Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements

The new layout looks horribleEdit


I study education and am in deep shock about the new wikipedia layout. Why the fuck do UI designers think removing borders and cramping everything into togglers actually makes things better? Like who the fuck sparked that trend? Apple?

What used to look like an encyclopaedia now looks like a white wall of simply nothing. There no longer seems to be any visual (like actually visuable) organization of a page beyond the paragraphs.

It isn't just that there aren't any visible borders anymore, there also is no contrast whatsoever and the text flickers while scrolling! It horrid and counterintuitive as fuck, because it makes your eye get lost and is utterly immemorable and thus fails to fulfill the basic criteria of visual educational material.

Get education experts when designing the UI next time. This is shameful.--2A02:908:966:63E0:E94E:DAB1:D3A:483 12:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with your comment! I have no idea how someone may break so much the user experience as they did. I haven't been logged to wikipedia for more than a decade, but had to, to choose some older variant of visual style, to even usefully read an article. A shame on them, a shame! How come they have not tested it before release. Sslukt (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small correction, they did test it before release (and I hated it then too), but couldn't figure out how to put it into words. The OP states it excellently. Wiki joedirt (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but it's not just here. The entire Web seems to be going through a phase of ugly and stark being considered design statements. I do hope it passes quickly. 15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree. All the illustrations have been reduced to postage stamps. It looks fine on a phone, but is utterly unusable on a computer screen. The aesthetics have been trashed along with the functionality. The web is a visual experience and Wikipedia has just died... 2001:8003:D40E:7E00:ACDF:D45C:10E0:7BF4 17:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Some websites tend to change themselves radically (e.h. IMDb) when old version is working just fine. Gevorg89 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the new-look looks extremely unorganized, but at least you can switch back to the old one... Telltemmne (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly, the new layout looks utterly dreadful, good thing we can change back to either vector legacy or monobook. Interlacing (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Clear-cut downgrade. Forresthopkinsa (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been using Wikipedia since day 1 and I had to create my first account today just so I can change the layout to the old format. What a HORRIBLE redesign. It's looks like garbage on a widescreen laptop monitor. Why is there so much white space on the left side? Is wikipedia for Zoomers on iPhones now, like TikTok or some other garbage? This is the worst website redesign I've ever seen, including that one that Digg did like 12 years ago that made literally everyone leave the site for Reddit. Just BAD BAD BAD. 21:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so fucking true man 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is nothing but worse. Jacob Agar (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually came here to say the same thing; the new UI isn't just ugly, but it's genuinely painful to use on desktop, to the point of being borderline-unusable. It was clearly designed with mobile users in mind, despite the fact that, afaik, the overwhelming majority of editors prefer desktop; I say this as someone who does mobile edits from time to time. I don't want to have to log in every time I use Wikipedia just so I can even navigate a page! Change it back! Birdn4t0r (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can get the mobile UI on desktop already with .m in the url. I just switched from the mobile view that had opened up by accident to desktop view and I think the layout is even worse on desktop than the actual Mobile UI. This style is not ready for prime time and should in no way have become the default.
The UI getting old and stale is worse than being actively bad.
Shadowmaster13 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Count me in on that one: Huge waste of screen real estate, on my 1920 pixel width screen only half is used by content and it would not be more if resize the browser window to full screen. The article-outline was separated from the article, no visible connection between article and pictures/graphics, way too light UI overall, languag switcher anywhere and search-field moved anywhere else.
Seems like it was designed to fuck up and bug out the user. No real user experience while designing this was in mind i think. 2A02:8109:9D40:1F1C:E475:3EC8:7B5E:28CE 23:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made an account with wikipedia just to switch it back. It's not so much the design is horrible, but it looks exactly like the mobile layout and I don't use the mobile layout for a reason. I don't entirely unsupport the idea of re-optimizing Wikipedia for modern UI (not that I wouldn't switch it back anyways lol) but doing it in a way that just feels like copying the mobile format is so weird. 02:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I disapprove of the profane language used in this comment, I have to echo the sentiment. The amount of white space in the new layout is so jarring it makes articles absolutely dreadful to read on a desktop display. Does Wikipedia even care about how resoundingly negative the feedback to this new design has been? 2600:6C44:747F:98D5:E9C9:BDC3:1868:6F99 03:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uninspired redesign, neither better looking or more functional, so I have no idea what was the intention of whoever came up with this. There is no way someone beta tested this because it would not have gone live.
I have no idea why someone thought the interface needs a change in the first place since it was optimized for a dictionary, but on top of that, it made no sense to take away the access to international versions and Wikimedia on the side which represent additional references. It would make more sense to make the old one default and offer the new one as option. 2600:1700:20C1:4920:B8D9:705C:D86C:BF8F 04:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm mostly reply just to increase the number of replies so they see we don't like this; while the profanity is unnecessary I wholeheartedly agree that desktop websites should have desktop layouts and mobile layouts should stay on mobile. The same complaints were made when Windows 8 came out and when Facebook did it I stopped browsing their website on desktop entirely. At the very least you can change it back in the preferences menu (although that's only available to those of us who've made accounts), unlike Facebook and the new Steam Library (which is not that new anymore). Jacob p12 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree. Vector 2022 sucks due to clearly very little thought being put into it. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I literally went to the step of creating an account just so I could complain about (and hopefully get rid of) the horrific new UI. I've seen better web design in simple html pages from the 90s. -- 10:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main issue with it was that the text was not wide enough and it was harder to read. Glad there's a button at the bottom to make the width fluid. 12:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're totally right. I also had to make an account to select the proper UI. This is clearly some change pushed by some kid who thinks JavaScript frameworks are the best just because some marketing move told him so. Maybe some company author of the framework donated money to Wikipedia to make this change. Otherwise it makes no sense and it just makes Wikipedia worse. Microph123 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the real purpose of the change was to get us all to make accounts.... 01:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thıs is absolutely true, there was no need for a resign as the older one was perfectly fine and the blank white space in the sides is horrid and a waste of space. Klad 2 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new layout sucks so bad. While I think that the old layout looked kinda ugly, I definitely prefer the old one, because it's much easier to read with the old layout. Old is gold, especially on Wikipedia 13:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think maybe if they added a dark mode it wouldn't suck as much though. 13:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least it helped for user count, I had to create an account to revert to the old appearance. 2A02:AA13:7200:8A80:B8E5:F3A9:623C:352D 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't agree more. I don't know if it was their intention to confuse people at first, and then force them to make an account to switch back from the horrible redesign, a la Reddit style. Terrible decision. 18:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is what i came here to say! the only reason i created my user account is so i could revert to the old design! the new one makes me want to vomit. Jakeyounglol (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only agree. The new design is pretty much a compilation of every awful UI design from the past decade. It's genuinely awful and makes the experience actively worse. It really, really, really needs to be rolled back. And I'm hoping WMF isn't going to dig in their heels about this. Because the old design is flat out superior. 2600:1700:1471:2550:2195:BD59:6E8E:AB0C 01:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't agree more, the new look is atrocious and an unbelievable waste of space. This is a perfect example of attempting to fix something that isn't broken. ElaenaS (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been trying to give Vector 2022 a chance over the last few days, and what I really don't like so far is how dead it feels. Like, this lack of visible page organization, as you pointed out, makes it very dull. All this white without much contrast actually makes my eyes uneasy. That is my experience so far. RoadTrain (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too am chiming in to say I made an account for the first time in 30 years of using wikipedia to revert to the old format. The new vector is atrocious to look at and makes reading a chore. The old layout was engaging and helped you intake information. Thats part of the reason people could get lost in wikipedia it was so easy to read. 2603:8080:A704:5A81:A800:FCEE:7F61:1D8F 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created an account just to voice my distaste for the new layout. WHY is the width limited??? I get that to some it may be easier to read, but for me, with a 27" screen, I now have to scroll quite bit to read the same content. I MUCH rather read longer lines than be forced to scroll every couple seconds.
The previous design was clean and compact. Some may say cluttered, but really everything was at your fingertips and super convenient.. Like an airplane. The new design hides things behind annoying menus, and the TOC being hid behind toggles is REALLY DUMB. Now I can't see the outline of a page without guessing and randomly clicking on toggles?? WTF?! The new design also wastes ~2/3rds of horizontal space on a 27" monitor which looks really goofy. It feels so sterile, and like a clone of other wastelands of the modern web. Ugh. Frustrating. At least with an account, now I can revert the look. Jammnrose (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding my voice to those who had to create an account just to go back to the old layout. The new one is just awful. Hargan2 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ive always donated to wiki since i graduated college. I will never give them a cent ever again. Same thing with mozilla and mdn. Its like they used the same brain dead designer Randt1234 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't normally comment on talk pages, but good god is this new UI design the most useless one I've ever seen. Nobody asked you to hide everything behind unintuitive buttons, it was working just fine before you fiddled with it. Hobtan (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have to agree that this new redesign looks very bad. Please revert it!! 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is garbage.. I can't resize the content in a widescreen monitor to get full viewing width. Who thinks this is actually more usable ? Psiberfunk (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm chiming in as a UX designer–this is shameful and I'm so very tired of "new" UI improvements just turning out to be hiding functionality behind toggle screens. Enuui (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've used the new layout for two weeks. I'm switching back to the old look because it displays the article in a wider column for reading and editing, because it doesn't have a right-nav bar for Tools that I have to hide, and because it uses gray backgrounds to guide my eyes. PRRfan (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't agree more. HATE the new layout. There is so much white space it almost makes me sick. I don't know how web developers get the idea that they know better than I do about what size I want my window to be. I set it to a given size, some smart a**e developer sets 5" borders other content! How arrogant is that. If I wanted it that size I could easily do so. Guess what, I didn't. IanKennedy1965 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. New format is harder to navigate, particularly on the desktop. Many articles are actively more difficult to read, between the increased white space on the page and the way the text boxes have been 'streamlined'. Not sure if anyone in authority at Wikipedia is reading these comments, but you really dropped the ball on this redesign. 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I want to read on my phone, I grab my phone. Why do developers everywhere think that a desktop website should look like a phone website. This new appearance may disappear.
Why must everything always be hidden for an empty appearance?
More search and click work for the same result. Like logging in. To create an account one click. To log in two clicks. Willem ter Haar (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new UI looks awful. It's so bad it made me come here to let my voice be heard. Please change it back to the previous version while you come up with something better ☹ 22:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like many, I have created an account to switch back to the old style. Maybe this was the idea? The new design is woeful. What's the point of having a large monitor if you put all the text in a ribbon down the middle, with huge amounts of white space on each side. Horrible. 23:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I thought the site was broken at first, then came to find out that this was done on purpose.
If nothing else, it pushed me to figure out how discussion pages work. But I'm deeply not in favor.
I'm not sure where all of the content on the left side of the page went. Is there a migration tutorial? 2600:1700:EB0:3790:D07F:D785:80DD:AC07 01:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought i was on the mobile version then found out this was actually a new layout. This is just all around dumb. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will stop donations immediately if this is NOT changed back to default. The new "theme" is total shit and I will have NONE of it. This is not the reason I donate money to Wikipedia. Whoever made this decision should have been ousted yesterday. Revert it back to the previous DEFAULT and MAKE people choose the crappy 2022 (genX-edition) if they feel compelled. Newlayoutsucksass (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. As one may guess, I made an account just to be able too change the look. Please don't make non registered users suffer, they're people too! WikiP'sNew2023UIisTRASH (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While you’re welcome to voice your opinions/feedback about wiki functions, please do not take it into account usernames. Tropicalkitty (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had to make an account just to go back to the old design where the content isn't squished into a tiny section just to make room for whitespace 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree!! I thought that the CSS template was not loading properly to start with, then that facepalm moment.
I am surprised because they think MOBILE MODE is a must, that there wasn't a forced DARK MODE as well.
Even the Skin Appearance Preferences does NOT SAVE EITHER, Seriously WTF Shealladh (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
totally agree, horrible UI, but fortunately you can change it in preferences, what i encourage you to do, then they will know in theirs A/B testing that users actually really prefer old layout. 12:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the new design isn't ideal. I am most frustrated by the large borders/sidebars on the sides of desktop monitors. Why squish all content into the middle of the screen and leave these massive blank rectangles on the side? Less information on the screen at a given time = bad, in my opinion. That is my main gripe... I like the idea of a sticky table of contents, but I am too jarred by the sudden change in page size relative to monitor resolution/aspect ratio. Donlad26 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too can only agree. The MASSIVE amount of whitespace introduced is a complete backwards step that I cannot believe passed to the end. 2A01:4B00:8786:D00:9CCA:920:18FE:893D 19:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was using the "?useskin=vector?useskin=vector" thing to force the old design, but that stopped working it seems. So here I am, a glorious, new registered user. My username conveys my feelings on the matter. Yournewdesignsuuuucks (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
100% agree. At first I thought I'd accidentelly opened the mobile version, but then to my shock realised that someone at Wikipedia apparently thought it was a good idea to make this the design of the main version of Wikipedia. This should be reverted asap and the person who greenlit this should be fired. Luckily there is an option to switch back to the previous design, but the user experience should be good out of the box without having to manually change some settings first. -- Cyberhopser (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow what a worseification.... i hope next time they beg you for donation they receive at most only 1/4 of the usual, clearly they have to much money to waste.
- Language selection, much more inefficient
- New right side menu distracting from the article
- Horrible, completley unusable new TOC
- Switching from a design usable at all resolutions (usually i even preferred it on mobile, as i didn't like the castrated mobile version aswell) to a fixed width is a massive step backwards too. (As others noted already: lots of wasted space) BorisSapulu (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is quite awful, and I created an account to revert to the old layout. 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
echoing here the new ui is eye bleed inducing i feel as if i will get a headache looking at it for too long. the cramped appearence makes reading anything a chore and makes things ugly with the spacing what is with that planing to add huge banner ads? the only reason i made an account was to revert this change will likely cause some people to leave if its not fixed this should be an optional theme not the defult your going to have infogalactic eatting your lunch. change for the sake of change is never good, if you need your ui design team to earn their keep then have them work on optional skins for the end user to select. the mobilefication of the net needs to stop theres a reason .m exists use it. Bobboter (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made an account specifically to save my preferences regarding the appearance. I'd rather check wikipedia on my phone than go through the 2022 layout. Awful. VangyTuft (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with you - like I agree 100% with everything you said - but you can change back to the original layout, so I'm not too upset. I don't really see them taking away the legacy layout either. 2604:3D09:A977:3600:5DEE:6E28:6C0:7871 11:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. I actually registered on Wikipedia just to have the preferences option to switch to the old layout. It's just amazing how bad the new one is. Yegork1978 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the only 'positive' is a separate TOC, and even that is rather badly implemented. It should be the topmost left table, separated from other menus and options, aligned with the article. Vinner19 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree!! I can live with if design is not too nice-looking, but I hate when it's unpractical. And this new look is just too horrible to use. I often switch languages, sometime even those I don't talk or read, only now its impossible task to do it quickly with that stupid select box, if there are twenty languages. Moreover, I have to log in in each language to set old layout, that is so very annoying. I could write quite a list what else is useless, but I see others wrote it down already. BeaBeta (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I do not understand the disregard for users screen space. I purchased a large monitor only to find that 'designers' throw away large parts of it's space. An wiki page is not there to look beautiful (not that you could call the new design beautiful! but at the end of the day I suppose that's a matter of taste.) It's form should start with and follow function; it's there first of all to provide information, and options at your fingertips. Both are reduced significantly.
I am very glad to be able to switch back! 2A02:A46A:A337:1:14E3:853E:3CB2:6782 09:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new layout is EXTREMELY inaccessible for people with disabilities in my opinion.
The text being all smashed together is harder to read, the white space is distracting, and the god awful hamburger menu requires extra movements and clicks to open. Everything is so unintuitive, frustrating, and makes my head hurt. I imagine people who need screen readers are having an even harder time than I am using this site. People shouldn't have to make an entire account just so they can use an educational website without suffering.
Wikipedia 1000% did not have people with disabilities in mind when working on this redesign and approving it, as seems the case with most websites who push for the atrocity that is "modern" web design. I wonder if Wikipedia realises they aren't required to follow the the trend of having an ugly website that's terrible to use. Azethes (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only good thing about the redesign is the TOC sliding down with us on the left as we scroll the article. Everything else is bad. The one thing we could have used is a dark mode and we're being told it *was* technically impossible to do, has recently become possible, but won't be done regardless. I've never heard anything like it. 00:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU. It looks SO bad dude. This needs to be reverted ASAP. Thank god they at least made it easy to change back. Sleampy (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Created a Wikimedia account today to change my theme preference, lol Jessveness (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am so glad I am not the only one that thinks the new layout is god awful! I thought I was going insane when I was google searching "new wikipedia layout" and all the top results were news articles with headlines like "Wikipedia gets its first makeover in over a decade… and it’s fairly subtle" (link). I was so happy when I found out that I could get rid of the layout by logging into my account. Sockbucketfrance (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely agree. New look is a piece of shit. Hire some UX designers! and think twice - it looks ugly on the huge PC screens! 12:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't agree more. It is absolutely horrible. 21:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying to save my appearance preferences to one of the older themes, and it straight up will not apply. Every time I re-visit a wikipedia page it is set to vector 2022. Is there a fix for this? I've already cleared my cache/cookies. CapSAR (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree! this needs to be revised back to the older verson by default. Webpages need to be functional, and not minimal. The new layout is not even optimized to view more text! Haldardhruv95 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i fully agree!
been using wikipedia for all my life and this new ui is a major shock, whos fucking idea was it to change it without a poll or something? Zekromisblack (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Came here to say the new layout looks horrible. Whose idea was this? 17:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signed up just to agree how horrible the new layout is. I have a 2560x1440 display and the new design uses 1/3 of it. Why are we treating desktop sites like mobile sites. You HAVE a mobile site,, use that for you vertical/skinny text display. Stop taking away my screen real estate, you are NOT fandom. Stop ruining your website experience. --Kinomora (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's growing on me. But there's always the option to stick with the old layout. I just got here by clicking through the "preferences" menu. PaulHammond (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vector 2022 must die.

