like to see the non-Javascript version in due time for compare/contrast. If possible, or already has not been done, please do not transfer Special:MyHome to the newest skin. Furthermore, I'd like to know if I can customize this as much as one could for Monaco, Monobook, etc. with the same or more freedom. For those wikis whom customized Monaco to the best of their abilities, I would hope that those customizations are portable from one skin to another with little or no changes (I'd like to see this come true).

However, while creating this other features are left dilapidated and broken. Such as this new (at least for me) commenting feature doesn't work well outside of Monaco, thus making any blog unbearable to read on Wikiaphone (which has more bugs than you can shake a stick at).

On another note, if possible, why not allow users to have the ability to set their preferences with those skins now and previously blacklisted under $wgSkipSkin in the LocalSetting.php file? It's not like it's going to hurt anyone, or would it?

That's all I have for now. --Bluesonic43 11:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Most people agree with you, check blog history. --Volatile Dweevil 14:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far to me. --Mewtwo465 11:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Kiitos saunalahden vähennyslaskukone! Cool --Kiseri 11:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

awsome fantastic --Megaman12345 12:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

When will it be put into circulation? --Um2k9 12:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

looks good --Cdisney3 12:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

^^ --HalcyonL 12:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I really like it, but I kind of liked it when the tool bar was in the left. -- 12:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. Fixed page width. Oh, no, no. That's something that goes right against the principles of the World Wide Web. It's supposed to not be very much affected by what is used to browse it.

I'm not entirely sure if this will happen, but I think I'll have an awful time browsing. My screen's 1024x768, and nowadays most have larger screens. I've already seen sites where browsing is made difficult due to too wide pages, due to having to use a horizontal scrollbar. Fixed width will also hinder those with exceptionally wide screens, as they'll have empty space instead of getting to see lots of information at once.

And a scrolling toolbar... I'd choose scrolling to tools whenever I need them over having a toolbar follow me and limit what I can see all the time. Especially when it's mostly comprised of useless buttons - like, share, follow. I've never used any of these three.

This'll make Wikia more social-networking-site-ish. That's bad.

Also... where's Recent Changes? Is it "Wiki Activity"? --VezonThunder 12:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

RecentChanges? heh, I was sure that Wikia would finally remove completely RecentChanges and sbstitute it by MyHome --Ciencia Al Poder 15:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

@All of those who support the new layouts:

It's fine that you like it, but you must remember that most of the editors here aren't in favor of it, but it's being mandatorily forced on us. So in your comments, can you at least say, "I really like it! But can you make it optional for the people who don't like it"? --Kirkland22 12:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! Change!
– Serously, don't tell others what to think and what to express! --Anne Behnert 12:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't telling others what to think. You obviously don't realize that most of the editors aren't in favor of this new layout, and are somewhat outraged that it's mandatory. If it was optional, all would be well. --Kirkland22 12:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Look at Blog history --Volatile Dweevil 14:13, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I find it interesting how I'm being criticized for putting forth a fair solution. I was simply stating that it isn't fair to those who do not like the new layout since it's mandatory. And here comes this user telling me I shouldn't be telling others what to think (which I clearly was not doing, I was just letting them know that those who do not like the new layout don't have a choice whether to keep it or not, since it's mandatory). --Kirkland22 14:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
That's so silly. You don't think the staff are going to read all the comments? Obviously they know how many are against the 'mandatory' part, as well as how many are happy to continue to grow. --Peteparker 14:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
What's so "silly" about it? Of course I believe the staff will read these comments. I never said anything about them not reading the comments, now, did I? --Kirkland22 14:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
@ peter:
"That's so silly. You don't think the staff are going to read all the comments?"
That is missing the entire point. Yes, the staff will read the comments, but then they will snub their noses at overwhelming consensus. --Anno1404 15:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Too all those who are criticizing Kirkland22... were you not around for the Monaco transition? If you were, don't you remember how difficult it was negotiating with Wikia staff?
I can dig out individual discussions and edits, if you want to see examples of how they did a poor job communicating and basically wouldn't make changes until there was overwhelming opposition and lots of time wasted.
If you like and want that again, you probably weren't there. --Fandyllic 16:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Monaco is as good as Wikia ever got. How about you give the Test Wiki the new skin so we can experience it? --Bara Magna 12:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. We'll see if Wikia staff understands the value of this suggestion. --Fandyllic 16:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please feel free to apply to the private beta, to be one of the first to check out the new skin. We will also be hosting a public beta on a couple of select wikis. Stay tuned to the blog for further details on the wikis and timing. --Sarah Manley 21:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should all shut our mouths and see the beta for ourselves, then we can protest. --Jeffwang16 13:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but in my personal experience, the wikia staff push through badly conceptualized ideas and ignore calls for reverting these changes. Editors are justifiably apprehensive because they continue to be shut out of the decision making process by a small group of arrogant bureaucrats who seem to think they know what is better than the tens of thousands of editors.
So until the wikia staff respects editors concerns, I would suggest "shut[ting] your mouth..." --Anno1404 15:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, what Anno1404 says is, unfortunately, mostly the truth. --Fandyllic 16:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just please let Monaco be, ofcourse.. let people choose between this one, monaco and so on... then I'll be happy :) -- 13:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. --MissKnowItAll 13:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's different.... Looks cool but we can't judge it till we try it. --Fire Arrow 162 13:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Opt-in is always cool, don't do a Google on people. :P --Kilkakon 13:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

7966687tj6234t6yuyk nuynu'ujujui,uy[tnuplj'jjl -- 14:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

this looks REALLY BAD. I think wikia should give people an option on wether they want this "new layout" or not. --Hylianhero777 14:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

MAKE IT OPTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Check the blog history, most people hate it) --Volatile Dweevil 14:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like wikispaces. Very shoddy. --Volatile Dweevil 14:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. It should definitely be optional though. --StrikerBack 14:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing how many bad comments can be generated from one screenshot. People need to relax and test it out before going off the deep end. --Peteparker 14:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If they get a chance to test it out, I would agree with you. Wikia should have waited until they had more info to release before announcing. --Fandyllic 16:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with the "content, not style" ethos. It is the Wikia users task to provide content and as such I am quite happy for Wikia to alter style occasionally. Maybe this does look like Wordpress, and I dislike the column on the right. Will this be alterable? Also, will there be any preserved Monaco CSS? Apart from that, this is a skin that I (and presumably other Wikians) can cope with. --Wyvern Rex. 14:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i hate this new look so much. IT SCREWED UP ALL MY WIKIS AND EVERYBODYS WIKI! --Khortonworld 14:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

 You guys don't know what your talking about. It is a small screenshot with about two paragraphs of information about it. --Evanf 14:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell what you are even talking about. Whats up with the space at the beginning making that scroll bar? --Devilmanozzy 15:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
That's what happens when you add a space at the beginning of a sentence or paragraph. Watch:
blahblahblah blahblahblah blahblahblah blahblahblah blahblahblah --Bentendo 16:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pikipedia ( has a neat and orderly style, skin, and community. The content areas are organized and although it doesn't have a large number of templates, it has all it needs. The skin is simple, but has lots of minor details that the head admin added on that most people wouldn't notice. I really hope this new style is optional, because if it isn't:

1. Pikipedia and many other wikis will drastically change and fall while larger communities that match the style thrive.

2. All of Greenpickle's hard work on both the Pikipedia's skin and the Kirby wiki skin (which he is just finishing up right now) is now down the toilet. Admins on other wikis will also watch their hard work disintegrate.

3. Though in the eyes of the staff, all wikis should be shared and brought together in one big community, this is not true. The smaller wikis will lose many a user and viewer from this feature. Ask around on people's talk pages, you'll find that 99% of users oppose inter-wiki "transport", as, though the staff belong to all wikis, and it would certainly help them, most users go to one or two wikis and stay there. Again, ask around, this one I'm certain will be opposed.

4. This new style has an extremely similar style to blogs or social networking sites. It has a news post box, has quick connection between wikis that users belong to that are like "groups" and it has a date display. Plus the bottom "tool" menu milks out items that only new users use. While this would be great on wikis with between 75 and 150 users, it would act a lot like facebook for some of the larger wikis and would be utterly pointless on smaller wikis where all of the active users know each other. A facebook-like style would most certainly thrive at community central, where the staff all have facebook style avatars (the icons, not the movies), but on other wikis it may not work out so well.

5. Several users dislike the new skin, more dislike it than like it (see the full history of the new style's blog.

6. Users who wanted to implement the new style on wikis would be fine with waiting while you implemented plans to make this style optional. If you don't wait, and you force it up right now and add the option later, many good, helpful users will leave wikia forever or for a long period of time, while other user who are not interested in contributing, but rather, just in the social networking "community" will join and post only on pages like user talk, and, if there are achievements on that wiki, will make hollow edits to boost their "social status".

7. If the staff wants to really get what wikia is all about to most people (the actual users), then, instead of checking input blogs, go and join a large wiki (like, a small wiki (like, and a new wiki (like the Spectrobes Fanon Contribute and add to the pages as best as you can, even minor edits help! And once you have been part of each type of community you will realize that each has separate needs and that the new style will work for medium/larger wikis, but not other wikis.

8. In my opinion there should not be "updates" which change things, like this new skin, but "features" which give the users of each wiki the option to go with it. The true key to success with the users of the wikia community is to allow them to customize, even with small things. Rather than bringing all wikis together, this will help keep them individual, unique, special, it will help them focus and match the subject. Maybe the best thing you could do is make several new styles and make them all optional, and maybe bring back old styles, like Monobook, as an option. Either way, most certainly keep Monaco, this style has worked great for the majority of wiki communities. Look at other wiki sites, like Wikipedia and wikispaces. They allow customization even for individual users! If one doesn't like the new style on Wikipedia, they don't have to complain! They just go to their preferences and change the style back to Monobook! If all new features were optional, angry comments would drop down to an all-time low. Only compliments from users who will use on their wikis will appear, as users who disliked the style would just not implement it on their wiki. This blog would be several pages shorter. Everyone would love the staff.

This is a comment posted by Volatile Dweevil (Respond, Please!) --Volatile Dweevil 15:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia just created a new layout design. I hated the new layout as most veteran editors hated the new layout. Wikipedia has an opt out option for all editors. THERE WAS AN OPT OUT. Is this an option here?

I resent having to get involved in politics on this site. Ideally I would stay out of this and create content.

There is a beta tester signup. I encourage everyone to sign up. I think the staff will listen more to beta testers than general editors. --Anno1404 15:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they are making this new skin mandatory, and monaco will only be available for a little while longer after this one is released. I know, it sucks. --Seahorseruler 15:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Again Seahorseruler Is Right . It Sucks --Happy65 16:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

How broad was the user testing? Was it by users who edit across the larger / higher traffic wikias?

Community member feedback...well a lot of us thought the gallery update was horrible and that was fixed...sort of.

How is this new right aligned box going to affect wikis with infoboxes that are right aligned?

How much redesigning of our pages is this going to require? As several wikis have a fairly high article count and if this really messes with the layout that's going to be a gigantic issue to fix (even with bots). --Tangerineduel 15:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else asking for an "opt out" option. --Brossow 15:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sannse, the issues I see looking at the Avatar page posted in replies in the blog are the following:

-The Infobox for the Character needs to be on the left now, with text on the right side going down around it

-The table on contents should be also moved to the right.

Are those two issues going to be addressed in some way? That off hand bugs me. Most of the moves have been ok with me I see. --Devilmanozzy 15:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That link wasn't to the new look. That was an old version called Quartz. The new look is shown in the blog post above. --Sannse 21:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well it needs to be fullsize to know what it looks like, and I never got a message back when I asked to be on the testing for the new look. Been on Wikia since September 2008, so I've been around awhile. --Devilmanozzy 22:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Really? Is this needed at all? Surely efforts should be focused on infrastructure and improving speed, rather than pointless appearance updates that really don't do anything constructive. --Bramblepath 15:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Wikia happens every year. The last one didn't last. Gotta give it a chance. Where's Netscape? lol --Devilmanozzy 15:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
They do it because they make more money if they get more pageviews from the ads they cover pages with. --Seahorseruler 15:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I been told when a boy kiss a girl, take a trip around da world ayyyyy hayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy --AuronKaizer 15:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with everything but the right-hand column & removing RC. Myhome is horrible for tracking updates, and is always incorrect. Its constantly saying images were just uploaded, when a comment was made on a page that image is on. Also, most users don't even look at infoboxes because its on the right-hand side. What makes you think people will actually see the new right-aligned column now. Most likely, it'll cause more issues than its worth.

Make this optional. --Resa1983 15:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

They haven't said they are removing Recent Changes... --Pcj 16:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
My mistake - that was just the talk on #wikia. But still. Its gonna ruin every page with infoboxes.. :\ --Resa1983 16:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
We aren't removing Recent Changes. That's way too useful for sure. You will be able to get to that page via a link on the Activity Feed, or via your toolbox (or via a bookmark or shortcut of course). --Sannse 16:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

sweet --BrideofVenom 16:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I Am A Beta Tester . That Sounds Cool --Happy65 16:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Who Will I Interview --Happy65 16:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

They could better use the same skin as wikipedia --Pierlot 16:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory? Must be hard to keep all the ads in while trying to look like a sparkling community. Well, this is still getting pounded out so maybe it's too early to judge. Hopefully, it'll keep at least some of the Monaco features and not alienate veteran editors too much. --Sake neko 16:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think - very nice! --Januso 16:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hate this, please do not change monaco, this will ruin this epic community.. thanks. -- 16:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. It looks cool because of the bar at the top, yeah it has a nice look. But if you look closely, all it is - it's advertising other wikis. The text is so big and highlighted, it's bigger than your own content and it's just putting it in the reader's face to look at the other wikis.

Another problem with this is that it gives the impression that the wiki you're currently looking at is only a mere one compared to the thousands there are already. It's advertising Wikia and it's basically saying that this mere website belongs to another company. But with Monaco, readers get the impression this website is very much run by itself and not like piczo where there are tons of crappy websites.

So, if you're going to remove the big inter-wiki links on that bar, there is no reason for that bar and you should just remove the bar. If you remove the bar, there is no point of a new skin as there is nothing good aesthetically.

No bar = No skin = Fail

So, you guys have kind of shot yourself in the foot as there as no way of fixing these problems without removing the skin altogether because the skin will be redundant if these new (but useless features) are removed. --Tigernose 16:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like monobook, I hate monaco and I hate that new one =/ --Super Mario X 17:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i prefer the old one. But that said, i did prefer Animus 1.0 to 2,0 on Assasin's Creed beforei got to know it --Heatedpete 17:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

True say, but we just get used to these new stuff (even if it is bad). And when you get used to it, you don't realise how life was better before. It happened with YouTube for example. Everyone preferred the old features, but we just got used to the new mediocre ones. I'm afraid this will happen with the new skin. --Tigernose 17:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think an actual useful addition to Wikia would be a way of editing a page really quickly, without having to load a seperate one. If the new edit button just converted the page into wikicode there and then, it would be a lot more efficient and easy to edit. --Tigernose 17:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just spent ages getting my wiki all customised. I like how this looks, that's to say, but i hope it won't come for a while yet. --TheManx 17:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i like this --Ultimateplay91 17:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea: If this change happens, all the wikis should go on strike on not enable edits until they change it. --The thing 17:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Need to look at it further to decide if I like it or not... --Yowuza 17:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

no --Hadiclank 17:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

ok ill take one --Hadiclank 17:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like the look, but please allow a way to revert to the older interface, if the need arises. In all honesty, this reminds me of the Wikipedia change, which took a few days of getting used to, which I honesty believe I could, so I am rather looking forward to this-As long as it doesn't suck! --Ia Morte 18:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Although my opinion is mixed about the skin, I'd really have to try it to judge it. That's why I submitted myself to be a beta tester about a week ago. Since I did that from my iPod, and it was hard to write, and probably I missed something, I'll send my application again. I hope that's not a problem. --Matias arana 10 18:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

By looking at the preview image:

  • Why would I care who edited the article last? I want to read the content when I see the article, not who edits the content.
    • Again at the image. Nobody cares about who uploaded the image, just that there's an image. The uploader is irrelevant.
  • The "<number> pages on this wiki" is WAY too wide. Cut it down by at least 1/3.
    • Same goes for the "<number> images on this wiki". Why is this needed at all? It opens for people to upload an image that never goes used (until an admin eventually notice it's unused).
  • The bottom toolbar is awful. I'm not sure what's up with the "Like" button (Facebook, anyone?), sharing an article? Nothing I'd do. And what's up with putting "What Links Here" and "History" at the bottom? Are you trying to make it look like we're reading a blog post instead of an article?
  • Categories at the top: not sure why you changed to move them. This would also look horrid on articles with many and/or long category names.
  • Top bar: change it so it's at the far bottom under the article, or to the side. It's in the way of the content. --Gourra 18:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That skin is terrible, but ill have to see it when its done to judge it further --Jack678 18:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would work. Anyway wiki does need a new look. --Tanktime 18:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Is there a real reason to change the way things look so often? No. There is nothing wrong with how the skin is now. --Kirkland22 18:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Snazzy, super snazzy. It might work, but you might want to include an option where someone can change it back to the old look, perhaps? --ItsukoChan 18:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's best if we have the look we always have. It's kinda getting confusing --Lightning2315 18:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's not like the new skin at Wikipedia... That one took some getting used to... Almost too much so... --KryptoTheSuperdog 18:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That was barely any different... --Yowuza 19:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Vector is actually an improvement. This is crap. --Jeffwang16 19:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather use the present look than this one, mostly 'cause of how I'm so used to the present model, and I find it more convenient than the new one looks. However, I guess I shouldnt judge before I actually use this model or at least see the finished look.

But you guys really should give each individual Wiki an option to change it back to the original look. And if you're not gonna do that, at least give us users the option to choose which side they want the columns on. --DjWindmaster97 19:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with " DjWindmaster97 " 100% This is basically what I was trying to say in my 1st post, I just couldn't put it in simplified words as DjWindmaster97 has posted here. I agree with exactly what DjWindmaster97 has said here. --Alison22000 22:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

More down hill updates... Does every website use the exact playbook? (Recurring trend with each update on the internet, the site get's worse. Textbook example: Youtube...) --The Navigator 19:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Monobook was the best. I hope that's still around. --The thing 19:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hate it! :( -- 19:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hate it I like the ond one! Monobook is good but isn't bad! --Crystalbeastdeck09 20:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please take note that this is a very early version, Beta testing will come in with user experience which will fix most things we won't like! --Tedjuh10 20:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just look at YouTube and (*sigh*) Metacritic. --Anthony1996 20:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

looks cool cant wait --Taz217 20:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If this change goes through and it's as awful as it looks, I have every intention of going through with our plan at Fantendo to leave Wikia. I'm tired of all of these awful changes. --Cobweb 20:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to start asking lots of questions. I don't have time to make sure if they've already been asked. --Fandyllic 20:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just wish you would stop wasting our time by reading all your different damn posts when you could make a single post all in one go, not make over 15 posts, which is actually making me sick of seeing your name, sorry to be rude, but how your posting every single question in a different post, it is just stupid. --Alison22000 22:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'm already sick of seeing your name and face and I've only seen it twice. But seriously, I don't give a crap what you think. Sorry to be rude. --Fandyllic 22:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Dude, we get it, you hate it. Now let others say what they think. Not everyone agrees with you. --Devilmanozzy 18:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Backyard Jungle" graphic a logo? --Fandyllic 20:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes --The thing 20:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? --Fandyllic 22:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Are the Entertainment, Gaming, and Lifestyle drop menus at the top of the page controlled by Wikia or changeable by the wiki admins? --Fandyllic 20:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What is in the user drop menu at the top right? --Fandyllic 20:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What happens when the drop menus to the right of the "Backyard Jungle" are too many or too big to fit there? --Fandyllic 20:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What else is in the "Edit" drop menu to the right of "Venus Fly Trap"? --Fandyllic 20:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What is talk bubble button to the right of "Venus Fly Trap" for? Comments? --Fandyllic 20:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comments --The thing 20:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
And you know this how? --Fandyllic 22:35, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Logic...? --Max21 22:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
It isn't logic unless you assume there will be no talk page. It could be the new talk page link. --Fandyllic 00:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The talk bubble button to the right of "Venus Fly Trap" appears to have "&#93;&#93;" to the right of it. Is that a bug or do they mean something? --Fandyllic 20:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That's an 11. It means there's 11 comments. --The thing 20:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.. you're right. It's probably an 11. I wish they could have had a larger screenshot. --Fandyllic 22:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What is in the "JakeofAllTrades" drop menu? --Fandyllic 20:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What happens when the number of categories becomes to many or to wide to fit int he space provided? --Fandyllic 20:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This has already been answered. --Max21 22:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Care to give a link, smartass. --Fandyllic 00:41, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Are the areas on the right side widgets or are they user editable content? --Fandyllic 20:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Can you auto-hide the bottom bar? --Fandyllic 20:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What kind of limits are there to items that can be put in the "My Tools" popup menu? --Fandyllic 20:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a gap below the bottom blue bar. Is that intentional or a bug? --Fandyllic 20:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh Wikia... why you punish us?? for what? - I love Wikia more than anything, I've been building a perfect Wiki with the monaco skin, and now you throw in the towel for monaco and say this is going to take over?? and that we "monaco users have only a LIMITED time before being forced into the new skin"? I just want to say that.. Wikia, if you would even take PAYMENT for making the wiki.. I would so pay it, because I love your site.. but if this update will become true.. I will leave the Wiki, because I've put my mind, soul and time in the Wiki im working on! and now I will be forced to work on a strange design I've never even liked.. and lose time again? - please don't do this to us.

I've stopped working on my Wiki already, because I fear you will take the design away from me.. and why shall I continue with the Wiki and the design there when it will dissapear in some months? - hate this :( please don't do this Wikia! :( you will lose users, including me.. :'( -- 20:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Added by" info below the flytrap image caption always there or can it be turned off? --Fandyllic 20:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

How is the "PAGES ON THIS WIKI" number counted? --Fandyllic 20:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

There's an auto-counter. --The thing 20:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
@ Fandyllic, Why did you have to make so many posts just to ask a couple of questions, if you saw them all before you made your post, why didn't you just place them all into one larger post. I hate when people waste space by making silly repeated topics all to ask a couple of questions that they knew what they were going to ask originally.
I just think it's a waste of space, that takes over other people's posting areas, that could fit more people onto a single page, but with people making the post after post on the same questions they already knew to ask, it uses up more posting space, so now we have to vie more pages to see other answers.
Guys, try to keep lots of questions in a bulk post not so many that it looks stupid. --Alison22000 21:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I don't want the answers to get mixed up in one large post. Very simple. --Fandyllic 22:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
"There's an auto-counter."
This doesn't tell me how pages are counted. Do talk pages count? Do blog pages count? What about redirects? --Fandyllic 22:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'd assume they're using {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, that's the first number on Special:Statistics on most MediaWiki installations; it is somewhat configurable what gets counted, but usually it only includes mainspace and excludes redirects, stubs, and dead-end pages (i.e. pages that don't contain a link). The number itself is not a new wiki feature; and displaying it openly has been a feature of w:c:answers: for quite some time now, as have some of the openly displayed credits. --M.mendel 22:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is probably it. It used to be part of the default main page on new wikis, but got removed at some point. --Fandyllic 00:32, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

What does the "Wiki Activity" button do? --Fandyllic 20:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is the new name for the Recent Changes page. --Kirkland22 20:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What does the "Share" popup menu on the bottom bar do? --Fandyllic 20:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

WIll the "Create Page" button have some new boilerplate mechanism? --Fandyllic 20:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Fandyllic: Better if you wait more info about this. --VegaDark 20:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better. Most of the answers to these questions will be clear when the beta testing starts. This image shows the current look of the prototype, but it’s too early to give specific answers about things that will be solidified over the next few weeks. --Sannse 21:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
It would be better if Wikia had more information to give us before announcing this new skin.
Also, a beta test is not supposed to be done on prototypes or mostly unfinished software. That's why it's "beta" and not alpha. A beta test is supposed to happen when the software design is mostly done and you're looking for bugs that your testers couldn't find because they have to do with issues of scale or a more un-experienced user perspective.
Is this an alpha test disguised as a beta test? --Fandyllic 22:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

please no please no no no no no no! :( -- 21:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

does everyone have to use this? --IllusionZoroark 21:12, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Right now it's mandatory, sadly. But we're trying to voice our opinions enough so they make it optional. --Kirkland22 21:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to try it and see it set as the new default when finished, but I agree Monaco and Monobook should be retained as options. Why force people to break their current wikis just to conform to the new regime? --Bzero 21:13, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're really just telling our opinions about this one screenshot. Who knows, maybe it won't be as horrible as it looks... --The thing 21:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

But still, we should have the option to opt-out if we aren't in favor of it – nothing like this should be mandatory. --Kirkland22 21:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I mean, it's probably going to be horrible. I think they should make monobook the default. --The thing 21:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the look of this new site. I like the original. I am so sick and tired of always seeing white websites, They are going out of fashion. I really like the look of the one we are now using. It has alot of effects that look great.

If your going to make the website look like this horrible look, then I beg you to please give us an option to change our settings so we are able to change the look back to the old. Thanks for hearing my input. --Alison22000 21:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The new look will be customizable, and there will be more themes to choose from as well - including dark ones. --Sannse 16:58, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

We're fighting for the freedom on Wikia! seriously, let this design be as a option, or the other way around. don't make this mandatory, because this will fail, plus monaco ..every good wikia site uses it, and they want to keep it that way because monaco is GORGEOUS :) this one is ugly, keep the monaco alive lol :D -- 22:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

i like it with ur own logo and white look.every1 has opinions wiki staff if u make this forced EVERYONE will hate you.probably 99.7%. --IllusionZoroark 22:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

In the words of J.S. Steinman, "What's this, Goddess? An intruder?! He's ugly! Ugly! Ugly! UGLYYYYYYYY!"

I'd have to agree with a lot of the other users who commented here and say that this oughta be an option to use. One of my fellow administrators has spent hours getting our site to look the way it does, and making this mandatory would put all that to waste. --Spartan-091 22:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Optional. I don't like having everything useful hidden and everything useless in your face! --Jope12 22:13, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, making you look around to find the useful stuff increases your time spent on the site, which is very desirable. ;-9 --◄mendel► 22:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC) --M.mendel 22:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Not to users. --Pcj 22:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

If wiki continues will be fine. --Alan972 22:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You'd better make it optional.

Don't be a Google. Listen to your vcustomers or your customers will WALK!

-- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 22:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 22:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well said, TS. I'm afraid they won't like they did with Monobook last time, but I think they will make it the default choice this time, but won't remove Monaco. --Tigernose 22:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
They're removing Monaco. It will stay temporarily, and then it will be nuked from orbit.
Either this or Monobook. And this is mandatory for anons. Plus Monobook is hideously broken on every new feature, especially blogs. --Zapwire 23:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Where did Facebook connect go to? --Fandyllic 22:30, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Are the gradient colors on the top and bottom bar from background images or CSS gradients (that are usually browser specific)? --Fandyllic 22:38, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, remember. The most work is getting the colours and images done, so you can just transfer the colours to the new skin! --Tedjuh10 22:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you've never done an extensive wiki reskin. --◄mendel► 22:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC) --M.mendel 22:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
We're going to be making it easier to do, with a new customization tool (still in development). You will still be able to do more intricate css changes, but won't need to. --Sannse 17:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I never understood why there would need to be a comments section on an article. Wikia, please stop trying to be Facebook. --Max21 22:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. comments on a article are a great idea to express yourself! --TheAgeofRockstar 23:08, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
No, that is what talk pages are for --Bioshock123 23:14, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I love the comments idea and other ideas, It's fun! it makes the Wikia more unique! :) the only thing I hate right now is the new design which will soon be up! :( otherwise extensions are awesome, and I think they should concentrate more on such extensions than on re-making the design! :( and I agree with @TheAgeofRockstar :) -- 23:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
all i know is that if i see comments on my wikias, they will be deleted/blocked. --Snugglemuffins 23:29, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know Wikia's response to the almost 700 comments now, a majority which are clearly against this.

1. Why is this mandatory? Why? Is it because of ad sales? Be honest with us.

2. A backlash like this really demonstrates that community input doesn't matter. Why pretend it does? --LordTBT 23:15, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Community input does matter, but apparently Wikia likes to be thrashed before it will act. --Fandyllic 00:35, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
If it's adverts they need to say, we all re-designed our main pages to incorporate the adverts.
I often wonder if the wiki design community exists in a bubble and they just force these changes out, all the wikis we edit on we've been encouraged to contribute and grow, which also means we're locked into the architecture, it's somewhat disheartening to read that it will be mandatory, which just seems like they're saying we'll have to live with it, or we can walk. --Tangerineduel 15:05, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

que sera sera ... good luck with the roll out

I think that Wikia will be the most successful when a "skin-agnostic" philosophy is adopted.

Perhaps on the road to that end-point it may take many trial and error iterations with such ideas as the one depicted in the screen shot above. No doubt the most constructive feedback will come out of beta testing so I'll save comment until then. --Najevi 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Do not want. Ack. --DaL33T 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with LordTBT, if wikia doesn't care that almost 700 comments say they hate it, why on Earth would they keep going? --Bioshock123 23:19, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


...I've never in my entire computer-geeky-life complained so much about hating on a website's upcoming design.. I just hate it! and I don't want it! Monaco for the win! -- 23:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The real thing i want is a better updated layout page, activity feed and to tell us more clearly how many pages are on a wiki (alot our off by 1-45+ --Cody Holt 23:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I have to state that I like the look of the current layout better. --Visuallyimpairedshenanigans 23:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Did Wikia even consider Vector? I'm curious what made you want to design a whole new skin instead of adapting an existing new skin for your needs. --Pcj 23:30, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Vector is Wikipedia's default, and we're not them :) We are different in many ways, so it makes sense that we look different and don't end up mistaken for them. --Sannse 17:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
But ease of use considerations make me think that in order to attract users from Wikipedia it would be best to have a similar interface. Further, you can differentiate yourselves and still use Vector - that's what content is for! --Pcj 17:13, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I second LordTBT's comment. --Kirkland22 23:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

looks very nice, better than the current look imo, which looks a little ehm.. (don't know the english word for it).. but it looks too "square-ish" --Zantam03 23:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting against the new design. Seems like we are loosing a lot of screen real estate with the widened vertical menu and the additional horizontal area. I think the vertical menu (if you insist on expanding it and putting it on the right) could be about half as wide and still provide the same amount of data.

I think there would be a lot of cases where a design that depended on the menu being on the left would become cumbersome with the menu on the right.

I definitely agree that the Monaco skin should remain as an option. --Mrjoeterrace 23:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Too bad you don't really get to vote. --Fandyllic 00:39, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the look of that design, stick with the current one. --Dan the Man 1983 23:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I really dislike the upcoming look, it seems overall crammed. --Eric of Dark 23:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

this wikia is cool NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! --Dwayne123 23:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I want to keep the old version! --XordaSurvivor 00:06, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

aw man! cmon i want the old wikia not the new 1! --Otaman1 00:15, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

u guys use google? bing is show's video,pics,and web results sometimes wikipedia! --IllusionZoroark 00:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Spam much? ...and Bing sucks. --Fandyllic 00:39, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Bing?! AHAHAHA! --Jeffwang16 00:56, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

This looks interesting. :) --Layla Goldeneyes 00:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting new look/appearance - resembles a bit the outlook of the Encarta encyclopedia, in my opinion. --Bacner 00:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Eww... --Fandyllic 00:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

i cant wait for the new look on wikia homepage =) --Silverio 2 00:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

This is the wikia that your grandma would like to use. Not one that kids and teens and people in their 20s and 30s want to use. --The thing 01:02, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

T_T.It's ok but i don't really like it a little bit. --Drama786 01:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Smaller page size is bad, to points where I can't ever discribe. And If yoy place in a scrolling bar that follows you, it is even worse. If this really happens, I will seriously consider secceding from wikia and putting my wiki up on an independent server, ecause it is just that bad. --Bioshock123 01:14, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Its ok I like the other page better thou --Eclaire3eva 01:27, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't look too bad... having said that it does look a cramped. --AyeRight 01:30, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, after ALL of that fuss for Donkey Kong Wiki's new skin-- an entire test wiki used with 36 (count em') edits to the monaco to get a proper look, an entire further skin overhaul, all that work to get templates readable, and a final tweak to make the pages even more readable... YOU WANT TO SHOVE MONACO OUT THE DOOR?! Make it an option. Please. This update will only encourage wikis to split form Wikia. Have you seen the shout box recently on this wiki?

If you don't make it an option I'll change my avatar to defeated Ryu's portrait. --HavocReaper48 01:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Amazing --Julie Patterson 01:43, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Remember that old Quartz skin? I loved that. I don't like Monaco very much. Blocky and very boring. This looks very good. QUICK QUESTION: What will this theme be called? --C Teng 01:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Likin' the Like button --C Teng 01:46, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

it's cool- i like it. Change is always good they say, and this is definately a change...O_O...gonna take some getting used to...yaaaay! <(^_^)> --BlakFyr999 02:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Change isn't always good, you know. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.
And it's fine that you like it, but don't you think it's unfair to those of us who don't like it, since it's mandatory for all of us? --Kirkland22 02:07, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

i agree --Arbynchief 02:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

This layout looks great, assuming I don't want to actually read anything on the actual page! I can only assume all that nasty content will be even less noticeable and readable once wikia adds all the ads! I hope this still looks good with the giant sized gallery images! Fantastic job! --Archduk3 02:28, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, it seems that you now can add random images or photos without attaching them to an article page. So a wiki pages could be also a Flickr profile. --Ciencia Al Poder 09:14, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

New interface, again? Hmm, good thing I kept Monobook on since the last change, 4 years ago. I will keep using it, thanks much. --Tuvalkin 02:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Nice, but will this new look change the appearance of our wikias? --IMansoorferoz 03:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it will --ToShootToKill 07:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Looks rather sleek....and easy to use........pretty cool. --TheBoomDocter 03:13, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

nice --S9937824g 03:30, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

cool --Rsmall1413 03:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Nice...but if you ask me im a bit fine with the current look of the wikias...but change if you want..its fine with me... --Raffe Ace Uchiha 04:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not really that of a difference! :) --HyperHearts58 04:51, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I like it! Looks a lot cleaner and more user friendly. --RaffyO 05:23, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Its ish.... --DiscoDuck 05:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

But totally better --DiscoDuck 05:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

lol. sleek and cool.nice --Zeldafan777 06:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Cool! --Sponge-a-Holic 06:51, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Nice --MasterRed100 07:24, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Less blocky, more sharp, and looks really nice. Nice work. I plan to remodel the Nerf Wiki after this. Because of this, it has been postponed. But its gonna be great. --Cpt. Riley 07:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of it, but it is a nice change! Must admit it looks like a bit of a 'Free Webs' page. I have come to love the current theme's side bar, and I think it would be a shame to lose it D: --Will94 07:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

HATE IT! :'( don't change monaco! and don't force this theme on us! :( pleasee....! -- 09:39, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please, please don't force this on us, or the Masses will WALK. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

please fix the galleries instead, it's much more needed --Klow 10:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed --Ciencia Al Poder 16:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be taking a "social network track" with the "Like" and "Share" buttons, but this looks very nice. I don't think it's fair to judge the whole skin on one screenshot, it might be hiding better things underneath. --Callofduty4 10:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Load Times are crucial[]

One of the biggest problems with Monaco and related skins has been end user page load times. If it takes up to a minute to load a page, I'm twiddling my thumbs instead of doing contructive work on my wiki, and am getting frustrated in the process.

