Wikipedia:User experience feedback/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

TYPE SIZE

ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE TYPEFACE SIZE IS soooooooooooooooo SMALL, THAT IT IS EFFECTIVELY ILLEGIBLE. I HAVE LOOKED AT WIKIPEDIA 100'S OF TIMES, BUT WILL NOT ANY LONGER, BECAUSE IF IT MEANS THAT I HAVE TO USE A

M A G N I F Y I N G G L A S S TO READ THE TYPE, THEN IT IS NOT WORTH THE BOTHER. I WILL NEED TO SEEK OTHER SOURCES

I DO NOT SEE (LITERALLY CANNOT) A WAY TO INCREASE THE FONT SIZE, MAKING THIS SITE NO LONGER USABLE.

TOO BAD.

yo wiki. u need som enew info on the nam!!

Font size is too small to read the articles.

Changes outside of Vector

While I think vector is an enormous improvement over monobook, I'll be using modern until the day I die. One part of the annoucement in particular caught my eye - "These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features..." (emphasis my own). Maybe I haven't done my homework, but will the toolbar and other features change the other skins? They way they are mentioned outside of the vector rollout imply there might be some additions regardless of skin. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Amorymeltzer. The new features such as the new toolbar, dialogs for links and tables, built-in special characters, built-in cheatsheet, and collapsible left navigation bar will be released along with Vector. So non-Vector skins will not see the new features. Having said that, you can go to your preferences under "Edit" and enable the new toolbar for Monobook, for example, if you wish to try it out the new feature instead of opting into the default user interface.(Not all features are configurable by user preferences though.) We are sorry that we need to opt you in when we switch the default skin, even though you already know that you are going to continue using Monobook. The current MediaWiki architecture does not allow us to detect who opted out from the default setting, so the change will apply to all monobook users. It will be a one-step opt-out, just click, "Take me back" link when the switch happens. --Shuhari (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I use the modern skin, so no swap for me! Thanks for the note though - I've checked it out. Very cool! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say modern, not monobook. Sorry about that. --Shuhari (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

== logo-search bar LOGO SEARCH BAR

I dont like it this way yea watever

Printing tables

I'm fine with the default look, could you just change it back so that when you print an article with information in tabular form that the borders are printed too, like it used to be? For example, you print the wiki page on a musical album. The list of tracks look ridiculous without the border, why was this changed?

This sounds like a bug. What browser/os are you using? Howief (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IE and Firefox on Win XP and 7. Definitely not a client-side bug, someone changed it globally for Wikipedia...

Yes this is a bug: MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Missing_wikitable_styles_for_print. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is sometimes the problem.

I hope that Wikipedia will appoint a group of people who will verify the articles edited, because reliability is the problem in Wikipedia nowadays. But, Wikipedia still remains helpful. Keep up the good work.

There's a group of folks over on the strategic planning wiki addressing this issue. We'd love to have your input there! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Want

I do not want to be "forced" to have my skin changed to Vector. The clasic wikipedia style is monobook, which is why Wikipedia has created so many other wikis what use the same skin.

Vector should be optional where users can choose what skin they want.

I find Vector to hard to use, all of the bottons have moved, the sidebar is all different making it harder for me to use, not easier

Yes you can change back, but some pages still have vector skin on them, which is why I said it should be optional. Sophie(: 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is optional. When logged in, just click "My preferences" at the top-right corner, click the appearance tab on the page that appears and choose the "monobook" option. Afterward, follow instructions at WP:BYC.--moɳo 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The new outfit is etremely ugly and uncomfortable! It forces me to update my browser (which I dont want to do). The only "democratic" solution is, that technical freaks may click a button for this new style while the vast majority of "normal" users should not be pestered with such "progressive" stuff.

The theme may be optional, but it is not optional until you switch away from it. One of the great glories of Wikipedia is that people can come to it at various random times to make a search and then do something else; it is not necessary to log in. I would not want to have to stay logged in to keep Wikipedia acting as I wished it would. If you want to keep supporting the theme, please let that setting depend on a cookie that is separate from the login cookie. Regarding the comment just above this paragraph, I am a techie user, and I say this change was pushed out too quickly without asking the community. Please revert. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seconded!! Schweiwikist (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I love to switch languages !

help seems that you are losing the easy poibility to switch from one language to another (preceding comment added by unregistered user 213.96.169.120 on 11 May 2010 at 18:34 UTC)

Wherever above IP has the info from, I hope the interpretation is wrong. The ability to click to the "same" article in other languages is helpful in several ways, and I hope it doesn't disappear! Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interlanguage links in the left navigation bar will not go away. --Shuhari (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that, Shuhari? Looks like the links indeed have disappeared. I want 'em back, please! - Hordaland (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The language links remain, but they need another click. Even for a user who has no interest in looking at a version of the article in a different language, it is helpful to see at a glance how much interest the topic has around the world. These links should remain visible without having to make another click. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated by NoOneAsked, I also think that versions of the same article in other languages should be visible at startup, not only after clicking on "Languages". I do not think that new users will necessarily understand what is hidden under "Languages". BNutzer (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the languages should be visible. I had just assumed that, since the languages were not visible, either my server was having a problem or there was a glitch. The word"languages" with a small black smudge to its left certainly was not a clue to me that the old list was hidden over there.Kdammers (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand what the point is of having collapsed menus, especially for an "upgrade" that is justified as being easier for new users. Even more importantly, the "Languages" section should not just disappear when there are no other language versions—it should make it clear that there are none currently, to avoid confusing people. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Beta

I have been using Beta for months now, and i have no problems with it, and prefer it to the standard layout. however, sometimes i wish i could read articles in a larger font, and i cannot find how to increase the size. is this an existing feature i cant find, or is it not possible? that would be the only thing i would add.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Either a) adjust your browser settings, e.g. using Ctrl++ or ⌘ Cmd++, or b) as a logged-in user, try going to Special:MyPage/vector.css (assuming you're using the new Vector skin) and adding the following line:

#bodyContent {font-size: 110%;}

Adjust the percentage there as desired. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikepedia Problums

My name is Stevie, and I am 8 years old. I use Wikepedia all the time for my skool work. Sometims, it doesnt work verie wel. I hop you can fixe it. I dont want the enturnet to be brokin. Thank you. -Writin by Stevie Johnson

Stevie Johnson 8 years old George W. Bush School, HI - Written by Lucy Johnson, Stevie's mom

I like wikipedia and I think that it is a great public service. Without it, everyone would have to be either experts in the given field they are working in or carry around heavy encyclopedias like the old days. Does anybody remember that?

FAKE! Also, not cute.

InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing buttons

I've been using the beta for some time now, and it works great! It is a significant improvement over the monobook and old toolbar. It appears the new toolbar is missing the strikethrough, hidden comment, and math formula buttons (even clicking "Advanced" in the new toolbar doesn't show them). The search and replace feature is also very nice. I would just like the buttons I mentioned added. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure the usability team will address your comment better in the long run, in the short run, if you know some JavaScript there's some documentation on customizing the toolbar over on the Usability wiki. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I looked again at the usability wiki page, and there's code snippets you can add to your vector.js page over at usability:Toolbar customization/Library for all of the buttons you've asked for. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing folks to the documentation on customizing the buttons. The usability team employed click tracking on the toolbar to determine which functions were the most commonly used. The ones that received the most amount of usage (e.g., Bold, Italics, add link) were included in the main toolbar. Others were included under Advanced, and a few were removed. In the future, we'd like to have a more user friendly way of customizing the toolbar. In the meantime, please use the existing documentation. And if there are individual functions that enough people feel strongly should be available by default, let's discuss. Howief (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The snippets work, but is there any idea what font the letter A used in the toolbar? I would like to make some matching icons. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this page what you are looking for? --Shuhari (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, but unfortunately, the font costs money. Is there a close alternative? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Georgia (typeface) will do. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading in edit box: refs in different font

When looking in edit box for the bit one wants to fix, it's often difficult to find that bit because of the long stretches of refs. I'd like to see them clearly marked somehow -- in boxes, in a new font or in color, for example. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting is something that user experience team had considered as a possible feature, but it is currently in the back-burner. We hope to develop easy-to-interact with reference tool. By the way, have you used refTool gadget? It is pretty amazing gadget. My preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing Gadgets -> refTools --Shuhari (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New look...

Questions:

• Can we still use the old format even after the new look comes in?
• Will there be downtime when the look is changed?
• Will anything be removed?

And above all...

• Just...just WHY?!

Answer me plz! S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Possibly (hopefully not), Not really, To make Wikipedia easier to use.--moɳo 00:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the Usability Initiative is to make Wikipedia easier to edit. The existing editing interface can be quite intimidating to new users, so we focused our efforts on improving the experience for the novice editor. Please refer to the Usability Wiki for more details.

You may check out the upcoming changes by clicking on the "Try Beta" link at the top of the page. This will take you into the beta experience, which includes all of the upcoming features. A brief summary of the upcoming changes can also be found here.

For users that would rather use the original features, we will have a "Take me back" link at the top of the page which will restore the original features. Howief (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, but not great.

Wikipedia is good, but they should have a rule that it HAS to be true. Some things on Wikipedia are fake. But I LOVE using Wikipedia as my online encyclopedia.

Although many things on Wikipedia should be removed due to nonsense, many things that may be untrue or nonexistent should remain. For example:

• Pages on Religion/beliefs ( and other abstract nouns, if this is what you meant)
  • Pages on the beliefs of groups of people. If one person decides on the existence of a holiday, it should probably not be written about on Wikipedia.
• Pages on scientific theories
• Example pages

-Nicky Nouse May 12, 2010 (not logged in)

I prefer the current format

I know you guys wanna put something new onto Wikipedia but IMO, I think this current format is more suited for me. If you're changing the format, can you give us the option to switch formats?--Hundred-Man (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there will be a "Take me back" link for users who prefer to keep the original features. Howief (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a "Bookmark" facility!