Agreed, I made an account just because i read you can change the layout back to the original and when the survey asked what reason i had for creating my account today and since it didn't allow me the option of telling them to delete this new layout i'm posting it here

I agree, the new design sucks. The one function I use as a multilingual person - changing language - has for some reason been hidden behind a drop down gadget. "More prominent" my ass, it's much less usable now than simply clicking on the language on the left side. --2A00:5500:80E8:AB00:0:0:0:100 18:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the key problem that drove me to log in and setup preferences. Frequently change languages. Used to be a consistent annual donor, but clearly they don't need the money if there's budget to waste on removing all the functionality out of a UI that wasn't broken. Everyone who signed off on this, the whole way up the management chain should tender their resignation immediately. Dvulrich (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree with you! I don't get why websites that are LONG established and work perfectly fine feel the need to be..... *sigh* [record scratch, turns baseball around] HIP! With it! In with the crowd! Not like your parents! So don't frown! [end lame 90's nonsense that ad companies though was cool] They need to stop. They all need to stop. Pinkfluffyunicorns88 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur: this 2022 as a default is a horrible waste of page space. 01:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same here. Not only doesn't it look like anything educational, it wastes space on any screen bigger than 8", and the stark whiteness leaves you lost in space. I switched back to the one with the book, that at least looks pretty. 20:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new layout of Wikipedia is horrible, we all know that at this point. But I noticed something entirely else. The English version of Wikipedia is downgraded with this Vector 2022 nonsense but the German and Russian Wikipedias use the superior old Vector 2010 layout. Yes this is true-you can check this right now if you don't believe me. I do not know Russian or German language, I was just clicking around to see what is going on with their layouts. So good for them and for English readers we get the bad user experience.
Why the team that works on this decided that the English readers and editors should be tortured with this new layout?! How and when the other non-english communities have negotiated to be spared and not suffer the Vector 2022 disaster??? They have their voice heard and opted out but we the English using community are second class citizens now? How the other communities managed to convince you and we fail when we say we do not like Vector 2022? 16:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm making a wikipedia account just to get away from the waste of space.

Make an account? - Thank you, I didn't know about that. Vector legacy is really a more enjoyable experience. It's why people go to cinemas even though they can watch at home. What a difference. Changing the format for mobile is understandable but doesn't make sense for desktops.Preroll (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More TOC concernsEdit

On pages with long headings (f.i. en:Wikipedia:Closure_requests), the new TOC is highly impractical. The headings are difficult to parse, sometimes cutting words in two. A lot of scrolling is also required to get an overview of what discussions to close. Will it be possible to go back to the old TOC on a per-page base? I can imagine a lot of non-article pages will have similar problems (including this one).

Less importantly, I noticed that the default is having only the top heading displayed. In some pages / articles there are very few top-level headings, and this would always require the reader to uncollapse. Can this be made more dynamic? Femke (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible (probably only on bigger screens) to use the empty white space on the right for tools (for logged-in editors), so that the TOC is less cramped? Solves two problems in one. Femke (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your question! That is actually one of the next steps we hope to take for the new skin. More details are available on the page tools feature page. In terms of the ToC, we actually estimate the length of the ToC and decide whether to open or close the subsections based on that. For pages with shorter ToC's, all subsections should be open by default. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I liked Wikipedia when you didn't need to create an account to read it. Now either you create an account or you can't read it properly.
This change is BS and I don't care how cool your JS framework is, nobody likes this and you shouldn't force your frontend bootcamp brands on us. Microph123 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Femke thanks for your comments. We worked with the Editing team to determine whether or not to use the updated, sidebar table of contents on talk pages. You can see that discussion here: While there are some drawbacks, particularly long section titles wrapping (as you mentioned), there is also a large benefit of consistency between article pages and talk pages. Do you think that truncating the section titles in the table of contents, and making the full title available via a tooltip on hover would help with this situation at all?
Truncated section titles in table of contents, with tooltip on hover (Vector 2022)
cc @PPelberg (WMF) @NAyoub (WMF) (from the Editing team) who might have some other thoughts or ideas to add. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like the page tools on the right. Invisible for readers (who can be converted to editors by the simple edit button), and by default visible to editors that want it. This also means I can collapse the other links on the left by default (assuming that script writers move their script links).
The current TOC I see on this page seems to have a smaller font size than previously, and (4 comments) in grey below. It's an improvement, but I still miss the overview of the numbers.
The initial link I mistyped (en:WP:Closure requests) at the moment only has the top-level heading (so it only shows requests for closure, so that seems to be a bug? Or can you only toggle between top-level / all level uncollapsed? On that same page, the end of the heading is often the most interesting, so I'm not sure that having truncated section titles will help much. You'd want a quick overview (similar to en:WP:ANI), to see what discussions you'd like to engage in. Femke (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF), @AHollender (WMF), @Femke: I've had a similar bad impression as Femke and other users about the new TOC. The new TOC is a mess. Please restore the old TOC and make the new TOC appear as a pop-up menu when the full TOC is off-screen. The full TOC should also be collapsed and numbered by default, as before. This would be a solution to all problems, and would also be aesthetically elegant, indeed. 10:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Femke thanks for these notes.
  • Regarding: "but I still miss the overview of the numbers" — can you expand on this thought? And to clarify, are you thinking just about Talk pages here, or Article pages as well?
  • Regarding the TOC on en:WP:Closure requests: the TOC is currently setup to automatically expand all sections if there are less than 20 sections & sub-sections within the page (e.g. en:Plant Stem). If there are more than 20 the top level sections get collapsed in the TOC, to allow for easier scanning of the TOC (e.g. en:Paris). In the case of en:WP:Closure requests there are more than 20 sections & sub-sections, and unfortunately they are all nested within one section. This is the least optimal page structure in terms of working well with the new TOC. Do you think it's reasonable to expect editors to eventually restructure certain pages to avoid this kind of situation where everything is nested within one (collapsed) section in the TOC?
AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response :)
I miss the numbering in the TOC most in pages that are long by necessity, to get an easy overview of how long the backlog is. So that's behind the scenes pages (en:WP:ANI, AN, CR, ..). I think I can get used to it in other places.
For the article talk pages, the TOC without numbers will probably work okay if there are less than ~12 discussions. (that is, if the plan is to break up the en:WP:sea of blue with n comments there too). And most article talk pages do not need to have more sections that that, so I hope there will be an increased tendency to set up archiving.
Would it be possible to collapse up to a lower level if there are say >20 overall and <4 top level? So for closure requests to have the 4 subsections show up, but not the subsubsections? Or, to set this per page, in a similar way as en:template:TOC limit? Restructuring CR in particular isn't trivial given that the archiving bot will have to be rewritten, and I have no idea how easy that is. Femke (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another example is en:WP:FAC, where the default top-level doesn't really make sense (four headings), and you'd want to show the first two levels of headings by default. The third level headings aren't too relevant either. The current TOC only gives you the option of too much or too little information. Femke (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Femke, ok so on a high level I'm understanding your request as something like: certain administrative Wiki pages (e.g. ANI, Closure requests, FAC, etc.) would benefit from more fine tuned configuration regarding which level of sections in the table of contents are expanded/collapsed by default. While it is possible to restructure the pages themselves (rather than reconfigure the table of contents), it is unclear how easy it would be to do this because the archiving bots would need to be updated. Let me know if that sounds right to you.
My next step is to bring this up with @OVasileva (WMF) at our next meeting. I think it might also make sense to include @Jdlrobson in this discussion, as he might have more information regarding the effort involved to restructure those pages and update the archive bots. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly yes.
All of these pages are archived in slightly different ways, and I believe restructuring wouldn't interfere with archiving outside of closure requests. The other pages have less scope for restructuring I believe. For en:WP:FAC, the solution could lie in making the TOC responsive again to the en:template:TOC limit, which does not seem to affect the new skin. Femke (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we were going for the most simple solution here: do you think offering an optional table of contents configuration where all sections and subsections are expanded by default would at least improve the situation for these pages somewhat? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would resolve my less important issue, yes.
Is is technically too difficult to unbreak the TOC limit template? Femke (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Femke that's a good question, I'm not sure what the answer is though. I met with @OVasileva (WMF) and she thinks we should be able to find a solution. I've just opened this phabricator task: Let's move the discussion over there. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • TOC depth does not show enough, therby confusing say level 3=== and 4====. Made me loose TOC overview. (this for the record, will look for similar posts). -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey @DePiep I think I understand what you mean. Can you provide a link (or several) to and article where this issue is present, just to make sure I'm properly understand what you're describing? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See File:WP_vector_2022_Menu_indenting,_illustration.png, on purpose annotated screenshot. From en:Hydrogen. Actually, first met the issue in a talkpage, en:Talk:Periodic_table, where indenting can be more .. chaotic.
    Description: The examples have up to level h4 (====), old numbering "1.2.3" then. Now, the TOC captions are indented all right, but to my eye not distinguishing (easily): it requires a second look, not by glancing. Confusion added by longer section titles.
    Opinion: Personally I support the 'sticky' idea to the max: TOC overview from every page position, yeah. I'd gladly offer some bodyspace-width for this informative TOC in LH margin. Consistently: button 'unfold/fold _all_ levels' expected. Same for page menu ("What links here"-list) btw. All this about desktop view and from heavy Editor not Reader. DePiep (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @DePiep some more conversation about this over here: AHollender (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Start of redirect targets hidden by top horizontal barEdit

See, e.g., en:WP:RELATED: the first line of text visible reads "intended to link to topics that are simply...". In other skins, the first line of text visible is the section title: "Linking to articles that are related to the topic". Fgnievinski (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Fgnievinski, I unfortunately can't replicate - I checked on two browsers (Chrome and Firefox) and three widths (full, which is 2,5k px, ~1000 px, and ~400 px, and every time, the section title is the first line of visible text for me. What browser and display resolution do you use? Do you use any additional browser zoom? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
here's a screenshot:
my screen resolution is 1280x720 and zoom level is 100%.
I'm using Chrome in incognito mode to avoid add-ons.
the problem only appears after I login into Wikipedia.
Here are some of my preferences:
- Skin: Vector (2022)
- Skin preferences: Enable responsive mode (Adapt layout to screen size on mobile.)
- Beta: New wikitext mode
Thanks for your support. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can replicate the Problem, though my first line is "Disambiguation...". I sometimes have the same Problem while using the new TOC. It seems to have something to do with the sticky Header. At first the Heading is visible for a blink of an eye, than the sticky Header pops up and the Text is blocked. HirnSpuk (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HirnSpuk, @Fgnievinski - could you tell me what browser version and device you were using? Thank you! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm using Google Chrome on a PC running Windows 10. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF), I'm sorry, I don't remember anymore. Might have probably been Desktop-Firefox under Linux which I use mostly. I just tested in Win/Edge. The Problem is there. Standard Configuration, no zoom, middle font. Tested in Chrome, standard-configuration, problem is there. When clicking the given Link, the heading is there for a split second, than the "sticky-header" kicks in and moves over the heading. HirnSpuk (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF), I noticed some other weird behavior. When jumping to a specific Heading via special:permanentlink I'm not getting to the paragraph but somewhere below that. Might be related. Compare: b:de:Spezial:Permanentlink/1008062#What_the_"faq" or b:de:Spezial:Permanentlink/1003322#Lasst_uns_über_die_Desktop-Verbesserungen_sprechen
Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am getting this too. Any time a redirect points to a section, the sticky header bar obscures the first line or two of text at the target page, so one has to scroll up to see if it is the right place (uncover the header). It looks like the page is opened at the right place, and then the sticky header is opened on top of it, covering the top text. This must be compensated somehow to correct for the reduced space at the top of the page for visible content but it is nor immediately obvious how it should be done. I am using Firefox latest version on windows 10 on desktop, and windows 11 on laptop. Effect seems to be consistent and repeatable. I notice that this effect does not occur when using the ToC, so it should be fixable by using a similar procedure. I would guess that for the ToC case, the content frame (whatever it is called), is already defined taking the presence of the sticky header frame into account, so the content is rendered after the header is already in place, so the top is not obscured.Pbsouthwood (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please revert to old skin on swwikiEdit

