![Subreddit Icon](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="234"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Feeds
HomePopularrecent
r/wikipediaTopics
ValheimGenshin ImpactMinecraftPokimaneHalo InfiniteCall of Duty: WarzonePath of ExileHollow Knight: SilksongEscape from TarkovWatch Dogs: Legion
NFLNBAMegan AndersonAtlanta HawksLos Angeles LakersBoston CelticsArsenal F.C.Philadelphia 76ersPremier LeagueUFC
The Real Housewives of AtlantaThe BachelorSister Wives90 Day FianceWife SwapThe Amazing Race AustraliaMarried at First SightThe Real Housewives of DallasMy 600-lb LifeLast Week Tonight with John Oliver
Kim KardashianDoja CatIggy AzaleaAnya Taylor-JoyJamie Lee CurtisNatalie PortmanHenry CavillMillie Bobby BrownTom HiddlestonKeanu Reeves
Animals and PetsAnimeArtCars and Motor VehiclesCrafts and DIYCulture, Race, and EthnicityEthics and PhilosophyFashionFood and DrinkHistoryHobbiesLawLearning and EducationMilitaryMoviesMusicPlacePodcasts and StreamersPoliticsProgrammingReading, Writing, and LiteratureReligion and SpiritualityScienceTabletop GamesTechnologyTravel
Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations.
wikipedia
r/wikipedia
71
[MEGATHREAD] English Wikipedia's 2023 Redesign
On January 18th, the English Wikipedia got a new look called "Vector 2022". For those who have used other language versions of Wikipedia, you may have already noticed the new layout over the last year or so. English Wikipedia is one of the last to get the refresh.
Use this megathread to discuss the new layout. Even if you think it sucks, please keep it clean. This post will be periodically updated with useful information and links.
Please note that r/wikipedia is volunteer-run and is not an official venue to give feedback or get in touch with Wikipedia/Wikimedia staff.
Official links
Announcement post from the Wikimedia Foundation
Desktop improvements initiative on MediaWiki
Previous subreddit discussion
Explore Wikipedia’s New Look | Wikimedia Foundation (600+ comments)
What the new Wikipedia looks like on 21:9 monitor (300+ comments)
Help Post - Wikipedia changed to a new interface. How to get the old interface back? (100+ comments)
FAQ
You may also refer to the official FAQ.
Is there a way to get the old interface back?
If you have an account on Wikipedia, you can go into your Preferences, go to the Appearances tab, and under the first Skin section, select "Vector legacy (2010)".
If you don't have an account, you can load a single page with the old layout by adding ?useskin=vector to the end of the URL.
You can use browser extension like Tampermonkey to load scripts that will automatically redirect you to the old layout. Here is one example by u/Vusys.
You can also use the Redirector extension and add the following redirect pattern:
Pattern:
https://*.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Redirect to:
https://$1.wikipedia.org/wiki/$2?useskin=vector
u/SnowvisionStudio has also created a Chrome extension specifically for this purpose, available here.
Why can't readers without accounts easily opt-out of the new layout?
To handle all its traffic, Wikipedia serves cached pages (think snapshots) of its articles to readers who aren't logged in. The official justification is that serving articles with both layouts would require caching two versions of each article, which is both costly and comes with its own technical challenges. More info here.
Can I customize the new interface?
If you have an account and go to your Preferences, you can toggle responsive mode and limited width mode.
When viewing an article on a wider monitor, you may also notice a fullscreen toggle button at the bottom-right; clicking this will expand the width of the article.
Why are articles narrower?
The official reasoning from the Wikimedia Foundation is, "research has shown that limiting the width of longform text leads to a more comfortable reading experience, and better retention of the content itself."
84% Upvoted
level 1
Thanks, I hate it. It's made half my screen completely blank for no reason.
Was this tested on any computer ever?
9
![User avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="256"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
level 2
new reddit is an abomination... I sometimes get whiffs of it when and immediately get traumatized
20
level 2
Oldreddit with RES and custom subreddit CSS disabled is the only decent way to experience this website.
Wikishit should've taken plebbit's example and given an easily typable URL to show the other site. Even better, just default to desktop view on desktop and give mobile view on mobile based on user agent (or a mobile. URL) instead of copy-pasting the mobile site to desktop.
11
level 2
I'm so sick of every website changing for the sake of change. Mid 2010s versions of DeviantArt, Reddit, Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. were so much better than the white-space'd resource hogs they have become today. Even Disqus made horrible changes to their ui recently, so everything is extremely bloated and takes up 3x as much space for literally no reason.
So sick of making accounts JUST to revert back to the original designs and have that choice persist through sessions. The good thing is that I am very willing and able to cut ties completely if that choice is removed in the future.
4
level 2
It was broken and almost unusable on wide screens because of the infinite line length.
2
level 2
I'm sorry but old reddit design reeks of web 1.0 and objectively sucks ass. One look at it is enough to see that no UI/UX designer ever touched that crap.
1
level 1
I don't particularly mind it with the width expanded - although didn't realise this was a thing until I went hunting for what had gone wrong (initially thought I was on the mobile page, then thought the page wasn't fully loaded...). Annoying that you have to click it each time if not logged in (I rarely do).
The vote to release is an interesting read. People supporting it even though they won't use it? Really bizarre arguments on both sides.
I'm no power user, and only visit the site a few times a week, so not surprised I didn't know about this change. But reading the discussion pages (people take this quite seriously!) a lot of the power users didn't either.