I do not use Monaco because it feels bloated to me. Pages take longer to load than on Monobook; sometimes the loads stall; I generally twiddle my thumbs more. Some of the bloat has, unfortunately, leaked onto monobook during the past years. I run a small volunteer wiki that I host myself, and the fast responses to any page action are as if a weight fell off. If you have competent skin designers who understand the impact that their design choices and coding style may make on end user load times, they may achieve making your new skin load almost as fast as any skin off an out-of-the-box MediaWiki install. If they manage that, I can gurantee that (almost) every editor will love the new skin; if you have a sane design that is easy to customize, we can always customize the looks and turn off unwanted features if it is worth it. Please make it so.

I know that you have done everything in your power to ensure that Wikia content is served quickly. However, end user page loads seem to often stall as 3rd party content (ads, javascript etc.) is being loaded, often before the page has displayed. Your technicians won't know about this unless they track the load times of 3rd party content on an ongoing basis.

Please have your skin designers read this document; have them ask your server techs to explain to them what they don't understand, since I know that the server staff have already considered everything this documents asks of them where it is sensible. However, a lot of the delay comes in where on the page content is loaded; preferably, third-party content should be loaded under Javascript control (most of it is Javascript anyway) after the wiki page has loaded and displayed initially.

You do not need beta testers to find out if you have succeeded, since you have offices and helpers around the globe; they should log out, clear their browser caches, and check how long it takes for a page to load at various times during the day.

Side note: is there an easy way to track whether I've received a comment? Unlike a talkpage, the blog comments have no table of contents, so the only way to find a comment and any replies seems to be to load the blog page (with useskin=monaco), allow "all comments" to load, and then use the browser to search for it. On a talkpage, I'd click on "my" topic in the TOC (and that works in monobook as well). This makes comments really unsuited for following any kind of discussion. The lack of a "preview" function and the propensity for important comments to drop from sight quickly doesn't help, either.

--◄mendel► 10:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This blog comment is duplicated on Forum:Your First Look at the New Wikia (discussion)#Load Times are crucial; feel free to reply there. --M.mendel 10:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sad that you can't wait a mere sixty seconds for a page to load. I have to wait several minutes on average. That's not just here, it's any website I type in, because of technicaly problems. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Turtleshroom, you just had 13 contributions within 10 minutes.
I can wait for pages to load if I'm reading, but if I'm working, having short periods of activity interrupted by long periods of waiting wreaks havoc on my workflow, and it can't always b organized so I do several projects at once, especially if I have stuff in the clipboard.
This is especially galling as I know it is not a limitation of the MediaWiki software, but a problem with the Wikia skin bloat. --M.mendel 22:58, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the skin as shown:

  • The article area is too small. To me, it seems like the new sidebar is wider than the current one; assuming that the ad in the "logged-out" screenshot has the same dimensions as those found on wiki main pages, it is likely 100px wider (a 50% increase), which means the article area is only ~650px - compared to ~750px with a fixed-width Monaco skin, a quite substantial decrease.
  • I don't really see why the last editor and the categories need to be at the top. They are fine at the bottom in my opinion.
  • The Wikia bar at the top is too large. With Monaco, it is clear the wiki is hosted by Wikia but otherwise not run by it. This design makes it look like the wiki is just a subsection of some overarching, staff-run "master" website. Plus, with all due respect to other wikis, I want people to look at "my" wiki and not others.
  • I like the less blocky, more modern look and the better placement of the RC link (assuming "Wiki Activity" actually leads to RC and not MyHome...).
  • The site navigation is too small, especially compared to the huge Wikia bar.
  • Why do images suddenly have to be called "photos"? "Images" is the more general term: All photos are images, but not all images are photos. E.g. for gaming wikis, "photos" is the wrong term for 95% of their images. Seems to me changes like that are made with only lifestyle wikis in mind.
  • Overall, I think it looks too much like a blog site. There is nothing wrong with a wiki looking like a wiki, and not like a blog - it's a different type of site after all.

Finally, one question: will the new skin have the same degree of customizability as Monaco (i.e. custom CSS/JS) or will that be sacrificed in favour of making skin customization easier for less CSS-savvy users? --Porter21 11:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Excellent analysis by Porter21[]

I feel that needs to be said. ;) --◄mendel► 11:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC) --M.mendel 11:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Can I keep the old look? --Registeel999 12:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

ewww. seriously, you guys got together & decided this was good? -- 12:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you all hate it. It looks a lot better, in my opinion. There are clear improvements in usability, and it looks so much better. --Meph602 12:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the new one. The old one is better and where can you find the sidebar? --TheAC29 13:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is okay as it is, there is no need to change. --Giotis 13:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I like the old wiki.why the change?!! --Annaruto 14:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo all the complaints about this being more like a blog/social network than an encyclopedia.

  • Immediately pointing out the last editor and their avatar at the top of the page and saying who added images is too much. This is a step in the direction of letting people sign articles. People who need to know this information can access it through the page history. Pointing it out for everyone to see is just showing off.
  • The gigantic hub links are costing wikis individuality. As Porter21 pointed out "This design makes it look like the wiki is just a subsection of some overarching, staff-run master website."
  • From a logged-out user's view, there's the Wikia hub banner, the banner ad, the wiki's banner, article title and last edited by section all at the top. A giant blue border and a very wide sidebar at the sides. The article is crammed into a tiny bit of space, a lot of which will be taken-up by an image or infobox.
  • There's too much emphasis on uploaded images. This would be fine for a wiki like Commons which is a collection of free use images, but most wikis I edit or visit use mostly fair use images. These images should only be used in relevant context within articles. They shouldn't be put there to look pretty by themselves. (Renaming them photos is illogical as Porter21 has already pointed out.)
  • The section edit buttons should probably say "Edit" on them. Wasn't people not understanding what they were for a problem in the past?
  • "Like, Share, Follow" is again too social network site. A wiki community should be a group of people working together to make an informative site on a subject. Not come on to discuss and share interests and hobbies. Not to say people can't do the second, but the first should definitely not be sacrificed for the second.
  • This isn't too big an issue, but "discussion", "edit", "history", "move", "delete" etc. seem to be scattered across the page or made more than one click away. I suppose it doesn't make a difference for people who use keyboard shortcuts, but tabs/buttons across the top just seem handier. (Where will FastDelete buttons appear in this skin?)

I know staff are going to try to address a lot of the problems people are posting here. As in you'll adjust the skin to get around these problems, but is there any chance that the idea will be dropped outright or as everyone else is asking, the old skins at least be maintained a user preference if they are popular enough? --Deltaneos 14:44, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the people that dislike this. This looks far too much like a blog site, which would be just fine if Wikia were a blog site. Wikia is a wiki, and I strongly believe that this supposedly more "user-friendly" interface doesn't belong here. Also, a few more things:

  • Pages are too small. The idea of sacrificing page space for a larger toolbar seems like a bad idea, as does that of putting the category list at the top. What is the need for that? Even less necessary, I think, is displaying the name of the last user to edit there. And (almost) the least necessary of all is putting the name of the user to upload an image under the file. Seriously? Why should we need that?
  • The EVIL toolbar that follows you around. Ugh. I despise those. My point of view is that you should only need to look at the history and all those things if you want to, not be forced to look at the buttons as you scroll down. More waste of space.
  • Why are you doing away with the left toolbar? That toolbar was much more convenient, and it did well with the small space it used.
  • Why on Earth would you WANT to look through a mandatory photo gallery on every page? The gallery widget is fine because it's not mandatory. But to look to the right and see a photo gallery that most definitely DOESN'T help with the article's content, which is also required...
  • For what reason exactly has the "edit" button been replaced by a stapler? It's not like the average person needs an image to understand what the word "edit" means.
  • The bar at the top... Why is it needed? Does it help in any way? NO. Does it waste space? YES. I completely agree with Porter21's statement a few hours ago:
With Monaco, it is clear the wiki is hosted by Wikia but otherwise not run by it. This design makes it look like the wiki is just a subsection of some overarching, staff-run "master" website. Plus, with all due respect to other wikis, I want people to look at "my" wiki and not others.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this do away with the wiki's logo?
  • ...So this is the new default skin? Okay... But is it optional, like the other skins? Can the admins return the skin to Monaco or Custom or... ANYTHING, once it's set back?
  • Is it customizable? (Not, of course, that I know anything about customizing wikis.)

My final opinion: This looks like a blog site. This is not a blog site. This is a wiki. Perhaps you could let some blog site use this instead? --TheSlicer 14:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you WANT to look through a mandatory photo gallery on every page?
Perhaps more to the point, why would someone who found an article through a web search want to do that? As others have noted, a wiki is, at least ideally, a community-based encyclopedia. As such, it should be useful not just to its contributors, but to people who are interested in its topic, even if they had no idea it existed until Google gave them a link to it. --Dharden 15:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
The gallery is there so the ad doesn't feel lonely. --M.mendel 16:20, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Good one, mendel. --Fandyllic 00:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo other users again about it looking like a social media site.

Wikais are meant to be about building a community based encyclopaedia, this revamp isn't about helping us do this.

The like button could just be an upgrade of the 'rate this article' heart thing, I've never seen a point to this, once you reach a certain level of articles it's a fairly large spread. So I'm guessing it's for advertising purposes; more likes on a page means more advertising / higher priced adverts. Tell us, be open about the ads, the main pages were altered to accept the adverts because we were told about it.

I really like a clean, simple interface, this isn't everything's spread out and just somewhat oddly laid out.

If this is about advertising, which seems like a good way to hide it by pushing out such a massive overhaul, is there anyway we can work the new advert layout into the existing format? I could live with extra adverts rather than this revamp. --Tangerineduel 15:20, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The rating thing is serving it's purpose for this blog. It's at barely over 2 hearts (below average, I would guess), so that does seem about right in this case. --Fandyllic 00:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but i still like the old wikia too. --Snake4 15:35, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

In my oppinion i like the old one . --Hihoo09100 15:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

this is the one of the most disturbing things I ever saw for a wiki for 1 that EVIL!!!! toolbar that follows you it is stupid number 2 it is ugly to have to see who posted what or something that is one step closer to claiming pages or even whole wikis it is just wrong and finaly it makes no sense to have this --Ramjet 12 16:31, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Old wikia template is BETTER --Bionicledude 17:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


I don't like this one bit. Please make this optional rather than mandatory. --Deadlykris 17:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kirkland22 17:27, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Optional things sound like the best course of action, yes. Moving the sidebar to the right side of the page would pretty much ruin most articles that have images and infoboxes already on the right side of the page. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 17:35, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. --TurtleShroom 19:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Simple is best-- Wiki is becoming too "busy"

The FaceBook link is distracting and nearly threw me from contributing because I had to rest my browser settings. --Robert B. Livingston 17:21, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

i want the old one... but ill give it a chance... --Piplupower 17:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we are going for the new skin, even after all the negative feedback received about it, I will switch to Monobook. I prefer Monaco over Monobook but prefer Monobook over this new one.

I would suggest everyone do the same. --Solar Dragon 17:32, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I hate this skin.

  • Article comments on every page?! This is not a blog!
  • The top bar is too eye-catching. I agree with Porter21;
"With Monaco, it is clear the wiki is hosted by Wikia but otherwise not run by it. This design makes it look like the wiki is just a subsection of some overarching, staff-run "master" website. Plus, with all due respect to other wikis, I want people to look at "my" wiki and not others."
  • Image "added by <user>". I   hate   this.
  • Fixed page width looks horrible on a Wiki. Again, this is not a blog.
  • Status bar? Like and share? Are you kidding me? This isn't Facebook!
  • "Wiki Activity"? Is this the new name of Special:RecentChanges? Ugh.

No offence, but I guess you don't know what a wiki really is.

I might quit Wikia for good if you don't change this... --Staffan15 18:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Been reading over the new batch of "Boos". Nothing stays the same for long on the net. This change was bound to happen. Yes the ads are ugly are they not?! They are on the current version too. The only difference is now the square ad is out of the way article. We lost 100 px width of article to do it. That is how it is. You have the option to leave, but at the end of the day, your get used to it, and then something else will come along to annoy you'll. You guys are not very constructive either. You got ideas on how to improve it? Share it, Sannse has been reading the comments. Stop the whining, cause no one cares about whiners. --Devilmanozzy 18:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for the substance in this comment... nope still not there. --Fandyllic 00:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

So Wikia staff. You have seen the massive amount of negative feedback. Will this stop you from continuing with this though? I doubt it. You don't really care how we feel about the stupid new skin. It is horrible and we don't like it one bit. --Solar Dragon 18:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the skin horrible just because it doesn't look like the ones we're used to. It could be really good, so long as we aren't forced to completely redo our wikis if we don't want to. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 18:32, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is horrible in the fact it will mess up every page on every wiki. Logos will not fit and look bad too etc. --Solar Dragon 19:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize that. I mean, it probably took them a long-ish time to come up with the stuff, so I do feel somewhat bad about them having the new skin have such an overwhelmingly negative response. Let's hope for an option, right? --Nitpicker of the Wastes 19:21, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
This mustn't be compulsory if Wikia wants to retain a fanbase! -TurtleShroom --TurtleShroom 21:51, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
A little over a year is not long-ish. Lets take a great product like Photoshop. They don not make radical interface changes every year, they do it like every 3 or more years. That's because radical changes slow you down unless they are super intuitive (which most radical changes tend not to be).
The real question is: Is this new skin really at beta level? If it is, then it's mostly "what you see is what you get." --Fandyllic 00:48, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think a little over a year is a long time to spend making something only to have so many people not like it.
I do agree with the lack of intuitiveness on radical changes, though. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 01:05, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I like this skin thing. Everyone can modify Wikia, so why we can't modify skins also? --Dicehero 18:18, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Skin modifications are dependent on the architecture of the skin. Also, wouldn't it be better if you had to change the skin less? --Fandyllic 00:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I DO NOT like the new skin. It is horrible. please dont go through with installing it into wikia. --ThePlatypus13 18:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I definitely dislike this skin, for its extreme change of putting the navigation into the horizontal direction and next to a rather oversized interwiki wikia toolbar, adding that pretty much oversized sidebar and adding a fixed pagewidth by default - a thing I never agreed with, especially as its included in every one of the new default monaco skins.

Dynamic pagewidths with a fixed minimum width seem to be far more useful in my opinion, especially if you are going to implement rather many / large pics into articles.

The toolbar might be quite useful, although that depends on the actual implementation and its customizabililty.

Keeping Monaco as an optional default viewer skin alike to how it is now (and NOT alike to how Monobook is implemented at the moment, all 3 of them should be optional default viewer skins as set by local wiki admins) seems to be a very popular idea though, one I definitely agree with, especially due to the lots of customization people put into customizing their wiki skins, which they may actually not want to change at all anytime soon. --Crynsos 18:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE! --Hannahmontanasux1 18:53, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed reactions. There are some improvements, like the ads don't really look like part of the article anymore.

My main problem is the toolbars on the bottom. Toolbars like that are often more annoying then useful. I for one will NOT tolerate it unless you remove the stupid "Like" and "Share" buttons, because THIS IS NOT FACEBOOK!!

I'm hoping your planning to fix the page width. This is kinda unrelated, but I also hope that you don't plan on making bigger and more advertisements for junk like Twilight in plain view. --Elassint 18:57, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The share button makes sense to me, cause I wish it was easier to share on Facebook. I like the service. --Devilmanozzy 19:34, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--Piplupower 19:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! Now we actually vote if we like it or not. Most don't like it, and Wikia staff doesn't seem to care. I don't know if I like it. I think some parts look good, but some don't. Anyway, please any Wikia staff member who reads this: let us decide! --TheHomer 19:15, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
We haven't seen the new skin yet; do you expect anyone to reasonably judge based on a screenshot of an alpha version? There's no telling which features are even going to make it into beta. --M.mendel 19:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the skin, it takes away from Wikis that have worked hard on their own unique skins, like the Vault wiki :( --Metalspork 19:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hear the Masses, Wikia. -TS --TurtleShroom 22:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Remember, the Beta testing will change things. That's why Wikia is allowing Beta testing! The people who will be in the Beta will give feedback. If that feedback is negative, things will be changed... --Tedjuh10 19:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, hope to be one of them. --Devilmanozzy 19:32, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
That is good, thanks for clearing this controversy up, it got so heated up I posted it on Wikipedia. xD --Jeffwang16 19:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that Wikia are looking through these and deciding that the ones who like the skin or don't act negative about it will become the beta testers. That's is what I feel they are doing anyway. --Solar Dragon 21:15, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but I really doubt they do it that way... --Tedjuh10 21:23, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Google did. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 22:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 22:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Naturally. Wikia wants to make a radical change to their interface.
Step 1: Propose something even more extreme.
Step 2: When everyone is horrified, they scale their design back to something that is what they actually wanted.
Step 3: Everyone goes "Well, at least we didn't get that first even more horrible design!"
Step 4: The new intended design is implemented.
Wikia wins, everyone else loses. -- 00:22, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Unless Wikia is changing the definition of beta testing (which could easily be the case), major changes do not usually arise from beta test feedback. They're usually looking for big bugs, not design changes. Design changes happen in alpha. --Fandyllic 00:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia, learn from Google. Listen to your consumers: they don't all like it. Please, leave the skin choice to the user and to each wiki.

People are threatening to walk!

-- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:52, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:52, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Please remove that offensive signature, that is offensive to me. --Jeffwang16 20:35, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
i agree -- 21:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I like it, though it needs a little tweaking since it's referencing a non-existent template that isn't getting subst'd correctly. --Pcj 21:50, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. People are too easily offended about things. The one religious thing that would disgust me would be an insult to God. Not something like "God doesn't exist", but a flat-out, smart-aleck affront to Him. That, or Satanism. Or gays. Come to think about it, I can't say that without being hypocritical. I'm offended at things, too!
The non-existant template is on the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki. That's where I use it. I could have a different signature template everywhere, but I'm too lazy to write one for all of them. Plus, it may be against other site doctrines to do that.

-- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 21:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 21:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with the signature ( Phrase wise ) ? That is a 2 quotes from the Bible combined together " Jesus loves you " and " Jesus died for you"
Not to mention, that it is protected under the "Freedom of Religion" amendment
he is not trying to convert you over to Christianity or any other religion
if the word "Jesus" is offending you then I do not know what to tell you there other than you must be offended a lot. --Jrooksjr 22:04, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Jrooksjr, thank you. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 22:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 22:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone thinks Christianity is great. Just FYI. I just think the signature is a lie. It doesn't offend me, though. --Fandyllic 00:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm a atheist. Don't believe in god. Religion is for the weak. --Devilmanozzy 02:01, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

i really like the new look! It looks totally awesome! and i also like the new skin color as it is way better than the old one. i cant wait till this thing is put up and i hope people like this one --Celeste94 20:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should read the past comments, then you will realize that the vast majority of us don't like this new skin. --Kirkland22 21:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It's not bad. I wonder how it will affect viewing on Opera browsers. --LDEJRuff 20:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It just doesn't feel like home. Afterall, there's no place like home. --Madman815 20:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

AHHH!!!! Bright light!

It makes my eyes hurt a bit.... -- 20:38, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

1 word: NO --Goldenguy511 20:51, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not just No, but hell NO

Do not do this change! --Vault Tec CEO 21:14, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

NOOO! IT'S TO BRIGHT! its going to ruin monaco-based wikis! SUCKS! -- 21:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

its nice, just make it so that the wiki owners can have it ether way --Zinfandel120 21:38, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

yawn very good. could use a change... --Dark Kuriboh 21:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


Wikia needs to listen to its people. Its people do not like this.

-- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 22:07, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 22:07, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it. It doesn't have that Wikia touch I'm used to. Sorry --JennyVincent 22:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

ehhh...not exactly fond of the new look. --Angeloni87 22:43, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the page has a fine look. BUT:

  • The article area has visibly decreased a lot, which will screw up many wiki layouts. I for one don't have the time to redo all of our wiki's layout.
  • We at the ice hockey wiki have quite a few articles that have over 20 categories (275 to be exact); the most categorized has 38. Imagine how ugly the page will be. Considering that categories share their bar with the name of the last editor (a detail not important enough to be the first thing one sees), that'll make the categories bar even longer and screw things up even more.
  • I can't speak for everyone, but my eyes are naturally attracted by the right side of webpages first - straight where the larger sidebar full of flashy photos and stuff is, which just catches the eyes even more and tells the readers to go have a look at anything but the article they wanted to read in the first place.

So basically, with the categories in sight before the article, the immense and flashy sidebar that attracts the eye, the huge Wikia bar at the top that screams to the readers to have a look at another wiki instead, all this new skin does is diverting the readers' attention from the wiki where they are and lure them to another one. Unlike many other people, I don't necessarily dislike the new look. But PLEASE stop hijacking the readers eyes with all the unnecessary stuff and make all those bars smaller and quieter. --Yannzgob 22:47, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

No like me. --Megazilla77 23:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

i don't like it at all so shut it up.nnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww! --Abbypopstar310 23:13, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how big is the font going to be? If it is too small, I will have trouble reading it. If the font size is being changed, maybe you could give us some way to enlarge he font if needed. --Klltr 23:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty... Yes. Truly, quickly, Functional? I have my doubts. Looks like a lot of stuff to slow load times on an already slow subsystem. One Man's Opinion... WFJoeyG 23:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC) --WFJoeyG 23:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this exciting new update! The new design looks great. Keep up the good work. Regards, Carol Jd.gray 00:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC) --Jd.gray 00:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is time for me to throw in my two cents.

I honestly think the people who are whining about the new skin are just upset that it'll take time to get used to it. Everyone's used to Monoco, but I'm sure when that was new, everyone hated it as well. It's just that people naturally are upset when something that's remained constant suddenly changes.

However, I'm not saying I enjoy this new style. I think it'd be much easier, simpler, and over-all more "people-pleasing" to enhance Monoco with different tweaks instead of creating a whole new look.

I suppose I like the idea of the toolbar on the bottom - if you're just scanning through in article you wouldn't need to scroll all the way back to the top just to edit it. However, I do not like the idea of a "Like" button. The "Share" was a bit of a stretch as it. I quote an earlier poster: "WIKIA IS NOT FACEBOOK."

I also am not too fond of the "notifications" thing. For people that get 10 messages a day on their talk page, it might be an improvement, but on the WordGirl Wiki I'm lucky to get a message a week, and I think it's more convenient to just have a message appear on the top of the page.

Also, the "logo". Are the words "Backyard Jungle" on the top of the page with the leaves all around, is that supposed to be the logo? The WordGirl Wiki just recently got a new logo, and we're very fond of it. Many other Wikis have logos they cherish and make sure looks good. The space there does not look big enough to hold our current logos, and our logos are some of the most definitive things about our Wiki. At least our favicons will probably be the same.

However, the skins. It goes without saying people will be furious about how there's no way the skins will be able to be carried over to the new look. Other Wikians slaved away making their skins, and they are not going to be happy with this.

As well as everyone else, I don't like the huge WIKIA! ENTERTAINMENT! GAMING! bar at the top. Too much to detract from the actual page. On the contrary, it's much easier to use the "Previous Wikis" widget to navigate Wikia.

We really can't tell that much at the moment. Remember, this is a prototype. The finished version will most likely be very different, and we can hope that the BetaTesters will all give good input.

But, I have to say I'm not the fondest of this style myself. I agree with everyone that we had better see improvements if this is to become mandatory, or people will walk out. --Furrtwo 00:05, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comment. --Fandyllic 00:28, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
While Monaco was not liked by all, it was still a CHOICE. People could choose Monaco or Monobook. All people want now is that same choice.
It also wasn't the skin that was the problem with Monaco, it was the complete change of ad policy and the introduction of ads on the main page that inflamed the community at that time. --LordTBT 00:38, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
"enhance Monoco with different tweaks" is what they've done over the past two years, with the latest addition being facebook. Monaco has become bloated, many interface elements are styled in 3 different places in different ways, and it's high time for that skin to get a clean rewrite internally.
This internal rewrite would probably make people have to adapt their custom skins anyway, so it seems a good time to introduce a new look.
I just wish Sannse had stated the benefits that we're likely to see better. The "some highlights" section doesn't really get me to buy into the new skin. --M.mendel 08:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
toolbar on the bottom is a terrible idea - when having different pages open on a tabbed browser, this means your mouse is constantly moving from the top to the bottom (and sometimes the sidebar), which is awful from a usability perspective.
I've done a reskin with a fixed toolbar at the top here, and that works fairly well; but with the contraint of having the ad at the top, Wikia can't do it like that. --M.mendel 08:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Geez This could be WAY better. Wikia is just fine. Maybe they could be a little more organized. This doesn't help make it more organized. Plus this links to facebook. That just Dumb. Not many peope really use Facebook on the Computer now. They have a phone. Why don't you make Wiki available on Phone? Maybe you Guys should Listen to me. I'm getting Ideas of Gold. --Mewkat14 00:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Never seen so much negativity about facebook, til I read the comments on this blog. Facebook, has become the common place for most people to network, and that is why they are doing it. But I must add, the phone idea is a good one. I know many that use it along with facebook, twitter, and linkin. But anyways social networks is a easy way to promote wikia. Lots of people on facebook don't edit at wikia cause its not Facebook friendly. That needs to change. Facebook believe it or not, has a large user base, and wikia is missing out on it. --Devilmanozzy 14:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think selling out to Facebook would be a good idea in the slightest. If Wikia were to draw the Facebook crowd over like this, it would severely aggravate a large portion of the pre-established (and more experienced) editor base already here.
So, exchanging 20,000-edit contributors for Facebook? Doesn't sound like a good plan, unless they're strictly in it for the ad revenue, as LordTBT suggested. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 14:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Selling out to Facebook?! You kids are plain silly. Go surf the net and look around. Youtube has the share feature, so does deviantart, photobucket, dailymotion, and many more. Most sites now have the share feature. For me the main Admin at Ghostbusters Wiki, I have been fighting with a competeing Wiki at GBFans which out does my wiki cause they can have a healthy community.
You people need to get out and look around seriously. lol
Also, Wikia is looking for both new editors and more ways to promote the wiki articles. The current state of Wikia is quite frankly leading to less editors cause no one edits on sites that they can't share they work.
Once again I like the Mobile Phone idea too. GBFans does that too. Also, we need to be able to have live feeds on the main pages. --Devilmanozzy 14:48, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that Youtube and Photobucket actually have a use for Facebook. When was the last time you saw someone liking transcribed scripts and dialogue files (or a venus fly trap) on Facebook? Wikia doesn't need it.
I do agree with you on the mobile phone idea, though. More of the old Wikia can't be bad. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 15:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was posted article links today on facebook. Sharing progress on articles, and information on topics.
What does annoy me, Is the "Start a Wiki" button. Do we really want to make that, that easy?! Never liked that one bit.
I ain't 100% behind this, I just think some of us are jumping the gun a bit. --Devilmanozzy 20:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The New Facebook task bar is not a Good idea Plus the Fact it follows you is not very convenient. Nobody is really going to use it. You should make it optional. Plus the New Apps like Gaming and Entertainment are not very needed. Wiki is for Research and Need-To-Knows facts shack. Wiki should be Pleasurable but no Games shall be needed. Entertainment is a great idea but is sadly not worth it. --Mewkat14 00:29, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree --BURNTICEJ 03:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
'Gaming and Entertainment' are for things like video game wikis, actually. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 04:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how any new changes will affect wikis like Halopedia that have different features. --LordTBT 00:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Horses for courses[]

Just a thought but ... ... is it reasonable to consider one skin for those namespaces where the pages already serve a role resembling a social networking function? e.g.

  • Blog:
  • Forum:
  • Talk:
  • User:

and a different skin for the content focused pages within such namespaces as

  • Main:
  • Category:
  • File:
  • Help:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Template:

Content is paramount in one context (the purist/traditional wiki context) whereas Contributor is perhaps more important in the social networking context.

I'd be less disappointed by ads, attribution and avatars consuming screen space in the social networking areas if that is balanced by the complete absence of those features in the content areas. I think it is really a matter of relevance and context.

Toolbar come Adbar[]

Finally, some cynics might view an anchored toolbar as the harbinger for an anchored advertising bar. Let's not allow that camel to get it's head inside the tent. --Najevi 00:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Najevi, if it's not already anchored advertising, I'd be shocked. I think that's the purpose of this whole "skin." While the ads (it appears anyway) are no longer in the content space (which is amusing, because that's exactly where the banner ads USED to be, and where Wikia said users don't look to click, etc etc.) we're reverting back to an anchored top banner ad, with what looks to me like an anchored box ad on the right, thus the need for a "mandatory" skin update based on "community input". --LordTBT 00:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
@LordTBT: File:LoggedOUT for blogpost.jpg don't look anchored to me, I assume they'd scroll off the page; if they wouldn't, that would severely reduce article screen space to the point where we can't use large tables any more.
@Najevi: The suggestion that ads be removed from mainspace is unrealistic as that's where most of the pageviews are. --M.mendel 08:43, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
;To clarify what I meant by the "Toolbar come Adbar" heading: If a toolbar becomes anchored to the bottom (top or even side) of the screen "so you’ll never be without it" then I worry that those staff responsible for designing/specifying ad placement might find it impossible to resist inserting advertising into this always visible toolbar at some later "upgrade" during the evolution of this new skin. --Najevi 18:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

What wiki is that of the photo? --TheHomer 00:51, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's not a real wiki, it's just a mock to show the new look. --Sannse 17:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

This is something that started probably on some random site then all of a sudden it has traveled to Facebook, MySpace, Myyearbook, etc... And it is very annoying.

Personally, I think you guys should focus on making Wikia neater, not FACEBOOKY! -- 00:51, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I hate it now all my pics are going to be corrupted this suck's --Luma451 01:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Not really corrupted, just shoved to the left into the text. You'll just need to go through and physically resize and replace all of them by hand, if I'm understanding this correctly. :/ --Nitpicker of the Wastes 01:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well this looks completely STUPID and pointless, to tell the truth. Bad move, Wikia. =/ --Frank-West 02:05, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The old style is perfectly navigatable for me! DON'T DO THIS, WIKIA!!! --The 4th doctor 02:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree --BURNTICEJ 03:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

DOESNT look pda-friendly. I mean: I dont like it. BTW, i dont like flash content, for the same reasons.

 I just hope that you make the change as an option, not as an obligation, for now at least. --BURNTICEJ 03:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it." --Jspyster1 03:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Kirkland22 03:38, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikia doesn't pay attention to that saying. --Starman125 03:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well said. --HavocReaper48 03:57, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
No one listens to it anymore. --Whackeyeye5 04:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
This is breaking what works --SupcomMonroe 20:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikia, you said you tried out this type of skin 2 years ago and it didn't work. Remember? Why did you change your mind?

"So how do you design a wiki page that has a 300x250 box at the top of the screen? Either you put it in the header, which pushes the entire content area down, or you put it in the sidebar so that it squishes the content area over... or you put it in the article area, and allow the content to wrap around it. We tried out all three versions, and I think putting the box into the article actually creates the least disruption" - Danny

Noting that this was the "result of months of conversations, tests and compromise".'re going back on your compromise, ignoring previous test results, and creating more article disruption, is that right?

Is the new skin mandatory because "advertisers strongly prefer a consistent look-and-feel" ? --LordTBT 04:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that the navigation is above the article, which we believe will work better. Design ideals and norms have changed in the two years or more since we created Monaco. We aren't ignoring history, but we are adding in the learning, conversations, tests and compromises that come from the three years of work since creating Quartz.

For your last question, that's certainly a consideration. But more importantly, a consistent look-and-feel will also help new and existing users as they move around Wikia. --Sannse 17:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the people who decide what will work better for their wikis be the individual wiki editors themselves? If one wiki wants the new skin with top navigation, ok. If another one thinks side navigation "works better" for them, ok.
Why does Wikia as a whole have to decide what "works best" for each wiki?
Quartz wasn't popular when it was launched originally.."Quartz Nuevo" was just not a good idea. I'd be way more open to this if it wasn't a complete divorce from current skins and didn't ruin the past years of compromise Wiki editors have made in terms of our main pages etc. --LordTBT 23:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

No one pays attention to the saying. --Whackeyeye5 04:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

New look? This doesn't sound good. --Whackeyeye5 04:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Incredible --Mr.Jackson.007 05:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


What the Hell?

I just went to Entertainment Wikia and I don't even recognize it, where the hell did everything go? -- 06:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are seeing... none of this is live yet. If you are seeing something strange, please can you let us know the details via Special:Contact. Thanks. --Sannse 17:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I think they're talking about the fact that the big list of Wikia on w:entertainment:Wikia_Entertainment has been shifted to a subpage, and the main page being turned over to Emmy coverage. -- 00:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, where the f*** is everything on Entertainment wikia?

If it isn't broke don't fix it. Nobody listens to that saying do they? Idiots.

I don't like it, not one bit. -- 06:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Make this optional. --HazeShot 07:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be optional. --Capt MacTavish 08:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

This should be optional. --Dancing Penguin 09:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they should make this optional so we could try it first and decide which is for us --BajinganAIH! 09:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Solve Problems, please[]

What I'm looking for is a list of points that say,

  • Here is a problem with the Monaco Skin
    • Here is how the new skin solves it

Give me that, make it convincing, and I'll buy in.

Right now people see this:

  • here are a lot of new features
    • I don't need them
  • Here is a problem with the new skin
    • old Monaco works for me --M.mendel 09:37, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

This is weird, for now at the moment, but it's awesome. --Station7 09:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with keeping it the way it was? --Launchballer 10:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

agreed --Registeel999 07:42, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory: Wikia is looking for venture capital from Facebook, or they're trying to get Mark Zuckerberg to buy Wikia. :) --M.mendel 10:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Nice theory, but about as accurate as the one about the British royal family being lizards ;) --Sannse 17:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse, are you reading all of this negative feedback, by any chance...? --HavocReaper48 19:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please make this optional. --Lolcakes 10:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it that much. --Orange Yoda 10:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

That Is A Bit Rude --Happy65 11:22, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
How is it rude? He was just saying he doesn't like it much. --Kirkland22 12:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Happy65 has a weird personality, I know him... --Jeffwang16 12:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind, keep it the old way. --Station7 11:08, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dont like the layout either --GoldenElite 11:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

don't like it...I still like the old version --Dragonoid660 12:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

NNOOO DX Please :( Keep it the same --TDAfan4 12:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please donnn't change it.

Too many people like this already. Im pretty sure they wouldn't want it to change. --JuniperAlien 13:13, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Look, everyone wants it to be optional. READ THE COMMENTS! --MugaSofer 13:13, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

impressive but i still agree to not change it --Sanford123 13:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

it is cool but i like it the way it is right now so i'm going o agree with everyone oh doesn't want it changed. --Nate022295 13:48, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to note that Wikipedia went through a similar exercise - creating the new default "vector" skin which breaks a load of stuff, and most established users reverted to monobook. That now means new users are using a different skin from those they turn to for advice - "Look on the left hand side of the screen you will see an option to do X" may now just be confusing words. --Rich Farmbrough 14:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hate it... NO! :@ :( -- 15:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Looks interesting... --Rocketai 15:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I am used to Wikia's original style and layout, please make this an optional selection administrators can choose for their wikis. --FadhilPF 15:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Just keep it the way it was or make it optional for the admins of individual wikis. To be honest it looks really rubbish. --Googleybear 15:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

This new look is horrible. Do not use it! --Really Bad Robot 15:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Cool --Disney14ph12 15:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Intresting... --Markus793 15:46, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey. Now this looks more like -- which I dislike mainly because articles were formatted for the narrower width. By moving the search bar up, some (re: All) articles need to be re-edited. And WTF happened to tabs? --Pakopako 15:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish --Rostov-na-don 16:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I like the wiki how it is now. Please don't change it. I think it'll be a bad change. --JasonAlexande08 16:28, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Kenzen11 16:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

two words, it stinks --Phatom raptor 16:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

... --S.T.V.N. 9000 16:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

If it's not broken, then don't fix it. I like it as is, and it works fine. --Pteraclaw 17:48, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible sidebar

This new look won't look so terrible for me if at least the entire right sidebar could be collapsible, so people could collapse it and expand the entire article to fill the full width of the page.