Hi we discussed the changes during our admin conference for Swahili Wikipedia. We request you to kindly revert to the old skin for our wikipedia. We see that we would have to rewrite our help pages considerably and presently do not have the capacity. We tried to communicate this to user:SGrabarczuk (WMF) but he did not react so far. Kipala (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Kipala, thanks for reaching out. We apologize for this inconvenience. Because it might be helpful to us as the developers of the skin: can you help us better understand why you would have to rewrite your help pages considerably? Is it because the main menu is now different? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For clarity, we're talking to that community in a few different places; currently, I think, mainly via email. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi AHollender, you are right. Our help pages (like basically all I have looked at) refer to the menue and positions of items on the screen. See e.G. here . For a small wikipedia with very few users who have ever worked on the help pages it means either a huge workload for which we presently have nobody - or having misleading help pages which definitely is not a good idea.. Kipala (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We just had a vote on swahili wikipedia. See! We had 13 participants (which is an excellent participation) and the vote was 13-0 for returning to the previous surface as default, until we are in a position to redo our help pages. So are you the right people here to effect this? Or do we have to talk to someone else? Kind regards Kipala (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear people we notified SGrabarczuk (WMF) by Email on 10.11.2022 that we had done the vote in the swwiki community, we notified you here and until now nobody gave us a reply. Are you too busy or just impolite? Or are we too small and unimportant? Kind regards Kipala (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Kipala. I'm sorry that you were waiting so long. I needed some time to consult with the members of our team.
Again, we understand and respect your care for help pages.
According to my knowledge, most of the discussion took place in a closed channel, accessible mainly or exclusively for admins of your wiki. We've only been able to talk to your group via proxy. We would much rather be able to communicate directly with the community to figure out how we can help. I believe we might set up a meeting in addition to an on-wiki discussion. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear ones, I find this behaviour not acceptable. We did not discuss in some closed channel but we had an open debate and vote in our community. Openly:! You were free to contribute. You guys do not dare to act like this vis a vis a large wikipedia like dewiki, Why do you think you can do this towards a small african language version??
So when do we see the revert, please?? Kipala (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies @Kipala, I was of the impression that the topic on wiki with all these votes was a direct consequence of a discussion previously taking place in a closed group. We'll talk to you on your wiki, then. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kipala Do you have a list of help pages that would need to be updated? The file you mentioned shows only the 2010 wikitext editor, which is not changing. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our help page are in the respective category. So would you guys kindly respect the open and inclusive decision of the community and asap revert the change you decided to do without obtaining consent? Kipala (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kipala - apologies that this is taking so long to resolve! Our concern with any type of revert here would be that we are in the process of switching the majority of Wikipedias to the new skin and the new experience. Having some wikis stay on the old skin by default would add effort to the development team, and potentially confuse users on the wiki because of the switch. Would it be possible for us to assist in some way to get the help pages ready and updated in a more prompt manner instead? We'd also like to mention that we plan on making other various improvements to desktop in the future as well that are smaller and could affect existing documentation. Our advice here would be to write any documentation or help pages without referring to a specific layout or interface. Our software evolves and improves over time and it would be great to see documentation that is flexible enough to allow for this. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear, the confusion is in place because you changed the skin without asking for approval from us. If you would kindly take a bit of time and look thru our help pages you will see that help pages must refer to the way items are arranged on the screen. if you do not write Swahili I do not see how you will help us. As you know German wikipedia took a vote to keep the "old" skin as default. And of course, because that is a large an influential community, you have not done anything without their approval. (I guess in enwiki the situation is similar). So if you can live with dewiki for the time being, I do not see any argument why you cannot live with swwiki and old skin default as well. So kindly just tell me what hinders you from reverting? (Except the fact that you do not like it and we are a small and unimportant wikipedia?) And kindly tell me since when community decisions can be just ignored? Kipala (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kipala -  Our sincere apologies for the delay in response here.  Our intention is not to ignore the consensus of the Swahili community.  We do believe the merits of the new skin for readers of Swahili and want to ensure that we are giving them the best possible experience.  We have discussed internally and have prepared a few options for moving forward.  We've written up these options for next steps and plan on sharing them with the Swahili community on the Swahili Wikipedia Village Pump as well as scheduling a meeting with the community where we can make a plan on moving forward together.  How does this sound?  Thank you and apologies again for the delayed response. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since they aren't responding to this reply, understandably, I think the plan can move forward for now. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Kipala and all! Just a quick update - we're currently translating our message for the Swahili Village pump into Swahili and hope to have it posted there by the end of the week. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you think that here, as in many other discussions related to Vector 2022, you interpret everything (even someone's silence) in a way that fits your own expectations? 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, why would you think that? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Our intention is not to ignore the consensus of the Swahili community." But we will ignore he consensus of the Swahili community. Well... 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kipala: ! Habari? Olga: how about just reverting the default and helping sw:wp update their help pages? The concern about having them change in lockstep seems thoughtful and probably what we should all be doing before making skin changes that change common workflows :) perhaps Swahili WP is just more keenly aware of the need for and use of those docs. Future skin updates you mention would hopefully not have so many changes at once. Warmly, Sj (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kipala Although I don't speak Swahili, I would like to assist with updating the help page screenshots (as I did for some on the English Wikipedia). Could you point me to where they are? You mentioned above but that is a feature which has not changed with Vector 2022.
As far as I can tell sw:Wikipedia:Mwongozo and its other tabs are the main help pages on Swahili Wikipedia, but using Google Translate that says "The guide has provided information specifically for those using the MonoBook page format. Since September 2010 the shape of the pages as seen by non-logged users is Vector. The guide has not yet been rewritten." and they have MonoBook screenshots. Surely those can't be what you're suddenly so concerned about? the wub "?!" 00:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jambo Kipala! hongera! n-a-Kipala-penda, nakupenda. (kigiriki el.wiktionary, Central) Sarri.greek (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dark ModeEdit

Make any theme with native Dark Mode. Time for filling everything around with any color, on condition that it is "white", has passed.

Seregadushka (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone had a decree of the Ministry of Health of the United Kingdom on reducing the brightness of monitors. I can't find the link. The savings were measured in hundreds of millions of F (reduction of electricity consumption, equipment resource, treatment of eye diseases, payment of sick leave, ...). It's time for Wiki to listen to this. Seregadushka (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Native dark mode is necessary for global environmental friendliness and for a better experience.
It reduces power consumption when using OLED displays.
Also, white screens are very glaring when transitioning from other dark-mode enabled websites. (And the new theme is more "white"!) Futchitwo (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Seregadushka, @Futchitwo, thank you for your comments. I've just updated our answer about dark mode in the FAQ.
In short, we are not going to do that as part of this project. At the beginning of the project, we would even say that it's not possible. It has become technically possible recently, though, and someone at the Foundation could work on that.
Perhaps you would consider taking part in the Community Wishlist Survey and voting for dark mode? This is an easy way for editors to ask for a specific technical change. The period for making proposals will be in January, and voting would be around late January - early February. (See the Wishlist's FAQ to learn how to take part.) Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't figure out how to participate in the survey. Where is the choice of questions ? 4 periods are specified, but there are no actual tasks of this survey. Prudently. On the topic -- now absolutely all operating systems of mobile phones and computers have "Dark Mode". Stop hanging around in the past, when there was nothing but a white Apple. If the design is only white? My eyes hurt from the work of your designers ! Seregadushka (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Seregadushka. We also believe having the dark mode would help. As I wrote, this mode has only been made possible recently, as a consequence of this project. (The Survey hasn't started yet - the first phase will start in January.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And my eyes hurt when I try to read bright text on dark background. Also you seem to be (deliberately?) forgetting that even Apple I had white text against black background (as did Apple II and MS-DOS) - I'd say there's a reason we moved away from that. 2A02:A312:C539:8D80:78DE:760D:452F:23E2 19:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements|I see you don't even mention these reasons, because there is no reasonable explanation for this. What you don't know how to do working with CSS styles is not the reason. The whole world is striving for green technologies. But you don't understand (intentionally?) that millions of monitors operating in the mode of maximum energy consumption disrupt the general movement of humanity to reduce the impact on the environment. Hire other programmers who understand CSS. Seregadushka (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"At the beginning of the project, we would even say that it's not possible."
This is a completely false statement. From a programmer's point of view I can guarantee everything that such a change is extremely easy. But on a LARGER NOTE -- the Wikipedia Android Mobile App has had dark mode for quite some time. And the time is far overdue for the web interface to catch up and stop being both a drain on electricity and a strain on eyes. ClimbAll (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't call dark mode easy, or impossible. Somewhere in the middle. There are dozens of CSS elements you never think about or notice until dark mode messes them up.
I have been using Skin:Citizen for quite some time on my wiki with very few problems. It has an excellent dark mode that automatically engages when user browser preference is set. I think WMF should make it available for logged in users. Flounder ceo (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> At the beginning of the project, we would even say that it's not possible. It has become technically possible recently, though
This is an insane thing for you to have to say. If the redesign made darkmode impossible and it has only recently allowed for it for be done very difficultly, you should consider whether the redesign is any good at all. 00:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am astounded that after such a large update to the UI, native dark mode for desktop is still not a feature. Frosck (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I made a naïve assumption that a native dark mode would be a part and parcel of the new UI— calling it "not possible" is laughable at best TheLucifer0509 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several dozen applications for Windows browsers, that have the conditional name "Dark Mode". One change the display for ANY site. And they are practically not mistaken. I.e. they have a universal mechanism of operation for all Internet sites. And you can't make a "Dark Mode" specifically for Wikipedia, when you don't have to guess, all the properties are known. Almost always people make decisions (and answer questions and suggestions) who understand little in questions asked. I'm not a programmer, I haven't sold a single website, I'm not paid to know CSS, it's a hobby for me. As the programmer ClimbAll (talk) has already said , this is extremely easy to do:

.dark_mode {background-color: black; color: white}

And that 's all ! Currently, the whole Wikipedia works on the same CSS style, only the properties are swapped (even if you use PHP, it won't be much more difficult). You only need to provide switching .dark_mode and .white_mode Of course, you can choose different colors for texts of different purposes, different degrees of "grayness" of the background of the pages. But these are conventions. I assure you, the entire amount of work will not go beyond 10 KB :) Seregadushka (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For users interested in Dark mode who have not yet participated in the related discussion of the Community Wishlist Survey 2023, you can do so here meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Reading/Dark_mode. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last year WMF removed dark mode from the wishlist. Flounder ceo (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long article blurryEdit

Vector 2022: Long articles (for example w:Johann Sebastian Bach) show blurry (a little bit bold) fonts after scrolling to references. Mouse hover corrects artifacts to normal font. Grimes2 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Grimes2, thank you for the report. Can you verify if your problem is the same of this task? Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, same problem, here on English Wikipedia (logged in, Vector 2022), Opera 93.0.4585.37, Win 11. Grimes2 (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TOC is the problem. How can I switch off buggy TOC in Vector 2022? Grimes2 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unusable. Changed to Vector legacy (2010) Grimes2 (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grimes2: Please visit this page with instructions.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't work. Still at Vector 2010. Grimes2 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to be fixed today. --Grimes2 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Purge-by-clock disappearsEdit

In old and new vector, I can purge a page by clicking the clock, somewhere top-right. OK. In Vec2022, the clock is in the usermenu (top-right, dropdown). (1) It now is invisible by default (sort of undoes its usefulness, a read-only-but-often). (2) the clock disappears from that menu when page is scrolled down. E.g., when I am down somewhere in section #4 on a /testcases page, I can unfold the usermenu all right, but the clock is not there and so I cannot purge the page. Have to go to top of page for this.

I'd expect (1) the clock be more often in view (possiby in top-of-page only, agree), and (2) the clock/purgebutton to be in the dropdown menu for purging when scrolled down (sticky-in-the-menu?). BTW for me, the purge could be a distinct menu item just as well. DePiep (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for reporting this. There are a few different issues, I don't have all the answers yet, so I'll get back to you when I know more.
A quick direct to your last thought is that there are other gadgets adding the purge as menu items, for example MoreMenu. Another one is mentioned here: w:Wikipedia:Purge#Gadgets. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I posted a feature request at the talk page for the clock gadget. Jonesey95 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see any clock in the dropdown usermenu at all, how does one switch it on? I wish we could have more control over the usermenu and what displays without dropdown TBH. Ain92 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    re User:Ain92 In my preferences (at enwiki), I have chosen "Vector 2022), then in "Gadgets" I choose option Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache". DePiep (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, add classic styleEdit

Could you please, please, add somewhere (visible) 'Classic style' or something? For logged or not logged people? Some of us wish to stay with the classic style. I cannot find it when I am not logged. Thank you for all your efforts, but we need Classic everywhere, in all wikimedia projects. Please? Please? Sarri.greek (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sarri.greek: Have you checked Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-rendering (select Vector instead of Vector 2022)? --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @NGC 54, I clicked some buttons there. But is this for unlogged people? I would like a visible button somewhere 'Classic' (not hidden in a menu). I presume that if I go to History, at previous versions, I can see the normal style. Sarri.greek (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sarri.greek: No, it is not for unlogged people. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boooooo. 👎👎 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that, my friends, is the problem. I don't want to be logged in on my work computer but the new layout is SO LOATHLY (Yet Another Change Is a Downgrade But Try Telling the UX Wags That -- Gmail, my bank [all of them actually], imdb, reddit, digg and now, heaven help us all, wikipedia -- it's all at "Gnome3" levels of hateration, folks) that I'll probably make a fake-me login there just. for. this. one. reason. That can't have been your intention. I have a number of friends and relatives who are creating users just so they can have Their Wikipedia Back, with no intention of EVER being editors or authors.
Yes, this is a must-have feature for non-logged-in people. How strongly must we put it in order to succeed in bringing about this change. There's a tribe of UX mavens who need to be reminded that Change Is A Downgrade for your existing users, even the ones who don't log in.
cheers...ank Ansak (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Sarri.greek. This is unfortunately not possible, the same way it's not possible for logged-out users to use Monobook instead of Vector legacy. You can read more in our FAQ (Why is the opt-out link not available for logged-out users?). SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @SGrabarczuk (WMF). Thankfully, all wiktionaries are in classic style except the French, which we avoid. For wikipedias, we may try to find equivalent projects. Sarri.greek (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF), why not add a permanent global little banner line with
For Classic Style, log in and click Classic2010 here
Sarri.greek (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i lurk every day becuase i dont have to put up with tracking bullshit this is a spit in the face to longtime users that dont simply want another stupid platform to login to 2601:644:9180:31B0:C177:B313:1C8D:2C7F 04:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's such a bullshit non-answer. Tons of sites have figured this out without any issue. It's 100% within the capability of the servers. 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it shouldn't be that difficult to add a simple drop-down list with a selection of CSS styles and save a cookie with the choice. 2A02:A312:C539:8D80:78DE:760D:452F:23E2 20:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree 100%, if Reddit can do it, and if switching to Monobook (objectively the best design) is even still possible for signed in accounts, that means that the layouts merely manipulate what data is available, not build every page from the ground up... so therefore could easily be deployed and used as people saw fit. You don't want that because people would be switching back to Monobook and your designs would be discredited as being an advancement (which they aren't) IF they can't, then I want the old Vector 2010 back since the new design is absolutely laughable. there's literally twice as much white space than text. (I have a big monitor) Ikaruseijin (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another annoyed Wikipedia user here; corporate policy at work is 'no personal accounts on corporate computers'. Any suggestions for reverting to a usable Wikipedia skin? 02:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am afraid this might drive people to find information elsewhere. I was already considering alternative sources for quick knowledge on organic chemistry, but luckily read that you could create an account and change the style back. I find the white-spaces and compact text-boxes with short lines an eyesore and very difficult to skim through, unfortunately. Mftp96 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Mftp96, friend, take a look at the end of next section. I want there, and it is fun. Sarri.greek (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let the public decideEdit

