5 ms·

Changing Wikipedia's theme back to the old one with a browser extension

25 points by trynewideas 4y ago

manchmalscott 4y ago
Oh thank god, the new theme makes me so angry. I did the math, and 41.6% of my monitor's width is just blank padding. I don't want to make another account on a website just to have it be usable again.
- rnd0 4y ago
  Hah I came to type exactly "Oh thank god" -seriously was hoping something like this would come out. I haven't had to have an account to use wikipedia for the last 20 years and there's no good reason at all to begin using one now.
- afandian 4y ago
  I did simpler mathematics than you, and I count three hamburger menus on one page...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    People who love to talk about how it's objectively better to have tons of whitespace should research how often people ever use (or even notice) hamburger menus.
  - hexo 4y ago
    I'd ban those. Gimme normal menus back!
- aquova 4y ago
  Note that there is a button in the bottom right of the window that expands the article's width to take up much more of the page.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    There's also a feature request and proof-of-concept patch to implement persistent preferences for viewers who aren't logged in. The proof-of-concept already remembers whether the max width toggle is enabled: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498
  - interestica 4y ago
    What button are you referring to?
    - aquova 4y ago
      Perhaps it hasn't rolled out to everyone, but if I go to any Wikipedia article, there is a rectangular button in the lower right with the alt text "Toggle limited content width". Clicking it removes most of the margins on either side of the article.
      - interestica 4y ago
        It's tied to page zoom and viewport so it wouldn't show for me.
    - trynewideas 4y ago
      If your viewport is >1600px wide you should see a small square gray button resembling a full-screen toggle in the bottom-right corner of the browser. Click it and the max-width limit on content is reverted and fills the viewport width. Images: https://imgur.com/a/UMxtP61 https://imgur.com/a/UMxtP61
      - interestica 4y ago
        I had zoom on at 150% and it doesn't show that button. Thanks.
  - angry_moose 4y ago
    Is there a way to make it sticky? I have to repress the button on every new article I open.
- sgt 4y ago
  Seems to make articles more readable to me.
- interestica 4y ago
  For me, it seems that just making the general tables wide makes a huge difference. .wikitable { width: 100%; }
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
superkuh 4y ago
Hopefully the analytics showing how many people are doing this will be enough of a signal to wikipedia to revert back the default.
- Kiro 4y ago
  It won't. In a couple of months everyone will have forgotten the old design ever existed and the next time they redesign it people will make extensions to bring back the new "old" design.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Most people won't bother to figure out how they can change it, if it occurs to them that it'd be possible at all. Most of Wikipedia's users don't know anything about how to use the MediaWiki software (aside from searching and browsing articles) nor are they tech nerds. They won't change it even if they do prefer the old one.
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  It won’t because this is a decent redesign. Love the contents on the left. Maybe a bit to much padding but it does aid readability. If anything I might increase the max width on the text a bit.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- joral 4y ago
  That's a drop in the ocean. Even power users might not be aware of browser extensions that do that. Look at the number of people who use adblockers: it's a minority, even though advertisement is a major annoyance to absolutely every single one internet user.
geepound 4y ago
[dead]
ProfessorLayton 4y ago
Anyone know how this redesign impacts clients that reference Wikipedia? A lot of times I access it via the Dictionary app on MacOS. I currently see the old design, but can't tell if they're still rolling out the new design slowly.
- csande17 4y ago
  AFAIK the redesign only affected the page chrome, navigation, etc. It didn't affect the HTML content of the actual articles because that's controlled by the Wikipedia editor community, not the Wikimedia Foundation (who maintains the MediaWiki software and was responsible for the redesign). So clients like the Dictionary app that only pull the article content are unaffected. For now...
- trynewideas 4y ago
  Clients that use the API won't see a difference. They get raw content output and don't rely on skin features at all. You can simulate that kind of response with the render query parameter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?action=render https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?action=ren... but clients probably use more specific API endpoints, like fetching the HTML: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&prop=extracts&titles=59th_Academy_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&... or plain text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&prop=extracts&explaintext=1&titles=59th_Academy_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&...
outsidetheparty 4y ago
