This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:13, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I just logged on and the whole site is different, and I don't like it. It's confusing to me. I want to change it back. Is that a good idea? Because I loved the old skin. Thanks so much! --Gmalek 19:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
You can go to Special:Preferences and change the skin back to how it was, which is Monaco. Monaco will be removed as an option on November 3rd, though. At that point, the other option you can choose from is Monobook (which you can use now too). - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
This site works and looks great with the new skin! We were one of the lucky ones, because other Wiki's out there are completely messed up and will have to do a lot of work to look good again. --Willy105 20:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Errr... Have you seen the site's logo? "Wookieepedia" in big black letters is sitting right on top of the white-with-black-outline "Wookieepedia". It looks god-awful. And literally half my screen is blank margins, the articles might as well be printed on a bookmark. —Unsigned comment by184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
The site's logo can be updated at will, and the static size allows us to be more accurate and creative on how we layout and design the website, because we won't have to worry about people with different screen resolutions. Sure, there is empty stuff at the edges of the screen, but you can always add graphics to it to make it seem more busy, and since most people use a smaller resolution, it is not as big a problem for everybody else. --Willy105 02:33, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
The site now uses only 1/3 of my screen and this is progress? Catering to the lowest common demoniator is better than a site that properly adjusts to fill the available screen space? Edit: Apologies, I did not realize there was a skin available that does adjust properly (I guess I can live with having to register) and that this change was not the choice of Wookieepedia admin. You guys might want to put some kind of notice on the front page if you're allowed to. --220.127.116.11 00:54, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Really don't like the new skin. A person goes to the trouble of getting rid of ads and scripts- just to have it all replaced with skin graphics taking up all the space. I agree with last comment- the new page doesn't even use half of my screen. AWFUL. I love Star Wars and Wookieepedia- please go for simplicity, its the content in the articles that's important. Thx —Unsigned comment by18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
It's probably worth noting that we can't really do much in terms of the actual layout, that's how Wikia make us play. If you really can't bear it, do what virtually all the established users have done and use Monobook. We can't do anything much more than that. NAYAYEN 22:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
If we could use Monobook as the default skin for all users, we would. But we can't. Wikia are the ones who enabled this skin for all logged out users and there's not a thing the community or admins can do about it except to try and make it as bearable as possible. As Nayayen said, it's worth simply registering an account and switching the skin to Monobook. Xicer9(Combadge) 23:57, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of sanity and ease, I'd like to suggest that this forum not be a place to rant about whether or not the new skin is liked. There are always going to be mixed feelings about it across the community. We should use this forum to report bugs and issues. — Fiolli 00:37, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Monobook will remain. There are no plans to remove that as an option. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:13, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, on the new skin, the logo doesn't show at all in IE8, all I see is Wookieepedia in big letters. The logo shows just fine in firefox, though. Mbruno 03:08, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
The logo had been a CSS hack, because the wordmark Tm T created was less than the 250x65 size that the theme designer requires. The hack had to be removed because it was causing problems in IE, showing both the big lettered Wookieepedia and the image. I just used the theme designer to upload a larger wordmark, though, so it should have reappeared now. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:10, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
So, how do we view an image full-screen? Or find the URL of an image? Or look at the page details for images? Anytime you click on an image now, it just pops up one of those dumb flash pop-ups. No way of seeing who uploaded it or reading a talk page for it or copying the URL down to paste to a friend. Also, on the front page, the entire thing is filled with advertisements and toolbars by default. You can see the quote of the day, random article links, logo, and search box, and that's all. If the default is staying with this, we'll need to change the front page, won't we? Tony Knightcrawer 22:45, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please make new comments at the bottom, rather than randomly in the middle, it makes it easier to find them. There's an icon in the bottom right corner that takes you to the file info page. As for the main page, we can't do very much about the layout. Your best bet is to switch skins. NAYAYEN 22:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
One thing I have noticed is that as I am scrolling down a page or article, the site seems to randomly jump back to the top of the page. Anyone else notice this or is it just me?--CT-1987 18:21, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
I had that problem when I switched to the new skin. It does it when you reach the bottom. MasterFred(Whatever) 18:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
That's something that's being reported globally. The tech team is working to fix it ASAP. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:58, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the WoWWiki:Main Page since the new skin has been forced down our throats? They seem to be allowed to stretch their layout and make it look less asinine than the new skin supposedly allows, so why can't we? It looks rather nice the way they have it. Ramikadyc 05:00, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
They got permission from Wikia (a bribe to stop them from moving). However, they have officially moved to wowpedia.org. 1358(Talk) 05:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
I had known they split and had "officially" moved since the end of October, but hadn't the interest in understanding why until today. I also have learned of other sites moving for similar reasons. Now, I'm sure there's no established policy in Wikia's procedures manual for enticing a wiki to stay with their service--much less what criteria a site must meet for a such bribes to be offered--so why just WoWWiki and not the other sites? My thought is it's because they're a major wiki with high traffic. If that's the case, what about us? I know Wookiepedia is one of the most popular wikis under Wikia's umbrella, and if not more popular than WoWWiki, certainly close to its equal. As such, is there nothing we can do to receive this "privilege" as well? Surely the preferential treatment of one wiki should piss off others and cause problems, especially when the issue at hand is such a hot topic, right? I'm certain I'm not the only one who is frustrated by this and would love to fix the problem, or see it fixed..