My opinion is this. The phsyiognomy of wikiprojects: style-structure-content is known to the public as its fundamental characteristic. If a radical change were to be introduced, it should first be monitored as a choice of the public. If the two thirds of the public show preference to a new style in a span of e.g. 5 years, then, and only then, it could be introduced as default. The technical aspect, especially for mobile phones, is a spearate issue. Sarri.greek (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly agree. People react much more positively if they get a choice like "Hey we have an exciting new Theme you might like better: click here to try and tell us what you think."
Instead of just changing the look of what is basically public utilities by now to a version that should have had more testing. This was handled poorly, IMHO.
--Real Joe Cool (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. If the developers think it's just going to be something like the introduction of Windows Vista—no, it is not. There is not a single thing that is preferable about this new version when compared to the old version. A timespan of 5 years is not exaggerated at all. I could even argue that it should be a decade instead, and instead of 2/3 it should be 3/4 in favour. Vector 2022 is just a bunch of random pointless modifications to the old UI, an ego booster for Wikipedia's design team. I don't even know how this ever got out of the think tank. 18:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had to dig up and use my long abandoned login just to get away from this new heinous design on all my browsers. This should be a choice at the top of the page at the very least. Yes, it should be possible for unlogged visitors via cookies. Fredirc (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had to create a user on wikimedia just to revert to the old design. The new design is terrible for desktop. I am not browsing on a phone so it should not look like I am. 21:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I for one have made my contribution in the fight against this abominable UI on [this page]( These annoying, constantly moving, constantly taking space table of contents and the bar at the top, eating my screen space, will unirinically make me stop reading Wikipedia. Yes, my mental health is more important. And if I were an editor, I would lose all inspiration to keep editing if logged out users would see it this ugly and irritating.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, @Adûnâi: , I will not exaggerate. The new style is elegant. Which, I presume, is why the French wikipedia and wiktionary have been using it for some time: très chic. It is a) habit and b) the lack of Contents, Languages, that hinders me from using it. Is consistency between wikiprojects a problem? Then, small changes could have been introduced bit by bit over the years. Of style, of practical issues. This 2023 change was too abrupt. I cannot see why so many wikipedias voted for it (Have the voted? or were they told?). No unlogged reader has the time to go to some preferences and start ticking things... For wikiprojects that vote yes, to make the new vector default, please add a visible link 'switch to clasicc look' Thank you all. Sarri.greek (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elegant? How so? The new design is clunky, awkward, hides tools and options, makes the dealing with the ToC a chore, switching languages more cumbersome... (the original full list of languages, on the left, was best. Why Wikipedia ever strayed from that, I will never understand ...and any claim, that the new design frees up space, can be countered by not only the point that the space the side-bar takes up, has never been a problem, but also with the fact that there still is a sidebar. It's just empty ...which is weird and unsettling)
It takes more time and effort, to do anything or get any information. Ones ability to get an overview of things, or to navigate, is clearly diminished. Functionality, practicality and efficiency is severely hampered. Not because it is an unfamiliar set-up, but because it is an inherently, objectively, and significantly, less functional/practical/efficient design. (and this is true of most "upgraded"/"updated"/"modern" website designs, from about the 2010's onward)
The new design makes the desktop design, closer to the mobile design ...but I have yet to see, any reasonable argument (or any argument whatsoever), for why that would be a good thing. Why one should make the desktop version, be closer to a design that has to be severely limited, by the severely limited abilities of mobiles (most notably, their minimal and extremely clumsy and imprecise touchscreens)-- 08:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, - functionality is terrible. Which is why this new Vector=default must be reversed. Currently we avoid all wikiprojects using it. Thank you. Sarri.greek (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've "voted" by cancelling my donation. The new UI is awful and I don't want to support its development in any shape or form. iliaarpad 10:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same. Cannot believe there is no way to change for unlogged users. 2001:4898:80E8:2:FE3F:D790:8002:69A9 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The French Wikipedia didn't choose the new design. We were forced into it as a testing ground. And no matter what we said, it stayed. DerpFox (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too am one of those who sole made an account to change back to the old layout and start complaining about the change. Looks BAD on desktop. And my most used feature, changing languagebetween those I'm familiar with, is hidden behind extra clicks now. Khyprus (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i made an account after like a decade of constant reading and occasional editing just to avoid the new layout. its hideous. way too much whitespace. hoping it gets fully reverted soon. 03:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couldn't agree more. I made an account specifically to switch back to the old layout.
I would be surprised to learn that anyone in the design team is over 40. This screams "mobile generation" to me. It's like someone was hired to improve the layout and the best they could come up with to justify their job was to turn every user into a mobile user.
I have a wide screen monitor for a reason. Let me use it. Shittylayout (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Highly agree that desktop layout is much better than phone layout, and ditto re not donating any more. 2user2

Is there a way, for unlogged people, to copypaste texts of wikipedias in a different .htm thing, -sorry, I know nothing about computers-, so that we will have a permanent viewing medium? Something like a 'style-converter' outside wikipedia? Could a programmer make a webpage with such a thing? Preferences are for editors with a username, not for readers. E.g. I have Edge, and cannot see Contents. Languages are somehwere on top. Also, I like to see the Classic style (that is why it is called 'classic', one does not change it) I have saved lots of lemmata from earlier stages of wikipedia because they are more concise, and they look fine. Sarri.greek (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are websites that provide a different frontend to Wikipedia, like Wikiwand. Just note that they are usually ad-supported products. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Longbyte1! Very good: I can see Contents there. They miss languages, like en el fr etc or αγγ ελλ γαλλ .. I like the 3 strata, a very wise approach of an encyclopaedia: basic (what is encyclic general knowledge), medium (a bit more for one interested) and expert (all details there)! This is a solution to the "curse of red shoes": lemmata that grow larger and larger; very difficult to read. Thank you indeed. Very good for older people like me. I don't install things, too scared to click changes! Thanks. Sarri.greek (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Maybe this little trick can help you: simply add «?useskin=vector» to every requested URL. It works for non-logged users. 08:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you dear I have a username, so I fixed Preferences and can read here too, in the widths and styles I choose. It is you we are worried about Sarri.greek (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trick mentioned, works for non-logged-in IP users/readers. It is annoying to manually add that "?useskin=vector" to the end of every Wikipedia-URL, however ...but it's nice that one can at least do that. 03:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just used it to try out monobook, as well, to see what that is ...and man, that took me back. I'd say that "classic" vector was a slight improvement, in looks (mainly the changed font size), but no real change in functionality. The new vector, however... 03:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a life-saver, thanks you! Here is the Google Chrome extension which does the same (analogous to the old.reddit redirect).--Adûnâi (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Less functional article language switcherEdit

Hello. In old skin I can simple add an new language version of particular article – in those new I didn't notice such an option. Also, an old version have link to wikidata under article's languages (as "Edit links") – again, I can't find it. So would I every time have to go to wikidata and find a requested page on myself? It is strongly uncomfortable for persons who work in few languages. --~~~~ Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is some related discussion and a link to a Phabricator task: Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Archive6#"Add_languages"_missing_"Add_links"_dialogue?. AllyD (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Wojsław Brożyna — are you referring to the "Add interlanguage links" link? If so, it will soon be available in the page tools menu on the right-side of the page (show in the image below, with the orange arrow). You will be able to have this menu "pinned", so it is always visible. Let me know if that solves your issue or not. Thanks,
Vector 2022, work in progress showing "Add interlanguage links" in page tools menu to right of article
AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF) yes, it is that function (but it is visible for me as "Edit interlanguage links") :) Thank you! Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page tools move initial thoughtsEdit

Hi @SGrabarczuk (WMF) and @OVasileva (WMF)! I just tested out the move of the page tools to the right side of the page per the instructions in the recent newsletter. Overall, the approach looks good, and the rough edges I'll mention below are likely things you'll address before the full rollout, but I wanted to offer my initial feedback while it's still early:

  • Twinkle isn't currently merged to the new tools menu, but I think it would be good to do so. Fundamentally, Twinkle tools are tools the same as WMF tools, and from the user angle it makes sense to clump them together.
  • The menu headings could use some work. There's currently some redundancy, with "Tools [move to sidebar]" and then "Tools" again right below it, which is confusing.
  • The "Edit interlanguage links" option that is showing up displays weirdly, in a small font. I'm also a bit confused why it's there at all — there's already a link to the Wikidata item, where the interlanguage info is stored, and changing the interlanguage links is a very rare task that shouldn't use up menu space.
  • I try to limit the number of gadgets I install, but even with my relatively modest package, the menu goes off the bottom of the screen (and would go off the screen even farther if the Twinkle merge above is implemented). This requires me to scroll to get to some items, which is annoying. To fix this, I'd suggest considering having the different sections of the menu show up beside each other rather than above/below each other.

That's all for now. Feel free to lmk when there's a newer version to test! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related to the Twinkle menu suggestion: My combined Tools/More menu requires vertical scrolling as well, which is undesirable. I could probably reduce the excessive vertical white space with CSS, but I came here to suggest that Tools be its own menu: Tools / More / TW. There is tons of space available. I love the idea of having this menu at the upper right, which is where I go to do that sort of gnome/administrative stuff anyway. Popping out the left sidebar for the occasional "What Links Here" query and then popping it back in is a lot of hassle. (And yes, I know about the What Links Here keyboard shortcut, but it doesn't appear to work with the Mac's Command key to pop up in a new tab, which is always what I need.) Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this feedback @Sdkb. Just commenting to let you know that we've taken note of it. Some issues have already been fixed, and the others we're working on. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 is BAD.Edit

Vector 2010
2022. Just. WHAT. ARE. THOUSE.

Does Vetor 2010 really that bad at something? Fits in the screen too god? Uses the space in a too rational way? Like "Eeh, it's too god; users don't deserv it; we gonna screw it" There is NOTHING to argue about. Just look at it:

What ARE thouse gaps?

You can add the language switch and the table of contents from the 2022 – they ARE pretty neat. And again – if you will, 2010 will be even MORE better than 2022. But does it really mean you have to cripple THE ENTIRE page design? I don't think so. Jiira (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Jiira for reaching out to us. I guess you added this comment soon after you saw the skin for the first time. Am I correct? Have you maybe had a chance to read our documentation about the white space and the goals for this project? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @SGrabarczuk (WMF) . I had the same initial white space concerns after checking out Vector 2022 on 16:9 desktop. New format may be better for mobile users, and unification of experience across platforms is admirable, but I will be sticking to 2010 as I am primarily a desktop user. Seldom on mobile, but does this change affect the (android) app (or other apps)?
Also, I (probably like Jiira) was brought to this page directly from my account preferences - can that link be updated? Preferences > Appearance > Vector (2022) > Discussion.
If you are here like me looking for further information, I suggest
Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements
Thank you Grabarczuk. MC the MD (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree with the first post here and just look at the screenshots. The new website needs a manual switch to make text fill the whole display width in 2023?! Is this a joke? A manual switch for something which is now automatic on all modern websites made in the last decade??? The switch is not even visible on low resolution displays and we have to zoom out the browser to even see the switch-did someone even test this thing?
The first thing that should be done right away is to make the text fill the whole display automatically without any need for user actions and it should work on all widescreen resolutions on modern displays. No one needs so much white space-a little is ok but not the current amount. The users without account are not given any choice-this sucks too. To me it looks we are forced as readers to make an account just to make the site usable. If we do not make an account we have no option to use the page layout we like, no one offers anything to avoid the weird new design. Very bad design overall, I will stop my reading sessions here if this is the only option, sorry but this goes way too much in the wrong direction. I even try to edit some small mistakes but now the motivation to even read will be severely killed. 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kudos. Absolutely describes my sentiment. I had to browse through dozens of proxy lists for hours just to find a free working residential proxy to comment here. As an avid wikipedia reader who uses a VPN and thus cannot register an account, this new change just handicapped at least 5% of all wikipedia users who must use VPNS in order to access the website because of their country. The new design is so ugly I can't even concentrate on reading anything here anymore. 18:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New layout is horrible, we don't want to know why it seemed like a good idea if we are saying it is not. Full width please. 11:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Genuinely awful. It's insane that you have to make an account now to access the old look. There are myriad solutions to that problem that could have been implemented. 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete? 2001:9E8:6700:2B00:FA32:C515:A23D:3E1D 18:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah this is pretty awful, I'm not sure what documentation you followed or corporate Feng Shui web design manual you guys read, but this sucks. I didn't buy a monitor that's 2560 pixels wide only for it to be filled with content that's 1000 pixels wide, if I wanted to read things vertically, I would use a vertical device aka my phone, where the Wikipedia mobile website works just fine. Not sure why you guys decided to mobile-ify a perfectly fine Desktop site, but it's bad, genuinely bad, and whoever made this decision surrounded by yes-men needs to be told that they screwed up and made a bad decision. 16:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read the "explanation," and the white space is still ridiculous. If someone has an issue with to many characters on a line, did you know that you can resize browser windows? So, the only thing you are achieving here is taking options away from users, as widening the window does not restore the the content to full screen width.
Also, the explanation as to why logged out users are not allowed to change the layout holds no water. Setting a cookie with the preference should be fairly straightforward. The only context where any of this makes sense is as an attempt to get users to create accounts so data can be harvested. 12:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The documentation on why there's so much white space indicates it's better for comprehension but worse for scanning. Why does finding specific information not warrant any consideration? Much of it also indicates that it's a subjective prefrence. Why not assume people are using full screen or wide windows because that's their preference? There are so many options to make the screen smaller already. 23:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The old design has a lot of wasted space too, just in different places. You just don't notice it because you're used to it:
2001:8B0:DFDC:12BC:759:79A4:937E:9CC8 20:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That whitespace is mostly isolated to horizontal whitespace at the top of an article, whereas the new whitespace persists vertically over the entirety of the page.
It's like comparing a novel with large chapter headings to a novel with 4cm margins. 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forcing narrow new layout has no respect for different learning styles or preferences. Before people could get a narrower or wider view by simply resizing their browser window. Now, for some reason you want to force half my screen to be blank because some other people like narrow lines? Stop being one-size-fits all and instead be inclusive. Go back to letting us choose our preferred width. 19:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would absolutely add that I'm in the users that have absolutely newly registered an account solely to get usable width of pages, visual differentiation between what is UI and what is article, and TOC on desktop again. Desktop wikipedia does not need to be a mobile browser. 20:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too, made an account for the express purpose of reverting layout and complain about the new one. Its bad design and has hidden used features behind MORE CLICKS. Khyprus (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tools menu and language switcher feedbackEdit

I will use and as examples.