It feels like every redesign of every major website I've ever seen has been accompanied by an outcry from users who hate the changes -- Reddit, Facebook, Stack Overflow, now Wikipedia... Sometimes this is because the new design is missing features or capabilities compared to the previous version (reddit for example [EDIT: I have been re-educated on this point; I should have chosen a different example here]), or because it introduced changes that are contrary to how the product used to work (such as when Facebook switched from a chronological feed to The Algorithm). But just as often it feels like users just dislike change. The new thing feels wrong because it's unfamiliar, not because it's objectively worse. The Stack Overflow redesign a couple years back drew so much outrage at the time! I hated it too! But now that we're all used to it, if you go back in the archives and look at the previous design... it was worse. The new design was better, it just took some getting used to. Maybe it's just because I don't habitually run with my browser set full-screen, so I'm not seeing all the "wasted space" people are complaining about, but I gotta say the new design looks a lot better to me aesthetically, and I like having the sticky sidebar available as I'm reading, updating as I scroll to give context to where I am in the doc. (And I also like how it goes away when I reduce the window size, just as it should.) Not that I'm saying you shouldn't like what you like. I don't envy what designers are up against, I guess is my point.
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  Out of those redesigns, the worst was Reddit and I still use the old version. It’s so much more info dense, much less forced engagement, easier to look at and browse etc.
- dooglius 4y ago
  If the cost of adjusting to the new thing is greater than the "objective" benefit it provides, then it is better not to change.
  - outsidetheparty 4y ago
    I don't agree, on a couple of different axes. If we take as given, for the sake of argument, that the new thing is objectively better than the old thing, never changing means never getting those benefits. Stagnate permanently, rather than pay the temporary price of adjusting to change? Also, userbases are not static. New users would don't need to pay the "cost" of adjusting, because they have nothing to adjust from; and if the new thing is objectively better than the old design, then it will attract more new users than the inferior old thing. (Note I am not trying to make the case that the new wikipedia design is objectively better or worse than the previous one; that's an argument nobody will win.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sonthonax 4y ago
I kinda like it. It’s easier to read margined text.
cosmotic 4y ago
Make an account and pick the old theme in your preferences
- joral 4y ago
  Installing a browser extension is way easier though, even if the trade-off is that you have to rely on third-party developers for the maintenance.
jesprenj 4y ago
Is this a change that's local to Wikipedia or to the entire MediaWiki open source frontend that powers it?
- trynewideas 4y ago
  It's a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation that they're applying to their own projects. So Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.[1] MediaWiki 1.38 and later bundles Vector 2022, the prior 2011 version of Vector, the pre-2011 default MonoBook, the responsive alternative Timeless, and the mobile-only skin Minerva.[2] MediaWiki admins can still set whatever skin they want to use in LocalSettings.php. $wgDefaultSkin is still vector, the 2011 version, as it has been since 1.18.[3] 1: https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/ 2: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bundled_extensions_and_skins https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bundled_extensions_and_skins 3: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultSkin https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultSkin
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
LeoPanthera 4y ago
If you have an account you don't need an extension, you can choose the theme you prefer in the prefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsec...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Accacin 4y ago
I like the new Wikipedia design, find it much easier to read. However, it seems to be very similar to the new (and controversial) Arch Linux wiki redesign so maybe I'm just already used to it. I also very rarely maximise a browser window and much prefer clean designs where I can make the window as narrow as possible as I tend to open three windows for a desktop.
joral 4y ago
I find it ludicrous, at least for my personal use. 99% of the time, I read the table of contents just once, to find the specific information I'm looking for. I rarely read an article in its entirety, and when I do, I do it continuously. I never go back and forth between sections, as in terms of length wikipedia articles are not reference books. I'm genuinely surprised that apparently many other users have a different method for reading Wikipedia articles, given the number of people who defend this layout choice. For my part, I'm really annoyed by this floating menu, in particular when it replaced links to other languages -links that I use much more often than the table of contents. But OK, let's agree to disagree, I can perfectly imagine that this layout may work for other people, it's just not the case for me. To solve the issue I installed some browser extension rather than creating an account of wikipedia (as I have a severe case of account creation fatigue), so no harm no foul, but it is a shame that they did not plan to make it an easily accessible option.