So I reckon half the problem was communication despite the WMF people saying they did a banner here or a Village Pump article there. If they wanted to minimise negativity and protect the brand, they should have gone all out. The other half is the white space, and customisation which seems like a last minute fix despite this being in the works for 3 years.
9
level 2
They supported it because it was sold as 'equity' towards non-Western users.
You can sell anything if you appeal to the right tribeset.
4
level 2
The vote to release is an interesting read. People supporting it even though they won't use it? Really bizarre arguments on both sides.
That's the history of voting for anything on Wikipedia since about 2008. "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm friends with more people who've voted that way so I'm jumping on their bandwagon".
3
level 1
Why does the fullscreen toggle button need to be activated each time you navigate to a new Wikipedia-site?
Save it in a cookie please so it remembers the setting indefinitely until I change it again.
21
level 2
· 3 days ago · edited 2 days ago
Wikipedia has tight cookies regulations, so probably no.
EDIT: Strikethrough, see below
4
level 1
The new design is objectionably bad. I don't have a large screen, and the entire reading area now covers less than a third of my screen. The usability of the site is now significantly worse than the old layout. What on earth was wrong with the old layout that it required this change?
My next donation is cancelled and will stay cancelled until this gets fixed.
17
level 1
The worst thing for me by far is this massive blinding white sidebar. It's impossible for me to read anything when the text starts almost halfway across the page. Ironically, I have this problem because I'm using a narrower window... meaning, I have this problem because I was reading wikipedia the way the designers of this new layout believe is correct. It's absurd that this could get the green light from anybody.
Before: https://i.ibb.co/4YnBHnf/image.png
After: https://i.ibb.co/5Y0wsDR/image.png
PS: As a person of color I can't help but feel slightly offended that the notification on top implies that Wikipedia needed to be dumbed down with this redesign in order to make it more "welcoming" and "easy to use" for all the PoC in the corporate stick figure drawing.
17
level 2
This is EXACTLY the problem I have, I never browse fullscreen because I like to have access to some desktop icons on the right and left, and wikipedia was always fine. Now it's extremely squashed, but at least they added a button at the bottom right that stretches the pages.
7
level 2
Person of color here, agree as well. What are they implying with it?
6
level 1
I'm posting in here to say that I hate the new look of Wikipedia. It is functionally less effective and it reads worse on any large display. There is too much white space and too much article information is hidden behind collapsible menus. I don't donate much ($5/year) but I stopped donations entirely due to this bad design decision.
22
level 1
· 1 day ago · edited 1 day ago
Genuinely one of the worst redesigns in an age of weird, terrible redesigns. I thought Wikipedia would be immune to this since it's just primarily text-based content, but I guess not. Everyone at my work and all of my friends have said something about it now, and I have not seen one positive response to it from a single person.
Hide the left-side menu, even though you don't lose any screen real estate when you expand it - it's just hidden because clicking is fun.
Every sub-heading of the table of contents is hidden because clicking is fun.
You can hide the table of contents, even though, again, you don't get any screen real estate back when you do it (it's also not at all obvious how you unhide it).
About a solid 30% of my screen is just completely wasted. There's a tiny full-screen button in the bottom right corner, as if Wikipedia is some kind of media player, but even that doesn't actually persist between pages.
Just profoundly, staggering awful. It's like they let the worst cargo cult UI designers handle it. Just a bunch of weird, made-up "best practices" with no basis in reality. There is a hilarious link to "evidence" justifying the gigantic margins which is just a random document with a PhD name at the top and vague statements about supposed research - they didn't even bother to cherry-pick an actual study to pretend that's why they did it, and not just because a graphic designer thought it looked nicer, It's all UI decisions based on a bunch of UX "just so" stories.
I do not understand why these people keep being given the keys to important software. Letting them do it to Wikipedia's desktop is an actual tragedy. This is one of the most important websites on earth, not some random social media website hoping that they can get more customers by making it look more like a mobile layout.
11
level 1
Looks awful on a desktop. It's "new" reddit all over again. Sucks that I had to make an account to get rid of this garbage design. Is this their way of drawing in Zoomers that have never read a book in their life, have no attention span, and need every handicap available for reading comprehension?
12
level 2
Zoomers are scared and confused when presented with any large amount of text and must be hand fed single paragraphs or they break down apparently.
7
level 1
Why did they make it look like mobile? if I wanted a narrower wikipedia page I would read it on my phone.
25
level 2
Yeh I thought for a while I was clicking m. links and kept trying to correct the URL to the desktop version. Genuinely feels like it's the mobile version on desktop and it's horrible.
8
level 1
This is insulting to the users. Webpages don't need to be "modernized". It makes sense coming from websites that want to show you ads and fry your brain. Wikipedia has no justification.
31
level 2
Also doesn't make sense to "change it so it's easier for people to use" when it's been the same for 10 years. People are used to where things are, how is changing it going to be easier for people who have 10 years' worth of muscle memory?
7
level 2
websites that want to show you ads and fry your brain.
Maybe the redesign is trying to prepare us for that exact thing.
6
level 1
I don't like it because now it takes 2 clicks to hit the random article link. I am incredibly lazy, and I like the old style where I don't even have to move the mouse a pixel to churn through random articles.