Hi, my suggestion is that a tab called "Bookmark" should be added so an article can be "marked" as being of interest to the user (as is done in a "paper" book with a "physical" bookmark), without the need to keep it under "watch" (ie: in the user's "watch list").
The rationale is that for a bookmarked article no track of its changes would be kept, so the "watch list" is used only to keep an eye on the atricles that a user wants to change-control.
I'm very frustrated that I have to "watch" articles that I'm not interested in verifying its latest changes! And it's not practical to mark the articles as "favorite" in the browser, as a user can access wikipedia from many different computers so the bookmark should be a function of Wikipedia and not of the computer/browser.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One way to accomplish what you (seem to) want is to make a list on your user page. - Hordaland (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be one way for this to be done, but since this is a computerized encyclopedia, there should be a more dynamic solution. Kdammers (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Single sign-on for all the Wikimedia projects?

I found that if I want to login, say, to the Italian Wikipedia with the user I have it the English one, it doesn't work. Why should I re-define my user in each Wikipedia and in Commons?? If there is a way to have a unified login, can you please explain me how?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is. For more information, see WP:SUL. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gah... Twinkle, Friendly, and other javascript tools don't work.

Come on. Let's stick with the old WP. I can't even use Twinkle, and that will dramatically change how articles are reverted from vandalism.

If I'm wrong and all, please comment here. Thanks :) Jeremjay24 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm running the new skin, and JavaScript tools appear to be working just fine. Try bypassing your cache. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have scripts in a /monobook.js subpage, you need to make a new /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy them into that. That should have been explained. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

lack of CUSTOMIZATION.

I am a dedicated user of wikipedia and i have gained immense amount of knowledge from it. It is a superb interface having information about almost everything in the world BUT it lacks in a great thing that is customisation according to users. it shou;d store kind of information user likes to view and help him giving more knowledge about the same. like the random article feature can be more useful if it could be customized according to my needs and the kind of information i am looking for . this can help wikipedia becoming more advanced .

Thanks Vaibhav khosla

Would you be willing to submit that as a proposal on the strategic planning wiki? There's been some discussion around features of that type for the future. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Its Fine

Oh Don't change wiki, whenever sites change it gets much to complicated. I mean, look at the wiki homepage!

Misleading front page information

For as long as I can remember, there is a certain sentence prominently displayed on Wikipedia front page. However, it's not readily apparent how untrue it is. I'm talking about the Wikipedia motto: 'Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. This is absurdly incorrect, as I will elaborate, and it should instead read: 'Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can attempt to edit'.

This is my personal experience with attempting to edit Wikipedia: I found a reference to a certain Derek Smart in credits of a video game. I got intrigued, searched for him on Wikipedia and saw that there is indeed an article about him and his eccentric personality. First, I thoroughly read the associated tips for editing on Wikipedia and I found a tip 'Don't bite the newcomers' funny, but only later will I realize how gravely serious the implications of it are. So, I went to the associated discussion page and mentioned what I found (note that I didn't just barge in and edit the article by myself) and the response I got actually took me aback, and it went something along the lines of: "The reference mentioned does not come from a valid source, since it is original research. Third-party source (such as an interview) is required to place it into appropriate context."

Wow! And then the discussion returned to whether or not an anecdote about Derek Smart punching a vending machine should be included into the article. Are you kidding me? Now, I may not necessarily remember that response verbatim, but if we take that as standards Wikipedia ultimately strives to, then we've opened a can of worms. What is 'valid source'? What is 'appropriate context'? Who determines these?

Now let's look at this quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi "Talk pages of blocked IP addresses that are being used for continued inappropriate editing, including repeated abuse of the [unblock] template, or continued uncivil or offensive remarks" Again, the same question - who is the ultimate authority for determining these? And who appointed this person if this is indeed 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'?

That same page: "As outlined at Wikipedia:Office actions, pages may be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright or libel. Such actions override community consensus." We've now stepped into the murky waters of censorship.

Can I be an administrator on Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users "Administrator rights are granted by the community to users requesting them"

Yippee! So there are no, you know, bureaucrats, determining who gets to be one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators "After seven days, a bureaucrat will determine if there is consensus to approve your request. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass and most of those below ~70% fail." D'oh! :D (if you've read this far, you deserve some humor on this otherwise pretty grim topic)

There is a shock-parody of Wikipedia, yet despite that, very sound ideas can be found there, such as: "With Wikipedia, everyone who contributes User Generated Content (UGC) there gets nothing, and loses a lot, whilst the organisation itself benefits. (...) Also those who provide user-generated content may also face legal threats for it, whilst the website it is submitted to may not (...)"

Whoever wrote that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, shrewdly realized that everyone wants to be a part of a group - any group. Thus the unrealistic promise Wikipedia makes with its 'you can edit it, too!' to attract newcomers. And what about the 'don't bite the newcomers' rule? If Wikipedians are such nice guys, why is there even a rule to not be hostile towards anonymous contributors? Because, in fact, they are not, it's quite the opposite - everybody new is considered a troll (if you don't know what a 'troll' is, it's synonymous with 'disruptive member')! And keep in mind that innocence cannot be proven and you have the current situation.

In conclusion, who owns Wikipedia? I don't know, but someone does, and the owner has rights (permanent and inherent) while the rest of us are limited-access users and we have privileges (temporary and granted) on Wikipedia. But is it 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit'? Absolutely not!

P.S. I apologize - I tried to format my message to be less like a wall of text and I tried to break it up into paragraphs, but this site keeps resisting it; and why is a new line preceded by a space considered a quote? That simply makes no sense! 109.165.228.51 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Text size

Does the default text size really need to be microscopic?

the old logo was awesome....the new logo is ugly

Your new improvements

Great job on your new User Experience, you managed to make Wikipedia useless to me. I no longer get the old search box. The new one on the top right doesn't work. I put in "Lili St. Cyr" and got "null" back as a response.

not better, just different

The vast majority of wikipedia users are not here to wiki into an article; they just use the site for casual research. Why change an interface with which we are already familiar? The "search" text-entry box is now in the upper right-hand corner. It takes a physical effort, not much of one, granted, but a physical effort nonetheless, to get the mouse cursor up there. The advantage to this is obscure. Asking me to create an "account" just to have the option of returning to the familiar interface feels a little like extortion; at very least it feels manipulative. Are you planning on making this a fee-based service? This is a new-Coke Wikipedia.

Loss of InterNational feel and ...

What become of language list on the left side? Loosing that feature seems like a significant drawback of the new design. That list served as a great support for open-mindedness of Wikipedia and cross-language comparison and validation tool for everyday user. Hope it returns soon.

The Balkanization of the world continues apace. Just this month, ICANN, in wanting to make web sites more accessible to users in different scripts, intended to make it so that people could see that even URL's would be in the user's own language—and at the same time made it easier for people to ignore the world outside of their own languages. Wikipedia now has sadly done something similar: in the interest of usability, made it easier to be unaware of other languages. NoOneAsked (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New position of the search box

While, an avid user and fan of Wikipedia, as I'm sure anyone conveying these words would agree ...

I have to congratulate you on the changes to the grander scheme but also suggest the improvement of minor improbabilities such as ...

The new location of the search bar is unexpected. As such it doesn't only serve any function any better than before but even more so it's closeness to the right hand perimeter of the screen means that the unfolding suggestions drop down menu is limited in its scope and therefore impaired. Even more so the once expected pattern does not repeat on subject matter pages once found but returns to its old and expected place.

I have to admit that, while, once again, applauding the implemented changes, I find myself in disagreement with this detail and would not regret seeing it return to its former place.

With best regards,

Dissapointed

The old look was indeed better and more user friendly.

Especially am I dissapointed where the search box is placed, as long words or sentences aren't show because it's placed on the right of the screen.

please put the search box back where it belongs

The new look is fine, I guess. I honestly don't care much one way or the other as long as the information and functionality remain unchanged. Which is why I'm disappointed with the search box moving up to the top right, away from all other menu controls.

Why couldn't the search box have kept it's old position among the options on the left?

Maybe you could just move it back to where it was?

Or even put it at the bottom of the new options menu on the left so it can keep it's new functionality without forcing users to change their habits.

Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion.

74.111.179.133 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit: In regards to having to create an account to get the old search position back...

That does seem like you're more interested in increasing the declining number of registered users than utilizing some advanced individual cookie technology, even though I doubt that's really your intention it looks bad. --???

In case Wikipedia is unaware, most people use Wikipedia to read, not to edit, so making people register would be working against Wikipedia's mission and vision. --124.180.45.189 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE. Why is search way in the corner? PUT IT BACK Joshua4 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree also,please put the seach box back where it was...it is more awkward with a touchpad to move the cursor all the way up to the top corner. Please put search box back at the side,where it was

At the very least please give the user the option to return to the older, better layout. I prefer the old placement of the search box, and the current hue is too shiny for my liking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.190.169 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please spell disappointed correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.105.114 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will get used to it, but search...

It looks a bit strange at the first look of it, but I will get over it. But a thing what should be looked at, is the search bar. With the older lay-out, it was with one tab on the search field. Now it is 6. For me that is a lot more, it is even to much. Especially when you want to quickly look something up, I don't have to be so long on the main page. It could even that if you load the page, that you can start directly typing in the search bar, like the search of http://thepiratebay.org/.

But if that will be fixed, it is a good looking page.

And what I would like too, but it has nothing to do with the lay-out, is a cookie installed, that knows wich languages you can read. And based on that you can click on the same subject/different language buttons. Now it is still that you can choose between 40 languages, while I can fluently read just 5 of them. So first you have to search, it is now not simply one click. You have to search to. So my idea is that by personal preferences you can reduce the languages list, what stand for a faster transition for same subject/different language pages.

--But as I read an earlier responce, it indeed gives an international grade, if you see how many languages there are for that article--

Search bar

Hey, I see you moved the search bar to the top right corner. I liked it where it was before. I think you should move it back :)

-- Zach

I AGREE. Why is search way in the corner? PUT IT BACK Joshua4 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

- Actually, I like having it in the upper-right corner (the same as most browsers, for example). However, it's too narrow. One of the nice parts about the old position is that the suggested search terms spanned a much wider distance, making it easier to distinguish between them. Maybe move the search bar to the left of the "read, edit, view history" tabs so that you can make it much wider. Or, alternately, have the search suggestions span out to the left (up to half the width of the window, perhaps?) beneath the search bar. The Crunchy Frog 5/13/2010

- It's fine at the top, but please, make it a bit larger and put it in that GIANT space in the middle. Thanks!