If the ad networks require it, make that the collapsible position isn't remembered, so you need to collapse the sidebar on every page load, but please make the sidebar collapsible, or at least allow us as sysops to apply a system that would do that. --Ciencia Al Poder 17:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone here is in agreement that we like things the way they are. DON'T CHANGE IT! I hate the new look. --Greta Kratz 17:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Two issues:

1) The gaming hub (I'm talking, not the perfectly functional is a complete piece of crap that doesn't index anything that isn't a video game. My wiki, which is one of the biggest wikis on Wikia and is gaming themed, does not even get a mention. Not to mention any of the countless smaller ones. Why would I ever want such a ridiculous top bar going to those hubs when they haven't even been thought out well enough to actually index me is a great question!

2) If the theme is anything like the screenshot, it looks like crap. We've developed all of our sidebars, infoboxes, and general layout expecting left-hand navigation of the type Monobook and Monaco provide. Monaco is a perfectly functioning, perfectly good skin. According to your FAQ, it will be available for a "limited time". How limited is this limited time? Is it less than a foreseeable ∞? If that's the case, I think my community's time on Wikia is also going to be less than a foreseeable ∞. --Surgo 18:03, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with point 2. The Fallout wiki is already running through possibilities of leaving Wikia, either for another site or becoming completely independent. We like Monaco. We want Monaco. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 18:09, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Your wiki is not centralized on games. --Max21 18:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Max21: Dungeons and Dragons is a *game*. It is part of the *gaming* category of Wikia. It always has been, since I first created it over a year ago. It's not a *video game* (in its usually played form, at least), but the hub is not called "Video Games". It is called "Gaming". And *nothing* related to tabletop games is indexed there. --Surgo 18:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
crap --Animusic 18:58, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It's referring to Video Games obviously, although you'd have to ask Wikia to understand where tabletop games would be categorised. I'd personally keep "Gaming" video games solely. --Tigernose 20:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
That's a waste of space, don't you think?
Pen and paper games are still games. The Fallout wiki covers both the video games, and the lesser known pen and paper game. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 20:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
It was not referring to "video games" last year when I made the wiki and it asked me where to put it. It was not referring to "video games" when there was a perfectly good hub before it was replaced with this nonfunctional crap.
In fact, it is not at all "obvious". The only thing that's obvious is that the new hubs were not thought through and there are multitudes of wikis that remain unlinked. --Surgo 20:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The scrolling toolbar would be worth having; wish I had time for the limited beta, but I will roll with the changes, as it were, when they arrive... -- 18:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

c r a p more likee a b i t c crap

g2g this is messing me up --Animusic 19:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....I like the old version better...Its perfect this one is 2 pizzazy --PandaStripe 19:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

i hate this one. --Airzel-of-haos 19:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the old style, but this one's cool too.

Though I have one question. What on earth is a Wiki beta tester?? --SmudgyHollz 20:01, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

A beta tester tests things before other people get it. i.e. those who get chosen will be able to test the skin before everyone else on Wikia. --Solar Dragon 22:38, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's really nice but also what you did to the blogs is bugging way too many people...Maybe this is an idea for another day. --Wetstream 20:08, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you can, somehow, please make this optional? The new skin looks confusing and it took me long enough to learn how this format worked. I would be grateful if I didn't have to re-learn everything. --Heartsky 20:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

And I like the old format. And what happened to the blogs? They are kind of confusing now... --Heartsky 20:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

please make this optional? --Wingman1 20:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

what the heck did the staff do to the comment forum on bakugan wiki?!

@ wingman1

yea right.Like This is going t be optional --GaiaDrago 20:44, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

If we keep insisting that it be optional, they have no reason not to make it optional. The site is for the editors, not the design staff. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 21:03, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
The site is for Wikia to make money. That's why they keep the servers running that you're editing on. --M.mendel 21:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, Mendel. But we're the ones who're making the content, and we can take our content elsewhere if we really need to. No content, no readers. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 21:29, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that if you leave Wikia, Wikia will keep the existing wiki up with all the content on it, don't you? -- 00:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Doesn't mean we aren't willing to try and get back at them any way we can. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 13:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. --Bravo Five-Nine 20:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the new interface r: --X3ni 20:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

@nitpicker - Wikia gets more money from readers without an account. So the site is "for" them. We need to ask the question, does this new skin affect them - and we can't answer that until we've used it.

I'd put this as a reply, but that functionality is broken in monobook --Randomtime 21:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The ?useskin=monaco&showall=1 is not broken. --M.mendel 21:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
So it does, but it's annoying it doesn't work. --Randomtime 21:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Who gives the readers without the accounts something to read? :P --Nitpicker of the Wastes 21:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
The writers of the content are vital of course! We want to look after the readers, but that doesn't mean we want to ignore the editors. --Sannse 22:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The future of Wikia looks bright. Very, neat, cool, and simple. Nice work so far. --Bignicky9 21:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

color gradients[]

The cool thing about the screenshot are the color gradients. There's no problem fitting them to your Monaco wiki, though. --M.mendel 21:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

A new format is good if it was optional, but I don't like the idea of forcing every wikia to have the same format. Not to mention that no one's skin seems non-functional. If you're at full health, don't waste time using Potions. Or Repair Kits. Or Stimpaks. Or Meat. Or whatever your current power source is. --LordDeathkeeper 21:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please get rid of the new commenting decoration. --Erimal 21:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Please Listen to your community.

We appreciate your work, and the hosting, but the new changes are not what this community wants.

Our community blogs have been completely destroyed. It is impossible to have a chronoligical conversation, and there is also an issue with new blogs not appearing in the "community blogs" section.. there is an updating problem.

We do appreciate these changes were made in aid of improving the site, but this is not what you have done.

This is a huge backwards step. I am already aware of many people who have simply stopped using the wikia's tonight. I forsee many more users abandoning ship if hands aren't held up to say "we got it wrong, here's the old format back".

This just isn't working. Nobody likes it, nobody wants it. It over complicates things for 95% of users.

Can I ask why the people who run these wiki's are so determined to take our blogs away from us? What harm is it doing? Why don't you like them. Be honest, just tell us. --DaemonRising 21:38, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree! That is exactly what I as thinking! We don't want this, Staff. You guys are making mistake by doing this new stuff. --Erimal 21:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed --Registeel999 07:39, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody even read this? that has any kind of power in these matters? --Wingman1 21:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people do read the comments. Sannse, the staff member who made the blog, looks through each comment. --Solar Dragon 22:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
and so do the rest of us staff :) --Sarah Manley 22:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Now I also can see somebody's mistakes, something I never could. Is this a mistake? I can see the revision of somebnody's comments. --Station7 21:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks so & so, though I have a question, is the text goibg to look like that? --Wonderweez 22:03, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

LOSTPEDIA HATES IT! --Julietfan2626 22:08, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Bakugan Wiki hates them also!!! --Erimal 22:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Is there much discussion on Lostpedia about the new skin? I has a look at the wiki and forums, but couldn't find any. Links would be appreciated. -- 00:05, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
No talk on the skin. No one's previewed it. But we have lots of negative feedback about the new blog system. For starters, it's full of bugs. And the parts that work? Everyone hates them.
Threads of comments seem a good idea. But they bury new replies to old comments. Comments are more organized now, but they're paradoxically much harder to navigate. --BalkOfFame 00:16, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Not to break the flow of discussion here, but I rather like the new blog system. The lack of timestamp is bad, and it could really use a block button for admins (bad anons are now pretty much impossible to identify...) but the threaded response bit is rather nice. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 00:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the all of the responses. We have been paying close attention here (I literally have to pull folks away from this post sometimes!), and we really appreciate the feedback. On Monday the first 80 people will get their invites to the limited Beta testing, and we’re looking forward to seeing their reactions.

Look out for more posts on the blog in the coming weeks, with in-depth looks at all of the different parts of the new design. We think many of your big questions will be answered in these posts.

Have a good weekend! --Sannse 22:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to give any indication as to whether you will consider a reverse on your desisions?
I don't know how you guys operate things... but you are clearly willing to listen to us.
Obviously, many people are dissatisfied. At least tell us whether or not you sympathise with the fact that hundereds if not thousands of peoples wikia experience has been ruined tonight. I appreciate you are telling us to wait for blogs over the coming weeks. But a nod of sympathy would go a long way. Many people feel completely ignored by the blasé responses that some admins give to situations like this (not saying thats you).
We realise you try to make changes for the best.. but my above point still stands. There are more backwards steps than forwards steps here... and none of us know whether you would be willing to consider going back to the old style. --DaemonRising 22:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the people don't like it.... so what's the point --Julietfan2626 10:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
You've been paying close attention YET you don't say a THING about people not liking it? --Bwog 21:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'll start off by saying that I really don't like the look of the new skin. It puts too little emphasis on the individual wiki; which is what the viewer was wanting to look at. To me, it seems that this is just an attempt to turn all of the independent wikis that run on Wikia into one big database. After thinking over this a bit, I have come to realize that this is not a bad thing. What the new skin will do is allow for viewers to not only find information that they need on one subject, but also find information on others that they might be interested in. This is ultimately a good thing, and fits in with what Wikia should be: A more detailed version of Wikipedia, with more information on individual topics. The more I think about this, the more I like it. The new skin, while removing a lot of a wiki's individuality, does help viewers to find more information easier. The issue that I see with the direction of Wikia is the decreased functionality, through extensions like Special:MyHome and the activity feed. In terms of functionality, MyHome pales in comparison to the recent changes. It lacks clear links to the diff of each edit, as well as the history of the page edited. It does not include [rollback] links. It is also considerably harder to find information on, as it takes more time to look through the edits that have been made. I truly hope that this is not force-fed to us even more than it already is. While the new skin certainly displays functionality, I am worried that new extensions might come out of this "new Wikia" that will also reduce efficiency. All that I ask is that you ensure this doesn't happen. Thanks. --Ajraddatz 22:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I somehow like the design, I just wanted to ask, Will the page load quickly or not? Because my own Wikia and Wikias I've been looking after is very slow, even without this new skin. Well, I'll appreciate if this loads quickly.

Best regards Laviere Aurelius --Laviere Aurelius 22:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are paying close attention to page load times. If you run into issues on your wiki in the future, please send us an email about it at Special:Contact. Thanks, Sarah Manley 17:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC) --Sarah Manley 17:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good, better than the standard monaco skin.

BUT, I think it's best to make this standard only for creating new wiki's, and make it just optional for the excisting wiki's, for the time being. Otherwise it would probably make a big mess, as you will obviously know by know.

I hope you guys can make this new skin as compatible with the old monaco skins as possible, and make it easy to alter it's look. --Sonny Black 23:12, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I am sure alot of thought and hard work went into your re-design. I am hoping you are openminded about not incorporating any of them!!

I am a frequent contributor but was recently so dismayed by the competition (badges) and now this that I know this is going to become a very hard site to frequent.

I also know many of my friends and fellow Lostpedians will not be back with this format. The blogs are a complete disaster. If we dont get decent people back, it will die and the new format is not inviting, not user friendly, and not blog/dialogue friendly.

I concur with the Users below that I would like to see your decision to change the site reversed. I ask this humbly as I am sure that you have worked hard on this. but it is a) not working and b) not going to acheive the kind of viability that we once had.

You mention excitment on behalf of the user above -- excitement by whom? Everyone is in complete disarray and turmoil. I have heard one or two users trying to give it a chance but everyone is expressing the same negative reaction, and I have literally encountered NO EXCITEMENT.

Sorry to be harsh but it is Lostpedia. And I figured you would rather hear from us then have us all leave. --Annied 23:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

This is how I feel about my wiki. --The thing 02:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's no point arguing. This is apparently going to happen no matter what. We just have to come up with improvements to this new theme. --The thing 23:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why arent they listening to the community? This should be what we want, not a beurocratic decision. --DaemonRising 23:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
They want to feel in charge --The thing 02:04, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, a ton of wikis will probably split form wikia if this is not optional. --HavocReaper48 18:50, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty AWESOME but I hope the new Blog system becomes IDK Clean? cause right now it is very very VERY messy and when I click on a Link about a comment, it goes to a blank blog, I would like it to head to the original blog. --Metroid101 23:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

The Blog system is indeed awful. It would be nice to know if you are considering reverting the blogs back to how they once were.
Many Wikia's rely on their communities being held together by these blogs. I am not naive enough to be blind to the fact that many admins do not like the blogs! But everything goe hand in hand. At Lostpedia, without the blogs, you have no strings to thread together our very active and vocal community. Activity will plummit.
It would be nice to hear a simple and quick response, as to whether it is even being considered that the blogs could revert back, or whether we could oven have an option for which format we would like to use. --DaemonRising 23:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer the old layout xD --Metroid101 00:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wow! --ClearwaterMK2 23:48, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why can't the new layouts be a choice for the admins of the individual Wikias, like the skins and colors? -- 00:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

A streamlined community is a sturdy community..
I do however agree with you, selfcustomizable (to some degree) is the best way to go.. Especially the comment system is.. argh --PiCaSsO 00:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
"A streamlined community is a sturdy community.. "
In theory - Yes.
In practise - No.
Each Wikia is unique. the new formats, especially the formats of the blogs, is not suited to the communities of some Wikia's. this issue is being overlooked. --DaemonRising 00:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, kind of the point I was looking to make.. It wouldnt work in practise, exactly as you stated, because the wikias are so different. :) --PiCaSsO 12:29, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

the blog is cool --Charles Uzuegbunam 00:39, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not for all communites.
It is splitting apart some communities. --DaemonRising 00:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I really wanted to be comment 1000. :) -- 00:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

This WIll Be Nice! :D --David Wovchko 00:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

This Looks Like A Mail Site To Me. Monaco Wiki Is Simple. I Dont Like The Thought of this.It Looks Like You Have To Type ALOT..... --Numbuh 625 01:01, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Cool, more organized, but i'll miss the old look :( --Hermione1234 01:33, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

PATHETIC! It looks awful, I like the old one! -- 02:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I have to say it isn't horrifying, but I'd rather have the look there is now. --Rainbowroad6w 02:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

ow by --Kke7 02:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

it's naice! (says in borat voice) --Rexrobbie2 02:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

All your wikis are belong to us!!!!!!!! no, seriously it's nice :D --Colinthetouffe 02:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want the page to change. I like how it is right now. --Me the Awesome 03:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

These blog formats are TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Recgameboy 03:41, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan! -- 04:21, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Barely anyone is a fan. --Bwog 00:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

If your going to do this please have an old layout option PLEASE or else this site will be another "modernised" site that I won't like --XCaLiBeR- 04:22, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

i agree, that would great idea. what about it admin's??? any thoughts on this? --Wingman1 04:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
I concur!
The current one is nice and though there MAY be one better, the suggested one is NOT IT! --Lexavian 05:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. I can't see how you navigate without that side bar on the left anymore. --InvaderMEEN 05:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree.
Keep in mind that while this uniform change may be favoured by some, it is not faboured by all Wiki's. This should be a personal choice dependant on the WIki's userbase.
These wiki's exist for us. So why are beurocrats allowed to make executive decisions that we don't like! Hardly seems fair that we don't get to choose the direction of our own community, or at least have some say on it. --DaemonRising 05:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
YUS! zis has to be done....I am hardly adjusted to wikipedias new style.... --Puppy1 06:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
DaemonRising summarizes the opinion of the entire batch of negative comments.
And the stubborn among us still shouldn't have to switch to the infinitely better one if we don't want to. :P --Nitpicker of the Wastes 13:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Great. Aren't all wikias (gaming, entertainment, lifestyle, etc.) going to be like this? It's all great. --Marxgiygas gamma 06:35, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're being sarcastic. You are, right? --Bwog 00:38, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia the best --Deangelo.stevens 07:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

OK, sidebar should be on the left! This would stop shoving the infoboxes to the centre of the page and people are more used to that style. We nees a toolbar similar to the usual Monoboox/Monaco style, not like that one as well. It doesn't need to be that wide either as that is stupid. We do NOT need a gallery of images on the sidebar either. We have other pages for that.

Finally, if this is activated on all wikis, there should be a way for admins to make Monaco the default wiki skin again. --Solar Dragon 07:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

good call --Registeel999 07:43, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
The advertisers demand the 300x400 ad in the upper right-hand corner, and the right-hand sidebar is trying to make this be less painful.
Aligning the infoboxes on the left is no big deal. Finally make a css class for them if you haven't already, and add it to your infobox templates. --M.mendel 08:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

You guys hate change so much but go out and buy the new phones, laptops, and games when they come out, and if you don't you'd like to. I got a message telling me the wiki I work on is going to be completely upgraded from head to toe, I don't see why that's a bad thing. I wouldn't chose to go back to the old Xbox or trade my digital camera in for a Polaroid. --SawBucks 07:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sawbucks, making a choice is different from having a choice thrust upon you. --M.mendel 08:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, choice make you! --Pcj 12:59, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Remember when Windows 'upgraded' from XP to Vista? There's a reason people talk down about Vista. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 13:25, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Pcj, you made my day! --Fandyllic 16:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE LISTEN TO US! Let us choose whever we keep the old monaco look, this isn't apalling but just doesn't work for my wiki. I've got templates and whatnot that work only really with the old graphics. --Registeel999 07:37, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea! When new wikis are being created, there's an option between monaco and this new one! And on wiki's already created, they remain monaco, but it can be changed in a special page! --Registeel999 07:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Great idea. THE BEST EVER IDEA RELATED TO THIS! --Bwog 21:24, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've already commented here once, but I'll hold my breath for the time to come. Although I'm not to thrilled with a JavaScript toolbar/scrollbar (due to functionality limitations, but what doesn't?), I'm curious to how custom colours, albeit still in development, not specified in Special:MyPage/common.css would work for an entire Wiki or whether one has priority over the other. Regarding skin colour choices, would this feature only apply to the newest skin?

I am alright with the toolbar at the top and the right hand sidebar (as I've got used to it from RuneScape's mainpage), but it might feel awkward when most pages are balanced using right aligned templates. Although this looks alright in Quartz on such pages, so I'll just consider it perfect if I can adjust the width of the sidebar.

I'm still in wonder whether Wikia has considered allowing users to use (as I inquired in my first comment) defunct skins or ability to change the default mobile skin to this or any one of the skins as my iPhone can use JavaScript. Seeing as the Wikiaphone is inept at such making many functions unusable, it would be nice to have more functionality with my mobile device using this new skin.

As much as I'd like to try this and test the durability, I just wonder whether wikis which have custom skins based off of Monaco be forced to undo all of their additions and improvements in support of this change? On a final note, will File:Wiki wide.png be used or is there going to be another new feature/image file? --Bluesonic43 08:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Currently, I believe, Special:MyPage/common.css takes precedence over MediaWiki:Common.css which takes precedence over MediaWiki:Common.css which takes precedence over Special:MyPage/monaco.css which takes precedence over MediaWiki:Monaco.css. The new skin will hopefully preserve a similar order of precedence. Use of "!important" in the CSS can make things confusing. Inline styles take precedence over all of those. Also w:Special:MyPage/global.css is in the mix there somewhere, but I'm not sure where. --Fandyllic 16:50, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Fandy, there is no such thing as User:Foo/common.css or .js. The way it works is /skinname.css or /skinname.js, 'common' is not a skin name. common.(css|js) was a mw feature, they didn't implement that as user skin subpages. Wikia has global css/js pages though, which would work as common.(css|js), but affect every wiki. --Joeyaa 00:49, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Here's some of my feedback so far of the screenshots:

Things I like: Overall formatting/layout Recent edits box and its location More professional feel

Things I dislike: - The large banner at the top. I want people not to wander 'accidentally' to other wikis while they view our content. It's too big of a distraction Please make it smaller or re-orient/design it to be less in your face.

- The photos box: due to copyright that surrounds a lot of images some of the wikis I edit, we don't want to be showing off we have lots of images, not to mention it's in our NOT section of our about page; we are not an image repository. I think it'd be cooler if you made a few things that could go in that spot, and lets admins select which goes there (as some things aren't for every wiki, and wikia is diverse in its topics)

-The little ribbon at the bottom feels misplaced IMO, along with the ribbon at the top (see above), I'd prefer if you found a nicer way to add it in. I'm not much on fixed elements, maybe a toolbox somewhere up?

-Automatic menus based on top categories. Definitely not one of the things I like, I'd prefer to be able to choose what our readers have in the menu, just because it's in a cool category doesn't mean it's something we want to spotlight! Please allow to be able to override the default behavior to be able to choose what is in each menu (even if you limited how many menus are possible to 3 or w/e).

I'm excited to see the current version in the beta and be able to give more feedback! -- 08:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the navigation is like the flyout navigation that's in the Monaco sidebar now; it defaults totop categories, but most wikis have customized it; I doubt Wikia is going to change this.

The point about the images is very good; some wikis have fair-use images that can be used to illustrate specific articles, but would be inappropriate if used to color the mainpage. I suggest feeding this gallery from a category; that way, it is easy to determine what images get selected. Is it possible to protect this gallery against vandalism? --M.mendel 09:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

This is goign to rule , you know , this is great , i know how many people like this because theere is over 1000 coments --Happy65 09:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of those 1000 comments are negative as well as positive. --Solar Dragon 09:59, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

sign me up --Kytti khat 10:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

AWEZOME! --Mcharshy 11:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

GREATTT!!!! --Vegapunk 11:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my feedback which is positive compared to most of the comments.

'Things I like: the skin is nice and I really don't care if the sidebar is on the right or the left. The photos box, the recent activity box and the categories on the top.

Things I don't like: the fact that it's not optional: monaco and monobook should still be avaliable not just for a short time. The big blue bar at the top(come on, Wikia), the annoying bottom bar and why is a photo of Robert Pattinson on the bottom-right corner. --Dancing Penguin 11:39, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about the positive comments... this should be OPTIONAL! -- 12:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

It'll be optional or Wikia's Alexa rating is going to go from 200 to less then 1000. --Bwog 00:39, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

People who say that his this is "Amazing" ...then you don't know what amazing is. Amazing is monaco, dot end. -- 12:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my feedback which is positive compared to most of the comments. GREATTT and AWEZOME! -- 12:44, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Again, listen to what most of us are saying. This is NOT exactly what we want or need. We appreciate what you are trying to change the look, but we enjoy the look now better. --Rainbowroad6w 14:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

The wiki I'm on is going to be soooooo bad because of this.

Screw the new wikia. And all of the other users on the wiki I'm on all agree. --Lemmykoopa24 14:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

My wiki is gonna be lame as well because of this. The skin won't look good on humor and fiction wikis. --Dancing Penguin 14:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Looks Werid.... --Neneg 14:42, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... after reading several comments I'm glad I didn't simply give my first impression, which was not in favor of the changes. However, I do commend your efforts to improve.

I suggest you make this an optional feature and allow each wiki the managerial choice to remain classic or new. Hopefully this helps and thank you for your many hours of work on this project. --Ronmamita 14:55, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

just another stupid thing just like facebook did -- 15:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

This makes me feel terrible for a fellow wikia user on w:c:burnout who just finished an enormous skin customization upgrade. --Exlonox 15:41, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

There's another one of the flaws with this; we're all going to need to re-customize our wikis. Give my condolences to your buddy, that just sucks. :( --Nitpicker of the Wastes 16:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I dont like rhe look of the new wikia --Starship troopers 15:44, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thank you for trying to improve but it isn't good.

If you want our feedback and care about it so much you should ask us beforehand. Not just go ahead and do it and let us deal with the bad result while we wait for it to be fixed again.

My main concern Is Lostpedia, It was already great and well respected, didn't need any changes. --The Confidence Man 15:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think keeping Monaco and Monobook as an optional skin will be the best compromise for everyone. I spend lots of time customizing Monaco (not only me - many users) and all infoboxes/templates, and I'm afraid that this change will make big problems with pages layout. And I think that navigation should be left-oriented, because most of infoboxes are on right. Best regards. --Final Cannon 16:32, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

We should at least be able to choose if we want it or not. For example, Halopedia has a lot of custom things which would be screwed up entirely by the new update, so does The Vault and WoW Wiki --Tezzla Cannon 16:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

agreed --Registeel999 16:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, all new ideas are worthy a try. But, when it comes to software, you should always remember that backwards compatibility is your friend. If a new idea will screw up the work of lots of people, it doesn't look like a good idea to me. --Panglossa 17:06, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, nonono, I've had enough.

Disregard my previous comment pages back, I think this is (if you'll excuse the language) f*cking ridiculous.

All I'm going to say is that this had better be optional or else me and a lot of other people on other wikis that hate this will throw a freaking fit.

Make the new comments and especially the new skin optional. Please make it optional. We don't want to have to throw a freaking fit, now do we? --YoshiEgg 17:42, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Wikia, you'd BETTER. Or the users of Fantendo are going to move to a new site and spread the news around to stay away from Wikia
I mean this is f*cking ridiculous. You are forcing us to have stupid freaking sh*t on our wikis. So seriously, make the skin and comment thingy OPTIONAL, please. --SonicWiki 18:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
That's rather rude to say, not everyone hates the new skin idea, why should you spread news to stay away from Wikia because of something you dislike? --CodExpert 21:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to throw more then a fit, I'm going to go somewhere else. --Bwog 00:36, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Because, Wikia isn't a magazine, but this skin will make it look like one.
And anyway, most people either A) Want to get rid of it, or B) Make it optional. :/ --SonicWiki 03:38, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Per YoshiEgg! --Lemmykoopa24 17:48, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I like the look of the new wikia ;) --EarthBender 17:49, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm re-posting this comment to those that have the nerve to go after me for not liking the new skin.... "I ain't 100% behind this, I just think some of us are jumping the gun a bit." I posted that yesterday, but people don't get it.

As for the person that counts over 1000 comments.....Most of them are from the same 4 or 5 people. That is a pointless count, and misreading. The passivists of this matter are waiting to see more to see if its worth the trouble to complain. It's a pic of a prototype and the page isn't even a true wiki. The pic is small as well. I hear all this crying about the end of wikia all over this comments, and can't help but laugh. Wikia has a long way to go, and apparently so do the cry baby editors. Posting tons of negative comments all over this comments section, all over the forum, and on the helpers talk pages does not help or do you any favors. --Devilmanozzy 17:55, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

There are 1108 comments, and they were made by 600 distinct user IDs, not counting anonymous comments. 48 comments (of 1108) were made by "Anonymous User", I haven't counted how many distict IP adresses. --M.mendel 22:54, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Of the first 1108 comments, the top commentators are:
* 59 Fandyllic
* 23 Sannse
* 21 Kirkland22
* 21 M.mendel
* 19 Nitpicker of the Wastes
* 17 Volatile Dweevil
* 14 The thing
* 13 Solar Dragon
* 13 Devilmanozzy
* 11 TurtleShroom
* 11 LordTBT
* 10 Jeffwang16
* 10 Bentendo
* 9 Tigernose
* 9 Pcj
* 7 Registeel999
* 7 DaemonRising
* 7 Ciencia Al Poder
* 7 Bioshock123
* 6 Matias arana 10
* 6 Flapjack18
* 6 CodExpert
* 107 users have made 2-5 comments.
* 470 users have made 1 comment.
Now have a look at their contributions, and decide whether they're the ones to "complain" and make "negative comments". Still got the nerve to go after us? --M.mendel 23:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
LOL A Internet fight? Childish. Your numbers prove my point too. Odd you don't notice the first guy with 59 comments. That is insanely over doing it.
Dude you guys come off sounding like kids. Most of the arguments by users in the upper numbers come off all sounding like redundant whining.
If your beta testing then get set to sound off your negatives to them when they ask, but here at the blog, the endless negatives from the likes, based on a pretty shoddy screen cap are really coming off all wrong. I'm suggesting to sit back and give this more time. Unless your beta testing it right now, your only got one thing your basing your pre-high school type anger on. Don't start battles with users or wikia unless your looking for a ban. There is my advice to you. --Devilmanozzy 04:32, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fighting, I'm giving you facts. Your "most of them" was way off the mark, and you don't admit it. Instead you accuse me of whining, which shows me that you haven't actually looked at my contributions to this blog. Of course you are at rank 9 in the count, so you're one of those "users in the upper numbers", too. What does that say about you? --M.mendel 20:13, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I am also waiting to try out the skin before I give my opinions. I still haven't received a clear answer on why Wikia is doing this? --Randomtime 17:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm leaving wikia for good if this skin isn't optional. --Spark01 18:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Same here. --Bwog 00:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not out of anger or anything (although I will be very annoyed) but because it looks like it'll be slow, ugly, and hard to navigate. --Spark01 18:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody wants the freakin new comments things! When we go to my home and click on the blogs it says this page needs something! It's freaking annoying please change it! --Agent Z 18:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

--Spark (I had to log out to post this because the reply thing only works on Monaco and my skin is set to monobook) -- 18:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Out of the thousands, possibly millions of words in the English language, why use the ones that people shouldn't use? Your word choice just proves your limited vocabulary. Why don't you just say that it's irksome? --Hermione524 18:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
I am really mad. Somebody uploaded gross fan fic pictures on the Bakugan Wikia DX --Agent Z 18:16, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

This is a horrible new layout, format for bloggin leaves a lot to be desired when it was just fine the way it was --WhyDidntUKnow 18:15, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

The new layout is great. I can't wait until it comes out. --Random Kid 18:20, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

People dislike most change and this could cause hassle. The new design looks more like a magazine page than wiki article. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I don't like it. --TheLostJedi 18:22, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Per TLJ --Spark01 18:24, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

its ok but i still like the old one --2rock7 18:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Imma take it upon myself to set up a poll. If anybody has any problems with it, too bad.

--YoshiEgg 18:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, Tuck. :) --SonicWiki 19:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
the poll is a great idea, but is any body going to pay any heed to the results? --Wingman1 19:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
idk :( --SonicWiki 19:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's good to see that you're trying to get an overall figure of people's satisfaction.
Polling is good in that it can give an idea of how many are in favour or against.
However polls can distract people from discussing. The purpose of this blog is to gather feedback on what people like and dislike about the skin. Polling won't give any information on what the problems they have are. None of these problems can be addressed individually if people only cast votes. --Deltaneos 19:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
@Wingman and SonicWiki
The staff is looking at the comments, so they're more than likely looking at the two polls, too. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 20:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
@Deltaneos: How do you know the purpose of this blog? I thought the beta was for gathering feedback. --M.mendel 22:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SW. --YoshiEgg 19:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

No prob. --SonicWiki 19:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why, Wikia? Why the hell are you doing this?

This is NOT a good skin. If THAT'S what's going to be the main skin for all Wikia wikis, then Monaco and Monobook better be optional.

I DO NOT WANT MY WIKI TO LOOK LIKE A FREAKIN' MAGAZINE. ---Blackout- 19:17, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

He's right. We should make it where this style is optional. --Rainbowroad6w 19:46, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Please Wikia. We urge. --OpenBSDWiki 04:23, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

NO. --Sorastitch 19:32, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

The new layout for blog comments is confusing and it's now harder to follow a long blog and reply post.

Change is only good if it's a good change. To quote the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Shambala108 19:45, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

i totally agree with -blackout-

DO NOT CHANGE WIKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 20:14, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree 90% with most everyone here. "If it aint broke - don't fix it." However, if all of this is entirely optional then it's always good to have options. I do like the idea of making it easier to choose color schemes. Anything that makes life easier for wikia design is a good thing, but please don't enforce this change on us. Some of us like our wikis just the way they are, and a change like this could be frustrating to adapt to if we don't have a choice.

Blogger recently made a huge change to their editors, but what they did is provided users with a choice of whether to use the old editor or the new one. I think something like this would be a good way to gradually turn people on to your new theme without forcing people to change. :)

Just my 2-cents... --KYD462 21:04, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

CodExpert: 90% of everyone who has posted dislikes it. Read through the comments. --Cobweb 21:26, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I read the comments, but not everyone could agree with those 90% of users. I only said that I found that one commnet rather rude to say, as not everybody thinks the same. And those across the internet that possibly don't even know of the change that Wikia has brought forth to us. Why should someone ruin Wikia for someone that hasn't even seen it or has knowledge of what changes are going on? --CodExpert 21:33, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hermione: oh noez!1!! he said a BAD WORD!!!!11!!

pffft. This is the internet. People swear.

..and besides, "freaking" isn't a swearword anyway. --Cobweb 21:28, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

What, ANOTHER change to the comments? Last time I checked I could read them on any order, now it's fixed again. Why do we bother to comment, I wonder?

About the new style, I join what it seems like an already big chorus: make it optional, or else. I've loved Wikia from the time we came here, I've worked hard on my wiki, I've spent countless hours over details, and formatting, and looks, and content, and there is simply nothing I HATE more than changes imposed against my will. I put up with the Rich Text Editing (I just had it removed from my wiki), I put up with the "Recent Activity" and "My home" nonsense (I can quite much ignore them). I've put up with many things, really. But touch my skin, and I'm out. I've spent too many hours perfecting the Sidebar navigation.

Simply put, id you're going to keep imposing changes on us, we will move. We will stablish our own server, if there's no other option. But the Sryth Wiki will be no slave of the whims and tendencies of Wikia. Let us have it our way, or be without us. --Scarbrow 21:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Scarbrow: My feelings exactly. --Cobweb 22:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm back to say I'm sorry about being so harsh in my previous comment. Why am I not deleting it, then? Well, it happens I still stand by it. I read the news and I was constantly enraged. I think it's a good think Wikia knows of the users they enrage.

And I know just as well as they'll know I probably won't move my wiki. 2800+ articles are too much weight to move, even if we got our own Wikimedia server so we could export the database. They have us locked by the weight of our contributions. But it still makes me feel disheartened: Working so hard for nothing, it seems. My perception of Wikia is getting lower and lower every change it's imposed upon us without being necessary.

If my feedback isn't heard, if my demands are not met (not that I'm asking for much, just for them to freakin' LET US BE!!) I'm afraid I'll just have to fight fire with fire, so to speak, and hit Wikia with the only weapon I have at my disposal: information, and the community behind me. I am the wiki manager of my community. I'll instruct them to install AdBlocker, thus depriving Wikia of their reason to change layout every year so they can insert an ever-increasing amount of ads. And don't let me get started on those flashy, animated, video ads with SOUND... *shudders*.

It's a small power the one I have... but all of you could do the same. The enraged, the disappointed, the ones who are going to work extra hours just to recover the look of your wiki they're stealing from you. Remember: they only earn money because WE attract traffic to them. Hear the voice, Wikia. --Scarbrow 22:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Design! I can't wait. --Gamerman98 22:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Can you change the font to Helvetica? --Gamerman98 22:59, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the poll. We now have 40 people who have voted against the new skin and the new blog comments format, and only 4 who have voted for it.