This discussion is becoming nothing more than beating a dead horse. I think it's up to our Administrators an Bureaucrats how they proceed with all this with wikia. In the meantime, let's rather try to help others to deal with this skin mess instead of repeating old rants, please. –Tm_T(Talk) 06:47, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
so why just WoWWiki and not the other sites? The "official" reason is that WoWWiki visitors have wider screen resolutions than almost all of the other Wikia wikis. The unofficial reason is that WoWWiki threatened to leave, and they are a big chunk of Wikia's revenue. Some estimates have WoWWiki listed as 10% of Wikia's income. Too bad Wikia's bribe didn't work and 90% of the community left anyway.
As such, is there nothing we can do to receive this "privilege" as well? Well, if WoWWiki is anything to go by, Wookieepedia needs to threaten to leave the Wikia network. DISCLAIMER: I am being facetious here. In no way am I encouraging a move. Either that, or visitors to this site need bigger screen resolutions.
Surely the preferential treatment of one wiki should piss off others and cause problems, especially when the issue at hand is such a hot topic, right?Exhibit A. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 18:30, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
As I previously said, leave it to admins and bureaucrats, all this ranting here only annoys and gain nothing else.
Surely it does. If you desire to rant, get yourself a blog, as SH is not for that purpose. –Tm_T(Talk) 19:00, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, WoWWiki already forked and had its own non-Wikia wiki for a few days/a week or so before the content space was widened, so doing it because they threatened to leave wasn't the case. That would've been fairly useless, considering it had already happened by the time the decision to widen was made. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:17, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
Hum, is it just me or there is no sidebar anymore? I don't know if it is community-wide or something I did, but I don't see that "Recent Wiki Activity" box and such. In all wikis, not just here. Well, the articles are way better this way so if it is a glicht, I don't wanna fix it. Lele Mj(Holoprojetor) 15:28, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
This wikia is probably one of few wikias(I am not counting standalones), which have decent look even for monobook skin. Others have only plain white, logo is too big/cutted and menu items are only basic - everything has to be searched. I only know one wikia, which has nice look - Narutopedia. They only have basic menu, but everything else is okay. --TakeruDavis 14:04, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
Why was monobook taken away? I liked monobook, and I think it worked better than monoco. I can get used to monoco just fine, but I would at least like to know why monobook was taken away. --The Great and Grand Count Mall! 03:52, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Had my terms mixed up. But I'd still ike to know. Please? :D --The Great and Grand Count Mall! 05:50, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely a question that's asked a lot. The official answer is more or less this (I'm a Wikia Helper, to clarify): resources are finite. If we supported all past skins, we'd have half a dozen or more different skins. The developers can only realistically develop features for one based on the resources they have, and unsupported skins would, inevitably, break. Monaco is included in that, because it's a very complex and sophisticated skin. Monobook, on the other hand, is much, much, much simpler, so that can still be supported as a personal choice. Hopefully that helps answer your question. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
So basically it was too complex to support for just a few people? I get that. --The Great and Grand Count Mall! 21:07, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
It was just too complex period, really, even if a lot of people still used it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:50, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
I spotted this on the Central wiki and thought that those users who are desperate for Monaco again might want to check it out. To save any tl;dr, just copy and paste the contents of this page into your global.js page. It may not work all the time but it seems to be a decent workaround for now. You're still better off using Monobook though... NAYAYEN 22:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
?useskin=monaconew doesn't work anymore… we need to find another hack then. :P 1358(Talk) 18:49, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
So, today Wikia decided to introduce a new feature. Well, two at least.
They completely destroyed our thumbnails. See Trunsk for example. There is no freaking caption box anymore. if you don't see it, check out http://s985.[that bucket with photos].com/albums/ae337/randomguy652/?action=view¤t=blah.jpg and see the difference.
If you click on a file, it will take you directly to the image, not the description page. I don't know if that applies for thumbnails as well. And that definitely violates a copyright law. 1358(Talk) 15:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the thumbnail issue, but we could possibly get a bot to add |link=File:Filename.jpg to every image… a huge task. 1358(Talk) 15:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
This sort of service actually disgusts me if I compare it to another webhost run by only a few dozen people (also hosting several million people) that has much better service than this. As for the bot thing, something like that's been done before when all the "Image:" prefixes were changed to "File:" so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch. I'd still rather complain VERY loudly to Wikia. NAYAYEN 15:29, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is that the thumbnail frame and description is no longer displayed at all. Even if you add the link to the image description page with a bot the layout of all our articles is fucked up... again. TyberDroid 15:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
The image thumbnails shouldn't have broken. Some features may not work in Monobook, but the skin is not supposed to break. It'll be working soon. Sorry about the issue. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:59, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
The coding change has been reverted and pushed live. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The linking change actually isn't a new feature. That was there for awhile in Monaco, and it's been in the new look. The coding change that was done affected both the new look and Monobook, but I'm not sure if the image linking change was meant to change in Monobook. I can see if I can find out. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:25, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, just checked. It was not supposed to change in Monobook. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:30, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I tried it at my user page, and it works. 1358(Talk) 12:43, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
OK, has this taken effect yet? If not, it needs to quick. Half the articles look like poop with all these giant gaps around images. MasterFred(Whatever) 15:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Uh, at least for me the gaps have been fixed. Try purging the page (&action=purge or ?action=purge) after the url. 1358(Talk) 19:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
No good. Still there. Also, is there a way to do this at LMW? MasterFred(Whatever) 19:35, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't purposeful, it was the same bug recurring from last week. A fix is in the works (if it hasn't been fixed already). I'll let you know when I find out it's fixed. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:52, December 17, 2010 (UTC)