- I agree - now it's too small and to far outside. I actually loved the old position, but I guess it would be nice if it was somewhere closer to the middle of the page (or even better at far left). And I also think it if too high, would be better to have it just above the "Featured article" and "News" boxes.

- We're trained to open the front page and click halfway down the left hand side. This will take months to get used to. It would be so much easier if the Search box moved back - it's not like there's anything in its way...

- Moving the search bar was fine, but now it sucks to look something up. You type in what you want to look up, and it arbitrarily decides to back up a few spaces and look up something else. For example, if you were to type in "stone sour", it backs up and searches for "stone s". So, then you have to do the search again, to try and get what you want. It blows, stop changing things that didn't need to be "fixed".

I agree with the last post. Something is wrong with the search mode. To make it work accurately you have to type really slowly or it will, like he/she said, back up a few spaces and then search the wrong item. OR, I have had it revert to NULL and get that as my look-up item with the defintion of it. Hopefully, you will get this fixed right away. Thanks.

What's the logic behind moving the search bar? Put it back. I had to spend 10 minutes looking for what changed in order to find a post that said the search bar was in the upper right. It's hidden up there. Terrible placement.

-The search bar now is practically hidden. The other stuff near it are rarely used features (view history, view source, edit); it should be with the navigational links which are on the left. Also, search is the most popular way to navigate this website, so it should have a prominent place on the page.

Centered and near the top of the page would be nice for the main page, but for other pages I would put it between the main page link and the logo. There it's prominent, near the navigational links, and with more frequently used links i.e. the main page link. So please change it, soon would be nice. thanks

I find this new position quite difficult to use, a few times already I have accidently typed into my browser search bar (which is located just above, which would be similar to most peoples browsers). An ideal position would be on the left hand side, particularly if there was a function that kept "pushing" the search bar down the screen when you're reading a document. The search bar would always be there when you need it!!

 -Kev :)

it sucks

that's all i habve to say

New Format as of May 13, 2010

The new format is not effective. It confuses browsing due to the radically changed placement of search tools and while the effort to create an "easier" use of wiki is present, the site does not require a revamp to imporove ease of use; this is wikipedia: billions use this site without problem. Please avoid trying to fix nonexistant problems. -Mike VanImschoot, Canada, vanimschootm@hotmail.com

Stream Lining

"As stream line as a six legged milking horse"

Whilst unable to give praise to anything, a big concern is stream lining. The idea being that all parts should be in easy reach of one another, without cluttering up the control system. The new layout seems to have taken the inverse of stream lining, with Search over here, menu over on the other side of the scream, and the tabs as far apart from one another as possible. Along side this issue of distance, the menu is cut up into drop down lists. While drop downs can be used to sort very large lists, with only 15 items, the current menu list would only be problematic for a screen size under 800x600, of which a computer with less of a screen size will unlikely be able to use the drop down list anyway. All the drop down list does is force users to navigate the list, require more clicks to get to follow certain links and overall cut down stream lining and Increasing navigation time. --124.180.45.189 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't like

I don't like where the search bar is, but that's a minor issue. My biggest complaint is that it takes too long to load these pages. Thankfully, it is possible to disable the new features. PLEASE, always let us have the option to disable the new features. I don't want to get stuck with the new features on my other computer. Maybe it's my processor speed, or something else. Some of us have legacy computers.

Text is too small (Watchlist comparisons)

Why make editing and tracking articles so difficult? Trying to compare the changes of texts which have been altered (looking at diff and curr) is now extremely difficult, since you have made the texts so microscopic. This is a terrible change. What's with that? I'm a responsible editor with numerous controversial articles on my watchlist to ensure against vandalism, and you have made it much more difficult to track what's going on. -US

"Read/Edit/View History" would better go into a line below "Page/Discussion"

If the "Read/Edit/View History" tabs were below the "Page/Discussion" it would make "Read/Edit/View History" look like a 'sub classification', which agrees more with the user interaction

A new LOOK for the Environment

To whom it may concern,

Recently I heard that dark backgrounds for one's screen saves more energy than Light backgrounds, this apparently is because using a white screen requires more energy. This is why Google has created a custom search known as Blackle (http://www.blackle.com/), where the screen is completely black. Now, I know that Wikipedia is a very well known source of information and many people around the world use it. So I was wondering If we could save energy together for our planet's sake and change the main color of Wikipedia to black. It may not be big but every bit counts..and we have come to a point where a change must be done. I thought that to save the environment, I might ask you to please make this change. I know maybe this might make the layout less pleasant But I find it important we do so!

Thank You and please do consider my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.3 (talk)

See the replies at Wikipedia:Help desk#a new look for the environment. Blackle is not by Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox section is unintuitive

I tried out the new features, and stopped using them because I couldn't figure out how to see a user's contributions from their user page. I've now figured out this link is in the 'Toolbox' section (along with What Links Here, Related Changes, etc). This was unintuitive - I think this box should be automatically expanded on all pages. Robofish (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand though, I really like the new editing toolbar. And when I just clicked to close a tab that was open on 'edit this page', a box came up asking if I was sure - that's a very nice feature. Robofish (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the placement of the search bar though. I'm still getting used to it, but that's because I've grown accustomed to it being on the left side of the screen. I wonder how easy a new user would find it to locate. Robofish (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interlanguage links in the left navigation bar is gone please bring it back

Interlanguage links in the left navigation bar is gone please bring it back

I, too, miss the language links down on the left. Where I do know more than one language, it is interesting to compare the two versions of an article. I can pick up points and refs in the one article and import them into the other.

The list also functions (functioned) as an international dictionary: How do you say SLEEP in Portuguese? Go to Sleep and click on Portuguese.

At the risk of offending, I'll also point out that English speakers, at least many of the Americans, need the reminder that there are more than one language in the world. And we all can be proud of working on a very international project.

Please bring back the language links! Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They're there, but they're folded away by default. Click "Languages" (bottom item) to expand the languages list. You only need to do this once, after that a cookie will be stored on your computer to remember the expanded state of the languages section. --Catrope (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Put the search box back on the left, please.

Put the search box back on the left, please.

New Stuff Mostly Good, but...

Didn't like the look, so I put skin to MonoBook again. Disliked the new features, so I disabled 'em, wanna fight about it? :) Jk, Wikipedia is sweet. 2D Backfire Master ^{lovably sardonic} 11:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I sorta like it there.

The NEW version of the site really SUCKS BIG TIME!

There are some of us that do not know anything about computers that have no clue how to use those things above in what you call a sandbox?

Search function as of this minute does not work - Whatever you put in there it changes it to null and then looks up null how stupid!

Your alpha listing is very very slow loading and cumbersome and worthless!

I also agree the search box on the far left side needs to return!

You sure wasted a lot of time and money trying to fix something that was not broke!

Please send me an email when the site is working again if it ever does? - jaguardog69@hotmail.com!

Searches now more difficult

Now that the search box has been moved to the other side of the screen, the "psychic" search suggestions are harder to read.

For example, last week, when I typed in "Chris Led", the system suggested: Chris Ledoux Chris LeDoux discography

Now when I type the same search, I get: Chris Ledoux Chris LeDo...iscography

So the result is that for longer items, they are now being "..." in the middle, making it harder to understand the choices.

No problem with the position of the box itself, just the way it now functions.

Ralph

That is a very good point, which I hadn't noticed yet. Of course the complete search term is more valuable than a truncated version. Let's have the search box at top left, right under the logo. Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop Cutting Off My Searches

I have only been using this new interface for a few minutes and have already had the following happen twice: I type a search term and immediately press Enter, and Wikipedia cuts off most of my search and takes me to the results for the first few letters. First I typed "Manchester" and got taken to a search page for the nonexistent word "Manches." Then I typed in "Northern England" and got taken to a disambiguation page for "Nor." I am using Firefox.

P.S. If I type a search and press Enter quickly enough, I get taken to a null results page. This is probably what happened to the person who commented under "Your new improvements" above. Some of us are quick typists and know exactly what we are looking for. Please give us back a search bar we can use.

This has been filed as bug 23498. --Catrope (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the new theme is plain

I think we're all going to miss the old theme. Anyway I have a few points:

• The new search box is only for quick jump to a default article. Before I was able to jump directly or look for.
• Why the 'in other language' is folded by default?
• The new font size is smaller than before, even if you enlarge it from your browser.
• You do waste a large space down there. I mean for copyright stuff and the others. :)

But still, I like Wikipedia!

forgot to sign.. ok here it is... A sanny (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SEARCH BOX

THE SEARCH BOX SHOULD BE ON THE UPPER LEFT LIKE IT USED TO BE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wikipedia in the "new look" is actually more difficult to use

I agree with all those contributors who want the search field back in the old place, and who want it to show the full titles of articles where there are multiple matches. Furthermore, if there are articles in other languages, the links to them should be plainly visible, and not only after selecting a menu. I have also noticed that pages in the new layout take considerably longer to load than in the old. I propose therefore that provisions are made for users, even without logging into an account, to be able to switch between "themes", at least until the issues with the "vector" layout are resolved in a satisfactory manner. Schlosser67 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar

Can you put the search bar to where is was before the change, I don't think its convenient to be located at top right

Globe Disappears in Firefox.

With this new format: In Firefox / tools / options / content /colors (button)/background / un-check "allow pages to choose their own colors..." Voila! Your globe disappears. If you figure that out, I'd like to know--- I have same problem with another site.

Since you have the same problem with other pages, it could be due to a bug in the version of firefox you are running, if you haven't already, upgrade to the latest version. Should this not solve the problem, get someone with know-how to take a look at the problem to determine if it is server- or client-side, and post bug reports accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.137.6 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The new style actually hurts my eyes

3 complaints that make using the new wiki really unpleasant.

All of the features of the interface are smooooooth to the point of being blurry and hard to focus on. And I think I have reasonably good eyesight.

The interface has far too much light-blue on white in the side bar and the tab-bar at the top. Higher contrast, please.

The new tab/button things at the top of articles that fade away... What can I say? I hate them with a burning passion. They take up about twice as much screen space as the old tabs, and the way they fade out towards the top makes their boundaries a little vague, making them seem to bleed into that white space at the top of the page.

Those are my actual complaints. I also think the new style is just plain ugly. But there's no accounting for taste...