25 points by trynewideas 4y ago

Oh thank god, the new theme makes me so angry. I did the math, and 41.6% of my monitor's width is just blank padding. I don't want to make another account on a website just to have it be usable again.

rnd0 4y ago
Hah I came to type exactly "Oh thank god" -seriously was hoping something like this would come out. I haven't had to have an account to use wikipedia for the last 20 years and there's no good reason at all to begin using one now.
afandian 4y ago
I did simpler mathematics than you, and I count three hamburger menus on one page...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  People who love to talk about how it's objectively better to have tons of whitespace should research how often people ever use (or even notice) hamburger menus.
- hexo 4y ago
  I'd ban those. Gimme normal menus back!
aquova 4y ago
Note that there is a button in the bottom right of the window that expands the article's width to take up much more of the page.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  There's also a feature request and proof-of-concept patch to implement persistent preferences for viewers who aren't logged in. The proof-of-concept already remembers whether the max width toggle is enabled: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321498
- interestica 4y ago
  What button are you referring to?
  - aquova 4y ago
    Perhaps it hasn't rolled out to everyone, but if I go to any Wikipedia article, there is a rectangular button in the lower right with the alt text "Toggle limited content width". Clicking it removes most of the margins on either side of the article.
    - interestica 4y ago
      It's tied to page zoom and viewport so it wouldn't show for me.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    If your viewport is >1600px wide you should see a small square gray button resembling a full-screen toggle in the bottom-right corner of the browser. Click it and the max-width limit on content is reverted and fills the viewport width. Images: https://imgur.com/a/UMxtP61 https://imgur.com/a/UMxtP61
    - interestica 4y ago
      I had zoom on at 150% and it doesn't show that button. Thanks.
- angry_moose 4y ago
  Is there a way to make it sticky? I have to repress the button on every new article I open.
sgt 4y ago
Seems to make articles more readable to me.
interestica 4y ago
For me, it seems that just making the general tables wide makes a huge difference. .wikitable { width: 100%; }

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

superkuh 4y ago

Hopefully the analytics showing how many people are doing this will be enough of a signal to wikipedia to revert back the default.

Kiro 4y ago
It won't. In a couple of months everyone will have forgotten the old design ever existed and the next time they redesign it people will make extensions to bring back the new "old" design.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Most people won't bother to figure out how they can change it, if it occurs to them that it'd be possible at all. Most of Wikipedia's users don't know anything about how to use the MediaWiki software (aside from searching and browsing articles) nor are they tech nerds. They won't change it even if they do prefer the old one.
kerpotgh 4y ago
It won’t because this is a decent redesign. Love the contents on the left. Maybe a bit to much padding but it does aid readability. If anything I might increase the max width on the text a bit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
joral 4y ago
That's a drop in the ocean. Even power users might not be aware of browser extensions that do that. Look at the number of people who use adblockers: it's a minority, even though advertisement is a major annoyance to absolutely every single one internet user.

geepound 4y ago

[dead]

ProfessorLayton 4y ago

Anyone know how this redesign impacts clients that reference Wikipedia? A lot of times I access it via the Dictionary app on MacOS. I currently see the old design, but can't tell if they're still rolling out the new design slowly.

csande17 4y ago
AFAIK the redesign only affected the page chrome, navigation, etc. It didn't affect the HTML content of the actual articles because that's controlled by the Wikipedia editor community, not the Wikimedia Foundation (who maintains the MediaWiki software and was responsible for the redesign). So clients like the Dictionary app that only pull the article content are unaffected. For now...
trynewideas 4y ago
Clients that use the API won't see a difference. They get raw content output and don't rely on skin features at all. You can simulate that kind of response with the render query parameter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?action=render https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59th_Academy_Awards?action=ren... but clients probably use more specific API endpoints, like fetching the HTML: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&prop=extracts&titles=59th_Academy_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&... or plain text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&prop=extracts&explaintext=1&titles=59th_Academy_Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&...