  • The tools in the "More" sections should be above tools in the "Tools" section.
  • The sister projects are missing.
  • I like the idea of adding the "Add interlanguage links" in the language switcher (phab:T310259). The "Wikidata item" link could be moved there, too. Or maybe it cold be moved in the "In other projects" section.
  • "Upload file" and "Special pages" are not page-specific but are bundled with page-specific tools.
  • "Printable version" and "Download as PDF" are missing.
  • "User contributions", "Logs", "Block user", "Email this user", "Mute preferences" and "Change user groups" are user-specific, but they are bundled with page-specific tools.
  • phab:T317898: The "move to sidebar" option should also be shown to unlogged users. This menu contains links interesting to readers, like "Cite this page", "Download as PDF", "Printable version", "Permanent link", "Page information" and the links to other projects.
  • There is no link to the page logs ( This is not Vector 2022-specific, but Vector 2022 could fix this.

I propose the following order for pages that are not in the user space (like

  • Actions
    • Move
    • Delete
    • Protect
  • General
    • Page logs
    • What links here
    • Related changes
    • Page information
  • Print, share, link
    • Permanent link
    • Cite this page
    • Download as PDF
    • Printable version
  • In other projects
    • (The list of pages)
  • Others
    • Special pages
    • Upload file

I propose the following order for pages that are in the user space (like or

  • Actions
    • Move
    • Delete
    • Protect
  • General
    • Page logs
    • What links here
    • Related changes
    • Page information
  • User
    • "User contributions"
    • "User logs"
    • "Block user"
    • "Email this user"
    • "Mute preferences"
    • "User groups"
  • Print, share, link
    • Permanent link
    • Cite this page
    • Download as PDF
    • Printable version
  • In other projects
    • (The list of pages)
  • Others
    • Special pages
    • Upload file

P.S. Please fix the phab:T322978 bug. The task was created on 13 November, and now is 14 December. It is annoying to meet it daily :(

P.P.S. See ro:Special:Contribs/ and ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Ajutor (permalink) for some feedback regarding the limited width and the new TOC (by an anonymous reader). --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NGC 54 thanks for this comment, it's very helpful. Regarding the missing items, those bugs will be fixed soon. Regarding the grouping and ordering of items in the menu, we've discussed enabling control of the page tools menu in a way similar to the main menu (which uses MediaWiki:Sidebar), which would allow individual wikis to customize the grouping and ordering. For now we are going to maintain the ordering and grouping that exists in Legacy Vector, but generally speaking we agree with you that there could be some improvements. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I would also like a link to Special:CentralAuth. I often use this feature, and I would like quick access to it. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contents missed out while printingEdit

While printing a document, that is in Vector 2022 layout Contents list is missed out on the Print...It should be fixed. KCCian24 (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I , again, second that! TOC is needed in Print, especially for wikibooks it's important. Regards, HirnSpuk (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi @KCCian24: thank you for your feedback; About printing or not the TOC you can read previous discussion and tasks here, here and here. I was discussing about this this morning at the Teahouse too.
  • Hi @HirnSpuk: thank you for your feedback and for adding your comment on Phabricator. Actually the Web Team is especially focusing on discussions with the community of the English Wikipedia, but I agree with you, it will be useful to consider different needs of projects other than Wikipedia, like Wikibooks ones, so please remind us in few weeks if we forget it (but I hope not).--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi @Patafisik (WMF), what exactly would you like to be reminded of? Fun Fact: If the toc is "hidden" it is printed. How about just "triggering" the old-style toc via the magic word "toc"? I can understand, that's normally not necessary to have the printout, right-setup and limit option for wikipedia-articles. But except for wikibooks as my "home-wiki" I also think about community, talk and help pages. Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @HirnSpuk Remember us about this issue for Wikibooks when the Team will be less busy with the English Wikipedia, but before the deployment on other projects to allow them to fix it if needed.
    What do you means with "If the toc is 'hidden' it is printed"? That the preview is not showing the same layout that is printed? Can you detail me steps to reproduce, browser are you using, the link you are using to print, with an example of page, please? If it is a bug I can open a ticket on Phabricator, or you can do it too. Thank you Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Patafisik (WMF), thanks, I'll try to remember! Regarding the 'bug'(?): there's a little link in the toc to "hide" it at the Top-Heading. Then it's printed, though with a poor layout. If it's in the side-bar, it's not. Tested in Windows/Edge and Linux/Firefox. Although I wouldn't give it a high priority from your pov, because you are focusing on Wikipedia and V22 and I suppose nobody would ever notice in Wikipedia. I just did, because in my impression it's a thing with (at least german) Wikibooks. One could even think about this as a feature, to "choose" if the toc is printed or not. Regards, HirnSpuk (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    New TOC is taking too much space in the print; And a messege saying "printable version is no longer available" is displayed in English Wikipedia... It should be fixed. KCCian24 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we default to (or at least allow) default collapsing of level 3+ headers in TOCs?Edit

Currently, when a level 2 header in the TOC is expanded, all the sub-headers are shown, no matter their level, and the only visual indication of header level is then a small indent, about the width of a character. This is strange and unhelpful behavior for navigation, especially on pages with several header levels, like long disambiguation pages (e.g., expand "Arts and entertainment" on en:Star (disambiguation)). When I expand an L2, I would expect to see only the L3's, which I could then expand as needed (and same for L4's etc.) to find what I'm looking for (like in the en:Windows Registry).

I think this should be the default behavior (anyone else?), but if it can't be, can we at least get a magic word to set that behavior on a page-by-page basis? Or failing that, could we get some vertical lines to emphasize the level of indentation? Swpb (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this behavior is contrary to how TOC UIs have always worked. They should open one level at a time, with a key-press option to allow opening of all levels (on Mac OS, this has always been the Option key). As for the visual distinction between levels, I have found that the best way to get that is to restore numbering. See task T307316 for the feature request and for implementation. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Swpb thanks for this feedback. Firstly I want to acknowledge that the new TOC is probably the most complex feature within Vector 2022, and I anticipate that we (community & WMF together) will continue to iterate on it for the foreseeable future. We've been hearing a lot of feedback, and it seems like some additional configurability, magic words, or other such things might be valuable (such as T317818, and more high-level things likeT318186). You can see the current collection of tasks here: T325064
Regarding your point: should we show all of the sub-sections (h3, h4, h5, etc.) when expanding an h2, or only show the next-level down (e.g. h3)?
  • I think this is probably an 80/20 thing — 80% of the time (or maybe even more) it makes sense to expand all sub-sections at once (because if there are sections beyond h3s, there will not be many of them, so if we have expandable headings at each level it will require a lot of extra clicking), and 20% of the time (or maybe even less) it makes sense to have collapsable arrows/parent sections for each level.
  • In general, headings below h2s don't seem to be used in a very consistent way across articles. There is not always a clear difference between an h3, an h4, and an h5. Often times it seems to be an editorial/stylistic choice. However h2s do seem to be significantly different than other headings (both in terms of how they are used, and how they are styled). Therefore I think there's an argument to be made that we can draw a line between h2 and h3/h4/h5/etc., and say that h2s are special, and therefore can be treated differently (with this unique "parent" quality, with an expandable arrow), in the table of contents.
  • In specific cases, like disambiguation pages which you bring up, the use of headings might be a bit more systematic/formalized. I agree that in these cases it might make more sense to have a magic-word or something similar to allow that configurability.
  • A few years ago we collected data regarding the frequency of h2s, h3s, h4s, etc. I'm not exactly sure how this data might be helpful in making decisions here, but it seems relevant. Link to data:
total number of articles: 1,510,504
... with Level 2s: 1417437 = 93.839%
... with Level 3s: 473253 = 31.331%
... with Level 4s: 92182 = 6.103%
... with Level 5s: 8402 = 0.556%
... with Level 6s: 588 = 0.039%
... with Level 1s: 12 = 0.001%
Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to this, I think it makes more senses if L1 hearers were expanded by default (or at least with an option for this to be the case). I argue that a main use-case of this site is for rapid reference checking of something (e.g., "what's the formula for the conditional distribution of a multivariate normal distribution again?"). With the current setup of only L1 headers being shown as collapsed, a user landing on the multivariate normal distribution wiki would not see as an option and would instead have to seek through the L1 headers until they stumble on the "conditional distribution" subheader (or hope they get lucky using the right words with cntrl+F). However, if L2 headers were visible by default they could easily see that the conditional distributions section falls under the "Properties" heading (rather than the falling under the similar "Statistical Inference" heading).
I agree that we need to find a balance between information density and not being overwhelming (like the massive fully-expanded Vector 2010 TOC could sometimes be), but, looking at the stats you provided above, it seems that it makes sense for the L2 headers to at least be exposed considering they are available for 93% of articles. Further, this stat shows Vector 2022, in its current form, will slow down the majority of "quick reference use-cases" searches by not having quick navigation. Seankski (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dismissing ephemeral dialogsEdit

I adopted Vector 2022 early on, and I'm coming to know its new features. I see that it's making more use of ephemeral dialog notifications. A major one I deal with is the watchlist addition. Now, this dialog has a clickable link and a dropdown option, so I was reluctant to click it. But I found that while it obscures some other interface elements I want it to go away more quickly. I recently discovered that it is clickable, so clicking an ephemeral dialog causes it to disappear on command. Unfortunately this behavior is not orthogonal to typical mobile UIs where dialogs can be swiped out of the way, or clicking outside of them causes them to disappear.

  • Is this intentional behavior and does it apply to all ephemeral dialogs?
  • Is it guaranteed to work going forward, i.e. is it working by design and accepted by the userbase?
  • Is it possible that an enhancement will allow dismissal by clicking outside, like on mobile, or is this infeasible?

Elizium23 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Elizium23, thanks for this feedback. I would just like to note that the behavior of dialogs is not directly related to Vector 2022, so this might not be the best place to discuss improvements to them. Probably what would be best is reaching out to the Design Systems Team. I see they have a task regarding adding dialogs to Codex (the design system), so you could probably add your feedback there: AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old style TOC in Vector-2022 SkinEdit

Is there a possibility to set up old style TOC in Vector-2022 Skin at my Mediawiki website v.1.39.0? Fokebox (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This problem has been raised multiple times both here and on Many users have expressed their preference for the old style TOC. However, this has been completely ignored by the developers, both here and on Moreover, in the general request for comment on a majority of users expressed themselves AGAINST the implementation of Vector 2022; it has been completely ignored, and the result has even been sold as an endorsement. 05:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically I do like Vector 2022 except TOC style. I like how it is done in MW 1.38.x - there is a refreshed Vector skin, but with old TOC style. And I have couple wiki websites and just because of this fact I don't have desire to update to 1.39 ... if so I will have to change skin (Timeless as an example). Fokebox (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the new horrible TOC and the white spaces and width are the main problems of Vector 2022. But the complaints have been ignored by the developers. 09:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very strange position ... I don't think it takes a lot of efforts for developers two make TOC view optional (old / new TOC style at vector-2022) for users and for those who has wiki websites!!! Fokebox (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I 1000% agree. I had to go back to the 2010 version of the skin just so I could navigate the page. This change is complete trash. This should have had a toggle to go back immediately. 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Fokebox and other folks in this discussion: I just want to acknowledge that the requests for the old style of the table of contents have not been ignored. We've read and responded to all of these comments, and we've written extensive documentation as to why we think the current implementation is a better approach. I understand it is frustrating: you want a certain change made, you think your idea is better than what is currently implemented, and you think we are ignoring you. However in this case your opinion represents a very small minority. It's not that we're ignoring you, instead it's that we've gotten more positive feedback than negative feedback, plus the extensive consideration of the 12+ designers at the WMF, so we've concluded to stick with the current implementation. Thankfully MediaWiki software is configurable, so you still have options. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We've gotten more positive feedback than negative feedback". Where? On a majority of users (165 vs 154) voted AGAINST Vector 2022, and many doubted the source and reliability of the data you presented in support on your choices. 15:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be this round of community feedback: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Third prototype testing/Feedback
Positive: 110, neutral: 38, negative: 23
You can read more here if you are interested: Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Table of contents#Prototype testing with editors AHollender (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, your summary of the RfC is misleading in this context. Around 70% of the people who opposed Vector 2022 specifically opposed the limited width (which is now optional). Maybe 3 or 4 people objected to the table of contents. Every day, here and on Phabricator, we engage in fact-based conversations about the layout and various configurations/tradeoffs with community members, and are grateful for the engagement and feedback. If your goal is to make a case that the skin is poorly designed, and the WMF is not responsive to community feedback, I am confident you will not find evidence to support that. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is the limited width optional? I'm sincerely asking as someone who has tried for the last half hour to get rid of it (without having to make yet another account on another website). It's either bugged or unintuitive... 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My Personal concern as a Mediawiki website owner. I do like new Vector style except the placement of TOC. And I do know that my website visitors also will be against of that. So that all I ask to make an option - to have new style TOC and have the old style TOC. Fokebox (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't tried the instructions, but this FAQ entry is entitled "How to restore the old table of contents". Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonesey95: I tried by adding the script to my 2022 Vector javascript, but I saw no change in behaviour. I did not get the old TOC back. Jay (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I haven't tried it. It looks like that text was added by SGrabarczuk (WMF), who is usually pretty good at communicating on talk pages. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hah, thanks :D So @Jay if it's not working now, then I'll try it out and ask my colleagues, developers at the team, to update the code. It will take a few days, though. In advance, I'd like to thank you for your patience! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has vector changed in the last 36 hours?Edit

My window looks a lot different today than it did yesterday. His anything changed? Comfr (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Comfr. None of us was working on Dec 26, so we couldn't answer quickly. We didn't make any changes back then either :) Has the look changed since then? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header not working on many en.WP pagesEdit