Fonts too small to read

I am a long time supporter and user of Wikipedia. The new font size is too small to read. Please return to the larger font size or make it possible for us more easily to change the font size as it appears to readers. Thank you.

No

Why the hell are you changing something that works? I do not want to have to learn a new interface. I do not want to hae to create an account just to look something up. I just want it to keep working the way I am used to it. There was nothing needing improvement. All you did was screw it up. What is your problem?

Search Bar Cuts Off Searches

For example, typing in "Kawasaki Syndrome" searches for "Kawasaki Syn;" or "Thor" for "TH."

I can get used to the search bar being outside its rightful place as long as it works, and it currently doesn't.

I am confident you will fix this - you have always preached the importance of the user experience.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this isn't intended behavior. It's been filed as bug 23498. --Catrope (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Searchbar

Just please put the search bar back on the left.

Don't like the new layout

Sorry guys that your hardwork did not payoff this time. But the new layout is not very good (IMHO). I enjoyed having the search on the left side for one. When I did try to use the search it took about 4 clicks more just to get it to go. I know it's only 4 clicks but is bothered me. Also the font size changed on me. I have to now view it with a medium text size instead of the smaller text size. I for the most part view all my websites with the smaller text size.

So once again sorry that I can't say that I enjoy the new setup after the hardwork that was put in to create it. I just wanted to share my feedback.

Default Cursor to be in the Search Box.

I've always wanted the cursor to start in the search box when you arrive at the homepage. Personally, I immediately search for an article 99% of the time when I arrive at the page; I'd be very surprised if this isn't the most common activity among all users on the homepage. Making the search box as prominent as possible, and defaulting the cursor there (as well as remedying the search-related problems mentioned above) ought to be a top priority in the design of the page.

"Null"

I've been a frequent user of this site for years now, and what bugs me the most about the new look is that you can't type something in the "search" field without getting the message "null", leading to the Wiki-site for "Null". I hope I'm not the only one quite unhappy with this new look.

Thomas Weiling

I like it!!! Clean look.

The old look was getting, well, old. Very sleek.

BTW, before Wikipedia, saying "I saw it on the internet" was not helpful. But these days Wikipedia adds some heft to an argument, though once in a while one must be careful.

Search box

I am having problems with the search box under the new look - it keeps truncating the text I type. For example, I recently typed "Northern Ireland" into the box and hit return. At the moment of hitting return, the text got truncated to "Northern I" and that was what was then searched for, yielding a search page informing me there were no exact results for that term. I am using Firefox 3.6 on Windows Vista. Thanks, and any ideas as to why this is happening would be appreciated! SteveRwanda (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback.

Nothing huge here that hasn't been said. I took would very much prefer the search function back on the left. Perhaps above or below "Main Page". Even if it's a hidden option I have to drop down. I really hate it on the top right.

Besides that I think there is too much white space on the top of the pages.

Nothing else at this point. I think the editing changes are nice. The logo looks "weird" to me, but I'll get used to it and forget it was changed.

By the way, you can use http://wikipedia.org if you want to have search in a more convenient spot.

Edit: Drop down box works for me (Firefox), and I realize this is likely why the search box was moved, but I think it's okay to drop over the rest of the options on the left. When you are searching, you aren't worried about Contents or Interaction usually. You just want to search.

Thanks for working so hard to evaluate and publish improvements!

---{Added comment by Zephyr Zephyrus}---

Steve Rwanda is exactly correct. I regard the overall changes as very good except for the unintended problem with truncated text in the Search function Drop-Down field. We all know that something already very good can usually still be improved.

The cause of the problem is that the search input form field is right justified and positioned on the extreme right side of the screen in any browser. When the form field is at the extreme right side of the page, the browser cannot place text past the right-side limit of the screen/display on the local machine, at least not if the active window is Full Screen, as is often the case. The browser would be better able to render the text without truncation if the search input form field were positioned either centered or left justified, In any case, whenever the search input form field is positioned at the extreme right, then text truncation must occur for strings longer than the allowed width of the drop down field.

The proper solution has already been suggested by others -- namely -- move the search function input form field and its associated drop-down text field to be more toward the left. The best place in my view is that the search function input form field should be on the same line but placed to the right of the Discussion tab where there will be ample space for longer text strings.

redo the FONT SIZE

hey wiki can you please put back the regular font size for wiki search on anything that i look for because all the wording are too big to read please redo the font on the whole wiki thank you

ABOUT NEW APPEREANCE

Not all the nations has the same "improved and nice" appereance. Today may 13, 2010 I was looking for some info about a pseudocyst, and my surprise was that i found out something different, a few different things that to be honest at first i didn't liked much, so i tought that maybe wikipedia has been hacked or something so i decided to make a world tour, i started visiting google india, russia, australia, mexico, argentina, japan, canada, guatemala, polan, us, and chile, and then go to the "local wikipedia" of those places, and the worst surprise was that wikipedia in all nations doesn´t has the same appereance wich means to me sometihng unbalaneced, like somekind of clasification, i was suppoused that this site was totally international, with open boards, so why to do this? why make this kind of differences in between nations if anyways this site share information about "everything", from all places of this planet, and also this site is visited by citizen from all over the world, seems like somekind of preference for some nations like us, mexico, canada , australia (for example) to have this new and apparentely improved appereance,i dont like this, and also i know will be others in some other place of this planet won´t like either and also will notice. The old version it´s better and unique, helps to identify quickly where you are, and this new appereance, o got confused, o thought this site has been hacked. Thank you.

The new skin will be enabled on all the other wikis soon as well. --Catrope (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The New "Improved" Look

I don't like the new "improved" look for a variety of reasons, a few of which I'll mention here.

1) I tend to use Wikipedia from my mobile device and the new format shows up in a MUCH smaller font than before. I enlarged the font size on my phone to the largest size available and am still having trouble reading the screen.

2) The easy-to-find box to insert search terms is not appearing on my mobile device. Now, every time I want to change articles, I have to return to the main Wikipedia page to enter the new search term. That is very frustrating.

3) The language alternatives have disappeared. I can understand adding new features or reformatting for a better layout, but why remove features?

There are other reasons, but I see no point in throwing everything at you at once. I am used to Facebook changing their look/layout every few HOURS, but one thing I have always enjoyed about Wikipedia is that its format didn't ever change dramatically.

I am disappointed.

Search box on left please

I really don't care about your tired attempt at looking flash and more modern, just for gods sake put the search box back on the left where on would expect it. Thanks.

Otherwise I will use your site a lot less and rate it poorly to others. Not exactly something you need really considering the bad press you have had lately on pornography?

I must echo the complaints of the previous poster, I do not like the new position of the search box, and would much prefer it be placed back on the left

Painfully slow

The new style of Wikipedia appears to be considerably slower to load than the old one. Pages which used to load within 2 or 3 Seconds now take 20 to 30. The text and images will appear on screen, but the screen will then freeze for another 15 Seconds,without indication as what is still loading. this is horrible and i will not use ir

What once was a fast and effective information database is now slower than crossing the room to grab a dictionary to thumb through.

This was probably a result of the skin switch being stressful for the servers. I'm not experiencing this slowness myself. --Catrope (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SEARCH: Top, Right-Handed Corner? Are you kidding?

Sorry, but this is not an improvement.

I loved the "Search" field where it was!

Altering the Search box

The search box no longer offers suggestions when words are typed in. It worked better the way it was before.

---

Agreed... I do not mind the location of the search box (although why change it if it worked) but it was very annoying to not be able to get a suggestion for the article I was looking for, and it was not on the disambiguation page.

The New Search Box is very poor and Inefficient.

Hi, The new search box is really very disappointing. It has various problems. Please repair it, It is ruining the amazing reputation of Wikipedia.

Improvements

The new layout is NOT an improvement. It is a DETRIMENT. Put the search box back where it was, either eliminate the interaction box's down arrow or allow it to function, and close or open the box as I choose, and turn on the toolbox and language arrows, so that they me used by the person logging onto wikipedia, not just look like they can be used.

New skin on Playstation 3 web browser

I frequently use the PS3 browser, and often go to Wikipedia because it's a nice easy way to get information about a subject. However, the new skin has made reading the articles impossible, because two collumns now cover half the page. I tried to log in to Wikipedia in order to change to the old skin, but the "log in" button was unresponsive.

I realize that PS3 users probably make up a very tiny percentage of your userbase, but if you could fix this issue I would be extremely grateful. 76.105.253.3 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Box works when clicked, but not when you press enter

Please fix this:

1. Search Box works when clicked, but NOT when you press enter -- just takes you to blank search page. In particular, if you paste text into the field and hit enter -- which I think many people may do -- it does not work. Please fix.

Also, please fix this:

2. With all that room there, the search box should be much wider. You can't see all of what you type half the time.

3. Search box in the top right corner makes sense for a lot of sites, but not here. Wikipedia is not any site, it is more akin to google, bing, yahoo -- the search box should be front and center, big and bold. Having a search box in the top right treats it like it was an after-thought. Think about how useful and appropriate Google's simple design is (and I mean the home page, not some toolbar). -- This is what you should be trying to emulate.

Unreadable web page

Hello, I was researching WPXA TV station. All the text on the page is unreadable because it is too small. Other web pages I visit are fine. I have not made any changes to my PC and previous visits to your website have been fine (and very helpful). I am running Windows ME with a display resolution of 1024X768. Could you look into this for me please?

Thanx, Don,

Search Box Needs Big Help

I agree with a lot of the other posters, the changes made to the search box are by far the biggest problems with the redesign. If you want to keep it at the top right of the page, then you should greatly expand the size of the box so that search results are not truncated. I consider the search box to be the main entrance into Wikipedia, & you have truly spoiled it.

Too much change

Change, change, change. Everything has to change these days. Everything gets praised as "NEW! INTUITIVE! BETTER!" but sometimes it's only better in the creator's opinion. Take a look at how google.com introduced its sidebar, most of it isn't actually needed. Please move at least the search bar where it belongs! Thank you!

Search box should get the focus

The Wikipedia website anchors to the top-left corner of your browser. Also, all text starts at the top and is left-justified.

The focus is thus the top-left.

Why then is the search box aligned to the top-right?

Has the design even been tested on a large desktop?