Think about what you're doing, Wikia... you seem like nice people, please listen to us... --Cobweb 00:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

for god's sake are you planing on ruining wikias as the go to place for reliable information with ease? --Fumetsu no Jubilee 00:24, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Here's some questions I want someone who works for Wikia to answer for me and the rest of us:

Why do you think it's necessary to have a section on the side bar for images? Why do you think it's necessary to have a section on the side bar for recently made pages? Why do you think it's necessary to have a share link on the bottom? Why do you think it's necessary to have a like link on the bottom? Why do you think it's necessary to have one of those things that stays on the same place on the page on the bottom? Why do you think it's necessary to say who uploaded an image? Are you even listening to the rest of us? Do you even care about what we think? --Bwog 00:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

What kind of timeline are we talking about for the change? Weeks or months?

It would also be helpful to know when a wiki can start preparing for the change. I know you're in beta test right now, but for a wiki that has custom menus and style sheets, knowing that on X date we could get a list of what changes will need to be made would reassure a lot of people.

Right now, most people are seeing this as a change that is being forced on them and more than a few are probably dreading waking up one day and discovering their wiki is broken. Planning, preparation and communication will prevent a mad scramble to try to modify wikis after the change goes live to make them work again. --RRabbit42 00:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

We are starting private beta today, which will continue through mid September. We will then have a public beta period where a couple of designated wikis will be on the new skin. We expect to begin a graduated rollout in mid-Fall. This rollout depends on a lot of factors, so we will continue to post updates on the staff blog as the time grows closer. Best, Sarah Manley 17:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC) --Sarah Manley 17:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Improve users vs User-proof[]

I read in staff blogs that considerable engineering and marketing talent is being invested in the redesign of the Wikia skin with the goal to improving the user experience and to reach out to a wider audience ... among other things.

I wonder if just 20% of that talent was invested in educational tools (help pages, tutorials, examples, boiler-plates, etc.) then maybe the perceived need to idiot-proof the Wikia interface/experience might evaporate and, just maybe, the learning curve for new users coming to use Wikia can be improved.

See also this blog.

The main thing is to keep the "main thing" the main thing[]

I may offend some readers when I write that I think of twitter-style comments as being a lazy-man's way of communicating. My 18-year-old does the same in my home - leaves his sentences incomplete hoping that someone else will complete the thought for him or telepathically pickup on his intended meaning. So maybe this particular style of communication is just another piece of generation-gap evidence - I am not sure. (Now I think of it, if an ex-president of the US can talk that way and rise to such a post then I suppose it's not really a generation-specific trait is it! mmmMMM)

Either way as the adage goes - "make new friends but keep the old ... one is silver but the other's gold" - please heed that advice and undertake to continue to cater to that vein of gold user-base that is responsible for populating Wikia with the sticky content that has attracted new users over the years to date.

By all means offer an alternative interface for new-comers but don't terminate the original basic wiki service you offered in the name of it simply being "time to upgrade". Both styles serve a purpose - I've no doubt about that. What I do doubt is the wisdom of force fitting one style to all purposes.

A publishing company will stock various paper types to print various types of book. Those might range from dictionaries or encyclopedias at one extreme of the non-fiction genre to picture books or story books at one end of the entertainment/fiction extreme and then address books, diaries and family trees at another end of the utility/hobby spectrum.

About the only thing those various book-types have in common is that they have

  • pages
  • a spine where those pages get bound together
  • a cover (some might have a dust-jacket in addition)

Those are very basic elements and no reasonable person would imagine that there is one universally-applicable style for these three elements that will suit all styles of book that one might want to publish.

So why not

  • keep the plain old out-of the box MediaWiki and it's Monobook skin,
  • keep the slightly evolved Monaco/NewMonaco skin,
  • and add this newest skin to your arsenal

... while respecting the fact that different Wikia communities will choose different skins based on the needs/desires/goals of each community?

Extensions not Skins[]

If 50% of the engineering and marketing talent mentioned above was to be invested in upgrading/updating various extensions that are requested from time to time then Wikia communities would be empowered to create very innovative features at their wikis.

I'd have thought that these "behind the scenes" building blocks are considerably more valuable to the uptake of a wider market than the mere skin wrapper.

Just one opinion - maybe I'm misguided! --Najevi 01:26, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with that statements of them focusing on upgrading extensions, the skin here seems to serve some sort of purpose. I'm betting that down the road the ads were moved so articles could be viewed by phone, as it is part of a way to detach sections.
Wikia has to look after four interests:
-The Visitors/Viewers
-The Editors/Users
-The Advertising department
-Wikia as a whole(Company)
My feelings are that this skin was made to help 3 of the for parties listed above.
Editors are the ones who feel left out by the updates. Some have reason to be concerned. But Wikia has the other three groups to deal with too. --Devilmanozzy 04:46, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Okay. So they're taking care of the visitors, the advertisers, and the company as a whole by releasing the new shiny skin.
They can't take care of the editors by keeping the old skin as an option? Why not, exactly? --Nitpicker of the Wastes 05:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Now this is only a theory to begin with, as everyone here at this point knows nothing more than what we see. My theory is the skin has the ads removed from the main article because then it can be easy to make ready for display on phones. But they want the service across all wikis so they are forcing the skin change. If my theory is true, then they are looking to increase they visitor counts. In turn, even if they lose chunk of the current editors, they can figure a small percentage of the new viewers will become actively involved. Make no mustache, they know they are playing with fire here. --Devilmanozzy 05:28, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Soooo... why don't they make the skin optional and keep the old editors while allowing the new skin and getting the mobile editors? --Nitpicker of the Wastes 05:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
If my theory is right, it may be a new system with it. In that case, the old system may not be able to do the mobile thing to begin with.
However, at this point they must be atleast thinking about leaving the system up, and instead stating something like, "you pick the old way, you get none of the new features (including being able to be seen on phones) and have limited support."
Based on the comments up, if indeed it is true, then mobile phones may not see wikia for awhile. I'm going for the change, as skins to me are not a big deal, and layouts only matter a little in the grand scheme of things. --Devilmanozzy 19:25, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Devilmanozzy, the phone theory is bunk because the ads are not part of the articles as stored on the database. Wikia uses its own skin for phones anyway. The only thing that could make wikis work better for phones is possibly the fixed width because it might make editors code to sizes that fit better on small screens, but I think that is unlikely. --M.mendel 06:06, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm Willing to give it A chance. But, For the sake of Everyone Else, Make it Optional. --Reptor17 01:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't load like shit -- 03:18, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hm...make it optional, definitely, but I'm willing to give it a chance --LunarGirl28 03:22, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's going to be pretty useful. I'm giving it a chance. --Red-yellow-striped-apple 04:38, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

make it optional -- 05:03, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

How nice that my wiki has Monobook as default... Won't see all of this. --Edward Chernenko 06:01, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

It Really Looks Stunning... --Jake ro2005 06:24, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, looks great! Very professional.
However, I have to agree with what people have been saying. I think making it optional is the way to go. Don't want wiki's layouts all screwed up if it changes. --LegoAlchemist 07:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just getting used to the current look. --DakotaSurfer 07:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

me 2
damn --Teokaijie 09:58, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated my opinion on my previous post. I'm perfectly fine with this change — but only if this remains optional. I wouldn't much like this to become the default skin across Wikia.

@Guys: What do you mean by "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" This seems a bit more like "Breaking what works." --TheSlicer 09:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hum is it possible to have a link toward some beta testing sites. A single photo does not help much in deciding if it is good or not... Also I don't like the mandatory feature. The last gallery upgrade cooled me a bit concerning new evolutions. --Kdom 09:28, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

There aren't separate Beta sites, the new look will show on all wikis for the Beta testers. If you want an early look, the best way is to apply to be a Beta tester. --Sannse 17:39, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

No one can judge how a wiki would look from a single screenshot, particularly one that has been carefully constructed to look enticing. The question is, how would this skin look on typical articles on typical wikis, rather than on a page designed to promote the skin? We can see that 44% of the window is dedicated to content, and 56% is dedicated to nonsense (a large bar at the top to discourage readers from looking at this wiki, and a gigantic sidebar with trivia, and a floating bar at the bottom – omfg). If this is compulsory and as bad it looks, I'm abandoning Wikia. --JohnBeckett 10:06, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikia is in fact planning on going bankrupt. Because no one in their right mind will visit a wiki that looks like this. No page views = no ad revenue = goodbye Wikia. ---Blackout- 10:51, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't. --LordTBT 15:02, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
lol, nice one LordTBT! --Devilmanozzy 23:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

--Dancing Penguin 11:13, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their opinions and choices so it should be optional. There are some of us who may not be suited to that kind of new skin. I am not saying it sucks, I`m saying that is has to be optional. There are users who prefer the old skin than the new one. But please, give users a chance to choose their styles. That way it will be a 50-50 fair and square! --Yukimazan 11:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

there must be a revert button for Wikia,for just in case editors may dislike it,they may revert it.But However,we must do some suggestions/poll --Kim kid34 12:38, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

First of all I find this design extremely bad, but I want to ask... (this is something different, not about the design) why is Wikia so slow? It takes like 3 minutes to load every page, it's been like this yesterday and today, it's getting anoying lol.. fix this please. Oh, and if you decide to change the design (bad move) then keep monaco as an option. thanks. -- 12:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

But you still haven't really stated why the design looks bad though!
Yep, Wikia is starting to slow down for me too! It only happens when I try to save my edit on a page though. --DoctorStrange 13:06, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good. What I'd like though, is an improvement to the mobile site, or if not that, an option to disable it. It's so hard to do anything on Gagapedia with the mobile site. --392414 13:06, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

interesting --AC1Brodie 14:02, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is part of this "update" trying to woo new users? That's been the argument for things like the Rich Text Editor, that it would make it easier for new editors.

But by using the RTE you often encounter issues with spacing and wikification.

Using and editing on a wiki should be an easy process, but there is a point where idiot proof makes something unusable for the people who use it reguarly. --Tangerineduel 14:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yeah that RTE was the worst idea thing I ever seen. It had good intentions but all it did was make problems for admins.
But this feels different to me. There is a grand plan tied into this. I stated my theories 2 or 3 comment pages back so no point in reposting it. --Devilmanozzy 21:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
When they introduced the RTE i was ready to go back to wikipedia and edit there instead of creating 'my' Wiki. But then i found that it could be turned off so i stayed & have continued building CONTENT which is what attracts visitors not Wikias growing list of intrusive links to other wikis and invites to create your own wiki overloading the page. But Wikia do not appear to have learnt from the backlash against the RTE by established editors. --BulldozerD11 23:07, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Perfect --Laximilian scoken 15:19, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

In case you wanted another argument against this.....

That's what it looks like for logged-out users.

You really want to attract new users, Wikia? Then don't do this. ---Blackout- 16:09, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to that above, we already know what it looks like.
I guess new users only want to look at ads? --Nitpicker of the Wastes 16:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
More ad in there than actual content. --Surgo 23:40, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that this, at least, is an issue. You're looking at a screenshot of a page with an ad at the top and the side. Presumably the article continues below the bottom of the screen. You'd have to scroll down only perhaps two or three times before you could no longer see the top ad; if you're used to visiting wikia sites for information without being logged in, this will likely become a reflex.
Additionally, I believe that if a user is the type of person to be turned off by ads to this degree, they'll likely have Adblock Plus (or some other similar program) installed. --Ryo Sangnoir 15:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better! -- 17:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

So I take it that what you want to do when you visit a wiki is look at ads?
That says a lot about you. ---Blackout- 18:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ehh... even though it looks professional and up-to-date, it's not right for me. My main visiting wiki has already considered a move-out from Wikia, and making it's own site, just for this reason. Why can't you make it so that people who like their old MonoBook or Monaco skins have this new skin as the default, but they can choose their own skin if they like. It shouldn't be mandatory for ALL users to have to use it. Users should have the choice to choose between the skins. If this becomes mandatory, i'm leaving Wikia. --Flystar55555 17:46, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the blogs, not the Wikia. but that picture is great :) --Station7 19:07, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

FAQ tells that switching will be mandatory.

Well, hope this won't affect Uncyclopedia. Nobody would be happy there... --Edward Chernenko 19:54, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

What the FAQ says and what is eventually going to happen are two possibly different things. The beta testers still have to test the skin, and Wikia still has to decide whether to listen to us and keep Monaco or not. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 20:14, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Nitpicker, i understand what you are saying. allthe beta testing is going to do get this online! wiki doesent care. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN if we like it or not! beta testing is just being done to make sure it can get up and runing. --Wingman1 20:19, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
... and, just a note, Uncyclopedia currently uses Monobook.
It denied Monaco, and for a good reason (Uncyclopedia must look as Wikipedia, you know).
So it will not accept any other non-Monobook skin (perhaps, except Vector, but that too would be up to local communities - e.g. I don't like Vector as well). --Edward Chernenko 20:25, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
You're overreacting, Wingman. If the beta testers don't like it either, then Wikia is going to have a major problem on its hands. If the beta testers do like it, then they should be giving it to us (though without taking away Monaco).
Wikia cares. They don't care much or often, and they're really bad at actually telling people things without sounding like we're all about 5 years old, but they do care. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 20:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
you right Nitpicker, i am just fustrated like a lot of people. i got a couple big project's on hold now till i can see how this sorts out... but who knows the beta testers migh have better luck at telling wiki how we feel about this. i guess i will leave it up to the beta testers. mabe wiki, can put this to a vote??? --Wingman1 20:53, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
What would a vote do? There's no reason to take a vote. If users don't like the old skin, they can use the new skin. If they don't like the new skin, they can use the old skin.
I don't see why that's not an option from the beginning. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 22:42, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can bet that at the very least, this beta tester is gonna make sure he's heard! Once I learn some of the details of beta-testing --Kagimizu 00:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
@Nitpicker: people take a lot of pride in presenting their work, customizing their wiki skin etc. so that it comes off well. When Wikia makes the new skin mandatory to be set as default skin for the wiki (as it did sometime after Monaco was introduced), you cannot choose to have your work presented with the old skin. You might be able to use Monaco yourself for a while (as you can use Monobook now), but your readers will see the new skin. --M.mendel 06:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia and its sister projects that currently have monobook as a default won't be included in this rollout --Sannse 17:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Good then.
Thank you. --Edward Chernenko 18:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
What of those of us who wish to have Monaco as the default? --Surgo 19:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Im not so sure im gonna like this --Bedros Bruce Auditore 20:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

nice --Manbu3 21:15, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm......idk if Ima like this to much.... :( --DegrassiChick 21:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Don't really like changes --ZCMatt211 23:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

i can't say I love it, i think we should just keep it the way it is. I wasn't too happy about the new blog thingy, and I'm not sure about this... --Sailor sofia 23:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Huger banner at the is going to be brutal to work with.

Can we change drastically change the look of things? --Coronaholic 00:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Can't wait to see it. -- 00:34, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I am totally psyched by the look. It is always nice to enjoy looking at the work you contribute/edit ^_- --Alphahuntress 01:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

i want the look to stay the same --123wesker 01:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Woah, two people in a row said they liked this skin!

I think it's some kind of record. --Cobweb 01:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like it --ZarHall 02:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

All of the users against this say aye. The others say nay. Total, the experienced users don't like this idea. The anons and newbies do. Is that the whole point of this change? --The Inexistent 02:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think the main reason the veterans are against it is because they are to used to the old format, and the newbies aren't used to the current one just yet so they can easily adapt, as someone who is in between the two I think the best thing is to just see how it plays out. --Riley.Konner 03:29, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
If you want to find out why the "veterans" don't like it, have a look at Forum:Your First Look at the New Wikia (discussion)‎ . It's not just that "they don't want to adapt". --M.mendel 05:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
The experienced users are those you can thank for the sustained expansion of "sticky" content that has successfully attracted the newer users to wikia. Some of those experienced users (not me) have suffered the painful transition away from the much loved monobook skin to the "Wikia-home-grown" Quartz-come-Monaco skin and the subsequent transition from Monaco to New-Monaco which most wikia-hosted wikis have been forced to use today and now simply call it "Monaco".
So the frustration you are seeing vented here is over yet another iteration of this bait and switch dance.
*Fool me once - shame on you.
*Fool me twice - shame on me!
Judging by the numerous threats of relocating wikis there is most definitely a market for free (or even ad-supported) wiki-hosting where the commitment is for long term support of a well understood and well documented skin - whether that skin is monobook or Monaco.
Personally I'd be happy to revert to monobook since that is what out-of-the box MediaWiki software offers.
Hope that helps you understand the frustration you are reading about here. --Najevi 19:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm it is very interesting and I am glad that we where given instructions on how to navigate before hand. --Riley.Konner 03:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be fun to adapt tew :D --ZamorakO o 03:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with tew? --Bentendo 16:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

No way. I'm probably going to go somewhere else if this is mandatory. --SupcomMonroe 04:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think me too! -- 13:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good but I don't like the fact the searchbar is at the top of the page. --KILLERKEA23 06:28, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

boooo --Ashclaw 08:34, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Don't like it. It looks flashy, sure, but I'd prefer if Wikia just stayed as simple as possible, without all the pointless widgets. An encyclopedia should focus on readability and I feel many of the changes are counter-productive or at least pointless (not only this one, but also some of the gallery updates, as well as the "followed pages" feature instead of a standard Watchlist). The right-hand column seems like an unnecessary change as well. It seems that the changes are made just for the sake of it, or to appease the Facebook/Myspace crowd who seem to care more about looks than performance or readability. --Jugus 10:06, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

It looks good . --Glaurung Golden 10:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

what's going on? --Legendaryss4 10:20, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please leave. --Bentendo 16:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Legendary: Wikia made a crappy skin, most people hate it, but some people like it, so we're fighting about it. --Cobweb 12:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

kl --Anon.... 12:00, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please at the verry least flip the comments back to being oldest to newest or at least give us the option of sorting it ourselves, but please don't impose your sort order on us --WhyDidntUKnow 12:30, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. --SuperSaiyanKirby 13:07, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a full wiki up before the beta, if this is possible, so we can determine if we would like ours included in the Beta. I understand the Beta is a test, but I'd rather have one present to test, before the Beta Wiki's undergo a full change for something they may not like. --Bonziiznob 13:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Beta is basically access to a special page which lets you set a cookie, this cookie then makes it so you view the new skin on any wikia site you visit. You can easily remove it or reset it at your will, and I doubt they'll be very mad if you simply drop out at any time. And if you go into the beta and end up not liking the skin, you can always give your feedback about what should be changed! --Joeyaa 14:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Nice !. --Krystian98 13:47, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

i think it looks a lot like the wikia we're using.... -- 13:53, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

does the new skin also have a name? and will the code will open-source? --Jedimca0 16:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

The new skin name is "Oasis" per --Pcj 17:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. --Cow Ninga 17:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'll be looking forward to this, but the simpleness of wiki is fun to learn. Glad you're considering all this, though. --Forestpaw13 17:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. --Icestorm123 17:34, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Does the new skin keep the colors of the old skins? -- 17:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

The new skin will have themes similar to those that exist now, as well as a bunch of new theme options. We will also have an easy to use custom skin designer tool, which we are super excited about! Cheers, Sarah Manley 18:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC) --Sarah Manley 18:46, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

There have been a few mentions here about the changes to the blog comments. That's not part of the new look, nothing for this is live yet. If you are seeing problems with the blog comments, please can you contact us with the details. --Sannse 18:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I hate it. --Unknown4 20:50, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Huh. That' --Wildstar93 21:28, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

it fuckin sucks --Speical ops genral minigun 22:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Its you again! --Cpt. Riley 03:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

i like it! :) --Kuminiko 22:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

As we look at all of the comments, it is clear there are a few recurring themes. While we don’t yet know the answer to some of your questions, we’ve updated the FAQ and provided more details where we can.

We do want to address the most frequent question: “Why is the new look mandatory?” We completely understand why you would like this change to be optional -- it’s always nice to be able to choose. But the new look is not simply a new skin option, it’s the upgraded version of Wikia. We’ve designed it for a number of reasons, and we are dedicating both technical and community resources to its development and support to create the best possible user experience. This means, however, that users on older, unsupported skins will have style and content conflicts on individual wikis and across Wikia. While we know that customization and individuality are at the heart of every great wiki, we strongly believe that it’s important for wikis on Wikia to share a common foundation, and that all users -- new or old, reader or editor -- should have a consistent experience.

You will have plenty of time to adapt your wiki to the new look. We are rolling out the new version in phases, and will provide help and migration resources along the way. We’ll also be providing weekly snapshots and details on its new features -- many of which will give you a deeper understanding of the new design and answer some of the specific questions that have come up in your comments! --Sannse 23:10, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Is the first group of beta testers selected? When will the beta testing finish? -- 23:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
All your comment did was reinforce the idea that wikia doesn't care about user input. Seriously, if nobody likes it, why would you still go on with this? Pretty mutch, you are saying we are not important. I personaly have considered leaving wikia, for good, mostly because you guys are acting like I, and other users, are not important. And you don'y get individual needs. I myself have aspergers and this new look incorperates so many buttone, is literaly gave me a migrane. I came back to wikia hours later after recovering to find your dicision had not changed. So, new wiki look is so complicated it incapacitaed me for houre, and Idon't get a say in it? --Bioshock123 23:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
@Bioshock123: Look, just pipe down- change is good- all you've seen so far of this new page is a SINGLE PICTURES, and it's in it's BETA STAGE!! It's not even complete- at all! This is just a basic image of what it's like! Why are so many of you complaining, you act like they don't care- if they didn't care, they wouldn't have a COMMUNITY BOARD in the first place- if they didn't care, it wouldn't be FREE, if they didn't care- they wouldn't even be developing this right now!
So, don't talk about "It sucks" or "I HATE IT" and all that other ungratefulness, until you've actually used it- I'm not gonna lie to you- there are some things I don't like, but i didn't post them, like around 75% of you did (exaggeration).
Besides, this website isn't MADE JUST for you, so get over yourself. --BlakFyr999 23:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Quite simply, if Monaco is not perpetually available as a skin choice for our wikis, and the new skin looks anything like that screenshot, my wiki and its community will be packing up and moving on to a new host.
We'd be convinced to stay if the new skin ends up looking nothing like the screenshot, No ridiculous top banner. No horrible burying of the editing tools. No right-hand sidebar. No fixed width (UGH). But that would end up making it look nothing like the screenshot, so I can't hold out much hope. --Surgo 00:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I too must say that if this look is forced upon the Sonic News Network, it is very likely that we too will be leaving. While consistency is important, so is the individual needs and opinions of every wiki and User. It should become clear that this new look is not appreciated, and as such should not be forced upon people. While there are people who like it, there are many more who don't like it. For that reason, this look should be entirely optional, and not even the default.
If Wikia does not allow the wikis and the Users to do their own thing in their own style and at their own pace, Wikia will be foregoing one of it's most well-known and most appreciated principle. In my opinion, Wikia has reached a point where the majority of the Users are satisfied, and does not need to "keep up with the times". Wikia should simply go at its own pace, and only "upgrade" and "improve" what the Users themselves believe should be improved.
If this is forced upon all Wikis with no alternative, Wikia will lose a great amount of its popularity, as well as a large amount of its contributors. What's more, Users on a personal level will be affected. Friendships will be broken apart by Users leaving the wikis, and experience and information that took months or years to gather will be lost.
As a beta tester, I am going to make sure I test this "upgrade" (and I use the term as loosely as possible) and see what it brings, but good or bad, I will not change my stance on this: it should not be mandatory, and should not be default. Wikia will lose far more than it can possibly gain with this project, and should think of that before going any further. If Wikia truly does give a single damn about the Users, it will pay attention to the anger and pain that it is causing the Users who contribute to it and make it what it is. Without the efforts of the Users, the ones that are being pushed away by this forced upon change, would be less than nothing. This would be a very funny way of paying back all of the effort these Users have put into making Wikia what it is. --Kagimizu 00:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
'This means, however, that users on older, unsupported skins will have style and content conflicts on individual wikis and across Wikia.'
So it's entirely impossible to customize both of the skins so that no conflicts occur? Why not add that in your "upgrades"?
This is completely ridiculous now. Monaco is the current 'consistent experience', why are we changing it so radically and mentioning consistency?
I still do not support the new skin in the slightest; if anything, this is just making me more negative about it! D: --Nitpicker of the Wastes 02:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. :) --StrikerBack 02:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
BlakFyr999, I have the right to post my opinion. And just the screen shot gave me a migrane, am I not important? --Bioshock123 11:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Just like Surgo, three of the wikis I'm on is going to move on if it's really going to be this way. --Bwog 14:55, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Surgo. --Registeel999 17:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
This is really confusing, and I'm going to need some more elaboration here Sannse.
*How do users of 1 skin have a content/style conflict across Wikia if they're only visiting 1 wiki?
*What do you mean by "consistent experience"? That if someone visits Wookieepedia, and then visits Lostpedia, they should expect to see a very similar layout? Why? Lostpedia is a completely different community than Star Wars. Shouldn't users expect a unique experience from each wiki, not a uniform one?
*And if customization and individuality are the heart of great wikis, how can you suggest a "consistent" theme provides individuality? --LordTBT 23:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
LordTBT, I assume the "easy to use custom skin designer tool, which we are super excited about" (Sarah Manley) is going to make quite clear which areas of the wiki can be customized, and what should remain consistent. --M.mendel 05:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Cool --Clarkmaster 00:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Looks great --Cowsrock1 00:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

YES! --RatchetBanjoAndKirbyFan 01:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

nice looks really good. --Makachan020 03:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

New change for easy user navigation should be encouraged, I agree with that part. Every source of data undergoes an upgrade now and then for these purposes; this is to be expected to happen eventually with wikia. I hope this new layout doesn't require flash, javascript, or other intensive webscripts to be 100% mandatory as well; it will cause a nightmare with users who don't always have the best connections or unique internet browser settings. So long as there is still an option for every user to keep only the bare minimums (edit box, really simple tool bar, preview option, and only a few cookies), then wikia's move for gradual change is fine with me.

I will say that I am not a fan of the floating toolbar across the bottom of the screen idea... it seems more distracting to a normal user experience than anything else. Especially if it's one of those tracking toolbars that follows the user's every movements as they scroll up or down the screen. It's like a miniature fly that persistently buzzes around your head when you're trying to concentrate on that one annoying puzzle or question for a written exam, just to go after the specs of whatever it finds delicious from your sweat. It means no harm to you personally, just doing what it does naturally. It doesn't mean you have to like it though.

Out of all of the new additions that are so far aimed to stay with the new layout, I would hope there is a user preference to hide or disable that sucker. Or better yet, a wikia skin/setting that does the same. --Sake neko 04:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

that looks cool --Dmala13 05:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

cool! a bit too much "blog-syle", but very cool! --Elainoelloc1 08:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

COOL When do they start using dis? --Tkg50 09:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully never --Registeel999 17:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I do not usually get involved in - or comment on - aspects of Wikia such as this, but after viewing the images available, the FAQ, and reading some of the comments posted here, I feel I need to comment.

I understand the basic need to upgrade software and to develop new ideas, and know that, realistically, Wikia will not remain the same throughout its operational life. That said, change for the sake of change is wrong. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean that you must do that thing.

Wikia is not Facebook. It is not Wordpress. I did not join the Wikia community to socially interact with other users, earn badges or edit points, "like" posts, or write a blog about the amazing day I just had. I join Wikia to edit articles. To contribute to encyclopaedic content on specialised subjects. Why Wikia seems to be obsessed with adding elements from social networking and blog sites is beyond me. Surely the content of the articles - what Wikia is known for, and what most, if not all, of us joined up for - is the most important thing?

Some comments/ questions on this new design:

The top navigation bar: Why does it have to be that big with Wikia links all along it? What is in the drop down menu by the user name? Is it the links to the User page, Home page, Talk page, etc? And, if so, why are the internal links valued less that the Wikia external links? Surely one link to Wikia is enough, combined with the "create a new wiki" option? How is it more efficient to have to click two buttons to get to your own talk page?

Links next to Wiki name/logo: What do these link to? Top categories? What purpose does that serve?

Edit drop down menu: What is contained in here? All of the current editing options? Is the move button in here, and the delete button for those of us with SysOps? Again, how is it more efficient to have to click two links to perform a task when one will suffice? And, while we're on the subject, where is the link to the article talk page? And the history?

Comments: Comments on the article? Seriously? This is one of the worst ideas ever. Now you're just abandoning all pretense of these articles being encyclopaedic. Or is this replacing the talk page? I cannot stress just how bad I think this idea is. I will personally be deleting any comments on articles on any Wiki I have rights on.

Last edited by/ categories: At the top of the page? Why? What purpose do they serve there? Articles are about the content, not the contributor.

Article space: Too small. Again, article content should take precedence. A fixed width is not a good idea, either. I notice that this image includes no templates; no infobox or the like. Will these still be supported in the new design? Also, no Table of Contents. Is that because the article shown is small enough not to need one, or is it being removed?

Image in article: Why list who uploaded it? What purpose does this serve?

Sidebar navigation: Firstly, left or right bar makes no difference to me. But the one shown in the image is too large and focuses on unnecessary details. Where is the link to the Recent Changes page for example? I know Sannse posted: "We aren't removing Recent Changes. That's way too useful for sure. You will be able to get to that page via a link on the Activity Feed, or via your toolbox (or via a bookmark or shortcut of course)." But, shouldn't a link to a useful page ... indeed, the main page most of us probably go to first when we log on ... be prominent and easily accessible? Will there be options to change the boxes in the toolbar to better emulate the current skins? And what is the box just below the photo? A Wikia newsfeed? Also, I hate floating toolbars. They are distracting and unnecessary. An option to turn that off should be standard.

Bottom toolbar: A like button? Again, Wikia is not Facebook or a blog. Please do not trying turning into something that you are not. And the tools button - again, how is it more efficient to click two buttons instead of one to get to a desired page?

On the face of it, this new design favours external linking to the rest of Wikia over the internal needs of the individual wikis. While I understand Wikia's desire to cross-prompt other wikis, it should not do so at the expense of the wiki itself. So this change is mandatory, and we have no real say. What if 100% of users were opposed? Would it still go ahead? And I think this is a slap in the face to those Wikis with individual themes and skins that they have worked hard on to have to change their design because of this new change. Will each Wiki get help in changing their design, or will we be expected to "learn as we go"?

I understand the desire for a clean design as well, but simply hiding links to pages that are easily accessible in the current design is, quite frankly, inefficient. These are pages that users use every day, so they should remain visible and easily accessible.

I'm sorry if this is soundly over critical, but the questions must be asked. When this rolls out - and, to be honest, I hope it doesn't in its current incarnation - the communities I administrate will be looking to me for the answers and I need to have them to hand. --Cavalier One 10:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

You said pretty much everything I had in mind when I saw that. --Nyaru 14:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Since Cavalier One's comment, I changed my mind. Don't do it please. --Station7 15:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I guess a new design is fine, but this shouldn't be it. --Webkinz Mania 15:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, just wow, If wikia doesn't listen to this post, they don't listen at all. --Registeel999 17:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Cavalier One, I hope you will sign up for the Beta testing, I think you would be an ideal person to look at the new design in detail. That will also answer a lot of your questions above.

A couple of points: individual themes and customization are definitely still possible and encouraged, we agree that’s an important part of your wiki. And we will certainly be doing all we can to help wikis move to the new look.

Comments are currently on a few wikis (including new English wikis), and we had to choose one version or the other for the image above. Talk pages will still work with the new design, as will infoboxes, templates and the table of contents.

You bring up a lot of questions about the decisions on what links and features are most visible - that's a bigger question than I can answer in a comment, but we do have blog posts coming that look at a lot of these features in detail - including the reasoning behind their positioning. --Sannse 17:34, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Cavalier One took the time to document each specific item of feedback that I had planned to save for my participation in beta testing.
Sannse, I reckon the "market requirements document" and/or "design target specification" for this new skin should be published for public review and comment. Frankly that is of greater urgency/value than the private beta phase because it gives you the designers the chance to learn if you heard the right message from your target market. --Najevi 18:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
That sums up what I wanted to say too. I want to re-emphasise a paragraph, which was also my initial thought:
Wikia is not Facebook. [...] I did not join the Wikia community to socially interact with other users, earn badges or edit points, "like" posts, [...]. I join Wikia to edit articles. To contribute to encyclopaedic content on specialised subjects. Why Wikia seems to be obsessed with adding elements from social networking and blog sites is beyond me. Surely the content of the articles [...] is the most important thing?
I also want to query where all the useful links in the left-hand, customisable Monaco-sidebar would go, as it's a useful navigation tool that a lot of wiki admins spend time on organizing.
Overall, it's a nice design, but I feel that navigation is more important to a wiki than socialising, which is where this seems to be directed. --Enodoc 21:56, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

whoaw, nice when will be start put on use? --Crazy al594 11:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully never --Registeel999 17:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

This interface is pretty much a product of capitalist interests. Rather than providing good service to the editors, the interface is built to atract the attention of a more mainstream, ad-clicking audience. It is the ad-clicking audience that pays for wikia after all, not the editors.

But keep complaining. There is much that can be improved that does not endanger wikia's profits. To start with, I'd like the basic edit, history, delete, move, protect, recent changes and talk to be accessed with a single click. Article space just a teeny bit bigger too, please. Even ad-clickers come to the wiki to -read articles-.

Oh, here's an idea. Offer a default skin like this, but allow a much more editor-focused interface to be chosen in the preferences. Editors and regular editors will be happy, but the more ad-click-atractive interface will be default for people who don't care otherwise. Everyone is happy!

Surely, you can do that for your loyal customers? Ad-clickers pay, but we make the content that primarily atracts them in the first place. --Richeron 12:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Seems like just another case of promoting style over substance; I hate that. Also, to whoever thinks a floating toolbar is a good idea: no. Just, no. --Nyaru 14:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

DUMB -- 14:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

STUPID -- 14:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I dislike it. It's just what I can say about that. --Gimme your all money! 14:34, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia, PLEASE listen to us! Do you even CARE about what we think? Seriously. We don't want it. You are pretty much the only people who want it. You're being selfish, Wikia. Just because you want it doesn't mean everyone else has to. And no one else WANTS to! You're going to be sorry when a lot of wikis leave. You'll regret it for the rest of Wikia's existence I bet. You don't care about what we think, it's all about what you want Wikia. You're just being selfish. You don't care about us, we're just 500 people, and you're probably 30. Nobody wants this change. Listen to us. We don't want it. We don't need it either. If 99% of us don't want it, why do it to us? Why, Wikia, why? Why must you be so mean to us? Force us to have this ugly, horrible skin (Or as you call it, "Upgrade"). Listen to us. Please.

And don't bug me about how many times I repeated stuff. I don't care that much. --Bwog 15:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak for others. I personally think it is cool. --TheManOfIron 18:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
The majority of us consider the skin to be absolute epic horrible fail wrapped around ads and trying to be more like Facebook. So, basically, he's speaking for the majority. ---Blackout- 16:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

This update's coming and it's unlikely we'll be able to stop it. Just from the update's wording of "We strongly believe", to me that reads as "we've decided".

There's a fair amount of Wikia branding over any given page, plus there's the being able to be logged into Wikia and edit across all of it without using multiple logins.

I just find it somewhat confusing that what they're seeking is a consistent experience, I guess we should ignore the fact that most wikias do actually behave in the same way at the moment.