I don't know if this is a new thing or not, or if it is just me or not, since I just started using Vector 2022 a week or two ago, and I have many customizations. When I go to any article on en.WP article and scroll down, the sticky header is visible. When I go to or and scroll down, the sticky header does not appear. I would expect the sticky header to work on all, or nearly all, pages. I looked through the list of phab requests and did not see a matching feature request or bug report. Using Firefox 108 for Mac OS. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Jonesey95. Thanks for flagging this. You should be seeing the sticky header on the user talk pages - let's perhaps add ?safemode=1 to the URL and see if the header appears.
As for the special pages, our way of thinking has been that the goal for the sticky header is to provide access to functionalities like Edit, Talk, Watch, or History, and these happen not to be available on special pages. What do you think about that? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried safemode, and the sticky header displayed on my User talk page. I then went back to my User talk page without safemode, and the sticky header still displayed. Hmm, maybe this was a temporary problem. Edited to add: I just went to and I do not get a sticky header no matter what combination of reloading and scrolling I do.
As for Special pages like my Watchlist, it is still very useful to have access to links like my user page, my talk page, my contributions, and especially my notifications (which are coming to the sticky header at some point, I hope!) if I have scrolled partway down a page. One of the potentially nice things about Vector 2022's sticky header is that it could compensate for the addition, over the years, of various bits and bobs (options, notices, buttons, white space) to the top of the Watchlist page that have made it so that my actual watchlist starts halfway down my screen. If I could see my notifications *and* most of my watchlist at the same time, that would be excellent. Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw the note at Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Sticky Header saying that the sticky header is limited to just a few namespaces. Is there a phab ticket where people are working on expanding that population of pages, or a design document explaining the reasoning behind these limits? I was just on a Template Talk page, for example, where the sticky header would have been very useful (e.g. to click the "Add Topic" button, or remove the page from my Watchlist, or go to my Contributions, or see my notifications). I would like to see it on pages in all namespaces. How can I do that, at least for myself? Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section [edit] button disappearsEdit

Seemingly at random, the [edit]-this-section button does not appear when page is opened (like, disappears between sessions). Recently from en:User:DePiep/current; while at the same time in mainspace articles it is present (=OK). Purge did not solve it, but sometimes it reappears (by unknown action), later in a session. DePiep (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DePiep: thank you for making us aware of this issue. I too am NOT seeing [edit] links appearing after the H2 level section headings on User:DePiep/current...are you able to share links to pages where you are experiencing this issue [i]?
i. To be doubly certain we're on the same page, I understand the issue you're experiencing as follows: at random (seemingly), [ edit ] links are NOT appearing next to H2 level section headings (read: == H2 ==). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as you describe. "No [edit] button in h2 header line, in certain pages/situations". I add A: my "it reappears" remark may be incorrect (no proof of truly being time-related). Add B: same bad behaviour in lower headers (h3, h4). add C: hypothesis: cold be caused by actualy page content (templates?).
Pages that do show this behaviour:
Pages that do not show this behaviour (that is: show & behave as expected wrt this):
note: linter errors on the faulty page (<i> unbalanced). I will have to remove them first.
@PPelberg (WMF): ; I'm sorry for delaying this reply. I hope to be able do some more tests shortly (like, test by page content).
-DePiep (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both test-pages now ''without'' linter messages.
To be clear:
en:User:DePiep/chembox/test-2023 is OK, shows [edit] links per sectionheader as expected. h2, h3 levels.
:en:User:DePiep/chembox/test-2023 is buggy: hides [edit] links (expected in section headers).
Important note: this same report is valid when working in Vector 2010 (old skin). In other words: bug appears the same. DePiep (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PPelberg (WMF) @DePiep searching in en:User:DePiep/current/test-2023 with CTRL+F, the number of {{ is not the same number of }}. See Section edit links disappear following an unclosed {{. 17:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anchors impreciseEdit

I've been encountering a problem that I think may be caused by New Vector. When I click on the table of contents links at a long page, the place it scrolls to often isn't exactly the thread I clicked on, but rather one or two above or below. Is this a known issue? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sdkb, Is this on talk pages? Pbsouthwood (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, or project pages that consist of discussions like w:WP:VPR. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not yet able to reproduce this on w:WP:VPR. What section are you clicking on, and what section is appearing on your screen? Can you provide links to other pages you're seeing this issue on? Also can you provide other potentially relevant details (operating system, browser, browser width, etc.). Also can you check if you can reproduce this in an incognito/private window (append ?useskin=vector-2022 to the URL). Thanks, AHollender (WMF) (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to replicate it in an Incognito window with Vector and couldn't, so maybe it's an extension I'm using. I'll do some further testing and see if I can isolate the issue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having paid attention for a few days, the issue seems to occur when I click on notifications from conversations I'm subscribed to, not when I click on a table of contents. I'll follow up with the talk pages project. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General feedback from a multiple portrait monitor power userEdit

I'm one of those long-term editors who has never switched from Monobook. I groused about one of the new skin preview efforts not long ago, when comments were solicited, but this edition of Vector I mostly like. I mainly view Wikipedia on 23" monitors in portrait mode, with the window full-screened. The old-fashioned embedded TOC is not a problem with this much vertical real estate. The new TOC is kind of nice in some ways, but for me, I always want it fully expanded. It's a quick way to judge the complexity of the article. There's also too much "air" in the new TOC, it wraps longer section titles (ugh), and I lose the birds' eye view.

My second problem mainly concerns use of my landscape screen. As I increase the font size on my wide screen, the page switches off the navigation side bar before I have the large font size I desire, and now the text lines are too long for comfortable reading (100 characters is nutty), and I've lost visible navigation. (The inline TOC does not reappear.) I sit further away from my screens than most people. Perhaps because I have three, perhaps because it reduces back pain. At certain sizings on my landscape screen, I get a TOC too narrow to give me a proper overview, while simultaneously the text beside the TOC has lines too long for me to comfortably read. Probably all that can be hand customized in the CSS or somewhere, if I cared enough about Vector to make it work.

The third problem seems to be a paper cut. On my portrait screen, with larger font sizes, the search bar disappears, even when room remains to fit a short one. Commonly the search bar is a target for drag and drop from an article I'm reading on another screen. More than half the time my right screen is open to Wikipedia. I'm reading on my middle screen, I see an unfamiliar term (e.g. the German tank type "Marder") and I reflexively double-click to word select, then grab the word to drop on the Wikipedia search bar on my right screen—but wait!—that control is stupidly excised because the nanny state thought that a search bar too small would — what exactly? ... cause brain problems in the common user?

Even a small target for drag and drop would permit this interaction to work seamlessly, and the search bar could pop into large mode on a responsive basis to having text input (by keyboard or by drag and drop). I like drag because it doesn't interfere with my clipboard. I have a spectacularly powerful clipboard manager, but not because I want to drive it all day to recover recent items. Even no visible search bar target would work, if it responded to text drop events as if it were really there (where it ought to be anyway, so far as I'm concerned). Make that region automatically expand the search bar—if concealed—on drag hover! Also, if you're going to leave that dotted hamburger hovering over my page all the time anyway, why can't it serve as a drop target for search text?

The search interaction could pop up in place of the TOC sidebar when activated in this way, and people wouldn't have to loose their place running to the top of the page to conduct a search query. I actually use the search bar's auto suggestion mode quite often, to explore possible resolutions, without any intent to visit a searched term. When I'm using search in that way, I'd highly prefer not to lose my place in the current article. Just now I typed "Marder" in the search bar on my old Monobook skin. The list of suggestions pops up rapidly. The second one says "Marder (infantry fighting vehicle)" and I'm done. Because I was trying to remember whether it was a real tank, or just a tankino (it's the latter). Why do we only give the Ukrainians tankinos? But so it goes.

I briefly wondered if the new design was clever enough to detect alt-shift-f to bring up a floating search control over top of my current page position. But in my test page for Vector, alt-shift-f now does nothing at all. Wow. That's a step backwards if I've ever seen one. I have to say, I frequently don't understand the priorities of today's design generation.

Sigh. Monobook is far from perfect, but there's nothing so wrong with it that I need these new hassles. Reverted to Monobook. Again. And, most likely, not for the last time, given general trends in design priority. MaxEnt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @MaxEnt, to clarify one point: when pressing alt+shift+F are you expecting the brower's Find in page function to appear? If so, for me that appears just with alt+F (and also is outside of the control of the website). I'm not seeing anything appear in Monobook or Legacy Vector with alt+shift+F.
Interesting workflow regarding dragging a word into the search box — I've never heard of that before (also I can't figure out how to do it, how do you drag the word without it becoming unselected?).
We are working to keep the search bar visible at more narrow screen widths, so that should improve in time. We're also looking into zooming, and increasing the font-size via browser settings, to make sure all of that works as well as it possibly can.
The skin definitely has a ways to go, but from feedback, data, research, etc. it seems to be substantially better than Legacy Vector to warrant the switch over. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sticky header is not tall enough for a two-line headerEdit

The header for logged in users on the Konkani Wikipedia is two lines to accomodate two scripts. When you scroll down, the sticky header is not tall enough for two lines. Should we fix this by modifying the height of the header locally in the css, or should it be fixed globally in the software skin? The Discoverer (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @The Discoverer, thanks for reporting this. To clarify: does this only happen on the Main page, or on other pages as well? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF), It only happens on the main page, because the main page is the only one that is explicitly formatted to be on two lines. On all other pages the headings are shortened using ellipses (...) and do not wrap. The Discoverer (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF) / @Patafisik (WMF) / @OVasileva (WMF) / @Zapipedia (WMF): Please could you give some feedback regarding this? The Discoverer (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not showing interlanguage links for other NamespacesEdit

(image 1) Shows no interlanguage links
(image 2) Shows 186 interlanguage links available
(image 3) But, Shows no interlanguage links
  • This issue is noticed in Tewiki
  • This is noticed in Vector 2022 skin only. There was no problem in default Vector skin
  • This is noticed in Template, Help, Wikipedia and Module Namespaces. Not noticed in Main namespace. Not checked for other namespaces.
  • This problem appeared on 14 Jan 2023
  • This problem is observed on Windows 11, Chrome 109. Not checked in any other environment.

The interlanguage links are not shown. When clicked the languages drop down, it shows the message "Page contents not supported in other languages." See image 1 When the page is scrolled down, the sticky link shows "so many languages" (e.g. 186 languages) See image 2 When the link is clicked the drop down shows - "No languages yet No languages are available for now" See image 3 Chaduvari (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[EDITED] Hey, this is expected. Please see an unintended consequence of For more information please see the task linked in the comment below. Our apologies for this inconvenience. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AHollender (WMF): Expected??? The quoted ticket mentions the simplification of messages only for pages that that should not be associated with interlanguages links, e.g. talk pages. Meanwhile, in vector-2022 you turned off the visibility of links in all namespaces except main(!), which was considered a very serious bug and is "patched" in emergency mode (see: Zdzislaw (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zdzislaw, @AHollender (WMF)- Great, it is working now. Thanks for fixing it. __ Chaduvari (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue with User menu drop downEdit

This is noticed in Tewiki.

  • With the page scrolled down, when the User menu is accessed, the drop down list does not show the "purge" link. I suppose it is a deliberate feature.
  • But when the page is scrolled up to the top, and when the User menu drop down is pressed, the drop down does not appear. In stead, the User Talk page appears.
  • After going back, the drop down works normally.

This has been there ever since I started using the skin in October 2022. Sorry if I am repeating an old, well reported issue. __Chaduvari (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for reporting this. Would it be possible for you to include screenshots of this issue? I am not sure I am entirely clear on what is happening. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fig 1 - Tool tip shows User menu and the menu list is shown
Fig 2 - Tool tip shows "your talk page". When clicked, it takes me directly to my talk page, instead of showing the drop down menu items list.
Sorry for not being clear about the issue. The issue is -
  • When I scroll down a page, the "User menu" (In Telugu it is "వాడుకరి మెనూ") drop down list shows underlying links normally. See Fig 1.
  • Then I scroll up the page to the top. Now, this drop down's toll tip shows "Your talk page" (In Telugu it is "మీ చర్చా పేజీ"). When it is clicked, I expected to see the drop down list items. instead, it takes me to my User talk page. See Fig 2
  • When I come back or when I refresh the previous page, then its tool tip shows the usual "User menu" (In Telugu it is "వాడుకరి మెనూ"), and on-click it shows the drop down list.
  • this is noticed in Windows 11 and Chrome 109. Not checked in other environments.
I hope I am clear now. Thanks. __Chaduvari (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chiming in to mention that it's been happening to me too. TerraCodes (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ended up debugging this since I found a thing about it while doing something else. It seems that if you scroll down and open the sticky nav user dropdown, and then scroll back up so the sticky nav disappears without closing the sticky nav user dropdown, the sticky nav user dropdown still is open, but invisible. If you scroll back down you can see the sticky nav user dropdown still open. Closing it "fixes" the issue, but this should be properly fixed in the codebase. TerraCodes (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @TerraCodes. Understood the issue now. Will wait for the proper fix.__ Chaduvari (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeating an old, pending issueEdit

Please look into an important issue at Tewiki, which was reported here on Oct 2, 2022. Posting it again here, just to ensure that it wont get buried in archives. Sorry for that. __ Chaduvari (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaduvari thanks for the reminder. I've created a task on Phabricator (T327070) and have tagged several members of the Codex team, who we have been collaborating with on the search feature. I am hoping they will be able to provide a solution. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further release plansEdit

Very cool that English-language WP will switch this week! I was wondering if there already are concrete plans on how to make Vector 2022 default in even more language versions. I see that you write We hope to get to all the Wikipedias by the end of February 2023, but at least on dewiki I have not had the impression that there was much communication and discussion about it so far. It would be difficult to reach a community consensus in such a short time. Or are further switches delayed until the page tools update is ready? Would be nice to have some more input, I just started an initial discussion on de:Wikipedia:Technik/Werkstatt #Einführung Vector 2022. XanonymusX (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @XanonymusX for your interest in this project. That's a good question. Right now, we're focusing on the deployment on English Wikipedia (apart from handling bugs and deploying the page tools). I'm grateful that you've initiated the discussion on the Werkstatt. It looks very good!
That said, we aren't able to be talking to two large communities at the same time. After some (hopefully short) time following the deployment on English Wikipedia, we will form a plan for the German-language community and reach out to this group. Definitely, we don't want to rush or confuse people.
In principle, though, is the skin stable and mature enough? Yes. We believe that if it's ready for deployment on English (and it is) it's also ready for German. Is the deployment on English Wikipedia a game-changer in terms of the gadgets and user scripts? Will the deployment on English make it significantly better? No, not really, because the technical English-speaking community has been familiar with the skin for a long time. A large portion of volunteer-maintained code was adjusted long ago. But who knows, perhaps something on dewiki still needs to be updated.
So... before we focus on German, we will continue running banners there, incentivizing people to opt-in individually. In parallel, you're most welcome to advocate for it wherever you deem appropriate. Writing on the Werkstatt was a great move!
Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, sounds good! My feeling says that waiting for the page tools might be a good idea, so I’ll be following that development closely. For now, we will prepare the info pages on dewiki. The post on Diff tomorrow will also be in German, so sharing that one might help increase awareness. Success with deployment, looking forward to it! XanonymusX (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, we have de:Hilfe:Skin/Vector 2022 now, will try to keep it up-to-date! XanonymusX (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vector 2022Edit

Wäre es möglich, die wirklich nervige Bannerwerbung für diese misslungene Oberfläche dauerhaft einzustellen? Ich glaube gerne, dass es Nutzer gibt, für die Schmiertelefone und Hochformat das Einzig Wahre sind. Für die gibt es aber schon die Mobilansicht. Was soll es bringen, allen anderen, die klassische Rechner mit üblicherweise im Querformat stehenden Monitoren benutzen, mit einem zusätzlichen weißen Streifen auf der rechten Seite zu nerven? Wer den Humbug möchte, der hat ihn. Wer ihn nicht will (und eher springe ich aus dem Fenster), der will ihn nicht und sollte der Schwachsinn mit Gewalt durchgedrückt werden, dann bin ich weg.