Terrible

Seriosuly... it's horrible... everyone loved the old wiki, these changes were UN NEEDED and UN WANTED

More on search boxes

Funnily enough, the Usability group's own wiki site [1] has a much better looking Search box, with the Go and Search buttons retained as they were on the old Wikipedia and without the problems of truncation (as far as I can see). It would be much better if that look was used here as well. SteveRwanda (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial view

I would love it if you would, when I open Wikipedia, place the cursor in the search box by default rather than having to click on the search box before I can enter a search term.

Very frustrating.

Thanks.

This is not done by default because, on arriving at the Main Page, users expect to be able to scroll with the arrow buttons, which doesn't work if the cursor is focused on the search box. I certainly would find it quite annoying were the cursor to be focused that way, since I rarely use the search box. If you register a user account and log in, you can add a Gadget in your user preferences that will change this for you personally (while you're logged-in). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Went Back to old look

The new look was unusable. On 99.9% of web pages, fonts are just fine. Today I opened Wikipedia and somebody had whacked the look to painfully small fonts. It was done with no warning, no staged rollout, and no opt-in; opt-out only. I opted out. Now Wikipedia is usable again ... with the old look. Hu (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes are not an improvement

The recent changes to wikipedia has only done one thing successfully, that is to alienate and disappoint its users. These changes make wikipedia UNUSABLE on the PS3's web browser, you cant read any info pages and you cant click on any links. The only way i can possibly see to rectify this problem (and get the egg off your face) is to revert back to the original layout. Wikipedia is priceless resource that millions of people use every day, after this change all i can feel is that you people at wikipedia do not respect your user base. Wikipedia needs to be changed back to its old format.

search box wrong placement

please put the search box where it was "to the left"

Another Searchbar at the bottom of the page.

Can Wikipedia put another searchbar at the bottom of the page. It gets a little frustrating scrolling all the way up or pressing home everytime, specially in the cases of long articles. - Vin Mehr.

forced to log in

i'm exceptionally unhappy at being forced to log in since i cannot use the new layout that you have forced on us (it seems unfinished and the colour tone of the page is unpleasant) i will probably be stopped from using wikipedia

i refuse to stay signed in to ANY site and i will not make exceptions for any sites including wikipedia

the new layout should occur when i choose and if i sign in, and NOT be thrust upon any users

Perhaps a solution could be a "oldpedia" startpage and a "newpedia" startpage so i can bookmark and use the former and those who wish can bookmark the latter

i should not have to sign in to use the version of wiki that i like and find comfortable to use

Teknotiss

RefToolbar

The new look seems to have removed and disabled the RefToolbar, which I use frequently. It is one of the most useful gadgets available. I have returned to Monoscript, and will not use this new look until full functionality is restored. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Too Impressed

The new search function is a step backwards. Previously it would show other close alternatives, not just ... for the omitted words. Sometimes to does not even give a aletrnative list. You need to move the field to the left and enlarge the box for alternatives, or at least have an option to scroll it horizontally (even maybe vertically).

My MS Internet Explorer / View / Text Size / Medium is too small and

                       / View / Text Size / Larger is too large!

On Wikipedia concept and content I vote Yes!, but on the supposed improvements I Vote No!

New look

I will check back weekly but until it goes back the way it was, I'M done with wikipedia. look up new coke see how that worked out.

Please put the search box back where it was. Pages are normally read left to right - what was wrong with the old layout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Text Size

Font size is too small. Previously the default was perfect. Now, I have to change the text size on each new visit, then change it back when I leave the site.

"If it ain't broke, fix it until it is broken."

Auto-suggest searchbar behaviour

Like the old search box, the new one will auto suggest destinations as you type. However, the behaviour when you mouse over the suggested destinations is poorly designed. The following example shows how it goes wrong

• I click on the search box.
• I move my mouse away from the search bar, so the box is clean and has no distracting cursor.
• I type in my query - Wikipedia.
• I press enter - and expect to be at the article on Wikipedia.
• However, because my mouse was hovering over the Wikipedia Foundation suggestion, I go there instead.

I did not move the mouse at any point after I began typing. As soon as I begin typing, I'm using keyboard input only. I do not expect the search box to respond to my idle mouse, just because it is hovering idle over a suggestion. If I want to go to that suggestion, I will click. Typing enter at the end of my query should not jump to a suggestion. - hahnchen 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

new look for wikipedia

i preferred the old version. you page is to wide. the eye likes to travel shorter distances horizontally. moira

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME HATE WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia has always been the perfect tool for quick-on-the-screen information. This new version is terribly slow and depending on how detailed the article is the screen freezes altogether. If you decide to give up and click the mouse button while the page is still downloading, the "not responding" error message shows up. Please remember that things don't have to change just for the sake of it. Please get Wikipedia back to its former self.

If it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

Just like Yahoo, you've decided to "better" your website when all it does is turn people off. People like what they are comfortable with. There was no NEED for this but I'm sure somebody convinced the big wigs there that it was..... and probably got paid a shitload of money for something that wasn't needed or wanted.

New does not equal better

Please put Wikipedia back the way it was. Having the search field in the upper right, away from all of the other navigation tools, is a very poor ergonomics choice. The layout is less delineated and more cluttered. Text is easily lost on the eye. And the color palette and interface layout design all make this "user experience" look unfinished and weak. Just go back to the way it was.

Text Size, Font and Search Box

I agree with the others. The search box needs to GO BACK TO THE LEFT and the text size should be changed back to what it was. This new microscopic text size alters and frustrates the readability of this wonderfully free encyclopedia. Inputting information, facts and data into the mind is HARDER now and when the inputs into the mind become harder then analysis, retention, outputting, creative thinking and mind mapping also suffers.

Sure I agree. Editing Wikipedia is a priority and should be made easier, but we also want to READ Wikipedia.

I am only asking for two things: 1. Go back the old text size and font type. 2. Move the search box back to the LEFT so that the auto suggested text generated by your server software can be readable at a GREATER LENGTH. A greater length that would eliminate the unreadable triple dots '...' from which a researcher/end user is forced to decipher vital/key header/title information in finding the right article.

One of the great benefits of Wikipedia that sets this encyclopedia above many others is the depth of your articles and the vast branching to related topics. These features make browsing Wikipedia more fun and enjoyable. Moving the search box to the LEFT, (You can still have it ON THE TOP. It does not have to be halfway down the page as before) makes better sense for browsing Wikipedia's vast library of articles.

Page is taking more time to get open

As compare to earlier version , this version is not speed friendly taking more time to get open, please check it out..

Why entirely move the search form object to right top ? I liked it on the left.. but see no option available to activate instead !? which easily could have been done ?

Eddy, webdesigner

If it's not broken, don't redesign it.

Wikipedia worked fine. Simple and very user-friendly. Now, wit the redesign... not so much. Change is good, but change for the sake of change... not so good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.13.254 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2010

I am usually a big believer in that philosophy. The Monobook to Vector change was fairly well thought out and planned. It will eventually be an improvement, especially once the annoying bugs are ironed out. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with that, and I don't like to criticise unduly, but they've had six months to get this right in beta. And it's not just small irritations we're talking about - the Search box is almost unusable at the moment, and if true about the Toolbox not working in Opera that's also a fundamental flaw. Surely tests have been carried out with a range of browsers and common situations? It's quite incredible. SteveRwanda (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate the "new look" of Wikipedia. The layout of Wikipedia seemed good-even excellent, before the change. Now, it is terrible. Immunize (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User toolbar should not use capitalization for "My talk", "My preferences", "My watchlist", etc.

I have gotten this fixed at the Wikipedia Commons. I thought Commons was the testing grounds for Vector but I guess the change never got merged. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with opera 9.27

I cannot see the languages anymore or what is under "interaction" , "toolbox" or " languages" anymore. When I click on them nothing happens.

--Merijn2 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BROWSING

It is taking ages to search, scroll down a page or even load a page, you need to have this at same resolution as previously. Tony

Welcome to Weakpedia...

So this is what you call improvements: it takes an eternity to switch pages, letters are like bugs floating adrift on a shuffled white screen, and I can't switch from my mother tongue to English and vice-versa with just a click. Please make a "Take me back!" link available so we can revert to the usual Wikipedia, the sooner the better. I'm developing an aversion to this new version.

Too slow.

Don't like this new look, the old version is better in visual and functionality. Please revert. too fucking slow, assholes

It was good the way it used to be.

I don't believe there were complaints about the old version. You don't have to improve something that is already good enough. Will you make it available for us a button to switch to the old version, plese?

Leave the old layout as the "not logged in" default.

Many of us are set in our ways because we have equipment or needs that work well the old way. Why not leave the old layout as the default and let the logged in users select what ever new way they like?

This is a poor idea because it is equivalent to saying to leave Wikipedia in a static state. The goal is to provide the best interface possible, not just to logged in users but to all users. The question still remains if the new version is better or not. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate the new format

I cannot understand changes made just for the sake of making changes. Once you get used to certain features you will want to stay with it. The only reason behind this could be only that there are some guys out there which are paid to to SOMETHING.

It was much better before the recent changes

I dislike the new features. Immunize (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

please, please change tab order...make the search box first on the list.

Please put the search box back where it was or change the new tab order. Previously I was able to click the wikipedia bookmarks toolbar link I have added in Firefox and Safari and then hit tab ONCE to get to the search box. Now it requires 6 (SIX) tabs to get to it (OK, only FIVE tabs in FF, 6 in Safari). This is absurd. I come to do research not to read the front page (it can be a pleasant distraction, but it’s not why I have wikipedia as a primary item in my browsers’ menus). Once I’ve loaded Wikipedia it stays open in a browser tab, previously this meant no mousing required to reposition the cursor to the search box (I switch back to Wikipedia’s browser tab by control-tabbing; switched to the search box by a single tab).

Not a fan of the new look. I prefer the old wikipedia.

If you just want to search, I'm not really sure why you bookmarked the English wikipedia main page. Try either [2] or Special:Search. With many browsers with a search tab you can also add wikipedia to your search tab. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tab issue

In the old design, I can press tab and the first thing the text or selection cursor goes to is the "search" box. Now, I have to press multiple tabs before getting to the search box or I could slow even further down and use my trackpad. In the past, I liked to search Wikipedia because my hands never needed to leave the keyboard. Please make it such that the first tab in your webpage hits the sarch textbox and not the links. Thanks!