12
level 2
weird, for me the sidebar remains expanded after I click "Random article", so I still don'x have to move the cursor
4
level 2
To get around that, I long ago made a bookmark to the URL used for Random, so I can just click forever and never move the mouse off the bookmark bar. I don't have another shortcut to Wikipedia, only Random. Always Random.
2
level 1
At some point I demand UI designers worldwide to refund half of my monitors price, because they sure as fuck are making sure I don't get to use half of it.
17
level 1
The vast majority of reddit posts don't like it and the majority voted against it on wikipedia. Just like every major change to a website or app ui, nobody likes it, and its probably not gonna change because of sunk cost fallacy and that changing it back would hurt the ego of some higher up.
29
level 2
I got banned from wikipedia for saying this. It's a disaster.
3
level 1
At my preferred zoom level I get an ugly gray default scroll bar down the side of the sidebar.
It looks like the kind of web design that a backend dev came up with. And I am a backend dev, so I'd know.
6
level 2
That's what they wanted you to do sadly. There's no need for it though. Addons/extensions and monkey userscripts exists to revert it through adding "?useskin=vector" or another skin of your choice.
0
level 1
No native dark mode is a ridiculous oversight. There's simply no way I can look at that much white space between the hours of like 4 PM and 8 AM.
11
level 2
Seriously, I honestly can't understand why a group of designers could have spent 3 years in this decade, redesigning a website, only to come back with an oppressive amount of whitespace, and no dark mode.
6
level 2
I didn't know this before today, but there is a dark mode toggle which you can enable in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (ctrl+f dark). Also works on the old design. For some reason the toggle button is disabled by default...
1
level 1
The reason it sucks is because it is bad. Tell Jimmy to fuck off about donations until they roll it back.
15
level 2
It's absolute garbage. I'd seriously consider donating if they reverted back to the better format
6
level 1
There is something distinctly uncomfortable about the redesign right off the bat, every time I've been to wikipedia since it's been online I've had to do a double take. I don't like the blinding white space on the right hand side of the screen but I can't express why, it just feels wrong. Ultimately though, I do buy the UX research that this way will be more comfortable in the long run. I think it's going to take a bit of getting used to but it will probably make the site more usable and more accessible.
This megathread and this sub in general isn't a representative sample of wikipedia users so we should all try not to let mob mentality kick in. Our biases here are gonna be crazy. Arguments like "well look at all the negative responses on here!!!" should be treated with great scepticism.
I'd be interested to see who has the same negative gut feel once the redesign has bedded in for a while.
16
level 2
but I can't express why, it just feels wrong.
Because your eyes are horizontal.
14
level 2
I think that most people on this sub represent the average wikipedia user. We should not assume that the average wikipedia user is somone lesser that has supreme difficulty using a search bar, which is how 99% of wikipedia is used. It's completely okay to have a negative response to a change that affects something negatively. The idea that new and hip always equals better is bollocks.
8
level 2
On my wide monitor I do much prefer the fixed width, before the new skin became default I used to manually set it in the URL whenever visiting Wikipedia while logged out. But my main issue is like what you said; there isn't much of a contrast between the article content and the rest of the page anymore, it's just a sea of white.
2
level 2
Thanks to MonkeyScripts and Redirectors, it won't be embedded until they remove the last vestiges of a Desktop layout format. And I for one will stop using Wikipedia entirely (I've already begun) when that happens. This change is non-excusable.
1
level 2
Nope, I disagree. I have never been on this subreddit before, only here because of that "blinding white space".
It's incredibly off-putting and gets so much worse on a high resolution screen.
The design is otherwise quite good imo, but it's such a glaring inclusion/omission that turpedos this from a 7 or 8/10 w/ bugs, to a 3/10 for a fundamentally flawed execution.
1
level 2
The margins need to be a different color or shade, it blends right into the white of the main article and you don't see a boundary.
0
level 1
Genuinely one of the worst redesigns I have ever seen on any website. YouTube has some competition.
Feels like I'm on the mobile phone version of a webpage on my desktop.
7
level 1
Screw what the research has shown, making 60% of the display into blank, dead space is not good web design.
6
level 1
I'm on 1920 x 1080 @ 125% (thanks Windows) so I don't see the giant empty void on the right that is apparently there for the 1440p-and-up users.
The thing I hate most about it is that the the "outside the article" area is the same color as within the article so it looks like someone fucked up their CSS instead of intentional design.
The margin between the sidebar menu and the article is slightly too large. Moving the article closer by 30px would probably solve like 90% of complaints.
Hiding and unhiding a sidebar should not cause the main content to shift.
The right margin of the page is too large when the sidebar is hidden.
Please center the search bar.
The "Search" button should probably not have its current fade animation, it looks horrible.
I feel on pages that do not have a table of contents, such as the Main Page, the side menu should default to open.
7
level 2
I don't have the giant empty space either, instead all the text is right up next to the left side of the screen like on the mobile version, which I also hate.
5
level 2
· 21 hr. ago · edited 20 hr. ago
I'm on 1080p and the left and right quarters of the screen are white, with a part of the left quarter used for navigation. This is a lot of unused space.
While this is true on the default setting, the fillscreen button bottom right solves this.
1
level 1
Change for the sake of change. Spending for the sake of justifying spending.
6
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
Lazy redesign that's essentially just mobile Wikipedia.
Narrower is more comfortable to read? Yeah, on a smartphone. I'm sure they didn't cite their research.
Edit: oh and I can go back to the old one but I have to make an account. Wikipedia 6 months from now: "The new layout has resulted in a massive uptick in account creations! This was a total success!"