It's also disheartening that we were all encouraged to personalise and customise our wikis and now it's something of a backflip that it must now share a common foundation (and here was I thinking the common foundation was the wiki software and the way wikis behave in general. --Tangerineduel 15:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well said. They're just outright confusing us now, skin upgrades regardless. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 15:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, even if the beta testers all decide "No" they'll probobally pick this new look anyways. --Registeel999 17:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if that got confusing. The change to a new look is about creating an improved experience for editors and readers, with a cleaner and more intuitive interface. Where consistency comes in is in the decision not to support the old Monaco version of the site in the long term. --Sarah Manley 17:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of Monaco was to be "easier for new wiki users to understand".
So is Monaco still too complex for the average Wikian? Is that the argument here? --LordTBT 23:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
While Monaco may not be too complex for the average Wikian , we have found it to be too complex for the average web user. --Sarah Manley 16:57, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
*Sigh* Monaco isn't that hard to get, and that better not be the only reason for the change. I hope to god you people know what your doing. I have put my neck out in this conversation, at the risk for being labeled a Wikia Fanboy. Sarah, I put faith in wikia to do the best thing, and While I have been the type with a wait see, I don't want to hear that you thought the new way is "easier" Sarah, I don't think you were here during the Rich Text Editor disaster. That was the claim made then, that it was easier. I ended up having to teach my editors on the wikis I edit at how to turn it off, cause it would not work in infoboxes. I have seen good things from you guys and gals the last 8 months, don't blow it. If this is just to make things Easier for new users, then make this optional. There is no reason to destroy community's if thats the only reason. --Devilmanozzy 19:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

DUMB --Drjuki 15:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin of Greegee wiki, and pretty much all of us have decided we're moving to a completely new server if monaco is gotton rid of. Wiki's should be kept as monobook and monaco to actually LOOK like a wiki. NOT A BLOG!

The Wiki i'm on, and many others have made templates and whatnot to make the wiki look better. And now what is wiki doing? Making wiki change and not even keep the old look!

I know it's free, but a wiki should be a wiki and a blog should be a blog. They don't need to be merged together.

Change is good, but what's true is true, "What isn't broken doesn't need to be replaced." --Registeel999 17:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Looks don't really matter, just because the skin looks like a blog doesn't mean the wiki has to be one. A wiki being a blog or not is up to the wiki's community, not staff. --CodExpert 20:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'm an admin(and founder of) at 5 clans wiki. I would NEVER let my wiki end up like that. --Clarrissa koins 10:05, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
CodExpert I couldn't agree more! --Devilmanozzy 19:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice. The new navigation should probably be completely worth it. --Julayla 17:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the only thing I really like is the way ads don't rape the inside of the article in the logged out view but instead go above like on the main page. --Registeel999 17:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I would rather you keep it the way it is. I like this format better, and I am familiar with it. You should make it a choice when you make a wiki, whether you want "Original" or "New" --Muzy21 18:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

that blooks quite cool wikias --Malkazar 19:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Beta starts tomorrow. --Staffan15 19:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this skin won't be used in the end. --Registeel999 20:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefullly it WILL --BlakFyr999 20:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully Sanse will listen to the comments...*sigh* --Clarrissa koins 10:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully common sense will prevail. ---Blackout- 16:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a great layout for a social networking site. For a wiki, not so much. --Andrusi 19:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, why doesn't wikia understand? A blog is a blog and a wiki is a wiki. They have no intention of being merged. --Registeel999 20:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Is that were all this hate is coming from? I can see the wiki, it's just a little bit altered- my favorite things are the bar at the bottom and the whole right side. but i'm not feeling the oversized header image- i like the reason it's there, but it's too big- very distractive --BlakFyr999 20:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you can see the wiki.
But you can also see a lot of stuff that is not the article. This site is supposed to be about the article, not a slideshow of random pictures and a link to other wikis. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 20:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all three of you, espicialy Nitpicker of the Wastes --Bioshock123 21:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think it would go with a social networking site or a's just...lame. --Clarrissa koins 10:02, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. This looks like a magazine, not a social networking site. ---Blackout- 16:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Andrusi, couldn't agree more. Wikia said they will be not be using Vector, because that is wikipedia's default skin, and they are not wikipedia. HELLO, YOU ARN'T FACEBOOK EIGTHER. So why add a Facebook login and various other facebook stuff? You don't act like wikipedia, because you arn't wikipedia, but you act like facebook, eventhough you arn't facebook. --Bioshock123 21:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Guys stop being dumbasses and just realize this might be better than previously. Everyone loves being the critic until they actually test out the new stuff. --PitchBlack696 21:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

In some instances, the new changes are inferior to the old way. However, we grow on the inferior changes - even though life was better before. So we have to wait and see and I hope Wikia don't try and make something that is better for the advertisers than before, but worse for the users than before. --Tigernose 22:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
It's NOT going to be better than previously. Every single change Wikia has made thus far has been worse than the one before. I see no reason why this should magically stop applying with this change. ---Blackout- 16:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia will fail hard.. and then another Wiki-website will become the leader and provide us with letting us make our own Wiki's, oh I wait on the day that Wiki-website will become available so I can ditch Wikia because of what they will do to us..<3 -- 19:42, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

sweet xxD --Crobak1 22:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I saw comments on few wikis now, and I think it's not good idea. Comments are good on blog space, but not in the articles. I hope this new feature will be optional. --Final Cannon 22:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, I'm curious why you guys are limiting the beta to select people instead of opening it to everyone on a test wiki for starters. Seems to me you would get more feedback that way. --Pcj 23:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

To run a beta with repect to usability, ideally you let in a batch of users, get their feedback, implement some changes, then let in the next batch to test out the changes with a fresh mind. Mind you, I don't know if that's what Wikia are doing, or whether they just want to create a desire for using the skin by making it a scarce resource. --M.mendel 04:44, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
We've found in the past that test wikis don't get the use needed for real feedback - people try them for a moment and then move back to the real wikis. So the beta is allowing people to see all wikis in the new look, as they make their regular edits.

There are a couple of reasons for limiting the initial numbers: we need to have a steady stream of feedback that we can manage and process; we want to make sure we have a balanced mix of users (newbies, power-users, casual users etc.); we want to increase the numbers on the new skin gradually, so we can see the effects on the site; and, as Mendel says, it will help to have fresh eyes on the site as we make adjustments. --Sannse 17:04, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, thank you for this answer; and also for the clarification re: the answers skin. --M.mendel 20:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass on this. Make that change optional --Darknesslover5000 00:34, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I only use the WoW wiki, and I'm not happy that it no longer looks like WoW.
You know, optional is ALWAYS the better choice. -- 01:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has changed yet...

And don't forget that the images above (and the version seen by the first beta testers) is without customization - the WoWwiki look will still exist. --Sannse 17:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

This proves how unfair you guys here on Wikia are, just because WoWwiki is a BIGGER part of Wikia, it means that they can have their old skin whenever they want, but when the people on like.. 600 pages says they want Monaco.. then no, because they're "minorities" this is so unfair... i'm so sad right now. -- 19:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm saying that the new skin is customizable, and all wikis will be able to choose their color scheme. WoWwiki can choose to use the same black and yellow that they use now, and your wiki will be able to choose whatever color scheme you prefer --Sannse 20:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I wont mind it --Jonmad 01:24, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't have an answer to a question I asked a long time ago "If there are so many comments saying they hate it, why are we continuing with it?" --Bioshock123 01:39, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Because wikia thinks they Need a change... --Registeel999 12:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Because they are selfish and want what they want and don't care about anyone else. --Bwog 13:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Right now, I hope that the results and feedback of the beta testers will effect either the new skin will be put in effect or not.
@Bwog: If they were selfish I doubt they would even help us through multiple changes that Wikia has gone through. In fact, if they were selfish, I doubt this blog would even exist, they would just make it live. --CodExpert 15:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Answers will also change the skin or do you wait to the impact on the wikis to do it? --GTAAAF 03:39, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Answers wikis will also use a version of this look. --Sannse 17:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

No one really likes the look of it, you should be looking at what other people say. Our opinions actually mean something --GoldenElite 03:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have created two 1:1 mockups of the logged-out Screenshot that Sannse has uploaded with her blog post, one for a 1280 screen, the other for 1024 screen (mind that browser toolbars etc. take up space as well).

Note that they're based on a pre-beta screenshot, the actual interface may change. See also 1, 4th graphic, for common screen sizes. For 1280x800, imagine 160px of content chopped off. Feel free to request a mockup for your screen size if you're not on the beta already. --M.mendel 05:22, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Is the edit page changed? --Pipichy 08:23, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like the look of's a bit lame. I don't really get why you're changing it anyway. To be honest you need to change that. Now. --Clarrissa koins 09:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. The entire Custom Bionicle Wiki is against this change. I can see a vast majority of commentors are against this change. There are other entire wikis that are against this change. Even with all these people against it, you still seem to refuse to listen. We want a choice between keeping the current one, and taking the new one, like Wikipedia has. --Kayos94 12:28, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I really think that it should be a trail cause i love the wiki we have now but it might be worth trying it out. And how to know if people like it is to put up a pole and advertise it on every page. --Eric Redmonger 12:53, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Here's the facts:

  • Over 600 people don't want or like it
  • Only about 75 want it
  • It makes Wikis more about the Wiki then the actual content
  • Wikia hasn't said a thing to or about the people who don't want it
  • Floating toolbars = instant fail
  • A lot of Wikis have custom themes. They spent hours and hours on them. And then you're just throwing away a lot of their hard work right down the drain
  • It makes stuff LESS accessible. Why? Because you have to click at least twice to get to most stuff
  • Wikia thinks they're way more important then anyone else, so since they want to change it, they don't even listen to the rest of us. At least they don't say anything

Wikia, if you see this, REPLY TO IT. Tell us why you have to do this. If you don't reply, then we know you're ignoring us all and don't care a bit about us. --Bwog 13:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Webkinz Mania 14:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
May I remind you that most of the feedback was from one screenshot. This may be my opinion but that is a terrible reason to judge, just because of what a screenshot shows. It is best not to judge until after the beta. That way whoever gets chosen can say their reasoning either to keep or not to keep it. And I would like to point out some facts.
*Over 600 people have judged it without seeing what the skin would actually be like, a screenshot does not show how the skin will function and how it will look with the rest of the wiki.
*While few may want it, the same goes for what I said above, a screenshot does not determine if the new skin is good or bad.
*The skin shouldn't effect how the wiki operates, as it's up to the wiki's community for it to focus mostly on the contents.
*Wikia is listening to our comments, as it has been said that they are multiple times. And my guess is that they will start giving information and answering more questions after the beta.
*I agree. But that doesn't mean the wiki will be terrible.
*I believe Wikia staff has stated that they will provide a lot of help customizing the new skin.
*That is more of an opinion than a fact. It's best not to judge that, along with a lot of stuff, until after the beta.
*If Wikia though that, then they wouldn't have brought up this blog for us to read of give feedback on. I doubt that they would even show any staff blog posts if they were selfish or didn't care about us. And I doubt that they would've helped us on previous changes that Wikia has brought forth. --CodExpert 15:24, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this 101%. ---Blackout- 16:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed --Registeel999 17:07, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think the main thing to say here is that we are reading every comment and replying where we can. We’ve taken many of your questions and posted answers to them in the FAQ, and we are also listening to the excellent feedback that the beta testers are giving now. Today you’ll see another blog post that has specific details about some of the features in the new skin. We do recognize that many people are unhappy that this change is coming, so we’re really doing all we can to keep you informed and make the transition go well. --Sannse 17:57, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
You don't do nothing Sannse! :( I thought you guys cared about what people thought here on Wikia, but I guess not, the only thing you guys care about is to make a "slow transition" instead of stop the transition of this wierd-non-wiki-skin, this makes me want to change Wiki provider, and I think I will change soon.. I hope the blog post will explain something more and makes us more satiscfied. no hate here, but I'm dissapointed... thanks. -- 19:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, listen. We appreciate you trying to help us, but we don't like it. If it isn't a skin, DON'T MAKE IT. We DO NOT want a new skin. --Rainbowroad6w 16:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with what Bwog was saying. --Rainbowroad6w 16:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I just signed up for the beta so I can find out exactly how much this will suck. ---Blackout- 16:24, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutly horrible. Im going to move all my wiki's to wikispaces. --Khortonworld 16:31, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think me too, f*** this! :'( -- 19:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to resemble Facebook or MySpace, we're not a SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, at the very roots of the Site, that its an Encyclopaedia, not some social networking site like Facebook, MySpace or Twitter, okay, the Spam Wiki might not be very good the way it is, but, I don't want this to happen to my magnificent Wiki.

And Kayos94 was right, the ENTIRE Custom Bionicles Wiki is against this, and even worse, this is gonna make every wiki with customized skin look horrible.

Formerly, with the normal toolbar, you could see that a site was hosted by Wikia, not just ruled by it, with the new skin it looks like the Wiki is just being run by Wikia, oh and I can't even imagine what this would do to Uncyclopedia... --ToaFairon 18:14, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on it nothing like facebook or myspace and at least give it a try. --Matty19892009 18:40, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
You're right. No floating toolbar PLEASE. And why on EARTH do we need to know who uploaded a picture on the page? If you're just searching on Google to find something out, one of the results is a Wikia page, YOU DON'T CARE WHO UPLOADED IT!
Wikias are becoming more user-oriented then content-oriented, which is not a good thing. --Bwog 12:56, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Will this new skin be open-source? --Jedimca0 19:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

That's what i've understood. Everything else Wikia does is too, so I don't see why they would stop now. --Ose 19:16, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Jedimca0, I sure hope so. Don't we all?
Ose, that'd be awesome. However, your comment is a bit incorrect. I'm sure everyone and their aunt has heard about my attempts to get the ArmchairGM source code opened up fully. While I certainly am not happy with the end result, I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind it.
Answers wikis on the other hand are certainly not as old as ArmchairGM, yet the source code for those is not available. Bits and pieces are, but I don't think that there's enough code for you to run your own Answers-style wiki.
For example, there is a maintenance script called answersEmailQuestionsBot.php that is related to "QuestionEmail" extension.
Where is the source code for this extension? If you have a full checkout of Wikia's SVN, try grepping it for "QuestionEmailBot"...and the only references you'll find are in the mentioned file. (For the non-PHP-savvy: a class must be defined in order for a script to use said class. That's like painting your house &mdash; you cannot paint it without paint, obviously.)
The new-style Answers skin is also not open source: see Answers.php, lines 23-31 and DefaultSettings.php, lines 421-426.
There is a separate, non-public code repository for Answers-related code, at least according to those comments in the source code.
Some commit messages and code changes mention the new skin, which is apparently called "Oasis"...and r25441 also mentions "oasis repo", which suggests that the code for the new skin is stored in a separate, non-public repository. Yet again.
There is no Oasis.php file in the skins folder.
And finally the big question: why do I care? There are many reasons as to why I care. First reason, obviously, is wikis: if a wiki where I'm an admin on wants to customize the skin, what do I tell them? "Sorry, no idea how to do that"? Not good enough.
Another thing is usability. Some time ago Wikia changed the way how rounded corners in Monaco skin are rendered. There used to be an image, which was used, and thanks to that image, rounded corners were showing properly even in my Internet Explorer 8.
Then someone had a bright idea: let's change the way how Monaco renders rounded corners. As a result of this incredibly bright idea, Monaco loads one image less &mdash; and rounded corners render badly for Internet Explorer.
Was it worth it? I'd say obviously no, since most people still use Internet Explorer &mdash; offices, schools, and of course, home users who don't know of other browsers or simply don't care about them.
Internet Explorer users are, whether you like it or not, a major percentage of the site's users.
So yes, please excuse my skepticism on this matter.
As for the actual skin, it reminds me of Quartz, which is actually a good thing. Maybe there's a bit too much white in the picture, but that can be changed with CSS.
Floating toolbar is a major turn-off, it should be something that can be toggled on/off (a toggle in Special:Preferences? JS? Something else?). wikiHow has a similar "meebo" toolbar on every page for anonymous users and I find it very annoying. Well, it certainly motivates you to log in, but...
The skin itself is not actually as bad as most people think it is; what's bad is the decision to force it down the users' throats once again.
It was like this two years ago. I guess history repeats itself, eh? --Jack Phoenix 22:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Jack Phoenix's post gives me hope. :)
Well, if it's not as bad as we think, then the only thing we need to get across here is that we don't enjoy being forced to change the looks of our wikis every time the design staff has another idea, brilliant or not. --Nitpicker of the Wastes 00:07, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Don't Change the look everyones fine with the one we have now --Alfie9000 19:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I like the one that it has... --IchigoLinkPiplup 19:14, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I HATE IT!!! and you do not listen to us! - you updated the FAQ with WRONG answers! you should let us have monaco left! - and the bar at the top of the website is a HUGE mistake! - I want my wiki, for example represent itself and not other Wiki's around the world! - and where shall I put my links?? on which menu? - oh, and if you think its so hard to find other wikis include a search bar on your homepage instead, and I wonder.. if the "top bar" thing will become available.. the ads representing other Wiki's should dissapear.. right? because the top bar is taking like 20% of the website already, thanks. A very pissed monaco user. -- 19:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I will change provider if I won't like the new design, and for now... I hate it. I want my Wiki not to look like any other wiki.. I want my wiki to be MY wiki! :@ -- 19:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sannse! :) I am not happy with the change coming, but one thing is on my mind the most... will I still be able to have a Wikia Header on the top of my Wiki pages? It's really important for me, because I've always used Wikia Headers in my Monaco themes.. but unfortunetely you are changing the awesome monaco theme to this.. would appreciate an answer. thanks! :) (and if you can, make monaco optional. thanks.) --YaMoreMedia 19:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome new layout! i think it'll be a great use for this site! and for the whole community! :D ^__^ --ImNedBigby 20:02, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

It looks cool! --Jackb1014 20:38, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic 'looking' I love it for that, and assuming it can do what it says, then great. But...

"While we know that customization and individuality are at the heart of every great wiki" ... but we are kiciking that to the kerb

"We strongly believe that it’s important for wikis on Wikia to share a common foundation, and that all users -- new or old, reader or editor -- should have a consistent experience"... Each wiki is 'individual' as is a newspaper - it has not been complicated, and the common foundation is already inherent.

I like the wikis the way they are, those that need improvoing (style), grow through stages/learning processes that are important to the users imo.

Besides, I would like to 'know' what which wiki I'm looking at by it's instantly recognised individuality - like a signature.

Consistant Experience - --Piandao 21:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As someone editing wikis since 2002, let me say that this is gorgeous. Anyone with objections is strange. --Zanimum 21:56, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has been editing wikis since 2005, let me say that this doesn't look like a wiki. It looks like a normal website. This will take a lot of getting used to. --The thing 22:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
As someone editing wikis since 2008, let me say that this skin should be called "Notawiki". --Staffan15 22:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii -- 23:22, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well I am very strange. And I agree. So....yeah. --Wolverine99 23:46, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you know, I was wrong. I don't agree. IT FREAKS ME OUT sort of. --Wolverine99 23:48, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Staff members: Could someone delete the anonymous user's spam post?
And yes, I agree, this skin should not be called "Oasis." This skin should be called "Notawiki." --TheSlicer 04:35, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
So people who have been here 8 years don't care if it looks like a social networking site? --Bwog 12:53, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

GET RID OF THESE GOT DANG BLOG LOOKS ALREADY WE ALL HATE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Recgameboy 22:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Stop Saying Stuff Like That --Happy65 12:15, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

This is complete and other BS. We at the Kirby wikia were just testing out this awesome new skin and this! This!?! All of our hard work down the goddamn drain.

I AM AGAINST THIS! --Gamefreak75 23:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

You Are Against thiss , no way becuse im not --Happy65 12:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that is good for you, but I want our wikia to have some individuality and some personality, not some skin that everyone is going to have. --Gamefreak75 01:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

BLAH BLAH BLAH Okay to tell you the truth I didn't read any of these "letters". You see, I'm not really a person who likes to "read". --Wolverine99 23:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As someone who often reads wikis, I am utterly baffled by Wikia's supposed "improvement." The margins seen in the screenshot make the article's text seem horribly squished and difficult to read. Attention is being drawn to other parts of the page when the primary focus should be on the article.

Individuality is extremely important; it makes each and every wiki its own and different from the rest. There's a big link that allows anyone to create a new wiki, but what good is that to people if they know their wiki will look just like the rest?

Encouraging more people to contribute to the wiki? Focusing on the content will advocate people to edit articles more than a social networking site approach, and that's the feeling I get by this toolbar. The effort to allow socialization on wikis is appreciated (the addition of blogs, to name one), but it cannot be forgotten that the purpose of wikis is to be encyclopedias of information that anyone can edit. -- 00:10, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate this 100%. Attention is drawn on other areas of the page and looks just like any other website. 100% OBJECTION --Hibiki Tsurugi 01:20, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I run a Wikia that functions soley by blog comments, and now it won't work out. >=( --Recgameboy 01:50, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I hide comments on my own blog? Are you gonna add that feature? --TheManOfIron 01:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

What bad thing happens if the "new Wikia experience" is made optional rather than mandatory[]

As described within this blog, the comments and the ensuing responses, beta participants are able to view all current wikis using the new look. So the capability clearly exists for either the new-skin or the old-skin to be used to view the existing wikis.

  • What bad thing will happen if the "new Wikia experience" is made an option rather than mandatory?
  • Why is the "new Wikia experience" mandatory?

Is it some new feature set[]

Perhaps there are features planned for the new look that cannot be made compatible with Monaco and Monobook ... in much the same way that there are many features available for the Monaco skin that are not compatible with (or not supported for) the Monobook skin.

  • If such features are superficial then it's no big deal. If those features have to do with generating revenue to pay for the cost of hosting wikia then I can understand why this might be a big deal.

I simply find it hard to believe that the core-function of the underlying MediaWiki engine - serving up pages of user provided text and images for browsing and editing - might be negatively impacted by maintaining the choice of skin.

  • If such new features are so wonderful or so dramatic an improvement over the "current Wikia experience" then surely the user-base will willingly flock to it once they are given a chance to sample it ... don't you think?

Is it something else[]

What exactly is the reason for this new Wikia experience to become mandatory?

  • Is it a shift away from the MediaWiki engine?
    In Sannse's update she writes in response to “Why is the new look mandatory?”: "-- it’s always nice to be able to choose. But the new look is not simply a new skin option, it’s the upgraded version of Wikia. We’ve designed it for a number of reasons, ..."
    sadly, the link provided is just a link to the Why are you changing Wikia? FAQ and that falls short of explaining why the goal of expanding the Wikia audience should require a mandatory change to the experience of Wikia's existing audience.
    • So Sannse - please add the actual question “Why is the new look mandatory?” to the FAQ page and answer that question rather than deflect us to a different question.
  • Is it to lessen the burden placed on support staff?
    An existing FAQ "Why are you allowing us to use Monobook and not Monaco? partially addresses this but sadly, it uses exaggeration to unnecessarily over-inflate the scope of the original question and thereby loses credibility.
  • Is it that the Monaco-come-NewMonaco skin experiment was a mistake?
    Was Monaco proving to be the proverbial "rod for your back" ... a force fit of social networking features via an incarnation of a skin compatible with an underlying MediaWiki engine that was simply causing the page loads to become too slow or the load on the back-end servers and/or support staff to become just too much to sustain?
  • What exactly is it?
    In the absence of a direct answer to this question our collective speculation can only run wild and that cannot be very helpful to your cause. --Najevi 02:38, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
I've added the question, Najevi. You touch on some of the reasons above, and there's now more in the FAQ. --Sannse 23:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I find this a completely unnecessary "improvement." Just because you're capable of making a new skin doesn't mean you should. Wikis are, at their hearts, encyclopedias, and even if it did have "the best possible user experience" (which it doesn't), it would still undermine Wikia's BASIC PURPOSE.

So now that I and a few hundred other people have demonstrated their viewpoints, I think you get the idea that the vast majority of people here hates this. Of course, some of it is probably attributable to "initialreactionitis," judgments we make before it's time to properly do so, but I still stand squarely by my decision. Of course, that's not going to change the fact that a new skin is going to be released on this site this fall (which, whatever we may say about it, I am sure it had a great deal of effort put into it), so the most we can possibly aspire to is to keep it from being the default skin. And if that can't happen, then we should at least be allowed to keep Monaco.

My arguments are presented below.

Firstly, why? Why is it mandatory? As Najevi put it below, the answer "falls short of explaining why the goal of expanding the Wikia audience should require a mandatory change to the experience of Wikia's existing audience." I agree wholeheartedly with this; again, just because you're capable of making a new skin doesn't mean you automatically should. Just because you're capable of murdering someone doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Also, it seems a bit sudden. And forced. Why do we have to change our Wikia lifestyles when you say so? Can't individual wikis be allowed to choose whether they want the new skin or not? You may believe that a "common foundation" is what is best for the viewing experience, and I respect your reasoning on that, but this is, quite simply, wholly unfair to those that don't want the change (i.e., most of us).

Secondly, why does Monaco have to go almost immediately? People have worked very hard on skins for their individual wikis (and if you're reading this, Sannse, don't give me the "don't-worry-because-it-will-be-even-easier-to-create-the-look-you-love-on-your-wiki" answer; I want to know why) and have even been making threats to leave this site.

Again, just because you want all of Wikia to "share a common foundation," that doesn't mean that the "old foundation" is bad. (Well, of course it's bad; all old things are bad, aren't they? And all new things are automatically good.)

Even supposing that all the existing skins will work with the "new look," I still don't believe this is a good idea. What if people would like to keep Monaco? (I'm not even going to explain why people would want to keep the old skin; just look at the last 13,00 comments yourself.) Even if this does have to be mandatory, what exactly is your reasoning for not keeping Monaco as an option? --TheSlicer 04:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

WAZZUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Recgameboy 04:28, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

If there are links to all the other wikis, won't that take away from traffic on mine? --Airhogs777 04:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

It might also drive traffic to yours. If the net effect is that visitors stay longer on Wikia, there is more traffic to go round, so it should be a net win for everyone. --M.mendel 16:33, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
There are already links to other wikis on your wiki. You probably get more traffic than you know from other wikis. --LordTBT 23:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with previous posts in that the major issue I have with this is not the design itself but the idea of having this change forced upon all wikians, especially if it is completely possible for the new and old to coexist. I haven't been active on wikia for some time, but I just had to voice my opinion here as it is the same one I had when an unpleasantly similar situation was happening on Halopedia some time ago. What's more, not only will control over design be lost but also over the user's experience if the toolbar is mandatory as well. I always appreciate efforts to make improvements, but for those who are happy with the way things are, why not give them that option? Also, I use wiki(a)s fairly often on my phone, and if this change is both global and compulsory, I feel it may even make the wikia experience worse for mobile visitors too, as they have smaller screens than it looks like this design is intended for, and may even be unable to load the pages to begin with. --Phil.e. 05:28, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

What was the idea behind the right-hand column? Did no one look around some a lot of the wikis, you know what they use; Infoboxes, and exactly where they align to...the right.

Was there really a lot of community feedback saying 'you know those infoboxes everyone uses, what we really need to do is make them completely unusable'. --Tangerineduel 13:05, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need the photos? No offense, but I can just check it on recent updates, like so and so uploaded this to this page. --Gwen12 14:10, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Where is the shoutbox? There had better be one. --Sheepman 14:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ajraddatz 16:09, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
what is shoutbox --William3553 18:19, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
William3553's question is the key. Although the shoutbox is popular on a couple of wikis, it's hardly used overall - most people don't even know what it is! So it's not something that we are going to keep when we move to the new look. --Sannse 18:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not many people know about it, but apparently there are people who are using it and loving Shout box... please reconsider about removing it... can't you? --SunHwa 14:03, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Then keep it for the people who use it... Why get rid of it cos some people don't use it... Just cos they don't doesn't mean we dont'! Why do you want to destroy our wiki! --Julietfan2626 14:04, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Why? Removing it is the only thing making the thing less social-networking like. --Bwog 19:54, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Listen, Wikia is a good place. It has a wonderful community, and some really good wikis that rival Wikipedia. But, please, PLEASE, make this skin optional! Monaco and this skin. That's all I'm asking. If you want to delete Monobook, that's fine, but KEEP MONACO! Monaco is a great skin, and if you get rid of it, this new, high-end looking skin will lag a lot of computers, especially those with Monaco problems. You aren't improving Wikia and it's community, you are forcing a change that will destroy the community and cause many frozen screens on computers. Add the new skin if you please, but Monaco must stay! --Dk64rules 16:04, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Per. --Gamefreak75 01:09, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Every time I look at this page and the example I just get more annoyed.

What slice of the Wikia community was looked at to formulate this overhaul?

Images, yes, lots of wikis run on images. But they also use text, I'm sure it's written somewhere that we should be using and managing the Wikia resources and not uploading stuff that will be detrimental to the experience.

Many wikis also run on text, in fact that's generally what is the core feature of an encyclopaedia, many of the pages on the wiki I edit have 1 or no images.

People are coming to a lot of Wikis, as they do Wikipedia to READ the articles, not social network it, the images are a good addition but the main focus of a Wiki is edit TEXT, it's a reference encyclopaedia based on WORDS.

With all these extra boxes and floating bar at the bottom it's just detracting from what a wiki is.

If you really want to muck around in the social network / wikisphere why not create a new Wiki-space rather than trying to force this on the existing framework? --Tangerineduel 16:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little confusing. --Henry Medals 21:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

All apologies for posting twice, but it looks similar to the Rich Text editor which, by the way, I had to turn off in order to do anything at all. One question I have is, will this affect existing Wikis? --Henry Medals 21:10, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
This WILL affect all wikis. Unfortunately. --Kyle123197 20:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Shoot. --Henry Medals 00:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

This is not a social site. Sure, we have large communities of users, sysops, and admins, but that is no reason to design Wikia like a social networking site. The bottom bar makes it look like a MySpace-Wikia combination, Google can be used for searching for Wikis, so why put a huge top bar for that, and lastly, WHY THE HELL ARE THE LINKS AND SEARCH BAR ON THE RIGHT?! The right is for Infoboxes and main page polls and news, not links! Do you realize that with the links on the right, you're basically destroying and messing up the order of things on just about every wiki's front page? Do you really want every wiki forced to redesign their front page? Well, do you?! --Dk64rules 21:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia forced every wiki to redesign their mainpage two years ago when they mandated the two-column format. Apparently it didn't go too badly. --M.mendel 00:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, will have to get use to that... --Duncan Crook 22:56, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

For anyone still coming here from the global talk page message - we are still reading here and gathering all your feedback. We are also updating the FAQ with more questions and answers as we have them.

You can also get involved by joining the beta testing - applications are closing tomorrow, so please sign up now!

And finally, Sarah has added a new blog post with a more detailed look at some of the features of the new skin. There will be more of these "sneak peeks" over the next few weeks. --Sannse 00:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes users make really wide tables; and sometimes I &lt;pre> source code that also gets wide (though on community central, the pre tag is set to autoscroll and not overflow).

With monobook and monaco, they overflow off the right side of the screen; there's alot of white space there, I can use my horizontal scrollbar to get there. With Oasis, the sidebar might obscure part of the content; part of the content might obscure the sidebar; or they might obscure each other; or the sidebar might be pushed far far out.

That is why it is a bad idea to have a right sidebar on a wiki that everyone can edit. --M.mendel 01:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Or it's a reason why it's ideal for everyone to see a consistent width of article area... so that everyone can design a site that works for all viewers. --Sannse 17:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone knows how to make screenshots smaller. Not everone knows how to make tables more narrow (it would often require a re-design of the information in the table). Not everyone wants to check 18,000 pages of legacy content for problems like this. Sometimes a wide table that needs the scrollbars is the most effective way (I'm thinking of some of our drop tables), and users do typically not know how to make it scroll by itself; and I can predict that every time your sidebar gets in our way, we will curse under our breath the entity that is encumbering us in this way. --M.mendel 18:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mendel here. This is bad for any gaming wiki as said above about WoW wiki - this is bad for Guild Wars wikis and those that use the pre code , etc. The advertisements are annoying enough anyway. I oppose this for "all wikis" as I think it should be a choice as to each wiki of what to use, etc. have several options of several different versions of wikis, etc. So we can choose what best fits the kind of wiki we'd want to do, etc. --Ariyen 20:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, I myself do not know how to make a table that has to be wide scroll properly. If I put the scroll property on the table, the scrollbar will be at the bottom of the table, and thus probably below the fold for most tables that I'm thinking of; the page scrollbar, on the other hand, is always there.
So the new skin does break our wide content, without a solution in sight, for the promise that we might get a higher percentage of our readers to become editors. Just great. --M.mendel 07:10, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am just a recent user of wiki for about a year or so now; not that I have written any articles, because I haven't (though I have considered it briefly, if nothing more than to correct the grammar and spelling mistakes I sometimes see). I am a World of Warcraft gamer, and I like WoWwiki very much because I enjoy reading an encyclopedic knowledge of the game world and it helps me in my play.

I have been reading extensively this evening the comments from both the wiki mangagment and its users about the new changes being made to this particular wiki universe. And now I feel moved to comment.

To the staff that are making this change, I have this to say: You people are really fucking up big time! The only conclusion I can draw is that the people running this wiki show are not only uncaring and unfeeling to the needs and wishes of the majority of its users, but they are also being very stupid. They are stupid because they know they will lose users and they don't care one wit about that. And not only that, they are behaving like a dictator. Apparently the company despots running this particular wikimedia are going to do what they want and the rest of us, according to the attitude they have exhibited, can go to hell. Their language smells of this attitude, even if it is somewhat veiled.

I don't like despots. I don't like people telling me what to do. Neither do a majority of the users who have objected and already voiced their opinions. There is only one thing you can do with tyrants and totalitarians. You bring them down! And hard!

What am I suggesting? Well leaving this wiki for another and moving the products of your soul and sweat to another site is one thing you can do, as others have stated they will do if wikia goes through with their plans without giving their subjects an opt-out feature. But that is not enough. You must hit them where it really hurts--their pocketbook! Since they made a good profit over the years, according to the link that one poster made, I think they do not deserve to keep those profits if this is how they are going to treat the people who helped them make their succes with such abuse!

How does one affect their wallet? Well, you go after their advertisers! Who is funding this wikia? Pay particular close attention to their ads and see who is sponsoring them. Those users who have noticed the ads at any length know who those advertisers are. And once you find that out, you place an economic embargo on the advertisers. You don't have to buy their products, You can encourage others not to buy their products too, and state why. Users of this medium can organize together and picket Wikia's advertisers. Hell, you can even demostrate against Wikia at their own headquarters. Make the sombitches pay, and pay hard!