Don't fix what aint broken

Why change something that works so good. Put it back the way it was, I don't like the new look.

Needs to have mobile version

It looks wonderful but will not work on my blackberry any more.

I second that motion. My Blackberry browser hits rendering errors or throws exceptions. The old version was not perfect but was very usable on my BB 8330 running OS v4.5.0.169. --pluggo (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I want my old Wikipedia design back!

The new search feature is crap, and the search box itself must go back to where it was. Pages are normally read left to right, plus I like my buttons where they are. I feel frustrated because I contributed to this project for quite a while and now, suddenly, there are changes which aren't necassary at all. Give us the old design back! ViennaUK (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Text size is HUUUUUGE. WTF! Unreadable because of this

terrible, don't you test things beforehand? Words overlapping each other makes it unreadable

Ramdom article

I did enjoy the Random Article navigation link. Can you put it back?

"no free image"

In the circumstances where you don't have a public domain photo to use for a article, why not put a link for a Google Image search for the article's subject?

new wikipedia problem

new wikipedia is very slow. It is not an improvement.

Please please don't fool with the formatting

Everytime you screw around like this it imposes a $10 million tax on your users. Figure

2 million users * 15 minutes confusion time * $20/hour = $10 million

And this assigns most peoples time valued at zero!

In fact here's a fund raising idea for you. Threaten that if your pledge goals aren't reached by a specified date, you'll make ... random changes to the screen layout and formatting.

Wikipedia now totally unusable on PS3

This is totally frustrating! The new design of the site has made the entire site completely unusable on the PlayStation3. You cannot read any article as two white horizontal bars run over the entire page and also make all internal article links unusable too. We are supposed to be able to turn these useless new features off, but to do so we have to log in, which we also cannot do because the 'Log In' button simply doesn't work on the PS3!

To say this new feature is disappointing for me would be a huge understatement. I used to access Wikipedia almost exclusively through my PS3 because of its location in my house and now I simply can't.

I hope you will soon fix this bug, or simply remove the new layout. Why was it implemented anyway??!

The new look is definitely a slicker look, and I like being able to hit the TAB button to get right to the Search field.

Kostad (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For me the bars are vertical, not horizontal, but still unusable. Roenbaeck (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

the ?improved wikipedia?

I prefer the old format - much easier to use - couldn't get the search box to work and could not get rid of the drop down box, which I always find annoying..find the look too stark.

old wiki was interlingual, new version is simply stupid

the fact that in previous version you have the possibility to read information about one topic in different languages at a click was a very good and powerful thing. Please restore the language bar.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE INSTRUCTIONS

I have tried numerous times to set up a page on here with references and have found the instructions absolutely convoluted, complex and impossible to follow. If this is supposed to be an encylopedia for the people, that anyone can edit, then it has miserably failed. Clearly one has to be a computer geek to understand the technical language and code required to contribute to this system. It's time someone sensible, who can write instructions in plain concise English, stepped in and simplified things in order to make this a user-friendly platform for non-technical specialists.

Please note this feedback page is meant for feedback about the new appearance of Wikipedia, not general site issues. Notwithstanding that, have you tried Wikipedia:Article wizard? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New Ajax Trojan iTEST and eXTReMe Tracking Key Loggers in Wikipedia's New "Beta" Query Format

Yes, I have noticed something "extremely different" about Wikipedia...the new Ajax asynchronous JavaScript and XML query spyware, which makes it difficult to type a single keystroke into the new "beta" Wiki search engine without encountering runtime errors.

Your developers do know better than to unleash web applications under beta test runs upon the general public like crash test dummies, so this stealth maneuver can only be designed to extend the distribution of Wikipedia's directory nodes into private sector data via unsecured keyboards while registering ip addresses for the unauthorized backup of entire hard drives.

Given Wikipedia's professional reputation as the central hub for the Creative Commons community, your new GUI has proven a clever Markovian strategy for bypassing conventional security applications and privacy protocols, so I have publicly posted your Ajax scripts below for verification of this posting.

I respectfully suggest your users should immediately release and renew their ip configurations to protect their hard drives. In return, kindly either revert to your prior interface until testing is completed and/or post a global mailing address for your users to send their invoices for Wikipedia's reimbursement of the willful damage to their keyboards and hard drives.

Kudos - S. Gawtrey -

Wikipedia:I presume you are talking about something called search suggestions, and Google has them too. (And so did the old version of Wikipedia btw). There is also some random users that get clicktracked, to determine which functions on pages are used most often. All data is anonymous and discarded straight away, our privacy policy wouldn't allow anything else. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Posting by S. Gawtrey to TheDJ: I appreciate your prompt censorship by deleting the Ajax scripts I previously posted; however, we are not talking about random adclick tracking if you read the actual Ajax scripts concerning parent/child nodes: ... [cut - please do not post the full script here. You can eg create an account and use a WP:User subpage, and post a link here. ]

Third Posting by S. Gawtrey: Thank you for your suggestion to open a Wiki account; however, all online accounts invariably track the users for domain sponsors, which inevitably winds it way back into corporate, financial and governmental databases. I presume I have you to thank for the "Text Services & Input Languages Settings Toolbar", which popped up from the bottom of our task bar when booting our PC today. While I made a few adjustments to our keyboard settings, I have been unable to recover any functionality to our keyboard's "+/=" key, which is vital for "Cat= searches", so I will be purchasing a new keyboard this weekend.

First Posting by Pluggo to S. Gawtrey: Sir... There is no way what you are suggesting is possible. First, the text services/input languages toolbar is part of a Windows update, pre-SP2 if I recall. If you only just now installed SP2, you have likely been vulnerable to almost any piece of malware you might come across. Regular updates are an important part of keeping your system free of malware, as they close the security holes it uses to spread.

Second, you state that you made changes to the locale settings for your keyboard, and now it doesn't work. Then you state that you will be buying a new keyboard to correct this problem (which it most certainly will not). The only way it will correct the problem is if there is a physical problem with the keyboard. No settings reside inside the keyboard itself.

Third, you say everyone should "immediately release and renew their ip configurations to protect their hard drives". I do not know what you hope to accomplish by renewing your IP address, most likely a locally assigned one in private address space. Anyone who has any IT training will immediately recognize this as being incoherent, but novice users may see your ranting, and your apparent paranoia may spread. You seem to know just enough buzzwords to drop to make people nervous.

Fourth, AJAX trojan? AJAX is a technology for building web pages. It enables the page to Asynchronously use Javascript And XML together. Javascript is a sandboxed language that, in the absence of a security hole, should not allow any access to the hard drive or any system settings. It may, at most, send keystrokes you enter into that page to the same server the page came from. It cannot alter your system settings.

Please hire a professional to diagnose the problems you are encountering. You do not have the requisite technical knowledge, despite what you may believe. Please stop harassing the admins of the site; they have enough to deal with right now.

Wikipedia is not out to get you.

The JavaScript code you posted (which was subsequently removed by TheDJ) is version 1.3.2 of jQuery, a well-known JavaScript library used all over the web. --212.45.63.106 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

fantastic!

love the new look. the fonts are great. information is so much easier to discern and navigation is much, much clearer. i haven't tried the new features yet, but was so blown away that i looked for a place to comment as soon as i viewed a couple of pages. as a user experience designer, i can fully appreciate the complexity of the layout and accessibility challenges. this is a very elegant and much more usable solution.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING

WIKI WILL NO LONGER RECIEVE MY FINANCIAL SUPPORT. THIS SITE IS A JOKE DUE TO YOUR 'CHANGE'. THIS WAS DESIGNED BY THE SAME GUY THAT DEVELOPED 'NEW COKE'.

Where is RANDOM ARTICLE

Can't find it now on your new home page, but now I look to the left and the titles are expanded and there it is. The titles, when expanded, had no subtitles on the home page.

I can't view Wikipedia in Internet Explorer 8 properly

I can't view Wikipedia in Internet Explorer 8 properly. Doesn't Wikipedia support IE8 ?

IE 8 is supported. Will you articulate what you mean by you can't view Wikipedia? Will you upload a screenshot somewhere and provide the link? What is the resolution of your monitor? --Shuhari (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TEXT SIZE

The default TEXT SIZE is WAY TOO SMALL, and there appears to be no way to permanently change the default text size (if there is a way, you don't make it easy to find!).

Unfortunately, I will no longer be using Wikipedia because of this. You have made a very poor user interface choice.

The text size is the same as it has always been, ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CANNOT SCROLL WITH NEW FORMAT

I HAVE A MAC. I DO NOT USE A MOUSE. I USE TWO FINGERS ON THE TRACK PAD TO SCROLL UP or DOWN. THE NEW SYSTEM WILL NOT LET ME DO THIS. WHY?

Font is too small and not bold enough

Hi there Wikipedia. I am writing to complain about the new font. It's too small and not bold enough. Wikipedia entries can be long and when the font is small like it is now, I feel like I am staring at a giant wall of text. I don't want to change the font in my browser's personal setting every time I use your page. I did not have this issue before the new look. Please change the font back or pick another that is both larger and bolder. Thank you.

new look

I, like a lot of people are not a fan of this new look. The page is a lot harder to read as it's now spread all overr rather than all neat and tidy as it was before. Imagine my delight when i saw on the page,

'Take Me Back. If you would like to turn off the new features, click here.'

I was reather taken aback with the adition of,

'You will be asked to login or create an account first.'

But i thought, if it means i don't have to put up with this ugly new design, then setting up an account isn't that much of a big deal. So, I follow all the on-screen instruction towards setting up an account until i saw at the bottom of the page, highlighted by your team in a box in red letters,

'Please note that an account is not required to read the encyclopedia and look up information - that can be done by anyone with or without an account.'

Perfect, I thought. I don't need to set up an account and I can still use the old look Wikipedia. Now, how do i go about using Wiki without the new features and without setting up an account. It must be possible because it says in plain english on your site that it is.

Looking forward to hearing from you very soon.

Mr. S. M. Smith

P.S. Not everyone wants to edit your pages. This function should not be given priority over those that just want a read.

P.P.S. You should make it easier to send emails to relevant departments. goodness knows how many circles i've been throght to get this far, and even now i'm not sure where this message will end up.