5
level 2
You don't have to make an account, you can use greasemonkey scripts to force vector.
1
level 1
Not going to make an account just so I can look at a website that doesn't make me immediately want to click the X in the corner. It makes me want to avoid the site completely.
5
level 1
At first I thought it's a fake site because of the worse design. My 2 cents.
5
level 1
I was in a thread here a few weeks ago where someone was asking about "when Wikipedia was going to get a modern redesign with more white space".
So I blame that guy 100%
10
level 1
I had to doublecheck if I wasn't looking at the mobile page... The contents-table pulled out of the page is nice, but cramming all the text in a small column is a huge waste of screen real estate imo :(
5
level 1
Took my time to write a feedback to wikipedia:
I have. Seen the new format on the Danish wikia quite a while ago. I stopped reading the Danish wikia on the regular, except when I had to look up something more locally obscure.
If anything, this update to the English Wiki has made me look into browser extensions which forces a layout type (in this case, the one I found gave me the "vector" layout) which suits me better.
I then discovered that there are names for each wikipedia layout type, so I've learned to adjust scripts to my liking, so that I now have Monobook layout.
I am vehemently opposed to the tablet/smartphone layout, that was used as the basis for this 2022/23 format of yours, which is so far from being user-friendly on a desktop screen.
You've done effed up, in my personal opinion, pardon my french. If it weren't for tapermonkey and greasescripts, I would have stopped using wikipedia all together.
8
level 2
unfortunately they don't care. They have a copy and paste response they give to anyone and then ban you if you keep complaining.
7
level 1
Here's my Redirector export:
{
"createdBy": "Redirector v3.5.3",
"createdAt": "2023-01-20T13:47:08.301Z",
"redirects": [
{
"description": "Vector (legacy)",
"exampleUrl": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohost",
"exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohost?useskin=vector",
"error": null,
"includePattern": "https://(.*).wikipedia.org/([^?]+)$",
"excludePattern": "",
"patternDesc": "Redirect normal wikipedia pages to Vector legacy",
"redirectUrl": "https://$1.wikipedia.org/$2?useskin=vector",
"patternType": "R",
"processMatches": "noProcessing",
"disabled": false,
"grouped": false,
"appliesTo": [
"main_frame"
]
},
{
"description": "Vector (legacy) 2",
"exampleUrl": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cohost&action=history",
"exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cohost&action=history&useskin=vector",
"error": null,
"includePattern": "https://(.*).wikipedia.org/(.+\\?.+)$",
"excludePattern": ".*useskin=vector.*",
"patternDesc": "Redirect abnormal wikipedia pages to Vector legacy",
"redirectUrl": "https://$1.wikipedia.org/$2&useskin=vector",
"patternType": "R",
"processMatches": "noProcessing",
"disabled": false,
"grouped": false,
"appliesTo": [
"main_frame"
]
}
]
}
4
level 1
awful, feels like a forced mobile version of the site. so much wasted space
4
level 1
i came looking for this. thank god im not alone.
this redesign is absolutely terrible. i really, really hate the table of contents moving as i scroll, because even if i minimize it i still have to go all the way back to the top to open it back up. same as it used to be, with extra steps.
2
level 1
Looks bad in landscape. Will be setting ?useskin=vector ( or =monobook ) in bookmarks.
3
level 1
Why is there so much wasted space? It now looks identical to the mobile version on a widescreen monitor - the only difference is the font.
5
level 1
You ruined the look of this website. Too much fucking white space, seriously what the fuck were you guys thinking? It constantly looks like its on mobile mode now.
4
level 1
I hate it! The old one used the entire screen, it looked cleaner.
Now you only have content at the center, everything looks smaller!
4
level 1
This supremely dumb redesign pushed me back to the wikiwand extension. While not perfect, at least it provides customization options which are remembered without yet another account for yet another site that I shouldn't actually need an account for.
3
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
What is with UI designers and their fetish for whitespace? Seems like form is being prioritized over function. I agree that old skin could use a refresh, but why all this disgusting unused space?
And they did this entire project and didn't even add a dark mode. What a bummer.
3
level 1
This is absolutely terrible, and I hope they reverse it. Thankfully they at least give us the option of using the old one if you make an account (Just like Reddit thank god).
I suspect this is going to lead to a pretty big decrease in engagement, and I hope they will respond to the metrics accordingly.
4
level 1
Awful. Just awful. So much wasted white space on a desktop browser.
3
level 1
I want to know what purpose there was in the 16:9 revolution when 'graphic designers' are just making websites in 4:3 anyway. I don't want useless chunks of blank space either side of the screen, I want the whole page to be used.
I do wish the people who run these websites would just leave them alone, and add plug-in API functionality for those who wish to customise them further.
4
level 1
I speak for the majority of users here when I say this but please bring back the old layout, if it ain't broken then don't fix it. I will also be cancelling my donations until this is fixed... or until we get assurance that we will always be able to opt for using the old design.
3
level 1
They can offer any argument they want as to why the redesign is supposed to be "better," but my eyes don't lie.
2
level 1
If anything, this forced me to look into tapermonkey and greasescripts.
Yes, I hate the "new" (read: smartphone/tablet) design.
5
level 2
And I've just discovered that there are names for the variants. "Monobook" is the one I liked, so now I am actually learning scripting in tapermonkey.
2
level 2
After donating a sizable amount yearly for a long, long time...