Those of you who don't want this change have power. You only thing you need to do is use it. -- 01:15, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum and afterthought, another thing you can do is write letters to Wikia's advertisers and state why you object to their funding them and state that unless they stop funding Wikia that you will organize a boycott of their company. -- 01:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
That does seem to be a bit of language you're using. It's discouraged by the rules to do that.
Another thing, wikis are supposed to be sort of communist. It's just the way they work. And that system seems to fail a lot, but they're trying to make it look better to people on the outside while not really changing the content. They're trying to make it work. People are only angry because, like you, they don't like being told what to do, and most have only seen pictures and can't really form a positive opinion yet. They just don't like a mandatory change, because the scariest thing on earth is the unknown. --Airhogs777 06:33, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty excited about this new talk function that Wikia is using because it will help me with alot of pages that I have been trying to edit for afew months now! This is going to be awesome!^_^ --Code00 02:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

looks cool :) --Tribe Amber 06:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome design. :) --Obi1137 06:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

nice --Streamlord 08:41, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, awsome design --Acer1000 10:04, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous ! --PrinceKentzEvolution 11:11, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's gonna look stupid... --Julietfan2626 14:03, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

oh no --AdeoF 14:19, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

When will this be implemented on all wikis? --TURbo 15:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a final date yet, please watch the FAQ for details as we have them. --Sannse 17:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

There is no space for the logos we are used to? By logos I mean the 216x155 top left one? --ScotlandTheBest 15:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

The "Backyard Jungle" bit on the image above is the equivalent of the individual wiki logo. Currently, on new wikis this space is a Wikia logo until (or unless) it is replaced by a new image. With new design, however, this space will have an automatically generated “wordmark” for that wiki, using the title entered by the admin on the creation form. Admins who want more customization will be able to create custom text or replace it with their choice of image (i.e., logo). --Sannse 17:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So really, this new wikia sucks. --Julietfan2626 18:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So you'd rather have double Wikia branding than to use the space for the Wiki's name, which would give it a head start in creating their own brand? Aha. --M.mendel 18:48, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone liked monobook. There was no reason to change it. But you did. You changed it to monaco. I didn't like it at first but I got used to it because it still looked a bit like monobook. It still had the sidebar and everything. But this... this is just not a wiki... --The thing 16:29, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's like transplanting the brain of a dog into a fly and still calling it a dog. --Airhogs777 06:39, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mrs. Sannse, please don't get rid of the shoutbox because I can assure you that a lot of people will not be happy. --Julietfan2626 18:36, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Try her talk page. --Airhogs777 06:39, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
This page is the right place :)

I'm sorry, it's just not been popular enough for us to keep looking after it. it's used on a couple of wikis, but hardly at all overall. --Sannse 17:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should keep it for the people who use it, duhhhh, the people who don't use it won't care if it's there. --Julietfan2626 09:56, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

And will all the codings and stuff be the same, because on lostpedia, we have alot of info boxes for all the characters etc... they won't be ruined will they? --Julietfan2626 18:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki code and templates should not be affected. --Pcj 21:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
No, but the articles are going to look awful because templates are right-aligned. Imagine a Lostpedia article in the space in the sample image. --LordTBT 02:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
OMG :'( Can't we rebel!!!! WE DON'T WAN'T IT SANSSE! YA HEAR!!! --Julietfan2626 08:10, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I think articles look just fine with the new look. I know it's hard to picture how it's going to look, with just a single picture so far - keep watching as we show you more! --Sannse 17:25, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Will it be possible for individual wikis to choose Monaco instead? I doubt the new skin will get any good reception from the RuneScape Wiki. --Stelercus 20:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, the new skin is mandatory for all wikis currently using Monaco. --Pcj 21:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Agree here. It should be a matter of choice anyway, not forced change for uniformity. :P --Rangedwhip 21:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly thinking about quitting Wikia over this update. --Stelercus 23:22, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
(Replying to the above post)
Me too. I'm prepared to have to create a new Wiki on another site and copy each page's content one by one. --Bwog 01:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
You know you can download a database dump and import it on another host right? --Pcj 01:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
How? --Bwog 13:56, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Using Special:Export and Special:Import. --Dancing Penguin 14:02, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
No, see Help:Database download. --Pcj 14:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikia staff members

Don't fix what isn't broken. Monobook was a good layout but then you changed it to Monaco. Monaco still looked liked Monobook so many users weren't as mad at that change than they are at this one. That is not wikia anymore. You're going to lose a LOT of people over this, I hope you know that.

Don't fix what isn't broken. You Bastards. --Kyle123197 21:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

completely agree --Eduardog3000 19:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're sooo gonna get banned --Julietfan2626 20:51, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
No, not banned... but I will ask that you keep it civil please. --Sannse 17:41, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah, per Kyle --Spark01 21:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

So agree with Kyle, except at this point I think they almost don't care. Look at The bioshock wiki, the skin is an epic view of Rapture, the city at the bottome of the ocean where Bioshock takes place. But now we can't do that? --Bioshock123 00:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Now that image is going to look fantastic as the background on the new look (replacing the blue down the sides) --Sannse 17:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Too be honest, I don't love it. --MAINEiac4434 01:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MAINEiac4434 It's just not right ya no --Essence of Chaos 01:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

it just won't work like the old skins. people like regularity and not change. don't get me wrong but change can be good if people want it and obviously they don't we are all happy with what we have got and we just DO NOT WANT CHANGE

I will return onto this matter :( --Georgiewill 03:33, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

does the ban work on this -- 04:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

no --Georgiewill 04:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

hell yeah i am back baby --Georgiewill 04:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

What about interwiki links? I don't see any place for them on the new skin. --Final Cannon 06:10, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

From the Community Guidelines: Always remember online communities still involve real people

Never forget to have fun!

From About Us - Wikis from Wikia Wikia sites are written by community members

From Terms of Use You agree not to use the Service to:

  • Use the Service in any unlawful manner or in any other manner which could damage, impair, or overburden the site

From The Wiki Story Wikia is equally committed to openness

Wikia is equally committed to openness, inviting anyone to contribute information on topics they they know well. Unlike Wikipedia, however, Wikia invites users to have a point of view, and encourages people who are passionate about specific subjects in categories like Gaming, Entertainment and Lifestyle to create the ultimate resource on those topics.

Yet in this new update; they strongly believe their new update is best (aka we're getting, no discussion).

Despite the fact it may break some elements of current wikis (wouldn't that be "could damage, impair, or overburden the site")?

Wikia is committed to openness, yep about having no choice in this matter.

Always remember, Wikia, online communities still involve real people and that Wikia sites are written by community members.

You're making hard to "Never forget to have fun!" --Tangerineduel 07:56, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, Wikia is being a hipocrit, or going against everything thy are supposed to do. Or both --Bioshock123 13:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

the features sounds cool, and I do liked the graphics. But to be honest, I liked Monaco better --Sanguinoraptor 10:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

It aint gonna look that bad --Green Tornado 12:45, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

As long as we don't have a Venus Fly Trap is fine by me, won't hurt will it? --SpartanOfTheArk 15:13, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is terrible. I designed the flippin' CSS for Pikminfanon, and now, Its down the toilet. --Peanut64 15:33, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's terrible. Sannse, I know you're reading this. Don't be stupid and go along with this! No one likes it!!!! --Julietfan2626 15:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I have a several wikis that I'm the sole editor of, and I have to rewrite my CSS for all (at least five) of them! --Airhogs777 06:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
We are going to make it a lot easier to customize, you won't need to know lots of CSS to get a cool look. More info to come! --Sannse 18:02, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

No. No! NO! --Alquen 16:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I Just started my new wikia but nobody will help me. --PokemasterLink 17:09, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Help:Attracting Contributors should help you with that. --CodExpert 17:38, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


I just wish you'd keep monaco. --Cpl. Dunn 17:37, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

HORRIBLE, KEEP THE OLD LOOK --Eduardog3000 19:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


Just so people who don't go to previous comments see this

This was posted by Kyle123197:

"Dear Wikia staff members Don't fix what isn't broken. Monobook was a good layout but then you changed it to Monaco. Monaco still looked liked Monobook so many users weren't as mad at that change than they are at this one. That is not wikia anymore. You're going to lose a LOT of people over this, I hope you know that. Don't fix what isn't broken. You B*******." --Eduardog3000 19:29, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan --C II R 19:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

If it gets changed Julietfan2626 will get mad. And people on lostpedia know what happens when Julietfan2626 gets mad. --Julietfan2626 19:55, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

It looks bad. I couldn't say it any better... Oh wait, I could! As in terrible, horrible... --DeinonychusDinosaur999 20:05, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

cr*p? --Julietfan2626 20:06, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

John Casey and the rest of Team Bartowski hate this.Do you want a team of superspies to hate you? I thought so... --Caseyfan 20:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

don't ! --Bergsmit 20:47, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I can't stand the way they've changed Google images. Please don't change the nice setup that is already established here. It seems to be working quite nicely for everyone. --ILovePhineasAndFerb 22:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

If its not broke why fix it? --Donna Banning 23:04, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! --Thesaurus Rex 02:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. It's fine now. --JamesF7 12:35, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you make it optional?! It's fine already and removing the shoutbox just because supposedly not a lot of people know it is a bad idea - what about the people who DO use it?

It's terrible that Wikia makes so many decisions without even bothering to consult with the users. Come on. This is why it sucks. Independent wikis ftw! --Seritinajii 23:12, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had privet msg's . --Nan the cowdog 01:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

You do have it; it's called email. --Max21 01:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have several questions: 1. If the majority of users dislike this, why are you shoving it through? 2. If there are no problems with the current skin, why would you think it needs to be changed? 3. If you are trying to attract new users, how would the new interface attract any more than the old one? They wouldn't and shouldn't care. 4. Why would you want to risk wikia's entire base of experienced users that are able to use advanced functions simply to satiate a need to change this (working) system? --SupcomMonroe 01:12, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to answer your questions is to point you towards the FAQ. We are updating this as we get more questions, and more information to give you, so please watch for further details there. --Sannse 18:08, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ does not answer my questions. I posted this because of that fact. --SupcomMonroe 20:50, August 30, 2010 (UTC) no no. That looks awful. It just doesn't have that Wiki style to it. It's like taking a really good movie series and changing the setting and characters, saying 'It's better.' --Thesaurus Rex 02:58, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no no. You're doing it wrong. go back and try again, and smoke less weed this time! --Captain tweed 06:04, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

It looks really good, clean and fresh. I like it :) --TheBook 06:19, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a wiki, but it looks more spread out. --Airhogs777 06:44, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Will there be new skins for the other wiki types, like recipe or Q&A? --Airhogs777 06:45, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

They said it'll be the same for all wikis. In other words, the whole site will be garbage. --Bwog 12:30, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Wait... is this skin the Oasis that ToaFairon talked about here? --Airhogs777 07:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes --Bwog 12:30, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

?? --Оби Ван Кеноби 11:44, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Save the skin! Save the skin! (Vote if you want the new skin or not!) --Webkinz Mania 15:23, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

As an artist myself, I can tell you one thing about the new skin. After looking at it for five seconds, I can say without doubt, that the new wiki look that they're trying to install, sucks. It looks like a load of crap. Wikia, please consult us BEFORE making "important, amazing, completely new and trendy" decisions on us. Some of us like how Wikia is set up already. Why can't you get a clue? --Goldenshane 16:35, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

If they will not listen, punish them. Put your anger to good use people. Organize yourselves and go after their funding. --Ngoldwe 18:47, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
There funding is advertising and donations. If you want to cut their funding (as people have advised before) just write to the advertisers or boycott their products. That includes Google. --Airhogs777 00:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out some things:

  • Toolbar: it looks good. No objection with that. It is a good idea.
  • Sidebar: BIG objection. That's not a sidebar at all. A user (I don't remember who) posted a comment here that said: "There is a reason it is called Sidebar" Does it have to be that big? It leaves only a tiny space for the article and will make many infoboxes to be on the center of the page. Maybe if you just shrink it a little.
  • Logo: That look will make just Homer's eyes visible (an example)
  • Image attribution: Bad idea.

Wikia looks like a common website. --TheHomer 16:45, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I hope they let you change the setting to the Current (Soon to be old) skin..... --RickNovile 17:51, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's called Monaco. They won't let you keep it, but they're letting some wikis use Wikipedia's old skin, Monobook. Unfair, huh? People can only use the "current" skin, Monaco, during the transition to the new skin called Oasis. --Airhogs777 00:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, find out all you can about what makes wikia the company tick and go after their funding. You can learn more about the company here: Pay particularly close attention to the location of company headquarters and who the officers of the company are. Other websites for info about wikia, inc. are:

From : "While Wikia hosts nearly 3 million pages of content with a number of niche community sites, it's the fan pages that drive the majority of advertising and marketing revenue. Wikia's small team of less than 10 sales staff create packages that consist of everything from branded banner ads to embedded shows and contests. In addition to sponsors like World of Warcraft, a number of television studios are also in partnership talks."

Just saying that people can make good use of their anger against Wikia: organize a group, letter-writing campaigns, picketing, media attention, stop their funding. Do something to get the management of Wikia's attention. Get serious about your complaints. Put it into action. --Ngoldwe 18:35, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

An As-50 would get their attention, but would be illegal. Is you know E-mail adresses, we could send messages to the sponsers saying "FYI, wikia is about to loose thousands of members, and nobody will see your ads" That would work --Bioshock123 19:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia's plan is to lose thousands of users, but gain bajillions that don't know what a wiki is and are dumb enough to click on the ads. --Airhogs777 00:17, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


Support here and here! --Spark01 20:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have no complaints --PhoenixPhire333 21:13, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Do you have praise? --Airhogs777 00:19, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

i like the new wiki but it looks confusing --Zachery DeGroat 23:48, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's supposed to be simpler, more spread out. --Airhogs777 00:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikia, which is meant to be an encyclopedia site, NOT A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE. MY WHOLE WIKI IS AGAINST THIS, and if you do this, you will lose many if not MOST of your users. Please, MAKE THIS OPTIONAL. --Jareroden97 00:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

i agree that this is not a social networking site but did you take part in the wiki's poll? the reason we are having this new skin is because most of the people said that a new poll might be better for the site --The gold dj1 11:11, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did take part in the poll. --Jareroden97 15:25, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #8: Why are you allowing us to use Monobook and not Monaco?

"As noted above, we are keeping Monobook for the time being as an admin option for Uncyclopedia and its sister projects. We are also allowing it as a personal user choice, for those that prefer to view Wikia sites in that format. However, we as a company cannot afford to continue to support older versions of our design. If we allowed all outdated skins, there would be at least 5 very different looks in which our technical and community teams would have to invest time and energy. Monaco is also by nature a complex, sophisticated skin that requires more resources to run correctly."

The users should understand this:

Wikia don't cares if you like the new skin or not. Monaco will die, the decision it's inminent.

No matter if you have a petition with 3 billion signatures, because this is going to happen.

All we can do now is ask for changes in the new skin. Design changes, add some option, not remove the shoubox (Please add it at least on the floating bar), etc.

Oasis it's the future (and inminent) current skin. --GTAAAF 01:25, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I still hate it --Bioshock123 02:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Hating it in your soul will only make it harder to transition...
...and easier to quit --Airhogs777 04:50, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
I bet that less users will edit when the change is made and more users who just come and don't edit for months for their first edit will join, but if we all say we'll quit, they might not care. :/
What a shame. --Webkinz Mania 12:17, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a wiki. It looks like any other site, which is not wikia should be deemed as. You can add all of the features without changing the appearance as much, such as putting them in widgets. --Kgman04 02:31, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

You could say wikis are still developing. Several years ago, Wikipedia didn't look like what you or I call a wiki, either. Give Wikia time to set a standard, even the terrible one it is. If the features and look succeed, they set the Oasis Standard, if not, Wikia loses a big chunk of its cult following and goes out of business. --Airhogs777 04:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

What? That's just looks weird, like any other site. I'm against this --Dhuzy 02:39, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this to be social Networking. I want this to be an Encyclopedia. Content over Users should be priority. You have the people who added the page at the bottom of the pic. That might see some edits, but it will probably see a surge in spamming.............

Oh who gives a shit. I actually like it. --Coronaholic 02:43, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral opinions are valid too. It's been really useful to see the negative, positive, /and/ neutral comments here. And we are seeing a lot more helpful feedback in the beta program. --Sannse 18:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

So how much of this can we disable?

How much can we remove to give us a similar experience to what we've got, while allowing Wikia to muck around behind the scenes? --Tangerineduel 02:51, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Skins are hard to customize like that, and Oasis is way different from Monaco. You would really have to know the CSS, JavaScript, and a whole bunch of other junk before you could reverse-engineer it.
Wikipedia only allows you like six. You can't really change the skin (without permission or power) of a wiki unless you actually run it. That doesn't mean admin, it means staff. --Airhogs777 04:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on this blog.

My sincerest thanks for showing us this blog and trying, but you seem to be focusing on the skin, when in reality the skin doesn't mean much. As an encyclopedia, a wiki is made to inform a reader of it's main subject. Contents are really the most important thing on a wiki. And as this skin may look "cool", we are not here to look cool, we are here to inform. --CodExpert 02:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that content is the most important thing. But that isn't the part we at Wikia can help most with. What we can do is make it easy and fun for users to add that content. That means making the interface as good as it can be, and that's what this new look is all about. --Sannse 18:19, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it. > <" --DegrassiCookies 04:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I feel it's disrespectful of the enormous amount of time and effort people have put into existing wikis. This is just a recipe for broken and abandoned wikis, I've seen it happen at other big sites, it would be a shame to see it happen here too, where site design leaves content in the dust and people come for content, not design.

Providing people options and tools is great and very appreciated. Forced marches to places people don't want to go, not so much.

Why make it mandatory? Because if we actually got to choose whether or not to use it, hardly anyone would. Let's be frank. If you don't have the resources to support existing skins plus the new skin, then you don't have the resources to add a new skin. If it means hiring a new person so you can split up the support by skin, and you can't afford that, then you shouldn't do this. But now you have the sunk cost effect, where you've put lots of effort into the new skin, and even if it means hurting yourself (and us) far more in the long run, you won't be able to walk away from it. Human psychology sucks. --Kollio 09:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

We know that a lot of people are resistant to the idea of change. But we are confident that the new look is going to be a real improvement over the past skins. Content is core, and hopefully our changes will enhance the content and make it easier to build more of it.

We had to make a practical decision on what we can and should support, even though we knew this might disappoint some users. I very much hope that everyone will give the new look a real try, and the best place to start is by joining the current beta testing program. --Sannse 18:30, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

"But we are confident.." Who is /we/? Wikia staff? The opinion of the community doesn't seem to matter anymore; hell, has it ever mattered? Only because you have the power to change the interface of all users, that doesn't mean you should do it, only because you feel like having a Facebookish skin. You could avoid /all this/ by simply making the skin optional. But no. That is not possible. Whatever. --Xd1358 18:45, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse, your reply for me means that you are just ignoring our feedback and all the flaws we're writing here in long and detailed responses about those new features, just because you are confident that the new look is going to be a real improvement over the past skins.
We're not seeing any response to those comments, only responses to some random and irrelevant comments or just offers to join the betas. That's just frustrating --Ciencia Al Poder 18:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
We know that a lot of people are resistant to the idea of change.
Nearly everyone who commented in this blog is against it! I agree with the above!!!!!!! --Webkinz Mania 21:32, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
<edited: sorry, I was logged out, I'll repost!> -- 00:56, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Ciencia, we are hearing all comments, and discussing them intensely here in the office. We are replying where we can... if we have definite information and if we are reasonably sure that things won’t change going forward. With the beta testing in its first stages, there’s a lot that simply isn’t in that category. --Sannse 04:01, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you have spent time and effort in making this new skin, but it doesn't "suit" this site. This site is here to inform. I am against this change, if it is not possible to turn it off. --J0hnnyh4ck3r 10:31, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sell it to some other wiki. --Airhogs777 13:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, i appreciate your effort on making this new skin. But I prefer the old one --W1l50n1404 10:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Looks futuristic. But i prefer the old lay out that we have now. It's way easier to use. Adapting to the new style will take some time and it probably won't be easy. Develop a way for users to keep the old skin. --Mr Zaros357 11:05, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

How would you know what the future looks like? --Airhogs777 13:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

i appreciate a new skin but nothing too flashy a skin where it shows equality among everyone and it may be a good idea to possibly make it that you can have an edit pending before ading it for other players as some people may type thighs that are not realted to the topic and throw off the whole page. =) --The gold dj1 11:08, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

There's some good things and bad things for this. first the good: 1) New module development. It needs this badly. As someone who tried to use the "page in widget" feature and failing, it can be frustrating to try and code something as simple as a Google calendar or a twitter feed into a widget. It's even more frustrating when you ask for help and it amounts to "idonno how it works, we've only had people ask about twice". So the possibility of someone doing that headache for me? Wonderful.

2) A cleaner feeling and a snazzy topbar. the home bar for logged-in users does seem a bit dated, and I like the new look.

3) Right column. Okay I'm actually neutral on this. A column is a column and as long as it's not a annoying horizontal menu then I'm fine with it.

4) Fixed width. I'm also neutral on this. Flexibility is the golden word when you're designing a website, but I'm honestly tired of messing with the code on my wiki to make my background images look semi-decent.

now the bad:

1) the social features. I don't want to know if timmy the thunderbrat uploaded a photo recently, I don't care that little suzie, bobby, frankie, suzufan1702, sasunaru4evr, lord dethman or l33ts7arz changed the article recently. I really don't. If I wanted that I would go to the history tab, wouldn't I? It creates unnecessary clutter that can be replaced by whatever widgets you want there instead. If a site owner really wants those features? make them widgets and let them make the choice.

2) Horizontal bars. If you have one horizontal bar it's fine, useful even. If you have a header and a footer it's ideal. If you have two horizontal bars at the top and a floating footer then that's bad web design 101. Nobody freaking likes floating footers. They get in the way, they obscure the info you want to know near the bottom of the page, and lastly, they ping that little nerve that everyone who grew up on computers has about popups.

2b) Having the navigation at the top CAN be useful... if it's about 6 items or less. considering that my navigation has eight items or more that means that they'll either get compressed and thus too small to read, or there'll be a scrollbar. And the one thing people hate more then extraneous horizontal bars is extraneous horizontal scrollbars.

There's a lot of good things here, and a lot of room for improvement here. I think as long as you make most (if not all) if the features opt-out, it will be good change.

But if I have to live with that godforsaken hover bar and the photo/community crap, I'll be pissed. --Basilmemories 11:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback - have you considered joining the beta testing program? It would be good to see your opinions of the real thing. --Sannse 18:39, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I sent in my request about... a few days ago? --Basilmemories 00:50, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

Praise the cover, but when will it come? --Edfan12 12:15, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

It kind of looks like Armorgames page but nice though. --George762 12:15, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Praise the cover, but when will it come out? --Edfan12 12:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

WIth the trend to higher resolution and wider screens it always baffles me when sites switch to bigger bolder logos and buttons, and restrict screen width. This would have looked great on old 15" CRTs but will end up with dead space at the sides of screens most people are getting these days. Adaptable width is surely the way to go - quite a lot of wiki content is in the form of wide tables. --Weatherman22 12:33, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

It probably has a set width for the content area, so the screen can get smaller and all that shrinks is the empty space.
By the way, that "empty space" could probably be put to use by adding a non-repeating BG image with information (like a sticky-note type thing.) --Airhogs777 13:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the content area is fixed width. So the side areas will be larger on larger screens. Fixed width vs. flexible width is a complicated question, with lots of arguments on both sides. Mostly, the question is between “this will look good on all screen resolutions because the content won’t break as the screen size changes” and “this will look good on all screen resolutions because the content will move to fit the screen”. For user generated content, there are strong advantages to knowing that whatever the editor’s screen size, they will produce articles that will work on everyone elses screen size. You will be able to add images to the side areas though, which looks really cool on the mock-ups I’ve seen (watch the blog for more on this later!) --Sannse 18:48, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

I DO NOT appreciate being block, there's a thing called freedom of speech. --Recgameboy 13:06, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you have been blocked on a wiki, then the first person to talk to is the admins there. Staff can look at the issue if you contact us via Special:Contact, but usually we leave that to the admins to decide. --Sannse 18:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I like the new look but as an admin I would like the option to revert back to the old style --Owen1983 13:06, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I like the old Skin... --TheXIIILightning 13:13, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I just hope that stupid stuff like quiz games, picture games, or user poking (a la Facebook) are not implemented. --Pcj 13:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Doing that would be completely idiotic. ---Blackout- 17:47, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
None of those are currently planned. These changes are much more about arranging current functionality and less about introducing new --Sannse 18:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I will good if can change wikia to Monobook! --Jo Shigeru 14:06, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

sounds great . you certainly have my approval . i love it --Agathahetrodyne 14:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice! --Tough Todd 14:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Shiny! :D But I personal prefer a more simple look D: --Shadowfang3000 14:38, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need to replace the old look. --GTAheppu 14:40, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Neither do 157,483,926Gogol other commentators. --Airhogs777 22:50, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I dunnot like it --Knightrez 14:41, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I like the old look. Like badges, wikias need to vote for their wiki. That's how it should work. --DarkusAlpha 14:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I hate changes! --M6669 15:02, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, things should always be the same! It should always be Tuesday! --Airhogs777 22:51, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Nooooo... not Tuesdays! --Sannse 18:56, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

where are the badges --WildWarren 15:23, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Badges are only obtainable by request or making a new wiki. --Iamred1 15:27, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
They're probably in the same place--on user pages. --Airhogs777 22:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yep that's right. Badges will appear on your user page as they do now. --Sarah Manley 18:45, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

So when is the new look going to be launched? --Random Kid 18:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

About a month before it's done. --Pcj 18:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
About two years before it's been thought out. --Airhogs777 22:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Uh... well, I know that this is irrelevant to the subject of this blog but this is the closest one I could find.

How do you change your avatar? --Random Kid 19:43, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

On your user page, roll over your avatar in the user masthead (the big blue thing with the tabs.) --Airhogs777 22:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice! --Photocopy 19:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's good to be optimistic! --Airhogs777 23:02, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

If the users dislike this and it is a solid fact that you will lose many if not most of said users, why would you even consider ramming this through? Do the users' opinions not matter? What is the base reasoning behind this? --SupcomMonroe 20:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

They survived the revisions to Monaco and they already paid to get Oasis written. --Airhogs777 22:56, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's (sheds tear)... so beautiful. --J. Ralliford 00:44, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I bet Wikia hired you to say that. -- 13:36, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, you're a sockpuppet. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:40, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Thats a little harsh, TS. Some people actually like it --Ben 100022 01:10, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

These blog comments should at least be optional, I run a Wiki that runs on blog comments as stories. >=( --Recgameboy 13:19, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

How about this, Wikia makes an official poll for if you want it or not, and a few days later, the poll will end and it will be fair because then we know that more people want/don't want it and the majority wins. --Bwog 13:44, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that really fast so it might not make complete sense. --Bwog 13:45, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia will not do that though. They are going to go ahead with it regardless of what the users want. --Solar Dragon 13:51, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that so far there have only been two screenshots posted on the blog - it's hard to form a comprehensive opinion based on such a small slice of information.  Thats why we're running an extensive beta program in order to hear everyone's feedback once they've had a chance to fully interact with the new design.  We've extended the beta application deadline out until the end of this week to give people more time to do just that. The other peice of the beta is that it allows us to get feedback from the full spectrum of Wikians who may not be fully represented here on the blog. It doesn't look like you've signed up for the beta yet, you can apply here: if you want to check it out too! --Susan Taylor 18:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone's feedback? The beta testers represent everyone's opinion. Come on. Listen to what we are saying. --Xd1358 18:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Xd1358, the beta testers are one group (and an important one), and so are the people on this blog.... we are listening to both. But there are also people who didn't visit this blog post, and people who haven't yet joined Wikia... we want to get things right for them too. --Sannse 19:07, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that a small group will decide the fate of millions of users. I don't mind if you create this new skin --- I don't oppose it at all. Hell, make it the default skin of new users --- I'm just worried about the wikis that have customized Monaco, which they think are a good skin. I won't be affected by this change; I'm using Monobook (hopefully it will continue to exist, no?). And then these new features. The sidebar. The hovering toolbar. THE ENTIRE INTERFACE. No. No. No thanks. Make it optional. --Xd1358 19:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Most of us just don't want monaco to go. --Cpl. Dunn 19:41, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are several petitions! And people against this. Over hundreds! I agree with Xd1358! --Webkinz Mania 21:30, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia, or at least Wikipedia isn't a democracy, they generally don't like polls. They prefer conversation, but it seems in this case the conversation has been with people who don't actively use the Wikia instead going to people who don't.
Which also doesn't work. --Tangerineduel 12:33, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
@Sannse: If you want to get things right for the people who don't see this blog and aren't beta testers, you should listen to the people you do have input from. You're not going to be able to test everyone who might at some point use wikia, so you're going to have to either A) have some people that don't use wikia give their opinions so that you can see what the general opinion is among members of that group or B) accept the people on this blog and the beta testers as representative of the general public and accept our opinions. You should not just go ahead with this to get things right for the people whose opinion you don't have, because you don't know what they want. I don't know if that's what you were planning to do, and I mean no offense in pointing this out, but I just thought I would say this on the slight chance that you haven't thought of this yet. --Isdrakthül 14:13, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Isdrakthul: We are collecting feedback from many sources: individuals who have never used Wikia before (who have been participating in focus groups & beta), beta testers, and comments here. We are also looking at technical information like click tracking and site speed. We want to be sure we are getting all the feedback... we don’t want to be limited to just people who talk on blogs either! --Sannse 18:28, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, That might make things better. --Bara Magna 17:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I like encyclopedias, not blogs, therefore I hate this look. It's, to be simple, awful and horrible. We Is Teh Bloggers. --Xd1358 17:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

as much as i hat to say this it look like it's gong to be a done deal no matter if we like it or not! [ i do not! ] the best thing we can do is adapt or leave wiki altogether. i have not made up my mind yet what i am going to do. --Wingman1 19:11, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you shrink the sidebar a little. It takes too much space for the article. --TheHomer 21:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sidebar is way too big. --Cpl. Dunn 00:52, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that's a big reason why I do not like this new design at all. --Webkinz Mania 13:59, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
True, the damn sidebar should be little, or atleast shrinkable... oh god, this is going to ruin Wikia! -- 15:10, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Almost 1,600 negative comments on this page alone, yet not a peep of pessimism. --Airhogs777 00:44, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

There have been a lot of negative comments, that’s for sure. But there have also been some positive responses, and a lot of people who have just viewed the blogs without commenting either way so far. I think many users are waiting to test out the new skin before they post here. I think that will be an important step. --Sannse 18:29, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis on 'some'... --Isdrakthül 18:30, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
The opinion of "some people" seems to be the opinion that matters. Perhaps 100 out of 1600 like the new skin. What to do? Continue the implementation of the skin! --Xd1358 19:04, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
No more than 500 of these comments are positive. --Dancing Penguin 19:10, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia Staff, you hypocrites, listen to the majority. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:39, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:39, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
you can tell they are only counting the "positive" comments. just look at what the admins are saying here. --Wingman1 20:03, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
So the majority reaction means nothing now? What if the majority reaction to the new skin is also rejection? --LordTBT 02:53, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
LordTBT: The majority haven’t responded at all - active users or visitors to Wikia. That’s why we are also interested in direct user testing, focus groups, and indirect testing via click tracking and so on. That’s not to say we aren’t interested in what is said here of course, but there are a range of ways we are assessing the planned changes. --Sannse 18:31, September 07, 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the size of the logo so far? It looks extremely wide but very short... Pretty much every wiki would have to completely redo the logo, unless the logo in that example is simply very short (and thus scaling the page's height down).

Just to be sure, is the height at LEAST 155px? (The old height limit). It would be very beneficial for wikis if the minimum size is at least the same as Monaco, or even larger (as I can see, it's at least wider).

Anyway, while it would take some getting used to, I do think that it could be a very good layout. After all, it took some getting used to from the Monobook -> Monaco jump, yet it turned out good... --Hofmic 01:34, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Their thinking behind this is probably that forcing us admin to use wordmarks instead of strange logos will make it clearer to newbies what's going on. --Airhogs777 01:46, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
The current version is shorter than 155px, but I don't want to give any specific values just yet because it's possible it will change over the next few weeks --Sarah Manley 19:02, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, one wiki that I admin, I recently fixed the logo on, and its actually taller than it is short, so..... Another that I frequent, the RS wiki, is actually having a contest about making a new logo, and not a single submission, not at the least, the best of them, would really fit a short size... I do hope that you will have larger sizes available, since that benefits everyone. (In all honesty, we'd probably just hack the CSS to allow a larger logo if it didn't support the current minimums). --Hofmic 00:53, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Listening? No. You're not. Mostly everyone thinks this is a bad idea. Hey, keep up the bad work though. --TDADJ 04:16, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

They're listening and responding. Don't try to hurt your feelings just because they're consciously ignoring your input. --Airhogs777 05:44, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Lol. --ToShootToKill 18:36, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not hurt. It's the internet. I'm trying to say that they should just drop having a new wiki. --TDADJ 13:23, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

If wikia does this i'm not getting on wikia anymore --Monster2821 11:54, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Me too.. :( -- 13:15, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
I probably won't either and I am an admin in several wikis and webmaster in another.
So, adoptions like Kyle said and I said also, will go way up due to everyone leaving. --Webkinz Mania 13:58, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's the only way to prove them how wrong and dissapointing this look is, and maybe from then it will get better.. :'( -- 15:08, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my math: 66% (2/3) of users will leave when this is launched. They'll tell their friends not to go on so brings it up to 75% (3/4). And then the people who like this will then realize that the new skin is horrible so then another 5% of users will leave. Which brings the total number of people who'll leave up to 80% (4/5). These numbers are probably exaggerations but you get the point. Now do you honestly think that you'll get that many new people from this. I think not. --Kyle123197 13:21, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

But they still will do this. (sigh) --Webkinz Mania 13:58, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
You're more right than you know. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 21:32, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 21:32, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Ya but ul get nue usrse that spele lice this --Airhogs777 05:16, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who didn't understand what Airhogs777 just said? --Kyle123197 05:40, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
I said "yeah, but you'll get new users that spell like this." Sorry if it was illegible, I was trying to make a point. --Airhogs777 05:45, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. --Kyle123197 05:55, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
@Webkinz Mania - They will do this because they are obnoxious jerks who ignore our opinions, they only change it because of one thing. Money. I dunno how they get money, but they will ~.~ --Julietfan2626 13:05, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
True. They do ignore us. But we must persist. --Sheepman 15:35, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Why do Wikia hate us? :( -- 13:34, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that, since most of Wikia is supposedly about content, and the designers of this skin can't aid us in improving our content, they have to do something of course otherwise they wouldn't get paid, so they decided to make a new skin in order to show that they were doing something, and have inadvertently portreyed to everyone that this new skin is not beneficial to the original point of content that Wikia is about, and instead have just annoyed most of the Monaco users. Improving Monaco would, in my opinion, have been a better use of their time than making a new skin that distracts from the content. -- 14:14, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Really nice reply..! but still I find it disrespectful that Wikia won't let us choose monaco as a option, and yes, an improvment to monaco would be awesome! - or atleast a skin which reminds of monaco lol! (which they would probably ruin too..) aah Wikia ..plz don't do this to us. -- 15:07, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Money. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 21:32, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 21:32, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got the beta? --ToShootToKill 18:43, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

They extended the deadline for applications, so they might not have started accepting yet.
Also, they will probably avoid accepting the harsher commentators (me) on these posts as punishments for our opinions and beliefs, all 1,655 of them. --Airhogs777 05:19, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
We've accepted more than 130 people on the the beta so far, with more coming soon. And we want critical people on the beta, we need to hear their views when they see the actual thing! --Sannse 18:57, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

SIGN THE PETITION, STOP THE FORCE! -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:39, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:39, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Save the shoutbox!!!!!! --GTAAAF 02:25, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

HEAR OUR VOICE! WE WANT CHOICE!! -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 19:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 19:45, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's hear, and you shouldn't make two comments in a row. Though I hate the skin, you probably shouldn't yell CAPS at Wikia Staff. --Austin8310 19:46, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Amazing new look? That's laughable.


No, seriously. How come they won't respond to negative comments? And the Shout Box is awesome. Why the heck would anyone want to remove it? And Oasis sucks. Monaco is much better. And Monobook. --Austin8310 20:15, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

they respond all right, just in connection with a go or no-go on this new skin, it's positive or else. they WANT the new skin and THEY will get it, and the rest of us can get with the program or get out. --Wingman1 20:21, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Well...that sucks. --Austin8310 20:24, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
They respond to the negative comments, they just only care about the positive parts. For example:
USER: The new skin looks nice, but I will hate you all until the end of eternity!!!
WIKIA: Of course the new skin looks nice, we spent a lot of money on it! :) --Airhogs777 05:22, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly as I said in my above comment. They avoid answering anything that might inconvinience them. --Sheepman 15:07, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
I’d ask you all to go back and look at our replies (now highlighted in blue). We are most certainly not just replying to positive comments.