Bitte, macht damit Schluss. Als Option kann diese Ansicht gerne weiterbestehen, aber nicht als Voreinstellung. Schon, dass man das Anmeldemenü erst suchen muss, ist ein Schuss in den Ofen. Der Kram ist ein Fall von »gewollt und nicht gekonnt«. Das Versprechen, dass das Banner nur alle sieben Tage auftaucht, hat nie funktioniert. Zumindest bei mir werden die Cookies beim Schließen jedes Browsers gelöscht – und das ist nicht verhandelbar. Es gibt schon viel zu viele Schnüffler und in dieser Reihe möchte ich Wikimedia nicht sehen. –Falk2 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Banner werden naturgemäß so lange laufen, bis die Oberfläche Standard ist. Wie wir eins weiter oben gerade besprechen, wird das für deWP demnächst angegangen, dauert aber sicher noch. Interessant finde ich, dass ich gefühlt noch nie ein solches Banner gesehen habe, aber das wird wohl daran liegen, dass ich den alten Vector schon lange nicht mehr verwende. Du kannst Banner übrigens generell in den Einstellungen deaktivieren (auch nach Typ). Gruß XanonymusX (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey! Function addPortletLink loses .vector-tab-noicon class in Vector 2022. Am I doing something wrong - ru:Участник:Iniquity/related-js-css-links.js? Iniquity (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Iniquity, sorry for the delay, we are receiving a lot of feedback and it's hard to answer to all in a short time. I reported your message to the team, I hope this should help. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Patafisik, thanks! :) Iniquity (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll look at this as part of (a few other issues are being reported). Jdlrobson (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jdlrobson, thanks :) Iniquity (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watchlist icon duplication requestEdit

At the English Wikipedia, when I have scrolled down the page, the stand-alone "go to watchlist" (GTW) icon disappears, and is to be found under the silhouette icon. Observing my own behavior, I'm scrolled-down far more often than I'm at the top, and so I've quickly become accustomed to clicking 'silhouette → GTW icon'. However, this frequency is training me to—by default—reach for the silhouette to find my GTW icon, and that isn't the case when I'm atop a page. Does that make sense? Placement of the GTW icon is inconsistent and dependent on editors' location on a page, and I find myself wasting time due to the skin training me to expect the icon in one place, but only some of the time.

Can we either (a) stick with one implementation or the other all the time, or (b) put the GTW icon in both places all the time to accommodate all editors? Thanks for listening, Fourthords (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it's already in the page (as it seems that the skin hide/shows based on screen width) so you could hide the one outside the dropdown and show the one in the dropdown, as I'm planning on doing. TerraCodes (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Fourthords: thank you for your comment, it is an interesting suggestion. Let me give you more context: the sticky header is showing in a single bar some links that originally are distributed in 3 different menus/bars at the top of the page, so there is not the place for all, considering also narrow screens, and a choice was needed. At the beginning of the project, the watchlist button was inside the User menu, and it was at the same place at the top of the page and in the sticky header. There was consistency. Actual situation is a trade off: early adopters wikis strongly supported for a watchlist icon outside the User menu, there was a discussion about simplicity vs. intensive use reasons. Do you know that you can also use a shortcut to open your watchlist?--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're saying that, when scrolled-down, there isn't room for the GTW icon in the floating horizontal bar, and that's why it's tucked inside the silhouette? That behavior changes when atop the article because feedback early-adopters wanted a stand-alone GTW icon? If I'm understanding correctly, that inconsistency is frustrating and doesn't preclude including (duplicating) the GTW icon inside the silhouette menu when atop any given page. Does that make sense? Fourthords (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typographie des sous-sectionsEdit


Comme on peut le constater sur n'importe quelle page du Wikipédia français, les sections apparaissent visuellement comme en « Times New Roman 16 » alors que les sous-sections ressemblent à de l'« Arial 12 Bold ». Dès lors, bien que d'une taille soit petite, cette dernière attire davantage l’œil car elle est en gras (voir n'importe quelle page comme [ celle-ci] avec le paragraphe « Systématique » et le sous-paragraphe « Publication originale ». Il serait sans doute bon de corriger cela pour avoir une mise en valeur plus claire de la hiérarchisation des paragraphes.

D'avance merci.

Givet (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour @Givet, cela apparemment n'est pas dû à Vector 2022, il se produit aussi avec d'autres habillages. Cette page de discussion est dédiée au projet des améliorations du bureau qui s'occupe de Vector 2022, avez-vous demandé au Questions techniques ? Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non, en fait je ne sais pas très bien à qui m'adresser. Peux-tu le faire pour moi ou veux-tu que je transfère ma demande ? En tout cas merci pour ta réponse. Givet (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Givet J'ai vu qu'il y a une discussion en cours au Bistro par rapport à la police des sous-sections où des pistes sont données. Aujourd'hui se passe le deployment sur la Wikipédia en anglais de la nouvelle interface, donc à mon avis il y aura moins de monde pour répondre à cette question dans les prochaines heures hors frwiki. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oui, c'est moi qui est lancé cette discussion, mais pour être franc cela fait des lustres que ça me gène. Alors on peut attendre un peu, pas de souci. Encore merci, je reviendrai plus tard. Bonne soirée :-) 2A01:CB05:83ED:8500:1590:B514:5B26:56D7 15:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Désolé je venais de me déconnecter... C'est bien moi qui est rédigé le commentaire ci-dessus. Givet (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Givet pas de soucis. :) Comme disait TomT0m vous pouvez déjà lancer une nouvelle discussion au Bistro pour voir si d'autres wikipédiens sont d'accord pour modifier le MediaWiki:common.css global. Mais à mon avis avant vous pourriez en discuter au projet Charte graphique. N'oubliez pas que tout changement devrait prendre en compte l'accessibilité, voir par ici. Bien cordialement, Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table bordersEdit

It looks like the new skin has affected the borders on some tables. More specifically, the toccolours class no longer has borders:

{| class="toccolours"
| col1
| col2


col1 col2

Is this a known change and intended? Pbrks (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Pbrks, thank you for your report. Can you give us screenshot, please? Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is phab:T314254, yes. XanonymusX (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vector 2022Edit

This skin is horrible, it reduces the horizontal display space for the article quite considerably which leads to a lot of sandwiching and will make articles difficult to read on mobile devices. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I associate myself with these comments. Strange choices were made in developing this. Spelf (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Murgatroyd49 and Spelf: thank you for your feedback. The Web Team has been working on Vector 2022 for 3 years, identifying problems through research with both readers and editors, and building and testing prototypes with communities. These changes are created specifically for desktop interfaces. All research and testing done for this project has been focused on desktop users only. We have, however, considered the experiences of people who use desktop in narrower screens (for example, if you have two tabs open side by side). For further information please look at this FAQ. --Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response, for the record, I still don't like but that's my problem! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the original post. The narrow text is horrible to look at on a desktop browser too. The full width text should be the default and the narrow text should be an option. This is a reading-heavy website and we need to see much content on our display. The old Vector skin got it right, but the new Vector 2022 fails with this task. Full width text was nice, bring it back for us. The location of the 'full width text' button is very poor and some browsers on desktop do not show the button at all. The 'full width text' button needs better placement, this function will be very important for a lot of readers! 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree; the narrow width and wasted white space is very inefficient and makes it hard to read. I've reverted back to the 2010 theme. Steepleman (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found more problems; it breaks the div col template, leading to more unnecessary white space. Articles that have images etc alongside the menu box, see List of watermills in the United Kingdom, are now badly broken. On my tablet I still get a mixture of old and new skins depending on what article I look at. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm that this bug about mixed old and new skins happens on the desktop version of Wikipedia too. With Vector 2022 active, I can see some articles show with the old skin and other articles show with the new skin. Also the table of contents is weird and random-some articles show the new style but others have no TOC anymore. This whole Vector 2022 skin feels rushed, less polished and unfinished. There are weird things about the language selection button too-it shows two different language lists if you click on it two times. 21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Awful decision to force this as default for me with no warning. Awful. I have a 2k monitor, I don't need this sandwiching bullshit. 16:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @, I understand you fell frustrated. We have communicated a lot with the community, discussed and made changes only after a RfC. Please look at our FAQ and consider to personalize your experience restoring the full width. 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. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is this toggle? I can't find it, and why only 1600 pixels and wider? Why not just add a toggle that turns off the new layout completely: For all users even without an account? 18:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too can confirm that the visibility and placement of this toggle is very poor. 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I get a direct link to the RFC? Not really sure where to find it. Skarmory (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC was at en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022), where opposition to the excessive white space was overwhelming. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is really wild to me, after reading that RfC, that this mess was pushed through anyway. Even the majority of people who knew about this upcoming change disliked it! How did you expect regular users to react?? Protospork (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, c'mon, surely you've got the data to know that most users would never see an RfC on anything? Most people just read Wikipedia. Heck I've got an account, I've even donated (you're welcome Jimmy!), & I didn't know about this mobile-style junk until it hit me in the face. WizWorldLIVE (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the original poster here but this toggle thing is incredibly annoying. First - why default to a narrow view when I've got a wide desktop window (something easily detectable in JS). Second it doesn't save that setting so I have to re-click that thing on every page, which is just infuriating. Third, it still wastes a considerable amount of horizontal space on the left side. (Screenshot: [1]) Seriously, look at that screenshot. Does anyone honestly think that looks good? Not only is the functionality poor, it wastes space and simply looks bad. It looks amateurish and poorly thought-out. Likely because it is. 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know this toggle was mentioned a few times, but I can't trigger it on my 1600px laptop screen (ff/chrome, mac) or my ~2500px external monitor. Can someone share a screenshot showing where it appears?
I also see the "switch to old look" sidebar link still takes you to a two-click + one-scroll interface that doesn't return you to the page you were on, which I thought was going to be changed? cf, T327465.


it is stupid as shit, incredibly boneheaded to make such a change to core page ui. making me make an account to restore functionality is driving a nail into my skull and telling me i get grab a hammer to pull it out. everybody involved in the decision to push this to people who didn't ask for it and didn't want it should be ashamed and should never be allowed to make decisions affecting other people ever again. 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Absolutely describes my sentiment. Hope they don't just remove your topic just because it uses slur words. This new layout is absolutely disgusting—and to force it on non logged-in users instead of making it an option? Incredibly stupid and unthoughtful 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my couple of years of experience on Wikipedia, I have never seen a topic removed for just having swears in it. Given this isn't a personal attack, I would be very confused if it got removed. Skarmory (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space unutilizationEdit

With the new look, there is lot of empty space at the left and right sides of the page. All content is restricted to the middle, and this may be suitable for mobile devices. What should I do to let the content span the entire width of the page for desktop usage? Jay (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh never mind! I found the toggle button on the right side bottom corner. Jay (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Jay, thank you for your feedback. Please look at our FAQ, yes, you can personalize it. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm now able to fold the left frame also. This is awesome! Jay (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not pixel aligned, leading to grayscale text rendering/fuzzy text on Windows ChromeEdit

Hi, when the content does not take up the full width (e.g. with sidebar) there must be an element that is not pixel aligned. On a 1x Windows display with Chrome, this causes the text to appear fuzzy, rendered using grayscale antialiasing:

The old version of wikipedia, and also the resized version removing the sidebar does not exhibit this problem, and is correctly rendered using subpixels, looking much crisper. Zebracanevra (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Zebracanevra thank you for reporting this. Can you confirm me if your problem is described in this task? Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hah I've been encountering that bug for a while now, happens on Youtube as well. It could be related, though I don't think it is the same issue.
Maybe if the Chrome team fixes the bug in that task it will resolve my issue.
I believe the GPU rendering in Chrome Windows uses grayscale AA and otherwise it uses subpixel AA, and using some CSS properties/widths can induce Chrome to render using the GPU. See for example any page on Cloudflare's Docs, where if you open a dropdown, they use "will-change", hinting to use the GPU: same result. Zebracanevra (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe just ignore everything I said about the cause being "pixel aligned". Maybe I don't know what I am talking about.
I do have a fix for what I am seeing, though:
Removing the position property from .vector-body { position: relative; } makes Chrome want to do subpixel rendering for the body. Zebracanevra (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC levelEdit

Earlier the TOC at en:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Current_list used to show only the dates and not every discussion for that day. Now it is showing all, which will go to hundreds and is not practical. I want to see only the dates like before. How can I make the TOC show the top-level heading only, and not all of them? Jay (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The TOC needs to have the same width of the main content, or at least 50% of the main content. Having it as a sidebar which is narrow makes it hard to use. Can I have the TOC permanently as part of the main content? Jay (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jay - one thing that might help with this is collapsing the ToC, then opening it using the button on the left side of the title. This allows it to show as an overlay which gives more space for the ToC on pages or namespaces where headings are generally longer. Hope this is helpful! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF): If I may interject, it seems the primary issue is that the ToC only collapses top-level headings (marked with == title ==), but not lower level headings (marked with === title === and so on). On the linked page, when "Current list" is uncollapsed in the ToC, all of its subheadings are displayed—not just the subheadings directly beneath it in the hierarchy. I think it would be ideal if every heading with any subheadings (even if it's a subheading itself) could be collapsed/uncollapsed in the ToC display. Shells-shells (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OVasileva (WMF): I collapsed the TOC (by clicking Hide), clicked the (TOC) button on the left side of the title, and it is still the same as I observed before. It shows ALL the discussions from all the dates. So this did not help. Jay (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that your suggestion was for my spacing concern. Yes, for that, it helps. Thanks! Jay (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also tried How to restore the old table of contents by adding the script to my Vector 2022 javascript, and there is no change in behaviour. I did not get the old TOC back. Jay (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VPN Users HandicappedEdit

As someone who reads wikipedia and its sister projects with a VPN and without an account, I have no way to revert back to the old legacy layout. The new layout is absolutely terrible especially since I am a desktop user with a wide monitor. I have no plans to ever use the 2022 vector layout as it just looks like the mobile layout which I also hate. Can you make it so that you can change the skin for your IP, so even if you don't have cookies enabled you can still have preferences? 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Maybe this little trick can help you: simply add «?useskin=vector» to every requested URL. It works for non-logged users. 09:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make the text fit the pageEdit

I haven't read anything and I shouldn't need to. There is no justification for not making the articles take up the whole page width on desktop.