Same here.
2
level 1
This is irritating, I use wikipedia more often because I can't stand imdb's dumbass ui design! But I hate wikipedia's new design! Does about.com still basically steal all of wikipedia's articles? I can just go there instead if it does.
5
level 2
I started using TheMovieDB after IMDB removed their forums. Even deleted my account. I'll be checking out About.com, thanks. There's also the Founder of Wikipedia's upcoming Encyclosphere, and Infogalactic, and Citizendium. Also Wikiless as a frontend.
4
level 2
Oh man, IMDB is another site that seems to be trying really hard to be as frustrating to use as possible. Every redesign is harder to read and navigate and so cluttered.
I used to spend ages clicking through link after link, going down a rabbit hole, but it's too annoying now. I look up what I want and close the page.
0
level 1
Well, they got me to make an account and set it to Vector legacy. It's so nice to see the old layout again.
5
level 2
You don't need an account for that. There are GreaseMonkey scripts available.
1
level 1
This isn't so much a discussion, but validation - I thought my browser had gone wrong when I saw Wikipedia the past couple of days!
This is so blatantly designed around a mobile interface that I'm honestly shocked it was signed off.
4
level 1
What a terrible design.
Look, I get that phones are the dominant devices on the market, but they already have their own layout.
As a PC user, why does the website only use 50% of my screen? I'm using PC for a reason, I like to use as much screen space as I can to read my text comfortably. But some big brain at Wikipedia decided to basically cut the screen space in half and center the entire layout in a narrow column in the center of the screen.
Whoever came up with that needs to be fired.
4
level 2
I was amused by this admission from a WMF representative in the talk page about the new skin.
bringing it closer in visual design to the mobile site, so that people reading on mobile can still recognize Wikipedia in its desktop form as well. [...] so that it's easier in the future to build features and adapt them across both desktop and mobile skins.
This is a contradiction of the faq, where it says the changes weren't inspired by mobile design and they have no plans to merge desktop with mobile. Also, they have no plans for their pants to catch fire.
"So that people reading on mobile can still recognize Wikipedia" is just funny. What app is this? I am unable to recognize it!
5
level 1
Ooooof, I came to this sub to ask why Wikipedia was stuck in mobile mode on my PC and how to fix it. Created an account just so that I can keep using the Vector skin.
What a horrid, horrid redesign. The contents bar is less informative and intuitive, and space in general is used far less efficiently.
4
level 1
Is there a way to go back? It's absolutely fucking hideous, and waste a tonne of space. The old version is orders of magnitude better. If I wanted to view Wikipedia on a mobile device I'D LOOK AT WIKIPEDIA AND A CUNTING MOBILE DEVICE. Even new reddit isn't as bad
4
level 2
Many examples of addons/extension and userscripts to revert it abound in here. I use them myself. Because new version is atrocious.
0
level 1
Absolutely freaking beyond annoying. How on earth does it not default to full width on high res monitors? There is so much whitespace.
5
level 1
There is so much unused whitespace on the new redesign, it feels like it was made exclusively for use by phone users.
There must be a better way.
3
level 1
I dislike it immensely, and I will not create an account simply to change it back easily. Instead, I will likely spend even less time browsing the site.
4
level 1
Kinda wish they released the redesign last year so I could rethink that donation
3
level 1
Wtf 60% of a page is nothing. Also I used to change language a lot, which I could easily click on the left side of the page. Now it's a horrible search dropdown on top of the page.
3
level 1
I guess they have enough money now, that they act like every other big media/internet company and ruin their UI/UX. They've made it!
5
level 1
· 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago
This is trash. The older design was perfectly usable.
This new layout makes poor use of space, and is just a mobile layout badly shoehorned on to a desktop environment. So much empty space. Does everything have to be a drop-down or expanding menu? Is a plain sidebar too much to ask for?
4
level 1
Now it looks like every other website with huge spaces for banner ads that I've blocked.
4
level 1
Limited width being on by default is a bold move, otherwise it looks okay.
3
level 1
I had to switch back manually because the quasi-mobile update was barely functional for me
3
level 1
What's the sense in hiding the sidebar? People are talking about how it's easier to read when the lines are shorter, but it's not just that, the sidebar is hidden now too.
I think part of the problem is that I don't want to have white light glaring in my face. I use night mode on websites whenever I can. But on wikipedia, at least it had some boxes and lines to break up the whiteness. Now it's just words floating in white space. I really don't like it.
3
level 1
It looks unfinished and amateur. As if someone forgot a semicolon on a .css and the whole thing went haywire.
As always, someone comes up with the idea because he would prefer it and it gets approved and shoveled down the throats of everyone else.
Yeah, no, thanks. I'm sill on the old, original, and usable reddit layout, and you can bet I will keep using the old wikipedia one.
5
level 1
Is there any similar way to preserve the good layout without the ?useskin=vector part showing up in the URL? Through the use of HTTP POST instead of GET, maybe? Or perhaps by rewriting the URL client-side after the fact?
Again, I'm looking for a way to get the look of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch?useskin=vector with the URL still just looking like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch
And to be clear, anything that requires logging in is NOT a solution. What Wikipedia did here is a not-so-subtle way to push people to create accounts, and people shouldn't play along.
(I self-reposted this comment because non-megathread posts are disappearing quicker. Original here. I'd be very grateful for a solution.)