We don't always have answers to questions asked (yet) and I know that you may not like the answers we have given, but we are responding. --Sannse 19:04, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

So you realize the majority of Wikia thinks the new look sucks? Why are you still planning on changing it? --Thesaurus Rex 22:43, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

OK Wikia. You should just hurry up and give all those who were accepted for beta access the access! I still haven;t been given my access then. Then, if the majority of these hate it, scrap the new skin! --Solar Dragon 20:18, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

they are only looking for positive comments. --Wingman1 20:22, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
So SD, did you sign up for the beta too? Funny how these things happen isn't it. lol.
It will be nice to see, once we do get our beta access, whether all these comments are justified. And also whether they will "adapt" their design if the beta testers suggest "improvements". --Enodoc 22:39, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
Enodoc - Today we released a new version of the beta code that contains over 200 fixes, changes, and tweaks based on beta user feedback. Not every piece of feedback leads to a change but some definitely do. :) --Susan Taylor 23:34, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a feces about positive comments!! If they can't handle criticisim then they are a bunch of babies!!! You can't live life and not accept criticism, and feedback makes wikia a better place. And then they can improve it to make it more enjoyable for everyone or have they all decided to slack off and run it down into the ground!!!!!! --Drago99 01:41, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
They understand that if they try to go through with all of the advice from every comment, they'd be shut down by now. --Airhogs777 05:39, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is frustrating not knowing if you have an email coming or not but as far as eagerness to engage in beta testing is concerned I suspect that there are at least two schools of thought.
Mendel offered good insight into the virtues of gradually engaging users into private beta test environment and I think it might have been Sannse who confirmed some of that rationale. (Don't ask me for a link - it's too darn hard to locate anything useful in such a long list of threaded comments.)
I think I'd be tearing my hair out if I was involved in the beta right now.
I'd much rather spend time on something that is "close to the end product" than on bug-ridden earlier versions.
What I would have enjoyed being a part of was review of the target specification for the new skin. That is where real influence might have been possible. As it is today this all seems very much fait accompli. --Najevi 01:20, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

I notice how you have avoided answering any of our Shoutbox-related questions. That may not be a good idea. Look at the petition we made, and you will see that many people will most likely quit if this goes ahead. I may join them. --Sheepman 20:24, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

For questions that come up several times we are trying to answer once, and then to add them to the FAQ... rather than replying with the same thing to many comments.

I know that some people love the shoutbox, but over the whole of Wikia it's not used enough to justify keeping it. --Sannse 18:18, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

You can't harvest what you don't sow[]

Sannse, wiki admins were never given the capability to specify a widget (such as the shoutbox) as a default sidebar element.
* If the engineering support had been there to enable any of the standard and/or custom widgets to be specified as wiki site defaults then the wiki admins could have promoted these tools much better than Wikia staff ever did.
**Can you point to a Wikia staff blog that promoted Widgets?
**Can you point to a Wikia staff blog that promoted Gadgets?
**Can you point to a Wikia staff blog that promoted Semantic MediaWiki extension?
Therefore, when I read remarks from you (as well as other staff members) about the relatively low usage of widgets I can't help but find that extremely frustrating.
Either you are aware of the relationship between lackluster promotion and low usage and choose to ignore it or you are not aware of that relationship.
*Neither scenario is a very flattering sign of Wikia staff being in tune with or responsive to requests from the user base.

A fork in the road for Wikia culture[]

It's hard for me to express diplomatically so please forgive me if I offend when I write that:
:it seems as though Wikia staff have acquired a "culture" to actively impose great applications of the various tools available here rather than passively allowing the community of users to voluntarily adopt those same great applications ... and possibly even develop some better applications using these various tools.
The former tends to happen quicker than the latter and I can appreciate why this might be favored in a corporate environment where such periodic evidence of cause and effect is expected to help fuel (i) annual performance reviews, (ii) quarterly goals/objectives and (iii) weekly status reports.
For what it's worth I reckon there is merit in allowing more of these applications to evolve "organically" rather than being released prescriptively. Your Monaco skin and especially the Widgets were an extremely promising sign of this but now that good work is being discontinued. It is regrettable.

Users helping users ... Wikia staff are users too[]

One of the most satisfying experiences during my relatively short time here at Wikia has been the process of "proudly plagiarizing" another user's solution to some problem, need or desire.
Some of those solutions were easy to stumble upon while others were much harder to discover and/or copy.
Further evidence of the apparent "culture" mentioned earlier is the very low participation from Wikia staff in the central forum where "users help users". Wikia staff may be staff but just as you have described in your blog, most staff were wiki users before becoming staff and it seems like such a shame that your expertise is being spoon fed in a 1-on-1 style of communication via Special:Contact emails and talk page dialogs rather than a 1-to-many style communication at the central forum.
Granted, Wikia staff blogs are a 1-to-many style of communication but just as you are seeing from the considerable feedback, these staff blogs smack of PR "spin doctoring" and IMHO these staff blogs come across as arrogant and dismissive rather than helpful and collaborative.
If Wikia staff were to invest time at the central forum to highlight/promote those forum threads that have solved problems and even use some of that material to improve help pages or perhaps even create new articles in the main namespace of that "central" then that would be a truly productive use of staff resources.
*It beggars belief that approximately two years of central forum help revolving around the Monaco skin is about to be made redundant.
That is an unforgivable waste of Wikia's effort and the community's effort. It gives me cause to have serious misgivings about contributing over the next two years for fear that content pertaining to the Oasis skin will be discarded in a similar fashion.

Blogs need to be closed before they grow this big[]

It's proving to be a real pain in the you know where to find information in these blog comments and yet Wikia staff have made it abundantly clear that these blogs are where you want feedback to appear.
* The trouble with blogs is that several days can pass before one is even aware that a response from staff has been posted to some comment left on earlier pages of comments.
Those page numbers are in ascending order rather than descending order. When combined with your prescribed default "most-recent-at-top" sort order this creates the conundrum whereby the page number for any given comment is constantly changing as the number of comment threads grow and as the number of responses within each thread increases. That was not an issue while the "Show all comments" link existed but once that is removed this problem is only exacerbated.
Might I suggest that:
:once the criteria for removing the "Show all comments" link has been satisfied, then the blog ought to be closed to further comment and that further comment and discussion be directed to a specific forum post instead.
Forums lend themselves to better organization of a discussion - via headings and sub headings. It is also much easier to identify new material added to a forum discussion than it is for the various discussions taking place in these threaded blog comments. --Najevi 01:04, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the widgets could have been promoted better. Promoting new features is something we’ve improved on over the years - that’s part of what this blog is all about. But even without that, it’s clear to us that this isn’t a feature that’s worth us putting resources in to right now. I would love to replace the shoutbox with something better one day, perhaps that will happen.
On using the forums: The community support team is small, so we have tried to focus our efforts on problems that only staff can work on. And the best way to do that has been to encourage the use of Special:Contact where (among other benefits) we can get direct technical info to help us bug-fix. We also believe that, for many questions, other users are the right people to get answers from. You don’t always need staff to give you advice on how to run a wiki -- the Wikia community has many wiki experts to help. That said, I agree that the ideal would be more staff/helper participation in the forums.

Massive blogs: yes, they get difficult to read. Thankfully this level of commenting is rare. But it’s something we will look at if it continues to be a problem.

--Sannse 19:00, September 07, 2010 (UTC)

I checked and this is the number of users who were given beta access on:

  • August 27: More than 30.
  • August 28: 2.
  • August 29: 0.
  • August 30: 11.
  • August 31: 10.
  • September 1: 0.

You say: "you will receive your access in the next few weeks". OK, we can wait, but you should give the access to users everyday. --TheHomer 22:59, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the results from the permission logs are not showing correctly - our bulk permissions tool has a bug in which it is not adding the rights given by that tool to the logs. Previously I was adding permissions one by one which is why you see those few showing. There are currently over 130 people in the beta.

There are many reasons we're not adding people everyday which have to do with the logistics of running a comprehensive beta test. I do want to reassure you though that everyone who has received a beta agreement and signed it WILL receive a beta invite over the next few weeks. The private beta phase is currently scheduled to run until the end of September so everyone will get access before then. --Susan Taylor 23:16, September 01, 2010 (UTC)

Susan, is there supposed to be some confirmation email sent out after submitting the form agreeing to your NDA terms?
* If that form submission went to the proverbial bit-bucket then what feedback would a user see? --Najevi 23:47, September 01, 2010 (UTC)
That hardly seems like enough time to actually test anything if you're invited in right before the beta ends. This sounds like you're running a perfect world test instead of a real world test. --Archduk3 16:36, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Najevi - The form doesn't give an automatic notification once it's been submitted (maybe next time!) After you agree we'll send you a beta invite which may come anywhere from 1 day after submission to a few weeks. --Susan Taylor 18:38, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

This new skin sucks. --Drago99 01:39, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

And a spammer enters the scene. Nothing's done.

PERFECT. --Herald of meridian 02:08, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

One of the VSTF has cleaned it all up (thanks Charitwo) --Sannse 19:22, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia Staff, please accept that the new skins suck, and that everyone will leave Wikia if this 'idea' ever sees the light of day. --ToShootToKill 20:14, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Ditto --Sheepman 11:21, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

Save the Shoutbox.

Seriously, Wikia staff dodge the negative comments and don't care about what more than half of us want and possibly need. This will provoke some sort of a walkout. I'm sure, Wikia.


kthxbai. --Iamred1 06:53, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

From what you're saying to people Sannse in these comments, it seems like you are completely ignoring the fact that EVERYONE hates this new layout. So why won't you listen to the facts and realise that like 99% of people hate this layout!!!! --Julietfan2626 13:02, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

You can't ignore us forever. We'll keep on posting until you reply. It's not like I have anything else to do. --Sheepman 15:06, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I have other things to do, I just use Wikia as an excuse to avoid doing them. --Airhogs777 21:54, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I can keep posting all day. Failure of wikia to respond, will result in me e-mailing. --Sheepman 15:32, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

We will stage a walkout. --Sheepman 15:34, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why not make this new skin a separate one? --Starman125 17:01, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! --Thesaurus Rex 22:38, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Attention all: --HavocReaper48 17:44, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

This looks really weird. And not good weird.And especially bad because of the removal of the shoutboxes. Its just horrible. --Mackmoron11 19:44, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

While I like the current theme more then the new wikia look, I rather dislike this idea of the new skin being compulsory. --SPARTAN-118 21:54, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, can some wikia super duper admin click a rollback button and make stuff look like it did.... oh... i dunno... two years ago? Seriously, i always see you guys all excited announcing this "new skin" and what's the user response? Oh, its negative? You know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results. It really looks quite awful, unprofessional, it just makes me angry.

And like someone else said, it looks like some random know-who's idiotic blog post rather than a professional encyclopedic article.

I think I speak for all of us when I say that we Wikians would really like it if you guys maybe listened to us so you could produce something that doesn't suck. --Ghost sangheili 21:56, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

Amen. --SPARTAN-118 22:11, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
Bravo, Ghost sangheili, most of us agree. --Pikapi 02:16, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, wikia should look at the outcome of this new skin as it may look awful when it is used. --Cally99117 18:30, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --Henry Medals 01:53, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
so agree! and they shouldn't pay for the new design before people even saw it! Really sucky of Wikia! -- 17:38, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed --SupcomMonroe 23:52, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

There's only one thing that doesn't make it as much of a social networking site that you've done Wikia - Taking out the shoutbox. Wikis are for articles, not chatting. Now, just get rid of the floating toolbar, who uploaded the image, a couple other things, and it's not social networking-ish anymore!

Oh, and sign the petition against the new skin! --Bwog 22:13, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I did. --Thesaurus Rex 22:38, September 02, 2010 (UTC)
I did. -TS --TurtleShroom 13:36, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

The shout box and widgets in all were never useful. I am actually glad that the shout box is being removed, it was horrible. --Seahorseruler 22:35, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a beta and I love the shout box, and its nice to see my rival, Seahorseruler again! --Mvtech 02:09, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

That REALLY doesn't look like Wikia. --Thesaurus Rex 22:40, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

It does now. And it will continue to until Wikia decides otherwise. --Airhogs777 23:00, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

I saw the FAQ, and was wondering if you mean that the old skin is read-only. Because, if it is, me and a bunch of other people on Fantendo and other wikis will be very aggrivated. --YoshiEgg 23:15, September 02, 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no plan to make Monaco read-only. It will be phased out once the new skin is completely in place, but while it is still around it will stay read-write. --Sannse 17:54, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
And if this new skin proves to be unpopular, which I am sure it will, will you switch it back? --Julietfan2626 18:31, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
oh Sannse.. you hurt my feelings and my wiki :'( -- 17:32, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Why would you phase it out? Wikis who like Oasis can make that their default, sane wikis can keep Monaco or Monobook, and (HEY SANNSE!) your precious Uncyclopedia can get its exemptions. I think that it's hypocritical to exempt anyone. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

The shoutbox should be kept. --Isdrakthül 00:39, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

I just found out that using the &useskin=oasis URL redirects me back to Monaco. --Airhogs777 12:32, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

That's because monaco is the default skin (wgSkin) and any value of useskin that is invalid will just be ignored. eg
The skin is only live if you have the cookie and are viewing oasis. -- 12:50, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
I thought so.
Do you think we could use this to use Monaco once the change is complete? --Airhogs777 18:50, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
If Monaco is removed, it can't be used, and therefore the url thing can not be used. AFAIK. --Xd1358 19:30, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
It'll most likely be added to $wgSkipSkin like the previous skins were. But you can still look at pages in the skin with the ?useskin=___ (or using "&" if "?" is already preceding). I'm sure if you wanted to, you could add something like a skin switch button to your Global.js if you wanted to see pages individually. --Bluesonic43 23:06, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
Besides, useskin=oasis is not the correct designator. --Pcj 16:35, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

What about how it affects the current appearance of other wikia wikis? Wikis could look OK currently but when the new skin is used on wikia it might look horrible then. :| --Cally99117 18:25, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

Really? You think so? --Airhogs777 18:51, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

I tell ya, I will keep posting until you answer me. I will not be ignored. --Sheepman 20:39, September 03, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that you won't. --Airhogs777 21:27, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
Sheepman, we aren't ignoring you -- your questions about the shoutbox have already been answered elsewhere. As I said below: we know that some people love the shoutbox, but over the whole of Wikia it's not used enough to justify keeping it --Sannse 23:06, September 03, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is even more outrageous than the mandatory skin change. The Ed, Edd n Eddy Wiki uses the shoutbox daily – some users use it to report vandals for quick notice by the admins, and we discuss other problems and wiki projects often. It's much faster than leaving messages on talk pages. Removing such a wonderful feature such as the shoutbox is actually quite ridiculous!
And I think the reason it may not be used very much on most wikis is because nobody knows where to find it. If you made it more accessible rather than only placing it in the Widgets icon, I think you'd see it being used a lot more.
In short, just please don't remove something as wonderful as the shoutbox. --Kirkland22 00:48, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
That's true, thanks to the shoutbox, the users of Grand Theft Encyclopedia warn us of vandalism, resolve doubts, suggest changes to the wiki. Our work has made us so much easier thanks to the shoutbox. If Wikia wants to have a more social aspect, you already have a proof to keep shoutbox.
The only problem with the shoutbox it's like Kirkland22 said: "'The reason it may not be used very much on most wikis is because nobody knows where to find it".
You could even add it to the floating bar and see if the shoutbox has more use than now. --GTAAAF 03:19, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
My experiences of the shoutbox tell me one thing. It is ONLY used for spam. People only use it to say hi! and other stupid comments like that. It is useless. IRC can be used and if you want to report vandalism, use an admin's talk page!
I am glad they are removing it. --Solar Dragon 08:58, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
It's not only used for spam. Sure, a lot of people just say "hi!" and so forth, but there are still a lot of useful discussions that take place in shoutboxes. Plus, you can't judge all wikis' shoutboxes if you've just seen a few which contain spam messages.
And using an admin's talk page is fine, but the shoutbox is a lot faster. --Kirkland22 14:56, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm with Wikia on this one. It is a useless feature. --Solar Dragon 15:02, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. --Isdrakthül 15:06, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think it's a useless feature. If you'd realize how well it would work out if it was used more, I think you'd understand how useful it can be. --Kirkland22 16:31, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Well, Wikia have decided that it is a useless feature, therefore they are removing it. I feel exactly the same as them on this one. I have rarely seen it used (twice a month at the most) so that is how I feel.
I have never seen such a useless feature so hyped up before. It is stupid. --Solar Dragon 16:37, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
On some wikis, the shoutbox is barely used, but on a lot of the Wikis I go to, it is used a lot. --Webkinz Mania 16:40, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
I quite disagree with that statement, Solar Failure. --Austin8310 18:48, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
It's used every day on Zeldapedia. --Isdrakthül 18:50, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, guys. No need for fighting amongst ourselves. --Pcj 18:50, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
This was written by a staff member.
1 .- The shoutbox is certainly more convenient, because it lets you write on the same page of the wiki without installing anything.
2 .- the shoutbox gives more security, is easily tell who wrote the commentary, on IRC you can get passed by someone else.
3 .- in the shoutbox you can use wiki links, bold, italic ... on IRC is not as comfortable and some do not see these effects or the links have to be put integers.
4 .- enter the wiki just see if someone has left a notice at the IRC will never be seen if someone left a vandalism warning, unless you put a bot permanently monitor the IRC, which consumes resources and it is to give the pc open, connected, etc.
5 .- You can delete messages that are considered spam, however, in the IRC can not delete messages that are spam. --GTAAAF 19:04, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
In my Wikia, EVERYONE uses it. --Iamred1 08:30, September 05, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now I want this question answered:
Why did you block my good friend TurtleShroom for no good reason? --Sheepman 11:03, September 05, 2010 (UTC)
Since I am in the process of building up the wiki I adopted, I have no use for half the widget features. But as mentioned by Kirkland22, the reason why I hardly used anything from the widget because I never bothered to look for it.
If other wikis are using it, then let them have a code option to continue using it. Larger / Popular wikis are frequent targets of spam and many editors, so if this Shoutbox thing is a faster way to communicate, then I am not sure why it should be completely removed. --Bunai82 17:43, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

How about the menu? Will it be changed in any way? --Henry Medals 01:48, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

Don't change it! I'm an expeirienced in wikia, a beta, and an expert in wikia coding. And while I wuz testing the new skins, my editing really are disturbed because of these reasons:

  1. I recieve a lot of bugs when using it
  2. The menu is so small
  3. Its not costumizable
  4. There is no shoutbox --Mvtech 02:07, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Two points:
I recieve a lot of bugs when using it - That is the point of beta testing...
Its not costumizable - Yes it is... --Manyman 02:04, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

Just switched to Oasis and well... too many changes. I need the CSS file to all this shiz. --Herald of meridian 02:18, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

You can find the original CSS @ [1]. Your customizations would be @ MediaWiki:Oasis.css, or at least after the Beta's finished. --Airhogs777 04:16, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Wikia.css per WoWWiki for sitewide css. --Bluesonic43 04:28, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
The file you linked to is SCSS not CSS. SCSS is super sassy, and not the type you can use on your local wiki. And ya, they made a change recently so the name is MediaWiki:Wikia.css over mw:oasis.css --Joeyaa 08:54, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
That's handy stuff! :) I'll try that when I can look at Oasis without ranting. :P --Herald of meridian 12:12, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

One last question: will we still be able to turn off the Rich Text Editor? --Henry Medals 03:00, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that control is still in your preferences. --Sannse 19:14, September 07, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully yes :P --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 09:20, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

I just wait until I will finally see a blog-post with "We won't make the new design mandatory - BETA testers hated it." lol. -- 17:40, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

that is one post you will never "see" here! ~rolls eyes~ --Wingman1 17:56, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
If you were to check the user rights log, you would see around 245 (±10) have access to the skin. I really doubt testers thoroughly hate, they might dislike certain features or how some people resent the removal of the Shoutbox widget with petitions here on the Community Wiki, but never hate. You'll still have the option (as discussed in the FAQs) to use Monobook and if you really wanted to use monaco, you could append each link with &useskin=monaco (or a ? if no question mark existed in the link before the useskin) or use a script in your Special:MyPage/global.js. Everything, or most of the info, you want to know can be seen in Sannse's video in a newer blog. --Bluesonic43 20:59, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
Don't be so sure ;) --Manyman 02:02, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

Flood the staff with your protests (contact information are on their pages):

Everyone should send each staff member a letter of protest regarding this change. Be polite, or not, depending on your mood. Make your voice heard--organize, make protest signs and bus a load of people to stage a sit in at corporate HQ. If you just simply whine online without action then it accounts for nothing. --Ngoldwe 20:18, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

You advice people to create spam, I don't think that this is the correct way to have a "good" voice/reputation, you're rather get ignored (or blocked) if you do so. --MtaÄ 22:02, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
MtaA is absolutely right- I'm surprised you haven't been kicked off already, then the "Be polite, or not" part suggest that you don't want them to be polite, but you are implying it, not typing it. --BlakFyr999 00:45, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Just tell me the pages on Lostpedia won't be ruined! --Julietfan2626 21:16, September 04, 2010 (UTC)

"The pages on Lostpedia won't be ruined." Seriously, it's a person to person thing. As it's been said it's fixed width and javascript so it is what meets your fancy. --Bluesonic43 21:19, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
The old skin Quartz has the same alignment as this new skin...e.g. content is shifted to the left for a right bar.
This is how Lostpedia pages would look, squished templates. --LordTBT 23:43, September 04, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to make of that... --Julietfan2626 10:06, September 05, 2010 (UTC)
Its horrible and it messes with my view of the page by squishing the contents to one side. I don't enjoy reading articles sitting all the way over to the left. Also viewing this "?useskin=quartz" thing with a gallery makes it even more sad.
Instead of creating a layout that shows the article contents (which is the point of a Wiki), they are creating layout to show fancy features you find on a blog. So yes, things like facebook, wordpress, any site that is not wikia related, is an example. And people are frustrated by that. --Bunai82 17:34, September 05, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why they would- they're only changing the layout/image, not anything to page-life-threatening. The comments above mine- I think those are just the angry mob members.
However, it is way different, but it's still in its beta stage- it's baby forms- hell, the way it'll look once it's done, I'm sure it'll be muuuch better ^_^
(Stay Happy!) --BlakFyr999 00:37, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
Creating a layout that doesn't function with articles is quite frustrating.
And instead of asking Wikia Editors what features they would like to see or what could be improved, they went for a group of people who had no idea what a Wiki was. The result, the layout appears as a website one would see on blog or a newsnetwork site, with things shoved every which way.
I am no CSS or Code expert, but I know enough to maintain an article, and that the article should be the main focus. --Bunai82 21:32, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

LordTBT: Please stop linking people to Quartz, it’s really not a good comparison and is just going to confuse the issue. I understand that you think it’s similar, but other than having a bar on the right, it’s really not the same. It’s misleading and confusing to tell people that this is what their wikis will look like. --Sannse 19:20, September 07, 2010 (UTC)

Still, it shares the same awkwardness, Sannse. --Thesaurus Rex 04:40, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

Make independent wikis! That way we won't have to make changes without consulting actual users.Like these: -- 01:46, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

URRRGH! Wikia, WHY do you want to make the layout so ugly and horribly unprofessional? --Thesaurus Rex 05:11, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

First, they announce plans to delete a major feature of wikia, that 90% of users seem to like.

Second, they ignore all the calls to keep the feature.

Third, they ban a great user for no good reason. The submitted reason was "Spamming", but my personal investigations showed no spam.

It seems to me that it is a bit too much of a coincidence that one of the primary campaigners against the new changes was banned not long after voicing his opinions. He did not spam, so that cannot be the reason. He may have commented a lot, but there is a difference between trying to be heard, and spam. Spam has to be irrelevant. --Sheepman 11:16, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

Which user was banned? ---Blackout- 17:59, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
TurtleShroom --Sheepman 20:40, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any ban for TurtleShroom in Special:Log/block. -- 05:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
My block was lifted after three days. -TS --TurtleShroom 13:31, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

What you keep telling me about the SB is "It's not used enough to justify keeping it". And then we look at the petition to save it. At least 200 people signed to save it. For heavens sake, if you proposed deleting Certain Wikis you wouldn't get that many people trying to save them. If that's not enough, then nothing is.

What do you have to gain by deleting a small feature that can't effect you much, but if deleted will cause mass anger, quitting and walkouts? --Sheepman 11:26, September 05, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it's happening. You can see now (on some wikis) that the talk page button has been removed and commenting for articles has been enabled... --TheSlicer 00:45, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

YAAAY!! I'm very glad! I hope mine is! But those could just be some of the Beta Testing Wiki's- I'm not for sure, actually --BlakFyr999 00:47, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
The only place I've seen it yet is on a new wiki that I created yesterday... --TheSlicer 00:49, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
New wikis have comments as default, but most existing wikis still use talk pages. The new look won't change that, it's designed to work with both systems --Sannse 21:29, September 07, 2010 (UTC)

...Why is everyone whining like babies who didn't get their milk over this? All they're doing is changing the look of Wikia basically- everytime I check back here, someone new is acting like they've never passed the 3rd grade- seriously- it's madness. --BlakFyr999 00:46, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Well what age-group did you think Wikia was oriented for?
Sorry about the sarcasm, I've been editing a lot of Uncyclopedia within the last couple days. --Airhogs777 05:33, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Will you switch the new layout back if it proves to be unpopular?? --Julietfan2626 10:59, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, probably not. Maybe they'll make it a choice, or something. --Airhogs777 18:16, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Ok... Wikia destroy the shoutbox and add blog comments on the articles????...

WTF is WRONG with this skin!!!!!! --GTAAAF 16:42, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem backwards?
Basically a feature to build up the whole social network wikia, since apparently a group of survey takers didn't know who creates the articles.
The only thing that commenting section has been used for thus far was spamming and arguing about fictional characters. Some comments go overboard or become sexual. Then there are those commenters who believe they are truly Anon, when really all you have to do is hover over their post to see the IP.
Overall, it makes zero sense to replace the Talk/Discussion page with this feature. Because the feature is not being used to improve the article! --Bunai82 21:26, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
"WTF is WRONG with this skin!!!!!!"
To answer that question directly:
The implementation of a "comments" section :P.
PS. I looked at that link; how long has that been there for? It already has 9 pages of comments. --Enodoc 17:21, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
Comments on articles isn't part of the new look. Most older wikis have talk pages, so when we change to the new look, it will work with either type of talk. --Sannse 21:31, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
@Sannse Oh, so the new skin doesn't automatically give comments to article pages on every wiki? Guess I misunderstood something then.
I like this skin a bit more if it doesn't force article comments on us. --Enodoc 22:10, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
No, it uses the existing type for comments/talk pages. If a wiki has talk pages, then the talk link points there --Sannse 19:02, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
But is there a way for new wikis to get talk pages instead of stupid spam-attracting comment boxes? --Solar Dragon 19:10, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse, please clarify that:
- The link will point to the talk page if the talk page exists. If not article comments will be used
- "old" Wikis won't have article comments (unless they request them), so there would be always a talk page to go. --Ciencia Al Poder 19:45, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
Holy @^#@ What is wrong with you people!!!!! This is why people make BLOGS!!! --Drago99 02:15, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
Please, leave this thing optional because I don't wanna see spam on the articles. --GTAAAF 05:07, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
Ciencia: If a wiki has talk pages, the link goes there. If it has comments instead, then it goes to the comments. Wikis will have one or the other, not a combination of both (except on a couple of wikis where we tried this in the past) --Sannse 19:14, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
What was wrong with talk pages? Personally, I find blog comments everywhere distracting. --Henry Medals 03:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Is there Anyway to access the code to display a talk/discussion page and not article comments? I don't understand why this feature is being assigned to new wikis, it should be the choice of the Admin on running the wiki. --Bunai82 04:51, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on articles is probably one of the worst feature of this. --Cpl. Dunn 16:43, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

I second that... Millions and millions of pointless comments before you find out that nobody's actually giving any real suggestion to improve the article.
I feel very disappointed on this. Wikia is killing the Wikia that I met and fell in love with. :( --AbbeySP 17:04, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
So far, only 2282 comments if I did my math right. --Airhogs777 18:21, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the comments are just spam. Stupid feature. --Solar Dragon 20:29, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
Just because some of the comments are spam, it's a stupid feature, huh?
Amazing. --Kirkland22 01:49, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of "amazing" things in this world, talk pages are one of them. --Airhogs777 02:31, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
And the shoutbox.
Seriously, the shoutbox is a lot faster than talk pages. It's great for quick discussions with other online users. --Kirkland22 01:58, September 08, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's just article talk pages that are going, and the Forum and Forum talk namespaces are staying. Because if those two namespaces are also going, then OH BOY DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM. ---Blackout- 20:06, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

It appears as though NS:1 is Article comments and Talk. So I don't think they are "going," just adding some more activity to the individual article. I'm sure they won't remove the talk portion of articles as quite a bit of history resides on talk pages. --Bluesonic43 20:24, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
well, there better be a way to disable article comments. We decided not to go for them on Wikisimpsons due to the fact it would just allow spam and now they force this upon us! --Solar Dragon 20:28, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
You could always block it with css (#WikiaArticleComments {display:none} if I'm correct) but it would also do the same to blogs. =/ --Bluesonic43 20:34, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
well, there must be another way. We use blogs a lot on Wikisimpsons. --Solar Dragon 20:42, September 06, 2010 (UTC)
#WikiaArticleComments {display:none}
Well if that CSS still works with Oasis then that will have to do. I'd rather have no blogs at all than blogs on every single page.
btw, I read it earlier somewhere; what's Quartz? --Enodoc 17:26, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
Quartz was an old fail skin made by Wikia. --Solar Dragon 17:31, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
Now they are returning to the failed skin =_=;;
talk about a step backwards --Bunai82 19:41, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
Article talk pages aren't going. New wikis have comments, but most old wikis have talk pages. The new look allows for either system --Sannse 21:33, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
In my mind, we call a step backwards devolution. --Airhogs777 05:26, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

About the FAQ. You said:

Why are you changing Wikia?

It’s time for an upgrade! //That just brings up another question. Why do you think it's time for an upgrade?

We want to give Wikia an up-to-date look that will enhance every wiki and encourage new users to join the site. //An up to date look, eh? Of course Wikia needs an up to date look. I should of known that. NOT. Now, enhance? Really? I don't believe you.

We love being the best place for gaming and entertainment information, but we want to expand our success to other topics and types of communities. Our goal is to be a place that attracts the widest possible range of people to read, write, and connect. //Widest range? You mean teenagers? Turning Wikia into a social networking site definately will get some teenagers. I'm being serious.

We are not changing what Wikia is or does, but rather opening it up to a broader audience. //Again, you think teenagers are considered a broader audience?

Teenagers are what you're going for? Really? Because it's really not the best age group to aim towards. --Bwog 22:02, September 06, 2010 (UTC)

d Kinddat toks lik this :) --Airhogs777 00:36, September 07, 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to attract a range of people of all ages. Actually, we already have a high percentage of teenagers according to Quantcast :) --Sannse 19:00, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is true Sannse. And are we all being attracted by a stupid "shiny" new rubbish non-wiki skin? No. We came here before Oasis was thought of and have been editing for a while. You are designing Wikia to look like a social networking site and putting things that make it seem like one in. If there are already a lot of teenagers here, why make it more like a website for teenagers if the teens don't want it like that? --Solar Dragon 19:10, September 08, 2010 (UTC)
*agrees* --Thesaurus Rex 04:43, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
I am a teenager, and I love monaco more than anything else, I find it unthinkable that I need to change my design soon, It's something I hate because by then I won't be so into Wikia any longer, I've been on the BETA test and I didn't like it, it felt that Wikia lost it's "Wow...-feeling" so Wikia will be too boring for me once the new skin is live, It's why I will do my best to find another good Wiki provider who will be something in the style of (old-monaco) Wikia. -- 18:47, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should change the new skin's name from Oasis to PitcherPlant. --Airhogs777 05:23, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
@ Sannse What about alienating regular contributors with these changes? Is it possible that these changes will cause wikia to lose many top contributors?
Nothing is explained how the wikia staff decided this format is going to attract people. --Anno1404 21:37, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
@Anno1404, while our focus with the new skin has been on new users, this does not mean we have forgotten our top contributors. Tools like MyTools were designed specifically with pro users in mind, and we have used a ton of feedback from experienced users to fix bugs and features of the new skin. While all users have the option to leave Wikia at any time, we hope that you give the new look a try before decide to leave. --Sarah Manley 01:00, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

So sannse, I still get not why we are going through with this even though the vast mojority hates it. No offense, but you honestly remind me of Soviet Russia. No offense ment, but really, the wikia staff's opinion is final, and ours doesn't matter, like we are not important? --Bioshock123 02:04, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what the majority thinks?
Why would the people who like it have to comment about it if it's coming anyway? --ZamorakO o 03:17, September 09, 2010 (UTC)
And a lot of the people they're beta testing are users, just not avid massagers. --Airhogs777 05:27, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
@ ZamorakO o please don't criticize Bioshock for arguing that the majority don't like it, then turn around and speak for those who do.
You both bring up a good point. How was it decided to change the wikia format? Was any regular users ask? Was their a poll? Or is this simply being forced by fiat? --Anno1404 21:34, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the latest activity? --Henry Medals 04:18, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

It's on the right, under the number of pages for the wiki --Sannse 19:10, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can deal with this, it's insane, I don't like it, nor do I like how it's been thrust upon us. I wouldn't want my wiki to defect, so I think I might have to leave, such a shame, I really enjoyed it --Myself 123 19:51, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

What makes a UI great is EASE OF USE. Not simplistic design. Ease of use in an interface is having the fewest number of clicks required with the fewest number of menus. Simplistic design in an interface is having as few objects and menus as possible, but increasing the amount of clicks needed, and thus DECREASING Ease of use.

And riddle me this, batman: What makes you think that this'll attract new users? What Google has done to YouTube was in the name of 'simplicity', but nobody actually liked it!

If you are supposed to act in the best interest of Wikia, then do so by LISTENING TO OUR COMPLAINTS. --DaL33T 20:50, September 09, 2010 (UTC)

Than again, the Google website uses both simplicity and ease of use, and they have one of, if not the most professional sites in existence. Or at least they did, until yesterday when they turned on that instant searching thing and messed up their interactive doodle. --Airhogs777 05:30, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

And the petition begins: --Eduardog3000 01:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Another petition? Wow. Adding another to the 10-20 already in place really aughtta get 'em. --Airhogs777 05:31, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Wiki does not care about petition's. you have not figured that out yet! --Wingman1 06:58, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
@Wingman1 yet you voted on mine? -- 20:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
yes i voted, pointless as it was. and look what happened to the petiton, it got blocked and delited. this should show the users EXCLACTY what wiki thinks of us. this is not a democracy here on wiki. we have to go along with what they say or leave.for myself i like the things the way they are, but if this skin is necessary, then it should be optional for all users. --Wingman1 21:12, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Has one of these petitions ever worked? Has there ever been a case in wikia history where the bureaucrats had to reverse themselves because the community stood up and said no?
Please, please give me one example in the history of wikia, and we can learn from this and use those tactics here. --Anno1404 21:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia does not usually respect the will of the Masses. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:25, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:25, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I know that all of our whining and complaining won't help, I love Monaco, but unfortunately nothing will help the fall of it, but I want to beg you guys a few things to include in the new design, please include the feature "MediaWiki:Anonnotice" aswell as the "MediaWiki:Sitenotice" because every Wiki I know (aswell as mine) is using this, I would like to beg you guys to keep the option of having a header aswell, headers are a big part of the design on alot of Wikis, so this is very important to me.