outsidetheparty 4y ago

It feels like every redesign of every major website I've ever seen has been accompanied by an outcry from users who hate the changes -- Reddit, Facebook, Stack Overflow, now Wikipedia... Sometimes this is because the new design is missing features or capabilities compared to the previous version (reddit for example [EDIT: I have been re-educated on this point; I should have chosen a different example here]), or because it introduced changes that are contrary to how the product used to work (such as when Facebook switched from a chronological feed to The Algorithm). But just as often it feels like users just dislike change. The new thing feels wrong because it's unfamiliar, not because it's objectively worse. The Stack Overflow redesign a couple years back drew so much outrage at the time! I hated it too! But now that we're all used to it, if you go back in the archives and look at the previous design... it was worse. The new design was better, it just took some getting used to. Maybe it's just because I don't habitually run with my browser set full-screen, so I'm not seeing all the "wasted space" people are complaining about, but I gotta say the new design looks a lot better to me aesthetically, and I like having the sticky sidebar available as I'm reading, updating as I scroll to give context to where I am in the doc. (And I also like how it goes away when I reduce the window size, just as it should.) Not that I'm saying you shouldn't like what you like. I don't envy what designers are up against, I guess is my point.

kerpotgh 4y ago
Out of those redesigns, the worst was Reddit and I still use the old version. It’s so much more info dense, much less forced engagement, easier to look at and browse etc.
dooglius 4y ago
If the cost of adjusting to the new thing is greater than the "objective" benefit it provides, then it is better not to change.
- outsidetheparty 4y ago
  I don't agree, on a couple of different axes. If we take as given, for the sake of argument, that the new thing is objectively better than the old thing, never changing means never getting those benefits. Stagnate permanently, rather than pay the temporary price of adjusting to change? Also, userbases are not static. New users would don't need to pay the "cost" of adjusting, because they have nothing to adjust from; and if the new thing is objectively better than the old design, then it will attract more new users than the inferior old thing. (Note I am not trying to make the case that the new wikipedia design is objectively better or worse than the previous one; that's an argument nobody will win.)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sonthonax 4y ago

I kinda like it. It’s easier to read margined text.

cosmotic 4y ago

Make an account and pick the old theme in your preferences

joral 4y ago
Installing a browser extension is way easier though, even if the trade-off is that you have to rely on third-party developers for the maintenance.

jesprenj 4y ago

Is this a change that's local to Wikipedia or to the entire MediaWiki open source frontend that powers it?

trynewideas 4y ago
It's a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation that they're applying to their own projects. So Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.[1] MediaWiki 1.38 and later bundles Vector 2022, the prior 2011 version of Vector, the pre-2011 default MonoBook, the responsive alternative Timeless, and the mobile-only skin Minerva.[2] MediaWiki admins can still set whatever skin they want to use in LocalSettings.php. $wgDefaultSkin is still vector, the 2011 version, as it has been since 1.18.[3] 1: https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/ 2: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bundled_extensions_and_skins https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bundled_extensions_and_skins 3: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultSkin https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultSkin
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

LeoPanthera 4y ago

If you have an account you don't need an extension, you can choose the theme you prefer in the prefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsec...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Accacin 4y ago

I like the new Wikipedia design, find it much easier to read. However, it seems to be very similar to the new (and controversial) Arch Linux wiki redesign so maybe I'm just already used to it. I also very rarely maximise a browser window and much prefer clean designs where I can make the window as narrow as possible as I tend to open three windows for a desktop.

joral 4y ago

I find it ludicrous, at least for my personal use. 99% of the time, I read the table of contents just once, to find the specific information I'm looking for. I rarely read an article in its entirety, and when I do, I do it continuously. I never go back and forth between sections, as in terms of length wikipedia articles are not reference books. I'm genuinely surprised that apparently many other users have a different method for reading Wikipedia articles, given the number of people who defend this layout choice. For my part, I'm really annoyed by this floating menu, in particular when it replaced links to other languages -links that I use much more often than the table of contents. But OK, let's agree to disagree, I can perfectly imagine that this layout may work for other people, it's just not the case for me. To solve the issue I installed some browser extension rather than creating an account of wikipedia (as I have a severe case of account creation fatigue), so no harm no foul, but it is a shame that they did not plan to make it an easily accessible option.