2
level 2
Exactly the same thought. Why is the new theme not plugged to those who have accounts rather than forcing those without to suck it up?
Bad redesign, bad implementation. Terrible.
4
level 2
There is some shitty trend going on where perfectly good websites are dumbed down, cut down for ad-space, and given a more "mobile" layout. Desktop users be damned.
It's happened to a lot of sites like youtube, reddit, and I guess wikipedia now.
3
level 1
The official justification is that serving articles with both layouts would require caching two versions of each article, which is both costly and comes with its own technical challenges.
This is literally unbelievable. Do they really think they can tell us they have the money to hire people to ruin their web design, but not to make their website functional? Good reason to never again donate to Wikipedia.
2
level 2
Wow, Wtf? Maybe cache one version and have the client load the CSS depending on screen resolution? Like almost any other site.
0
level 1
· 3 days ago · edited 2 days ago
The shitstorm about the new design really shocks me, we must live in completely different worlds. In my opinion the change is absolutely necessary if you want to keep getting a new generation of Wikipedians that doesn't only come from the tec bubble.
People underestimate how much an "old" look can stop average people to get involved in a project.
-2
level 2
If people can get used to a new look, they can get used to an old look. That's no excuse at all. They already had the mobile version for these new smartphone users. This is just downright bad in every way for desktop users. Wasted space, extra clicks, hidden information.
12
level 2
if you want to keep getting a new generation of Wikipedians that doesn't only come from the tec bubble.
...what?
Wikipedia is possible the most well known website on earth apart from Google and Youtube. The draw of Wikipedia is the entirety of human knowledge on one website, not a ""modern"" design. Students from ages 10 to 35 rely on this website to complete their homework and their degrees, it's hardly "just the tec bubble".
10
level 2
I've contributed to Wikipedia for 10 years, and I feel like stopping completely with this shit now.
9
level 2
Is exactly the kind of baseless reasoning corporations run by aging, out-of-touch dinosaurs use to push lazy changes like this. I've never heard a single younger person bitching that the UI didn't look "fresh" enough. Anyway, this is doubly ironic because frankly the new design looks like the kind of totally unformatted HTML pages you'd encounter back in the 90s and early 2000s.
2
level 2
Do you seriously think this stopping young users? I'm 21 and In my last semester of University and I have never heard a classmate complain about Wikipedia's UI, In fact its probably the number one source for university and high school students.
3
level 1
The official justification is that serving articles with both layouts would require caching two versions of each article, which is both costly and comes with its own technical challenges.
That's odd ... I thought they determined that the new layout was objectively better in multiple ways and only a vocal minority disagrees? Despite that, they're worried that if they had an option to switch, so many would take it that it would overwhelm their servers?
1
level 2
If they're worried about that it seems like it's not that much of a minority. I've seen 'studies' arguing both that short lines are faster/easier to read (because the eye doesn't need to travel as far when it moves to a new line), as well as the opposite: that long lines are faster/easier to read (because the eye doesn't need to jump as often). I say 'studies' in quotes because they are usually not academic and peer-reviewed, but published by private UX think tanks which are trying to sell their consulting services. Wikipedia takes the former position, though hilariously their article on the matter has a [citation needed].
Regardless, it's hard to debate that there is a lot of empty space on the new design, and many options take longer to access, so it doesn't seem correct to state that the new design is 'objectively better', and least not to anyone with a preference for information density.
3
level 1
· 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago
At least keep the inline, expanded contents box. This is my proposed alternative: https://imgur.com/a/TULEHvp
1
level 2
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
I did a super quick proof of concept. Add the following to your common.js:
l2HeaderCount = $("#mw-content-text h2").length;
if (l2HeaderCount > 3) {
tocMarkup = "<div style='border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #f8f9fa; font-size: 95%; padding: 7px; display: table;'><b>Contents</b><ol>";
headers = $("#mw-content-text h2, #mw-content-text h3, #mw-content-text h4, #mw-content-text h5, #mw-content-text h6");
headers.each(function iterateHeaders() {
level = parseInt(this.tagName[1]);
headline = $(this).children(".mw-headline");
title = headline[0].innerText;
anchor = headline.attr("id");
headerMarkup = "<a href='#" + anchor + "'>" + title + "</a>";
if (level == 2) {
tocMarkup += "<li>"+ headerMarkup +"</li>";
} else {
whitespace = " ".repeat(level-1);
tocMarkup += "<div>" + whitespace + headerMarkup + "</div>";
}
});
tocMarkup += "</ol></div>";
headers.first().before(tocMarkup);
}
1
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
bruh just created an account to switch from the new design. monobook design is best imo(because nostalgia). the new layout is so bad to read with and a waste of space. but seriously at the end of the day wikipedia should look like gentoo wiki, it's peak wiki design.
1
level 2
I thought you were trolling then I checked out the gentoo wiki. It's actually not a bad layout. Don't like the aesthetic, but the layout's solid.
1
level 1
I actually love it. Thanks to this absolutely craptastic redesign, I've been to this subreddit for the first time, and over here learned the magic of appending ?useskin=monobook to the URL, which I didn't know was possible. Back to the 2000s we go!
1
level 1
TOC placed on the side highlights current section and scrolls by itself, it's very fucking distracting!
1
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
The appearance change is worse for me, absolutely. Maybe it's better for some people, but having empty white space does nothing to help me. One of the worst aspects is if you have the page in a portrait aspect ratio, the contents is completely hidden and you have to click to reveal it.