Aswell, what I do not like is that the right sidebar is included into articles, it should be only visable on pages the administrator decides it to be shown on, and should only be always active on the "my home" page, when you sign in and such.

Many questions.. so little time, but please keep this comment in mind. Thanks! -- 13:19, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete petitions? That's denying us our write to hold opinions and express them, under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as set out by the UN. --Sheepman 22:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but guess who decides who's allowed to open their mouth. --Airhogs777 07:20, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Deleted petitions? As far as I know we haven't deleted any discussions about the new look...

Please can you let me know on my talk page if you want me to check a particular page --Sannse 18:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just found a petition on the Sims Wiki that was deleted by one of their admins. Maybe that's the one you mean? Wikia staff didn't delete it, that was an admin decision on that wiki. --Sannse 19:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

That style is awesome, but what will happen to the Wiki`s Logos? --GameSparkLegend 23:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

They'll all be either stretched mercilessly or chopped into strips to fit inside the tiny wordmark-sized area. You'll have to keep working on it. --Airhogs777 07:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Will existing Wikis end up with the new skin? --Henry Medals 03:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Matias arana 10 03:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
and that is why everybody is upset. --Wingman1 03:57, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
@ Wingman1 Why do you assume that everybody is upset? --ZamorakO o 04:04, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say he's far from the truth, based on most of the 1,836 comments. --Samsonius 04:08, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think Wingman1 means everybody commenting here. --Airhogs777 07:23, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone is, but in my case everyone else is sounding off due to issues of recent changes like the lack of a normal back button, and images working, then not working, then working again. Too many bad things at wikia. The support staff must be going crazy as they focused all there time trying to get this beta to work, which no one wants. --Devilmanozzy 06:03, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Why is my reply not to the comment I was commenting to? --Devilmanozzy 06:04, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I know I already commented but I'm just gonna say that this apparent ignoring of user feedback is really not looking good. I mean if you really wanted to implement something regardless of what others would say, why announce it up in a blog and allow comments if you're just gonna ignore them. In other words, why give people a suggestion box, if you're not gonna consider what they're sending. Alot of feedback towards the new skin is negative for various reasons, completely ignoring it kinda has its limits. --Mugiwara Franky 07:33, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

As we've mentioned before we are reading every comment here and taking that feedback into consideration, along with a ton of feedback we're getting from the private beta which was open to anyone to join. We care about what you're saying and while not every comment will effect a change, many do. --Susan Taylor 16:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Like she said, they're taking everyone into account. They're just being defensive of their own opinions around certain hurtful comments. The staff have feelings too, you know! --Airhogs777 17:07, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Actually yeah, at least they gave a lot of effort to it, and insulting all of their work hurts. Honestly, I prefer the old design, but I don't insult the new one, and I would prefer to judge after I see it working. --Matias arana 10 17:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Susan, you guys are reading them. Got it. Except it sure doesn't feal like it. Thus far, it seems like our 1,800+ comments have gotten nowhere. Even if you are reading them, It doesn't seem like that matters. I get the feeling that even 1,800+ comments won't help, because even if you read them, you seem to not be listening --Bioshock123 21:16, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
which is the Point i have been trying to make Bioshock, they read these comments, but it does not matter. they ARE listening but will not do as we are asking. these changes are comming no matter what we ma think or say. --Wingman1 21:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Silence does not imply consent nor does it mean opposition. There are over 2,000,000 registered accounts on Wikia where less than a thousandth of the users have commented on the new skin. This does not mean that they must do anything different. Hold full judgement till you can test it yourself seeing as Monaco will be here until full roll-out. That should give you enough time during open use to form a more complex opinion. --Bluesonic43 23:28, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Bluesonic43, you make good point, i myself have been guilty of rushed judgement. but i can see the writeing on the wall with this a lot of the"old hands here are going to leave and then some new ones are going to take there places. so wiki has no reason to listen to it's userbase now. thake can just take it or leave it is there reasoning, or so it looks like. --Wingman1 23:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Bluesonic's point is why we aren't making decisions just on reactions here. Hearing your views is part of the process of course, but we also want to be sure we listen to those who don't comment here, and make sure we get things right for future Wikia users too. And we know that we will get a lot more detailed feedback as people see the full version - that's already started with the beta, and will continue with the public beta when we get to that. --Sannse 19:05, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
For an example of how the wikia staff is going to listen to your comments, see the recent changes to image gallery, the overwhelming majority of editors hated the change. But these comments were ignored, or placated by empty promises that things will be fixed. Two months later, the community is stuck with a terrible image gallery which distorts and crops images. The problem here is wikia is it is decentralized. Heavy handed dictatorial changes like this would never fly on Wikipedia. --Anno1404 21:24, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

The look is great, yes. But no MyHome? Seriously? That's sad. Ever hear of vandalism? Obviously not. ^_^ --Misstditylerfan 22:28, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

MyHome isn't that great, or let's say wasn't. Special:RecentChanges is what should be used to view all edits. Also, MyHome is now where that Wiki Activity button is on Sannse's video. --Bluesonic43 22:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
MyHome protects wikis from vandals. --Bigez620 22:40, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
From what I recall, NO ONE uses RecentChanges. This is pathetic. --Misstditylerfan 22:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but those Wikis who have hundreds to a thousand or more edits per day would find that MyHome doesn't do much. Also it's one of those Monaco only features that can't be used by those who prefer Monobook. --Bluesonic43 22:48, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I actually use recent changes more than MyHome, but MyHome is great for announcements. And what ever happened to WikiStickies? --Webkinz Mania 22:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
It was easier to spot vandalism on MyHome. ^_^ --Misstditylerfan 22:52, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess the My Home requirements will be phased out of the spotlight rules, then. My Home wasn't there for long anyway, it didn't have much of a huge impact on me. --Airhogs777 04:19, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
@Misstditylerfan We’ve just updated the FAQ with more details about MyHome, Recent Changes and Wiki Activity. --Sarah Manley 16:25, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
*cough* I use Recent Changes daily. *cough* -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:22, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:22, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

The four wikis I'm active on, Total Drama Island wikia, Total Drama Fanfiction, Total Drama Camps, and Total Drama Comics will be basically destroyed by this. In fact, my friend, Webkinz Mania, is petitoning against it. I'm unable to get a link right now, but this is just....this looks like Facebook and will hugely effect my feelings towards all wikias I'm on. --Ale-Alejandro 22:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmhmmmmm. --Webkinz Mania 22:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Change can be good, but in this case, it's not what it seems. Why need to change wikia? If there is no my home, vandals will attack, and we can't hold them up for long. I think you should reconsider the change, for the sake of the vandals, and this also changes how I feel about wikia, it feels different. --Bigez620 22:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Special:MyHome is Special:WikiActivity in the Oasis/Wikia skin per Wikia Staff. Special:RecentChanges is the original and most perfect tool on Wikia for dealing with edits, MyHome doesn't come close in functionality. Check out some of the higher traffic wikis and determine whether you want to wait a minute or a second with AJAX for updating. Also, there are some wikis with a CVU, there are VSTF, and the Wikia IRC channel. --Bluesonic43 23:00, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Well said Biggie. --Ale-Alejandro 23:00, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Bluesonic, the wiki we're from (Total Drama Island wiki), also has all of our important announcements, resources, and links to some places to do with the wiki (Such as the facebook page, the twitter, and the youtube). Can't do that on Recent Changes. --Ale-Alejandro 23:07, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, our wonderful admin Webkinz Mania put a lot of time into that. It's a disgrace that this has to happen. --Misstditylerfan 23:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Along with our other break admins, such as BB, Freehugs41, Kgman04, and some non-admin users, like Lizcat68. Then, as for the whole wiki, hundreds of us users ranked up high on the Entertainment and Television wikis helped make this place what it is, and to see all of our work crash down after years at it would be horrible. --Ale-Alejandro 23:14, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, MediaWiki:Sidebar, and MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation are the only three links you should worry about. They'll do everything plus let us not forget MediaWiki:Sitenotice, MediaWiki:Sitenotice id, and MediaWiki:Anonnotice. --Bluesonic43 23:15, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
If the Wiki staff want to waste my hard work and time I worked on the images and anything, I will be pretty upset and so would several other users. --Webkinz Mania 23:15, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Once you get a-hold of the new skin, it'll take all of maybe five to ten minutes to carry the settings over to it from Common.css or Monaco.css. Take a look at w:c:wowwiki:MediaWiki:Wikia.css or w:c:thief:MediaWiki:Wikia.css for ideals. --Bluesonic43 23:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no doubt we'll have to reformat lots of things we've created, like our userpages. It's not an easy transition, nor is it a good one.
Also, I must ask, how did you find out we started commenting on this? --Ale-Alejandro 23:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention, I NEVER heard of Recent Changes until today. I doubt many other users have either, making life harder on us existing users. --Ale-Alejandro 23:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
User_blog:Toughpigs/My_Home_--_new_feature_launches_on_Wednesday - This feature has been on Wikia less than a year. Contrary to your statement, many know and use Recent Changes on a daily basis. I also have MyHome's redirect disabled through my preferences as I've always hated it. Also, anyone who knows their way around MediaWiki and has been here longer than MyHome will more than likely know how to use RC. How did I know? I look at RC on the three Wikis I use every few minutes for new edits and previous comments to mine. --Bluesonic43 23:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Bluesonic, in my wiki's IRC, I asked "Who knows what special changes is?". Two people, both admins, said they love it, 2 said they know what it is, but hate it, and most regular users where clueless on it.
Just because you and your friends like it, doesn't mean everyone does. --Ale-Alejandro 00:37, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Who said anyone was my friend? You cannot use the rollback right in MyHome, you cannot use it in Monobook due to it being a Monaco only feature, and lets be clear, Wikia hasn't changed RecentChanges nor removed it because it is a very useful tool on a wiki. The same cannot be said for MyHome. --Bluesonic43 01:45, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Is MyHome going? I hadn't heard that one before.... the only reason I used it was to check if the updates I'd made to the Community-corner had worked; the Activity Feed just doesn't include the amount of useful information that RecentChanges does. I couldn't work out either why Community Corner was underneath Contributions and Hot Spots; it may have been a good way to get news across, but if you have to scroll down half the page to get to it, many users wouldn't bother to read it, and may not even know it's there. --Enodoc 15:35, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

SAVE THE SKIN! HEAR OUR VOICE! WE WANT A CHOICE! ^_^ --Misstditylerfan 22:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! =) --Webkinz Mania 22:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed...But please, not more of the horrible rhymes. T_T --Vampyrum Spectrum08 23:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
But Agreed! --Ale-Alejandro 23:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --SiPlus 16:14, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Webkinz made it up XD --Misstditylerfan 23:21, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

[ text removed - please see the beta agreement -- sannse (help forum | blog) 21:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC) ]

How is completely changing the format to a completely alien system different than mediawiki and wikipedia going to help wikia?

Is there some kind of arbitration committee or head of wikia we can appeal too? Is their any precedents where wikia made radically unpopular changes and were forced to revert them because of their unpopularity? If so, what case and when? What did they do? I am not familiar with the bureaucratic history of wikia.

Why are wikia bureaucrats continuing to alienate their most dedicated editors with heavy handed changes? --Anno1404 21:03, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You just proved everything we've been saying. --Ale-Alejandro 00:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of blanking out Dead Rising when 1) it's in the file name and 2) if Wikia cared they could figure it out themselves?
Anyway, I just wanted to mention you're flagrantly breaking NDA so I don't imagine you'l have to be concerned about editing on the new skin. --Pcj 00:57, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
I like Anno14o4 saw the end of wikia with the new look. The size of the articles shrinking, the ads taking over more, and if that all wasn't enough, I have noticed a push by wikia to move towards this without concern for its editors.
Look I have been loyal to wikia since september 2008, I have built many wikis,I have more than tried to deal with this change, but like many I can't. Ghostbusters wiki was my love and joy, but I have been informed from outside the wiki that my wiki is being avoided due to the ugly ads and the terrible glitches (images not showing/back button not working). I love my wiki and have cried over the idea of moving my work and continuing on elsewhere. I have many friends here, but its clear the current wikia staff don't care about me or you and our efforts. They think of us as $$$ and kids.
I am well aware of Wikias dealings with similar wiki communities that have left wikia such as Transformers Wiki. I know my history. But the point isn't the content, its that I'm about to call it a day. I edited a good share around here. I think the wikia helpers don't value the normal editor. Yes sometimes we come off being needy pests that don't care about nothing but our needs. But with this change coming, it wont matter. --Devilmanozzy 05:11, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
I have been reading the history of wikia. Editors were even more angry about the monaco change, and it went through. See the "wikia" wikipedia footnotes for more details.
As sannse mentions, there has always been a skin exception for uncyclopedia. They were exempt from the monaco skin and will be exempt from this skin. I suspect they must have a lot of clout and influence that other wikias such as Ghostbusters and the wikias I edit clearly lack. I wonder if some of the other largest wikias would get exemptions too if they spoke up. Like the star wars wikipedia (4th largest according to wikipedia) or the world of warcraft wikia. --Anno1404 01:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Anno1404, Ghostbusters Wikia for now is not moving. While from the outside people are complaining, One thing is clear, the editors are not ready for the idea. Due to that, I wont push the edit til after the "New Wikia" becomes active. --Devilmanozzy 07:05, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse is a huge contributor to Uncyclopedia, and seems to care about it. --Airhogs777 23:49, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Change is not always for the better. We might have to just make everything stay the way it is. --SonofSamhain 13:18, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ghostbusters Wikia is looking at possibly moving over issues of these changes. I have been trying to be reasonable with Wikia, and I wont be leaving as I am part of wikias, but Ghostbusters Wikia is being crippled with the new no back button problem, and images randomly loading at will, and Ads that wont stay quiet. We're as Ghostbusters Wikia are looking to move or merge with a wiki outside of wikia. Sorry, I think this change is a FAIL for wikia. They need to listen to they user base. This "Change" is not welcome.
I have been a voice of reason, as I thought maybe wikia would listen to people at the end of the day. They haven't. I don't hate the wikia staff, but they have to understand by now, as basically customers, we can leave whenever we want, and too many people currently around me see this change as only a bad thing. --Devilmanozzy 15:11, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Devil's comments are not idle talk, [1] Really sad. --Anno1404 14:29, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame, but the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki is planning on moving out, too. The Ghostbusters Database isn't alone. [2] [3]

-- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but quit rationalizing and lose the new skin. --Henry Medals 00:47, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

This just looks horrible. Every wiki should go back to using the Monobook skin. --Dexter111344 15:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, whatever you are! --Vampyrum Spectrum08 21:28, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I like stating the obvious facts. --Dexter111344 02:43, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the last couple of posts. We are testing a reported bug with replies to comments. Sorry for the confusion! --Sarah Manley 01:23, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Why comments removed? --SiPlus 10:31, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

To SiPlus: It seems the Helpers are trying to fix that, based on they comments here "Testing". They auto purple highlight is also off, and they are now adding it in later edits. --Devilmanozzy 10:53, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda. They don't want anyone saying anything bad about Oasis. --Thesaurus Rex 05:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The comment bug is now fixed. thanks everyone for your patience. --Sarah Manley 16:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? There's no MyHome anymore? Personally I like MyHome better than RecentChanges, what the pfargtl? This wikia change deal is getting worse all the time... --Frank-West 15:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's been said once, it's been said dozens of times, it's not gone. It has been reiterated as WikiActivity with many improvements (albeit RecentChanges gives you more administrative options as always). --Bluesonic43 15:58, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've always looked at MyHome :( --Station7 15:10, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I also just noticed that several wikis are gonna merge with non-wikia websites and leave their old wikis. All because of a dumb change to the system that very few people liked, tons of information is gonna be lost AND wikia is gonna have less and less editors over time... Christ, wikia staff needs to listen to the people. --Frank-West 15:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

No information will be lost minus new information after database dump. Just the current contributors to "x" number of projects. --Bluesonic43 15:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
...Which will result in data loss. By not having contributors, potential data will be lost. I worded my sentence poorly, my bad. --Frank-West 16:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
It looks like GostBusters Wiki is planning to summarize/shorten their articles if they leave. --Airhogs777 02:24, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't change it. Wikia is just gonna lose editors this way. Bad move, wikia. Y'know, the future is supposed to be all awesome and great, but that's not how it is. The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present. And the present has almost always sucked. --Frank-West 15:17, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just read the FAQ. Sigh. Fail. Well, what are ya gonna do, y'know? Oh wait, maybe we could voice our opinions with petitions and comments here, because the staff would certainly listen to those and make this new thing optional. Oh I forgot, they DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE. --Frank-West 15:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is just fantastic. Not only is the new look ugly compared to the current one, it looks like Facebook too! Because everyone knows Facebook is just so damn awesome! Good idea to make wikia into Facebook! ALWAYS BET ON WIKIA! --Frank-West 15:29, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unless your talking only about the My Tools bit (Facebook was not the only company to use such a tool), they are nothing alike. --Bluesonic43 15:57, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? This is very much like Facebook. For example, there is the little "like" button down on the bottom toolbar. You get notifications whenever something significant to you happens, and you get to share and follow stuff. That's pretty much Facebook without status updates and a few other personal life stuff. Now I know you've been able to "follow" pages for a while now, but that's still a watchlist, and I honestly have no idea why Wikia decided to change the name of it. --Frank-West 16:46, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see the "Like" function. Rather just the toolbar seen in Sannse's video. --Bluesonic43 22:39, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
"Facebook Connect" allows for a lot of Facebook-like options on any site. If their Facebook-using beta testers led them to believe Oasis was the answer, then yes. It might be a neo-Facebook. --Airhogs777 02:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Man, even the comments from MONTHS ago hate this. I've seen maybe TEN comments supporting this. This new skin makes me FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU- --Frank-West 18:33, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've seen eleven now. AN ENTIRE ONE MORE!!! OBVIOUSLY WE MUST GO WITH THE FIVE PERCENT OF PEOPLE THAT LIKE THIS!!!!!!!! Fucking. Terrible. --Frank-West 18:36, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Watch your language, Frank-West. The staff are "taking every comment into consideration," and there's a chance they'll be "considering" your language as an excuse for suspension. --Airhogs777 02:29, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. There's no rule against swearing in comments, and if there was one specific to this blog they woulda said so. --Frank-West 13:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose so. --Airhogs777 16:48, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Frank. I do not want to get used to the new interface --Black Label 20:15, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone must realise that Wikia is a dictatorship. I mean that their word is final, no matter what. If 75% of users leave they still won't change it back. This is the end. Game over man, game over! --Kyle123197 02:14, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nailed it. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Remember that they did this with us in mind&ndash;oh, wait, no. The advertisers of course! --Xd1358 20:05, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

One question: What's wrong with the Monaco skin? --Mata Nui 09:22, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's not modern enough, and it's not obvious enough to pass-by-ers who's writing the content. --Airhogs777 02:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Not modern? And who said that it has to be modern? There's nothing wrong with the monobook either, yet it is much more "unmodern". But if you think that it is not modern enough, then I'm OK with that, but I don't see why you can't let some of us keep the old, simple, yet ingenious monaco skin. --Mata Nui 18:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Because if Oasis is a choice, not everyone will use it. And if not everyone uses it, they won't get their money's worth. Besides, the beta testers they've selected seem to respond better to Oasis than Monaco. --Airhogs777 18:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
But anonymous users would be forced to use it, and the main reason for the skin change was to get more people to join, right? - Mata Nui &nbsp; Talk 20:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC) --Mata Nui 20:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think that the new design look to flashy, and generally boring. --Mata Nui 20:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
"Besides, the beta testers they've selected seem to respond better to Oasis than Monaco." Only because I never liked Monaco and always preferred Monobook. I would use Oasis/Wikia over Monaco anyday, minus the fact that both skins were forced (or will in the case of Oasis) onto users. --Bluesonic43 21:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Well, when Monaco was new, I didn't like it either, but I got used to it pretty quick. The thing I like with Monaco is that it is so easy to customize, and that it is relatively clean from unneeded images. I mean, just look at this new skin - It's got tons of completely unneeded images! --Mata Nui 16:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
...And tons of unneeded space. --Airhogs777 16:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

This new skin looks like a joke. No wonder some wiki's are planning to move away from wikia! --XTUX345 13:32, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

April fools!
Yeah, you wish. --Airhogs777 02:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Can't you allow sites to choose their default skin? Let the weirdos that want it get it. The only reason you are forcing it is because you, Wikia Staff, KNOW that no one would use it if it was a choice. -- TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! :) :) HEAR OUR VOICE, WE WANT CHOICE!! 13:36, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

--TurtleShroom 13:36, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Letting individual wikis to keep monaco as default would really prevent all of those criticism. --Ciencia Al Poder 13:54, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
I am forced to agree, TS. --Jeffwang16 13:54, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
They could make the swift on wikis with Jade and Sapphire (which are most), but not on the rest. --Dancing Penguin 15:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Someone already posted this, but I'm reposting it to remind you guys.

There's a petition against this: --Thesaurus Rex 00:02, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

wiki has been deleting petitions as of late. besides this is not a democracy here at wiki. this change WILL COME! no mater if we like it or not, petiton or NOT!Wingman1 00:10, September 19, 2010 (UTC) --Wingman1 00:10, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
deleting petitions eh? *COUGH* tyranny *COUGH* --Thesaurus Rex 01:07, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
[Citation needed] --Bluesonic43 02:07, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
[Citation needed]? that's the problem, it was DELITED! no citation left to give!! ; ) --Wingman1 11:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like this one was deleted. They said earlier that they weren't deleting them and that the deleted ones were deleted by those wiki's admins. --Airhogs777 16:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the deletion log where said petitions were deleted. That's why I said "[Citation needed]." --Bluesonic43 21:08, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
@Airhogs777 - you might be right there.@Bluesonic43 - i am looking for them, but my computer just went down. i do not have them favorited on this laptop. sorry 'bout that. i will post the links when i can. --Wingman1 21:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Airhogs777 23:18, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
We have not deleted any petitions or other pages about the changes. There was one deletion that I know of here, but that was by the admins of that wiki, and not by Wikia staff. --Sannse 01:05, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
I like many have said our thoughts on this new look since it was first suggested. Sannse is totally right that indeed they have left all comments positive and negative up. There is free speech here atleast. Are they reading all our comments? You can debate that! --Devilmanozzy 15:53, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

when are the change going to take place? --Wingman1 21:52, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Answer (here):
"We haven't got a definite date yet, the Beta testing comes first, and that will start soon! " --Airhogs777 23:21, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
That was from the FAQ/a comment. Betas started a while ago, so Wikia's just an hourglass. --Airhogs777 16:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oasis??? O.o --GTAAAF 23:19, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

And it has begun. --Kyle123197 23:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote that, I just meant the edit buttons. I guess there are other similarities, too. --Airhogs777 02:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
omg...that's...awful! --Thesaurus Rex 05:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
A little ad on the personal toolbar? REALLY? Now, I am passing. No thank you. --Webkinz Mania 11:27, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
No, there isn't an ad in the My Tools toolbar here on Wikia. Many sites have that exact same "toolbar" seen at Wikihow. --Bluesonic43 12:34, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's even worse than I expected! --Mata Nui 14:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, answer me this. WHAT. IS. WRONG. WITH. MONACO!??!?!

If Oasis gets released and becomes forced on us, all the work we put into the themes and colors in our wikis, trying to make it look nice -- will be gone. No matter how you mess with it, it's still not going to look the same. --Thesaurus Rex 05:23, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The work you put in won't be for waste, you can import them to MediaWiki:Wikia.css for the new look or use the Theme Designer whenever it is ready. Nothing will ever look the same, it's just that state of the game.
There is no if, it is when. Monaco will be around while the Oasis/Wikia skin is being rolled-out to all the wikis. Now how long they will support it after Oasis/Wikia begins open-use is another question entirely. --Bluesonic43 05:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Thesaurus Rex's question is a VERY good one. What is wrong with Monaco? Why remove it just to be "modern"?
On an unrelated sidenote, Thesaurus Rex has one of the most awesome usernames I've ever seen on wikia. --Frank-West 20:16, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice username. --Airhogs777 23:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Indubitably. --Thesaurus Rex 19:05, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

From the FAQ:

What is happening to the MyHome page?
MyHome is being merged with the equivalent page for logged out users: the Activity Feed. This has all the wiki activity information that was on MyHome, as well as the community corner for admin messages. The Activity Feed also has a link to Recent Changes, which lists extra activity for the wiki.

That then doesn't sound so bad. I have one question about it - will the community corner be more obvious than it was before? It would be better nearer the top of the page rather than having to scroll down for most of it.

And when do the rest of us who applied for it, and have been accepted, get our Beta access?? I want to see some of these new things.... --Enodoc 23:44, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

They are "phasing out" several features, Community Corner might be one of them. --Airhogs777 23:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think Bluesonic43 and Airhogs777 are trying to position themselves to be promoted as wikia staff.
nevermind, you are right Frank about Air. Struck comment completely. --Anno1404 01:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Anno, you may be correct. They are sure acting like Wikia staff. Except maybe not Airhogs, his opinion seems to fluctuate between "Skin is good" and "Skin is bad". --Frank-West 01:59, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Now why the hell would I want that? --Bluesonic43 02:02, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Community Corner isn't being phased out, I don't think there are plans to move it so far though.

Enodoc: you will get your access tomorrow :)

--Sannse 00:53, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

NO. NO!!!! Red Dead Wiki now has the fail skin! NOOOOOOOO! --Frank-West 00:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Lol Hey Franky =3 --CrackLawliet 00:35, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I want the old skin back. --Spetsnaz117 00:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

So does everyone. Wikia apparently hates the community because they are pushing forward with this STUPID change. I know, fucking awful, right? --Frank-West 01:46, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Try out the new skin yourself at, Here is how:

  1. Click Preferences,
  2. Click Skin
  3. Click New Wikia Look
  4. Click Save.


Make sure to comment about how you feel about this skin on the "give feedback" icon.

Now that everyone can see it, can I post screenshots of the differences? --Anno1404 01:34, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to post them; the beta's out and everyone can see it. --Frank-West 02:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Also anyone can try this on any wiki by appending ?useskin=wikia to the end of the URL. --Pcj 02:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
It works, but only for betatesters. --GTAAAF 15:23, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it works even on another browser even when I'm logged out. --Pcj 16:07, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
It's true : O
This don't worked when I tried 2 weeks ago. : | --GTAAAF 16:35, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Now it works only for betatesters again. But the IPs can see it in the wikis with Oasis activated. --GTAAAF 23:22, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
As Sannse mentioned above, this was not intended, but caused by a temporary technical problem and is no longer available. Please use the beta wikis to see the new look. --Sarah Manley 19:25, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

If bullshit or stupid could be defined any better, this new skin would be it. --Frank-West 01:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Our new interface was designed with you in mind." Ha, sure it was. *sarcasm* --Matias arana 10 02:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that with the new look, you will get more visitors to the already huge wikis, meanwhile the smaller wikis which are never mentioned will lose all the potential contributors to the wikis like "Muppet Wiki" and "Wookieepedia". --MontagnaMagica 06:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Previewed at it more closely at and noticed something. Maybe its because I'm used to Wikipedia or the original Wikia style, but it really feels uncomfortable to have the article shifted all the way to the left instead of the right. That however brings an interesting question. Why use an article orientation that's drastically different from the one used in Wikipedia? It can be gotten used to when hoping from one wikia to another I guess. However it would probably be a strain when hopping from a wikia to Wikipedia itself. I mean there are things that can't be fully covered in certain wikias and linking to Wikipedia really helps. --Mugiwara Franky 11:31, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

But we aren't Wikipedia. You could just as easily ask why we don't use the same format as Google, or any other site --Sannse 00:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
I understand the Google thing but the Wikipedia thing I don't understand. True, Wikia is a different site from Wikipedia however there are somethings between the two that can't be denied. When looking for articles or stuff in an encyclopedic manner, Wikipedia tends to be the first stop most go to. From there, people get the idea of what an online ecyclopedia looks it. When they want something more specific not bound by the restraints of Wikipedia or whatever reason, they usually go to wikias. That kinda says something at the very least.
There's no doubt that the change is high tech looking and all that. However is it really something that would attract newcomers what with Wikipedia practically being a model for other encyclopedic websites? --Mugiwara Franky 06:18, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously stop comparing Wikipedia to Wikia. Wikia is a free wiki provider (as in whole wikis). It's like comparing apples to oranges. --Devilmanozzy 15:59, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
@Devilmanozzy: Yeah, Wikia should really be compared to Facebook and Twitter.
Oh, wait, I almost forgot that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikia is too. Or I don't know. Wikia seems to be turning into a social network site. --Xd1358 20:02, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia, please don't do this to my wiki. --Thesaurus Rex 18:22, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at that on the Dead Rising Wiki... Christ, it's so awful. Wikia needs to NOT DO THIS. --Frank-West 18:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Remember that these are not customized yet. We've removed the 'useskin' option for the new look for now, it will be back once the skin is ready to be available on more than the beta wikis --Sannse 00:47, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
hey sannse,check your talk page.I asked a message for you --GaiaDrago 01:00, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
GaiaDrago: I'm caught up there now - busy week! --Sannse 04:54, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHHAHA! I started to ask on Yahoo! Answers on how to stop something like this, and it gave me a list of categories that it thought would fit the subject:

Health > Diseases & Conditions > Skin Conditions Politics & Government > Law & Ethics Health > Diseases & Conditions > Infectious Diseases --Thesaurus Rex 19:13, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

lol --Umishiru 22:54, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

So, with this "awesome" page width, we would need to readjust all images so that they aren't messed up, right? At least we have a reason to revert every single edit made on a wiki now. Lol. --Xd1358 20:04, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Lol indeed :P --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 20:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone complaining just shush. They won't listen to you because they are stuck so far up their own asses to listen to anyone else. They won't listen. If you don't like the new skin, then leave (Don't get me wrong, I hate it) And when they see how much it is hated, they will probably change it back. --Julietfan2626 21:15, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Big blow on Wikia's part, but you've got a point. --Troisnyxetienne 15:08, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, imagine this. You wake up one day, and the entire Earth has changed. The sky has changed, the plants have changed, even your relatives, friends and parents have changed. It has changed to such an extent that you don't know where you are anymore. It just looks terrible. Eventually you find the person in charge, along with other people who do not like the changes and miss their loved ones. When you ask him why he did such a thing, he replies "Earth needs a makeover. It looks nicer this way!" And no matter how you try to tell him to change it back, it's almost as if he can't hear you at all. Now you're forced against your will to cope in this odd new planet.

Sorry for the dramatic-ish story, but that's how most of us feel.

My idea: Make it an option for admins to convert their entire wiki to Oasis. Eventually they will want to try it out and see, and it doesn't make anyone mad. --Thesaurus Rex 02:23, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Lol nice story. --Smiley12 20:18, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is a disaster. The sidebar is gigantic, the space for the actual ARTICLE (excuse me, I thought wikis were about articles and information, not a social network) is horribly reduced. Articles with character profiles, infoboxes, pictures, etc will be severely affected in their organization and aesthetics by this monstruos and absolutely useless sidebar. And placing it in the right was not the brightest thing to do either.

I also see no use in adding the uploader name at the bottom of every picture. I thought Wikis were a Community about group work, not individuals signing their names in articles. It's ridiculous and adds nothing to the article itself. What purpose does it serve to know, if I want to know about the Venus Fly Trap, that the picture was uploaded by whoever it was? I'm learning nothing at all. And some users have gigantic names, or names in All-Caps, or things like "xhdvhskaigl" that will look oh-so-lovely in the articles. It's absurd at best. --Lia Schiffer 07:08, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the admins should reply to any of the comments here it should be yours. --Thesaurus Rex 22:05, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that we already have a block option for "unacceptable username".
Meaning you guys recognize that yes, these do exist. Even if the signing in and of itself was okay, this WILL result in pages on G or PG-rated wikis having "This image uploaded by cocksucker prime", or whatever the format is you're using. And, because of that whole ethics thing, we can't delete or remove a perfectly acceptable image just because we don't like their name. --KrytenKoro 13:48, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
If you're an admin, you can easily disable the image attribution for your wikia if need be - --Resa1983 14:11, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just reminding you guys again...petition's out there...

User:Bwog/Petition --Thesaurus Rex 21:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think I saw a larger petition... --Smiley12 05:44, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Where? I think that's the shoutbox petition you're talking about. This one's against Oasis in general. --Thesaurus Rex 19:28, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here goes:

One of the best wikis that was ever on wikia. When wikia first started their "We don't give a shit about the opinions of our unpaid workforce," the tfwiki left in disgust. On wikia, they were one of the top few.

Off wikia, they are doing even better. As far as I've seen, they've had drastically less server issues than us, and their system still operates as wikia used to before the mandatory ads within the article space. They've had one big issue where their server master forgot to backup, and they had to recover all their info from google - but they DID recover all of it, and they learned from the disaster in order to make it impossible to happen again. They didn't even have the image-caching error we all had to deal with.

If wikia is determined to ram this down our throats, then it's time for us to leave them in the dust. To be brutally honest, we don't owe them a thing, and it's been demonstrated time and time again that wiki's can not only survive but THRIVE without wikia. --KrytenKoro 14:29, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I must second Kryten on this one. Wikia's new layout is nothing but carnage ! --Troisnyxetienne 15:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I second both of you, this is nothing but trouble. --JFHavoc 16:32, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I fourth this, If this is the way things are going, I see no other option. --KingdomKeyDarkside 01:49, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thesaurus Rex: Pretty well said indeed. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 14:52, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

why are they doing thins? if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and if it's not broke DON"T BREAK IT! --ShadowsTwilight 16:32, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

see above. --Anno1404 20:48, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


Site Description Recommend?
Comparison of wiki farms List of wiki farms like wikia. Here is an older version with many more companies listed. Click the "Base wiki engine" in the table to see all mediawiki hosted sites N/A Very basic site. A lot of enticing promises on the features page. 100% free. "Features complete back-end control with full FTP and Cpanel access. Initially 1GB storage and 10GB bandwidth. Install any wiki script. Add unlimited custom templates, add-ons, and plugins. Free domain names for popular wikis." First edit on the wiki main page was only in June 2009, so may not be there in the long term. (Many of these sites don't last) Possibly
Strategywiki From personal experience, since there is only one central site, the admins tend to be even more overbearing than wikia staff. For example, they are incredibly demanding about categorizing pictures and tables within articles.

Users have no control over how the wikia looks


--Anno1404 20:56, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

You see, wikia? Things like this... You shouldn't go with this change. Anno here has thousands of edits on several wikis; he knows what he's talking about. A lot of people are gonna leave if you go through with this. --Frank-West 14:04, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dont be too harsh on me for my newbish skills at editing.

1. On this "user friendly" skin i had NO CLUE where anything was. 2. This is my first time making an account on a wiki EVER, and i did so just to say how much i hated this skin. 3. There's only like 25% of people who like the skin, instead of listening and acting accordingly, they ram it down your throat with the excuse of it being more "modern". I didn't know this was being run by Activision. 4. What happened to the most popular pages, newly changed, etc? 5. Why should it REQUIRE you to make an account to change it back?