I've changed that red text to explain properly that you do need an account to change your preferences.

We get a vast amount of email every day even when we don't change the interface :) We have only a small number of people answering email; therefore, we've opened this page where issues get a wider audience. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

HIGHLY ANNOYED

I just want to log back into my account. WHY CAN'T I????????????????????

HIGHLY ANNOYED

I generally love new formats (and used to love using Wikipedia every day) but this new format is just awful: 1) It is harder to use--of course many websites have a "Search" box on the upper right, just in case a user needs it occasionally. But in Wikipedia the "Search" box is essential, central to Wikipedia usage, and the main contact point for users! Please put it back, "reachable", with the other navigation tools on the left side! 2) It "looks" unfriendly--just generic and bland instead of special & interesting; 3) And please don't 'hide' the languages by requiring another click to get to them. Many of us use this list every single time we're in Wikipedia. If the list is too long, then maybe list the top 10 first (you'd probably cover 90% of the users this way) and then hide the others if necessary. 4) This last one is more general: Maybe it would be worthwhile to check with a written-communications expert about how the eye works when people read. A sans-serif typeface (I know, it's currently seen as "modern") is harder to focus on and one loses interest earlier. (The serifs help the eye glide from one letter to the next, and from one word to the next.) That means, for titles or menu points, sans-serif typefaces such as Arial, Helvetica and similar are great, but for text, Times New Roman or similar are more conducive to reading. Thanks for listening!LadyJenny (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tre translation feature is gone!

The left margin used to hold links to the same article in different languages. This was very useful: 1. You could use wikipedia as a quick translation tool 2. If your passive knowledge of a langauge is greater than the active one - which is often the case - you could look up a word in your own language and then switch to a language which probably holds much more information on the subject. I often used this for english or german subjects where the articles would be better than the ones in my native Swedish: I entered wikipedia and looked up a word and then switched to another language for that article.

This was very useful and now it is all gone? And to add insult to injury it is called improvements to the site!? Please, put back the old cross-language links!

It's still there, just hidden; you can click the arrow to show it. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A mistake on the article about Chile´s 1960 earthquake

The article says: "The epicenter was near Cañete (see map) some 900 km (435 miles) south of Santiago, with Temuco being the closest large city ...". This information is wrong. Cañete must be some 650 km south of Santiago, 120 km south of Concepción and a little further from Temuco.

Its slower !

New format is slower than old format

For me the point of online Enclycopedia is fast results - so slowing results down is not a preferred option.

Left colomn not large enought to let the wikipedia logo display on webkit-gtk

Using epiphany-2.30.2 and webkit-gtk2-1.2.0 on FreeBSD and accessing wikipedia.org, the Wikipedia logo on the left column does not fit. Enlarging the default font size makes the column larger and thus the image completely visible. Some CSS min-width may do the trick!

Thanks!

Problems with top bar

Firefox 3.6.3 on XP: When I make the window _really_ narrow, the 'read/edit/history' as well as the Search box crawl underneath 'Article/Discussion' on the left. Finally, the Search Box ends up underneath (not below!) the logo on the left. Please fix :-)

And while you're at it - I think the search box should go back to the left. Now it appears as if I can only search inside the document that's open (as read/edit/history also relate only to the page that's open at the moment). I think it would be clearer that you search in all wikipedia if the box is back on the left where it used to be...

Besides that, I like it :-) Keep up the good work!

The story lines associated with the pictures appearing on the home page are all orphans. Please format the text associated with the photographs to facilitate the content. Shading the word "pictured" or defaulting the associated story lines to the first position in the respective sections could do it. Data presentation or visualization concepts are being violated by the current practice - ask Edward R. Tufte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte) or the Chicago Manual of Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Manual_of_Style). Thank you kindly.

Speedway Racing Team Sites

I am sick to death of attaching a link to my site which provides definitive information about the meetings featuring a large number of UK speedway teams being deleted. I am trying to share information for no personal gain which is, I understand, the ethos of Wikipedia. I will addthe external link once more but if they are removed again I won't bother. I would like to contact the person who oversees the speedway sections of the Wikipedia web site as I think Wikipedia could be much more informative and helpful than it is.

New Improvements. Improvement would suggest that what is new has improved what is now old. WRONG! Why do people have to mess with things that work fine, I don't wish to waste my time trying to figure out how to navigate my way through the new wikipedia. So, I wont use it again until it has returned to it's simpler form

Speed for opening page slowed down

To whom it may concerned,

I've been using wikipedia for few years and I find it extremely useful for a quick reference and easy understanding for variety of information. However, I realized that the speed of opening a new page in wikipedia, even it's homepage itself takes me a very long time to do so. I used to spend just a few seconds to come to the homepage and other wikipedia pages. Just few days ago, since wikipedia has its new appearance, the speed has been slowed down to about more than 1 minute to open its homepage. This is quite frustrating as I often use it for quick reference and now it became extremely slow to just go to its homepage. For searching a word, it also take about 1 or more than 1 minute to come to the new page. I wonder this decelerated speed of opening a page is due to the new appearance of wikipedia as it has to take more time to load some new features.

I sincerely hope that the related authorities would take in consideration and try to figure this problem out.

Thank you.

Pages load much more slowly now.

I really use Wikipedia a lot. It's a great gateway for researching a topic, even allowing for the necessary disclaimers about accuracy, because of the sourcing and the links where one can cross-reference the info being presented. The new look is fine. However, whatever you changed has caused a significant slowdown in the amount of time it takes to load a page, even a stub.

WP has made the mistake of starting to follow website fashions.

Good to see you guys are constantly trying to improve WP, but I feel that the new appearance isn't right.

The site's new appearance seems to be a variation of many websites I see today, and that appearance far too often has been approved by someone looking at it, and saying if it looks good or not, with seemingly little consideration to how the appearance affects function.

WP has made the mistake of starting to follow website fashions.

You must know what I mean? Remember when flickr appeared, and what it's logo was like? With an upside-down faded reflection of flickr below the name? And remember how lots of sites adopted that idea? Well, that fashion has pretty much gone today.

A website fashion that hasn't died yet is the spinning circle, seen on many a site to obscure the bloatyness of flash (the animation is displayed whilst something big loads), or similar. Apple have this same device at the start up of OSX, and Sky TV boxes even have similar on the front. This device will be slain at some point too, once marketers decide it looks too dated.

So anyway, don't make your design decisions based on what other sites do.

I really don't like the boxes along the top of each page, project page, discussion, read, edit, view history. They are not actually boxes, and just try to fade into the page's background. I keep catching myself trying to find the top corners of the boxes, but they aren't there. The pseudo-tabs just keep catching my eye - they are the first thing that I notice when loading up a new WP page, they stand out far too much considering they are not the main function that a user comes to a page for. But it is why they stand out..... they are incomplete shapes, and my braincell seems to be shouting "find the top edge, it's got to be there, somewhere!".

Search box. WTF? Where has Go and Search gone? Simplification is important, but don't make the mistake of dumbing things down. This too seems to be a victim of web fashions, with it's lack of clarity that it is a text entry box, and integrated submit button.

Great points. I think that certain people may have mistakenly conflated fashion with usability. In fact, fashionable things (on the web and off) are sometimes less usable than more-conventional alternatives. It is relevant that criticism of this change seems to be coming equally from both experienced and casual users, even though it was intended to help the latter.--Albany NY (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually although I can't say for sure since I haven't asked and aren't part of it, I'm pretty sure the usability iniative doesn't give a damn about fashion. And I've seen external websites commenting that having search and go is unnecessarily confusing to the new user (although that's because of the two buttons, they suggest a checkbox style would be okay, see below for more).

In terms of the 'experienced and casual users' I strongly suspect the team cared just as much about people who have never used wikipedia, as well as those who have but don't use it enough that they're likely to notice the new UI. This is important because it's clear many of the complaints here are from people who have enough experience with wikipedia that they know where to look for the search box. Some people allege that the old location was more intiuative both as I mentioned below and in more detail in another discussion I don't really seen any evidence for that considering particularly we're now doing the same as many other websites and programs.

I think it's a well established fact in design, that if you change what's familiar and comfortable people will complain because the new confuses them and is something they have to learn. This does mean you shouldn't change things willy-nilly but it also means it's resonable to expect complaints from people used to the old when you make a new design and all the complaints don't tell you much about whether the old design was really that good or it's simply that people are used to it.

As a case in point, the ribbon UI used in Microsoft Office and now a number of other Microsoft programs like Wordpad has received many complaints because of the difficulty for existing users who have to learn to use it. IIRC Microsoft however choose it because their research suggested it was a good design that was better then the old design for people who weren't experience with either.

I'm not saying they made the right decision (either MS or the usability team) but it does illustrate the point that the fact that some of the complaints here are from casual users doesn't necessarily indicate the design is bad for casual users since many of these casual users were familiar enough that they too had problems precisely because the design changed what they expect.

Of course another well recognised problem with counting complaints is it's generally well recognised that people are only likely to comment when they feel strongly enough about something to spend their time. This often means that the people most likely to comment are those who have complaints. As anyone who's ever tried to research a product knows, it's often far easier to find all sorts of complaints about the product then any praise, this doesn't mean the product is bad. There could very well be plenty of people who are happy with the new design but don't care enough to comment, as well as plenty of people who as I mentioned earlier aren't familiar enough with wikipedia to notice the design has changed, but may still find it better where they to compare it with the old.

In addition, quite a number of the complaints relate to recognised bugs. And of course while not a bug, other the location in general and bugs, one of the common complaints is that the autosuggest entries appear off-window in many configs which can surely be resolved in ways other then moving the searchbox back to the old location as well as the small size of the search box which again could be resolved without moving the searchbox.

And outside search, quite a few complaints related to the font size problem, which definitely isn't intentional but is probably a bug of some sort and finally about slow loading speeds which I believe is generally thought to be because of the massive load on the servers as the rollout is carried out and all the caches etc that need to be updated as a result.

(And a small number of the complaints are just weird or in the wrong place like suggestions on errors in articles or on pornography.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that even positive changes to websites usually elicit complaints and that happy people seldom make their views known. However, the real issue is, are these complaints at all valid? Is the new interface actually more or less usable? I am very troubled by the fact that most responses to substantive complaints have been along the lines of "you can always change it back" rather than actually making an effort to address the real usability issues raised.