Is there a way on Firefox to force the old layout (is it called Vector?) via an extension? I think there may be settings if you create a wikipedia account and are logged in, but 50% of the time I am using a private browsing window and I prefer not to stay logged in to websites.
Edit:
Tried a couple things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skin#Skin_selection_bookmarklet Doesn't work for me on Firefox, or else I'm not understanding the instructions. I can't create a "new bookmark" without bookmarking something. I created a bookmark for the wikipedia home page. Then went to edit the bookmark. They say to edit the 'address' field, I guess they mean the URL? I did so but it doesn't seem to do anything. "3. Use the apostrophe found on your keyboard (not typographer's quotes)" I'm not sure what this is referring to, on Firefox apostrophe it opens up the quickfind search (search links).
Here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements they say "We have built a toggle for logged-in and logged-out users. The toggle is available on every page if the monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. Selecting the toggle increases the width of the page." My screen is 1600x900, but I don't see any kind of toggle, unless they've hidden it. The browser window is 1596 wide since there are 2 pixels on each side taken up by the window border, maybe that's why it doesn't show up for me?
For now it seems possible to manually add ?useskin=vector to every URL, maybe there will be something to automatically do that in the future.
1
level 2
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
Yes, there is an extension. Download Redirector from Mozilla's "store" or whatever they call it. Add a new redirection rule in the add-on with the below and save it:
Include pattern: ^https://en\.wikipedia\.org/([^#?]*)(#.*)?$
Redirect to: https://en.wikipedia.org/$1?useskin=vector$2
The other fields are optional. This will append the "?useskin=vector" to all wikipedia URLs automatically.
Edit: Oh also, make sure you check the toggle for "Regular Expression" instead of "Wildcard."
1
level 2
You can use the mentioned Web Extension, or a Greasemonkey scripts like https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/458501-vector-layout-for-wikipedia
1
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 4 hr. ago
I really enjoy the redesigned UI and I don't understand the intensity of the backlash here. The sticky table of contents to the left is really useful for navigating the contents of a long article for me, especially as someone that uses wikipedia a fair bit. The limited width is fine for me as well and my experience lines up with the research suggesting it helps make lines of text more readable. I don't lose my place as often with narrower text lines.
Really kind of baffled by the response from folks here.
Edit: lol, cheers to the person here who reported me to Reddit as “at risk of suicide or self-harm”. Woke up to a automated message with a link to the suicide hotline. Nice one lads.
0
level 2
I don't understand the intensity of the backlash here. ... The limited width is fine for me as well and my experience lines up with the research suggesting it helps make lines of text more readable.
There was nothing in the world stopping you from making the text however narrow you wanted before. Everyone was able to display text in whatever width they personally found to be ideal.
In the new layout there is exactly one mandated width of text, and fuck anyone who wants anything else.
Hence the intensity of the backlash. Control was previously in the hands of the reader, and it was taken away.
2
level 2
The limited width, maybe. The fact that they collapsed everything in the table of contents and removed all formatting, so that it went from being an easily-parsable way to navigate the page to looking like random text on the side of the screen (that you have to manually open one section at a time, no less)? Fucking hardly.
2
level 1
I just came across the new interface and found that wikipedia has a subreddit. Wanted to say that the big white spaces are probably there so that they can put ads in them, in other words, they create a problem which is big white spaces and then go "oh noes we have these big white spaces on the page, might as well use them for something". The "we do not have enough server space" excuse for not providing an option without an account for this is also mostly a lie, because they handle billions of pagehits daily just fine and have done so for over 10 years. They most likely want to have users make accounts so that they can link their wikipedia browsing habits to said account and sell it to the guys at google or microsoft. In the future giving them an email will probably become mandatory for said account too because "big bad ultra 1337 Anonymous haxxors waah" like on most sites nowadays. I bet the executives and UI designers really think they are some 200 IQ super geniuses and that people would not notice.
-2
level 2
Wanted to say that the big white spaces are probably there
Jimmy said and will say no. Your argument about having email is also false, we have botfarms on many social media as a requirement. Last, trading accounts with Google is illegal.
2
level 1
The problem with the redesign is that it wasn't redesigned enough. Wikipedia was too conservative with their approach to avoid offending the pseudointellectuals who think hating on things makes them look smarter, but if you attempt to alienate no one, you will only alienate everyone.
Truth is, 14px is way too small a font size. Bump it up to a readable 18px. Add some more space between paragraphs and headings. Use the system font stack, which usually renders better than the browser's default sans-serif font.
Why don't you just zoom in, or resize the browser window? I bought an ultrawidescreen monitor to make my paragraphs as long as humanly possible, and I like it that way.
Because every modern website does things the right way. Why don't YOU just click the button at the bottom-right? Don't see it? Fuck you anyway. It's obvious you've never read any articles on Wikipedia because you are less intelligent than me. You are illiterate.
Such a change would definitely further alienate the haters, but the target audience for Wikipedia's design should consist of people who actually read what's in it.
If you have any other opposing arguments, please share them so I can humiliate you with my debate skills.
-4
level 2
If you have any other opposing arguments, please share them so I can humiliate you with my debate skills.
Fucking oof...
7
level 2
A larger text size was planned, but for the reasons you list was pulled back (conservative mindset to change).