Make the pages fit, get rid of these ridiculous side margins. VanillaSeagull (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe just stop making it the default layout entirely. The whole thing seems like an excuse for their design team to have done something significant to the site. 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely agree. I don't see any practical use to making a rather wide portion of space on each side of the page always empty. It's ultimately wasted space -- what does it add? What benefit is there is having a large chunk of every page contain no content of any sort? The text should be full-page again, it's just efficient use of page space. Theriocephalus (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even when switching to full-width mode (either via the toggle at the bottom right or via user preferences) the layout is wasteful.
Can the grid column width for the sticky ToC be reduced to min-content and the extra padding added by the @media screen directives be removed when full-width mode has been requested? A user that doesn't want wasteful whitespace doesn't want wasteful whitespace. Growfybruce (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A user setting to default the ToC to hidden would be nice too. Growfybruce (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've decided that I like Vector 2022 right up until you reach 1000px wide. If the designers had just walked away and not dicked around with forcing their smartarse ideas on people whose browser widths they disagree with, it probably would have been fine. Growfybruce (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On that same note, it also hides a ton of menus behind drop down menus. That's fine for most people, but if you edit on wikipedia, it's super annoying to have to open more menus when you used to just have to click a button UpdateWindows (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blurry text after scrolling down on Microsoft edgeEdit

After the new skin went live I noticed that pages started becoming blurry for a second before fixing themselves. The effect only comes again if the page is reloaded with Ctrl + F5 though. I'm not experienced enough in web design to know what the problem might actually be though. The effect is not present on the old vector skin. The problem can be seen here Carvor (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Carvor - thanks for your question. This is an upstream issue with the Chromium browser (which Microsoft edge uses). We've reached out to the Chromium team and they're currently working on a fix. Progress can be tracked here. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing links in diff blogpostEdit

Reported an issue on page 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your question! The section on that page is for learning more about the project through our blog posts. Above that section, you will see links to the mediawiki project page and this talk page for leaving general feedback. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vector 2022 seems to be using legacy custom CSS fileEdit

A warning that people who are using custom CSS for legacy Vector may get that legacy CSS when they are automatically switched to Vector 2022 which can seriously break the page UI. When I went to Wikipedia earlier today, I had a broken UI, links and menus not showing or working, no TOC, etc, because Vector 2022 seemed to still be using Legacy Vector user custom CSS instead of its own user custom CSS. It took a while to figure out a way to interact with Wikipedia so I could switch back to Legacy and make Wikipedia usable. Others with custom CSS may be experiencing this same problem. If you switch people to the new Vector 2022, it should not use the old custom CSS at all for this reason (their old CSS may break their UI under the new 2022 layout). For just a visual example of Legacy vs 2022 with a Legacy custom CSS : Screencaps for comparison (lack of links/menus not working obviously not depicted).
Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracked in phab:T301212. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List articles with photographs are brokenEdit

Noticed this mostly on List of Manchester United F.C. players. The photos are on top of the table with the list below, instead of the photographs beside the table. It's odd, because on other articles, the photos can be beside the list. I'm trying to figure out how to fix it on this article. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, it works when I toggle the wider layout, but it should also work the default layout as well.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a very wide table. If you want those photos to appear alongside the table for all readers, you may need to wrap the larger table in a second table, where the existing table is in one cell of the only row and the photos are in a second cell. This may not be a good idea, however. Jonesey95 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ToC [hide] toggle state not savedEdit

I have had a mostly unobjectionable Vector 2022 experience for several months now. One issue I've noticed is that the toggle state of the table of contents (whether it's hidden next to the page title or displayed in the sidebar) is not saved over page changes or even page reloads. Its state should, I think, be saved just like the collapsed/uncollapsed state of the sidebar controlled by the top left hamburger button. Shells-shells (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Shells-shells for your question! This is coming up soon. Adding this persistence is on our list for updates to the new skin. First, we are planning on adding an indicator that will make it easier for people to know where the ToC has collapsed to. Once this indicator is in place, we will go ahead and make the collapsing persistent across pages. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Tracked in Jdlrobson (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Customizing button shortcuts in top-right menu area?Edit

I'm giving the new skin a college try but one thing that's non-negotiable is removing the direct link to My Contributions in the top-right corner. I used that as a quick way to reach my active/recent discussions so hiding it in the sub-menu is an extra click for no reason. Is there any way to customize which buttons appear directly (currently, it's Userpage, alerts, notices, watchlist) and which ones get hidden in the sub-menu? Slightly less important but still annoying is that I have the UTCLiveClock gadget active (Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance, 2nd one in the list) and that's getting hidden in the sub-menu as well. Is there any way to change this? I don't mind having extra buttons on the top-right of my screen. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're most likely going to have to fiddle with CSS to get a button for it, but a quick way to get to your contributions is to use the hotkey combo Alt+Y. Tenryuu (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a screen recordings showing some of the possible configurations of the updated interface with "Advanced tools"
Hi @Axem Titanium: thank you for your feedback, I opened a task on Phabricator about the direct link to My contributor.
About UTCLiveClock, please look at this section of our FAQ and here. In my opinion you should contact the Tech Village pump or who is updating the gadget and talk about your suggestion with them. Keep in mind that the design of the new skin is trying to reduce distracting links for readers, so probably it should be better a personalized script. Hope this will help.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for opening the task. I'm not sure how to activate the Advanced tools menu like it shows in the video you added. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easier switching between my languagesEdit

I often browse the wiki in both English and Hungarian. With the old design, switching to a page's Hungarian version was just 1 click. (As it always displayed it among the suggested languages.)

With the new design it's a click on the dropdown, scroll down or search for Magyar, then click again. It's a minor, but noticeably more hassle than it was before.

Seeing that most people probably don't speak more than 1-2 languages, could we add a customisable shortcut to the user's selected languages? I don't need to see a list of 60+ languages I don't even speak. --Kazerniel (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kazerniel thanks for your feedback. Also the Language Team thinks that you "don't need to see a list of 60+ languages I don't even speak"! :) The Compact Language Links shows you only your preferred languages, you can select it in your Preferences, at the bottom of the page, checking the preference "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." About the double click: actually we don't will make the hover by default, but you can personalize your CSS. See also this reply. For more customization see our FAQ. Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I managed to hide the irrelevant "suggested languages" with .uls-lcd-region-section.uls-lcd-quicklist li.interlanguage-link:not(.interwiki-hu):not(.interwiki-en){display: none;}.-- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely awfulEdit

Stop forcing mobile interfaces on desktop users. Completely inexcusable and unusable. Kuinor (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a bullshit decision and the web design team should feel ashamed of themselves. I've used this site every day since I was a child and I have only just now made an account to switch back to the proper interface. If it ain't broke, don't try to fucking fix it. AngryAtlantan3000 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same here DontLikeRedesign (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it. If you have the screen space, use it. Force collapsing some of the most useful parts of the UI makes no sense to me. It's only intuitive when you are limited in space, otherwise people do not look for the hamburger menu, they simply get lost.
I subscribe to the school of thought that web design should be focused on enabling ANY user to find what they are looking for quickly. Hiding necessary pages like "about wikipedia" or "contact us" behind a hamburger essentially locks out many people who aren't trained to look for these things.
The left pane is empty and unused by default. I like the language dropdown, but then a box "educating" users on where to look for their language makes NO sense to me. They can't read English, but the sidebar used to show the language options in their native language, which it doesn't anymore. Why could you not do both? Asukite (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kuinor, Asukite, AngryAtlantan3000, and DontLikeRedesign: Hi and thank you for your feedback.
@AngryAtlantan3000 and DontLikeRedesign: Please read this Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, in particular the section Creating an illusion of support.
Hey @Patafisik (WMF): , you cowardly "forgot" to sign your post again, containing baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. You are not editing in good faith - you can provide evidence of sockpuppetry & report to admins, or you can shut up. It's incredible how you refuse to understand why there are so many negative comments: 1.) Users don't want Vector 2022 2.) Users cannot disable Vector 2022 without an account 3.) Vector 2022 is bad enough that users are making accounts *specifically* to disable & comment about Vector 2022. Freedomlinux (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asukite: I understand your frustration, please visit our FAQ, this presentation or this information page to familiarize with the new skin, you can find some useful explanations. We don't have removes any functionality, they are just in a different place. You will discover that we will move the Article tools on the right of the page, available also when scrolling. About the box for the language button on the top: we have been working with early adopters communities for a while, and this was asked for increasing the visibility of the new language switching button. This is just a notice that should help. About "Why could you not do both? " it is for the same reason explained here. Habits take time to form, you can try the skin but if you don't like you can go back to Vector 2010.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a puppet account. Would you rather I create my own topic complaining about the redesign? I thought it would be more appropriate to relate to someone who shared my sentiment and only created an account so as to use Vector 2010. DontLikeRedesign (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you create a version that combines some ideas of 2022 with the 2010 Vector?Edit

I think it is a good idea for the Table of Contents being moved off the article space and imbedded toward the right-side of the webpage. I also like that the page is more centered with both left and right spaces being empty.

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in 2022 Vector that cannot be ignored. The current design has no defined space for what is article and what isn't. For example, the spacing between the TOC and the Article seems ambiguous and unclear. It's so distracting that my brain is trying to figure out where in the webpage does the TOC ends and the Article begins. It looks even worse when a TOC has a bar to scroll and the letters just start to erase through an invisible white line.

This gives Wikipedia a less deliberate design. And In my humble opinion, it makes Wikipedia look more like it came from 1990s than it does in current year. If accessibility is so important, why is it such an adjustment for every article? 2010 Vector great because almost every section of the webpage was defined by borders. Is there a way to make a version of 2022 where the borders of 2010 are reimplemented?

Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's Custom CSS for a compact theme, so the space between the TOC and main article isn't so noticeable:
.mw-page-container {
	padding-left: 1em;
	padding-right: 1em;
#vector-toc-pinned-container {
	padding-top: 0 !important;
	margin-top: 0 !important;
.vector-toc {
	margin-left: 0 !important;
	width: initial !important;
.mw-content-container {
	max-width: 82em !important;
Wing gundam (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wing gundam: That's not what i'm asking. I'm asking for the 2010 design as the base template with the same ideas of Vector 2022. The problem isn't just the TOC being spread far apart, its that its all border-less. none of the space is defined.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worse for reading, more scrolling, more wasted space, less information.Edit

Since the new layout wastes so much space i have to scroll way more. Thanks for making it a worse experience.

You present less information.

It is harder to read.

So much wasted space. Especially on an ultrawide screen. 50% of my page is white. Why do i even have a larger monitor if you just fill it with white.

Congratz, you made the one thing this site was good at bad. 2A01:C23:6033:BD00:302E:8B1A:582E:AD8F 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit: Here is an image of how it looks on a modern monitor that isn't a mobile device: The same page on the old design shows me 2 additional sections. So on the old design i see more, have to scroll less, can comprehend more at once, and am generally not assaulted by a literally 62.5% white space. Why not make the next design be just a white page, would be a good approximation of how it looks now.

I actually like the max-width limit on wide displays, although a toggle would be preferred. If you don't like it and want full ultra-wide, put this in your Vector (2022) Custom CSS (found in your Preferences):
.mw-page-container {
    max-width: initial !important;
.mw-content-container {
    max-width: initial !important;
Custom CSS fixes most pet peeves. Wing gundam (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a toggle in the bottom right corner of your screen. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad tested. In my 1920×1080, 17" laptop screen, I cannot see the toggle button by default. I must set Chrome's zoom to 80% to see it and click, then revert zoom to 100% again.
I was tempted for a while to donate to Wikipedia, but now I'm happy not to donate a single nickel, seeing how you spent donator's money. Boo. Thump-down. 08:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy shit, how is anyone supposed to know that's there without explicitly asking? It's barely noticeable even if you know to look for it! I would never by default think to look in the bottom right of the page for a floating button that changes the page layout, 99.999...% of the time such a control would be somewhere at the top of the page, with every single other control/option/preference/menu/etc.
Maybe if this toggle hadn't been so effectively hidden the backlash about the page width change would have been vastly minimized. Honestly I'm thinking this was hidden intentionally in order to effectively force most users of the new skin to use the smaller fixed-width version and get more feedback on that version (though whether they got the feedback they were hoping for...). NightKev (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would i do any of that. Nothing like that was necessary before. Me having to manually go change stuff to get a worse version of what was already there before is bad design. Also the only reason i created a wikipedia account was so i can use the old better design. Also i have no toggle bottom in the bottom right of my screen, i have whitespace:

User contributionsEdit

Is there no easy way to look up user contributions? You used to be able to do it from the user's page and talk page. 2603:3005:42DF:4000:D5A:FD7F:5960:C34 20:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I found it through the hamburger menu. Not very intuitive though. 2603:3005:42DF:4000:D5A:FD7F:5960:C34 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New layoutEdit

Just came across the new layout for the first time right now, and immediately switched back to the old one.

Sorry, but this is simply awful. There's way too much empty white space, and articles are needlessly compressed as a result while it looks woefully antiquated from an aesthetic standpoint. We don't need such massive side margins, for God's sake. What's the point of that? I thought somehow it had switched to the mobile version.

Perfect example of unnecessarily trying to build a better mousetrap. Beemer69 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't agree more, classic case of "fixing" that which wasn't broken. Xx78900 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+! from me Grl570810 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Beemer69, @Xx78900, and @Grl570810. Thank you for writing here.
We've briefly explained our motivation in the FAQ, and on this page, there's a longer essay. Many individuals may have different preferences and answers to the question "what settings provide you with the best reading experience", and it's possible to customize our interface. As logged-in users, you may set up a preference disabling the limited width. Early next week, we'll move the page tools to the right column, so there will be a bit less empty space. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why can’t we leave it for readers to narrow their browser windows down?[edit]
Most users don't resize their browser windows or use browser plugins to improve the design of the websites they view. Wikis should be good-looking immediately, in their basic form.
And yet now the Wiki is worse-looking by far in its basic form. A gaudy redesign that incorporates the worst features of Britannica's online layout, seemingly in imitation thereof.
Xx78900 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also don't understand why so much empty white space is needed between the article and links (to the left). If readability is such a big issue, they should increase the white space to the right (for infoboxes) and increase the vertical spacing as well. You won't be able to read a damn thing, but it would fullful the "white blank space is useful" prophecy that the FAQ proclaims. -Jetro (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enter key is not left clickEdit

When I'm finished typing something in the search bar and hit enter, I expect the top result to show up, not the page where my cursor currently rests. If I want to click on a page that's not at the top, I'll just use my mouse or touchpad's left click because that's closer to my fingers. This is a big problem for me as I often use keyboard shortcuts and therefore have to physically move the cursor away in order to search properly. ~~lol1VNIO🧧🐈 (I made a mistake? talk to me) (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Day two of this problem and I've decided to change back to 2010. ~~lol1VNIO🧧🐈 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forcing new UI on non account users is trash designEdit