2
level 2
Finally, a true controversial opinion :p. You make a great point about the system font stack btw. Wikipedia is already specifying system fonts, might as well use the high quality ones that are meant for UI body text. Of course, this likely wasn't done because users hate absolutely any change (exhibit 1,999: this thread), but they might as well have ripped off the whole bandage.
1
level 1
Just seems like a shoddy version of the Modern Wikipedia extension which I already use and will continue to use. The idea of putting the table of contents in the sidebar is solid, but it's very poorly executed.
Note that currently this extension breaks with the new layout, so you need to switch to the old one if you want to use it. I expect the dev will fix this pretty soon.
1
level 1
· 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago
I kid you not, in the age of >1080p/FHD, wikipedia has implemented a design that DOES NOT SCALE past FHD. Whereas their past design did much better. I'm going into wikipedia articles where a 1/4 each side of my screen is nothing but pure whiteness outside the margins of content because I'm on a UHD display.
What the actual hell. I actually like this new design quite a bit, but the lack of scaling is absolutely ludicrous. I'm having to go to 200% webbrowser scale to get it to use my entire screen, but of course now the words are massive and I see even less content.
How the heck did this design even go through all this and get pushed out, and be functionally worse at the most fundamental aspect of a website this day and age.
It's like they've completely ignored high resolution desktop users. Are all the designers macbook users with their non-scaling OS (this is an entire rant on it's own btw)? Or are they only testing it on mobile? There's more to scaling than merely being HiDPI friendly. It seems it's only HiDPI friendly if you're on mobile.
They're really taking the piss here copying the same mistakes of UI/UX designers with the "everything is an app" approach and leaving PC users out to dry.
0
level 1
I'm going back to Vector 2010 just because I have a nice custom theme for it.
Does anyone know if Wikipedia plans to offer more variations of Vector 2022? I really don't want to have to go through and make Vector 2022 dark mode, so I'm just going to stick with my existing custom dark mode in Vector 2010 until someone offers it for 2022.
1
level 1
What the hell is this redesign??? It feels SO uncomfortable to read with these blank useless spaces.
Who thought of this? The text is so cramped now.
1
level 1
Big fan of the new update. I want to see more appreciation for the update, I'm sure the designers worked crazy hard on it!
-3
level 2
Unfortunately, nobody owes the designers anything because they "worked crazy hard" on it. At the end of the day they're getting paid off the donations of the people who mostly hate the update, while the site is run off of billions of hours of unpaid volunteer work.
8
level 1
I think there's good and bad parts to it. I think it's the same with the Reddit redesign. I've learned to accept it at this point, and I'm not as horrifeid about it as i used to be. I don't use old Reddit anymore, a lot of features are just flat out not available on old Reddit anyway. Ironically, certain services and features STILL have to use the old site.
I really hope they don't get rid of the ability to use the old site. I think one of the worst parts is there is 0 customization available now.
Anyway, I think in both cases, the original design uses too much of the screen, in terms of width. An entire sentence stretching over the whole screen is a bit much. But putting the entire article in a small column 50% of the width of the screen? Also, I haven't used it much and will probably still use the old theme but I'm sure it will break some articles.
Also, hamburger menus just suck.
0
level 1
I understand what the new design is going for but the readable area is far too thin. The text is also too small.
0
More posts you may like
803
803
395
395
373
336
I know some people will want to use the old interface, and since if you miss the initial context help box notifying the change it wont appear again easily, and likely will dissappear over time, here's the way to revert to the previous interface.
First you need to access your Preferences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering
And select vector legacy interface (among the different "skins"): Vector legacy (2010) (Preview | Custom CSS | Custom JavaScript)
Alternatively, if not having an account, putting "?useskin=vector" (remove the quote marks) at the end of a link will turn it into its older vector version. Using "?useskin=monobook" will turn it into the monobook version, and so on, for custom skins/interfaces.
FOR FEEDBACK:
Feedback on form: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eKv2YsD5GQXnJt4
Feedback on wikipedia talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022
336
302
295
295
See more posts like this in r/wikipedia
About Community
The most interesting pages on Wikipedia.
Created Jan 25, 2008
Similar to this post
r/politics
Joe Biden Tells Wilmington Community Leaders He Will...95%386/1/2020
r/alberta
The Alberta NDP take some issue with Jason Nixon being...93%456/2/2022
r/rva
Diversity Richmond staff are meeting with the executive...79%9711/9/2021
r/ireland
Meanwhile in an alternate reality95%19711/20/2022
r/aprilfools[Megathread] Subreddit Prank Log for April 1st 202296%724/1/2022- r/medicalschoolEU[Megathread] Germany: Post anything about medical school...100%137Jan 1
- r/medicalschoolEU[Megathread] Germany: Post anything about medical school...100%62Jan 15
- r/medicalschoolEU[Megathread] Germany: Post anything about medical school...100%871/2/2022
- r/medicalschoolEU[Megathread] Germany: Post anything about medical school...100%12811/20/2022
- r/wikipedia
In 1862, Nathaniel Gordon became the first and only...98%1556d - r/wikipedia
New layout, table of contents is worse and screen width...92%3823d - r/wikipedia
Wikipedia Sweater found at thrift store, can’t find any...98%395d - r/wikipediaI’m pretty bummed about the new update.93%2103d
- r/wikipedia
Philadelphia Eagles Santa Claus incident, 1968: The...98%402d - r/wikipedia
What the new Wikipedia looks like on 21:9 monitor92%3553d
Reddit Inc © 2023. All rights reserved