Take the issue of the search box location. In most websites it's on the right, but on Monobook it's on the left. Some users have pointed out that the left makes more sense since English speakers read left-to-right and therefore the left side of a page often gets most attention (blogs may be an exception); I have not yet seen a statement of why the right is more usable. Indeed, the fact that modern browsers have a search field in the upper right can be a great reason to put the Wikipedia search field on the left: this way, there are fields on each side of the page, meaning a field is close regardless of where the mouse happens to be. I would really appreciate honest responses from the Usability Team to the issues raised, not just "so change it back for yourself". Thank you.--Albany NY (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

ICD codes

I AM SO DISAPPOINTED AT THE CHANGE I am a social worker that used the type in for diagnosis and problems and was able to find the ICD codes this is not for me to use.

again very disappointed in the change it is not user friendly at all

Phyllis

the search box belongs on the left.

In user interfaces Changes for changes sake are ALWAYS BAD.

After years of use of any user interface, making a change of ANY kind must be justified by some concrete, immediately recognizable improvement. This is not the case with the move of the search box.

Hundreds of millions of people have successfully managed untold BILLIONS of pageloads with the searchbox on the left.

By moving it, you are asking the planet to change the way it does something, and for no reason.

This change CAUSES MY FAVORITE WEB RESOURCE TO BECOME A PAIN.

Its like moving the turnsignal on a steering column to the other side of the wheel.

Its like moving the brake pedal on a car

Its like making light switches suddenly work backwards

Its like reversing the number keys on a telephone

Its like changing the keyboard of a computer to move the delete key or something.

PLEASE move it back.

What about the probably billion+ people who have successfully managed trillions of search with the many, many, many searchboxes in browsers, programs and websites in a similar location to the new search box? BTW, the vast majority of the planet hasn't used wikipedia, and has no idea of where the searchbox is and isn't going to notice the change one bit. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you're absolutely right that most people on the planet have never used Wikipedia and perhaps never will. However, I believe it is also the case that the vast majority of those who have internet access and would be interested in using Wikipedia already do so, given that it is the sixth most popular site in the world.[3] I think that most of these casual users will be confused and annoyed by the new search location; this will decrease their opinion of Wikipedia and make it less likely they will want to start editing in the future. I have yet to see evidence that the new features (moved tabs, new searchbox, collapsed toolboxes) make Wikipedia more attractive to / usable for new editors, and my reading has been reasonably extensive. Studies were conducted with non-users is California, but was any data from those studies published for the community to look at? Furthermore, when we attract new editors, we draw them from our current reader base, not people who have never seen Wikipedia. Alienating our readers by moving the search box and then forcing them to create an account if they want it moved back is hardly the way to get more people to edit.

There is an additional relevant issue. One of Wikipedia's main problems nowadays seems to be a decline in editing. Is this decline coming from a lack of new editors, a loss of current editors (perhaps ones who are disillusioned with Wikipedia due to a changing climate and perceived hostility to new articles), or -- most likely -- a combination? What are we doing to both retain current editors and attract new ones? How do the usability changes contribute to these two goals? Best Regards.--Albany NY (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Shafted PS3 User

I know this has been brought up, but another complaint from another affected Wikipedia user can't hurt. All articles under the new skin in PS3 browser are now significantly covered over with grey columns under your new (and unnecessary) tabs. More than just ugly, it makes the articles unreadable.

Also, not able to sign into my account with the PS3 browser, so unable to revert to the old format.

PS3 users may not be your core audience, but no need to alienate them by fixing things that were never broken.

InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cursor needs to be in search box

Have you noticed that when you go to google, the cursor is in the search box, so you can immediately type your search?

Haven't you realised that the number one thing people do on coming to the wikipedia page is to type a search?

You now have the search box shoved up into a corner, and the cursor is not in there by default, so you have to go find the box and click in it. Every time. Fail.

Slow response

New page design loads slower than the old one. Old version seems to be little faster. Search box looks odd , overall page design feels good.

About the New Wikipedia

Hello:

My name is Dan and I have benn using Wikipedia many time to research things. The page came up fast and it was a joy to use. When you "improved it" the web page comes up slow and when I want to research something it takes a long time for the next page to appear. The so called "old version" was perfect. I don't know why you guys change a good thing. Norton and Microsoft have done the same thing with disastrous results. They tell you that they improved it, but they actually "screwed it".

Please fix the bug. Thanks Dan

WTF is "Canadian F...all League" ?

I type a search string that starts with "canadian" and the list is showing me things like "Canadian F...all League". Seriously.

How did this get to deployment for the world to see? Sad.

Make us log in to get new page, not log in to get old page

At this point, the best thing you could do would be to put the old page back (it was great!). If people want the new page, take them somewhere where they need to create an account and log in to see it.

Instead, what you've got is people being required to log in to see the old (usable) page.

Oh yes ... could we please get the "other languages" links back? That way, when I type "bremen" and browse the English page on Bremen, I can immediately switch to the e.g. Deutsch page to see if there is additional information. Duh.

I shall now read the wiki article on Classic Coke.

search box still broken

Oh, and for the rear end in a top hat saying "if you're not logged in why are you here", well it's because when I want to look something up this is supposed to be a convenient place to do it, and I am really sick and tired of every self-important website around expecting me to log in just to see their ultra-super-duper content. Logging in is not convenient. I do not log in. Fix the search and undo the pointless changes.

Search doesn't work -

I hope this is temporary while you beta on your live site

No, it's not beta, it's live, and indeed - search doesn't work.

Read this aloud and admire the weirdness: in 2010, on a website, a reference website, search - doesn't - work. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Think 16:9

Have you noticed that more and more computer screens are wider than they are high? That's what 16:9 means. 16 units wide, and 9 units high.

You have now added your little bars along the top of the page, and removed items from the left. With window title bars, and address bars, and bookmark bars, and browser tabs, and your "New features" line and your tabs, and your "Notice something different" ad, and your "Welcome to Wikipedia" stuff, the real estate for actual CONTENT is gradually being reduced to a letter-box like 16:5 or 16:4.

Here's an idea! Since computer screens are wider than they are high, let's put some things on the left hand side, like, oh I don't know, like maybe the search box? And maybe we could try to condense all that stuff at the top so the reader will actually see more of our valuable wikipedia CONTENT?

Don't assume that someone with a widescreen is going to browser with a full screen window Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vertical scroll bar

Whenever you release the scroll bar, it shoots back to the top. This means that the next time you click on the article you go back to the beginning. Very annoying and something that didn't happen prior to the 'improvements'.

Text Size Problem beginning May 14, 2010

The Internet Explorer browser has a "Text Size" toolbar button with 5 settings: Medium, Smaller, Smallest, Larger, Largest. For my eyes, the default Medium is usually too small and I usually switch to Larger to read article. Beginning on May 14, 2010, "Larger" and "Largest" began to appear much, much larger than before, in fact too large. Likewise, "Smaller" and "Smallest" are now so tiny as to be unreadable. I kindly request that the font of Wikipedia be changed back to what it was before May 14.

I really really hate this.

Of course there's the normal issue of having to get rid of a new format, which is just so ridiculous and pointless. I go to Wikipedia and of course my mouse immediately goes ove to where the old search button was...but of course it's not there. It's stupid to change something that works perfectly fine. However, the thing that REALLY bugs me is that I often end up on a page who's name is only the beginning of what I actually typed in...for instance, if I tried to type in "The Beatles," I might end up at the article for "The." I guess it has something to do with the suggestions that pop up and my computer being too slow? I can avoid this problem if I wait a second before hitting enter, but this really ticks me off. Please just change it back and stop messing around.

Pushing-Pulling in addition to Pulling- Pulling

Nurses Elbow on Wikipedia indicates that this is caused by a parent jerking an unruly child's arm, and typically occurs on the left arm, from a right handed adult.

This can also occur when you have an 18 month old sitting on your lap in a rocking chair facing you, and the child pushes on your shoulder to get to something behind you in an attempt to stand up to get to it, your natural reflex is to hold the child closely in order to prevent them from falling off of your lap and the elbow is hyper-extended, and you hear the pop. You rush the child to the hospital and the staff gives you a pre-printed hand out indicating they suspect you "Jerked" the child's arm. It is a pushing-pulling event (child is pushing and the adult is pulling the child closer) not just a pulling-pulling event as indicated.

Search Box Position

The new search box position makes no sense. Most countries use langueage where they read from left to right. Its much easier to use of the search box is on the left or in the middle. I can't believe someone designing a page would not have the common sense to realise this.

too long to load and you lost the search box

make it load faster and return the search box. i dont care what it looks like.

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks to everyone for the detailed feedback. We're going through everything and will be responding shortly. Howief (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SLOWWWWW

The old Wiki was great and I'm a huge fan. Whatever you did to improve the site has resulted in slow or frozen pages (especially the borders on the top and left of the page) and very slow page loading.

Why would I want the navigation box to take up half of my screen?

Screw you guys for making me have to create an account just to turn off the new god-awful new layout. I don't care about the color or where the search box is but the text was limited to a sliver on my screen when the changes took effect.

search window

don't like it. it's in the wrong place. you can't see what you've typed properly.

I hate your new interface. You could have allowed access to the old interface with a cookie. But you scum couldn't do that. I don't want an account, I just want my old interface back

I hate your new interface. You could have allowed access to the old interface with a cookie. But you scum couldn't do that. I don't want an account, I just want my old interface back

New layout - dumb idea. You have moved the search box to the far right of the screen and out of the active left. You have replaced this box with a lot of largely meaningless content. Though you may be trying to increase the exposure to these additional features this should never be atg the expense of the functionality of the basic system. No we have to scroll all over the place just to type in a search. Careful fooling around like this leads to Bling and Google in place of Wiki. keep it simple NEVER fix what isn't broken. Regards

Gil

We did consider making this option (opting out of Vector with a cookie) available, but were told the server infrastructure wasn't up to it (i.e. it would cause performance problems). --87.195.147.187 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Make the search box keyboard accessible

I don't mind too much that you've rearranged things. My grocery store does that every couple years. Eventually we all figure out where most things have moved to. The one thing I do wish is that there was a way to get to the search box with a simple keyboard command. I hate being dependent on the mouse. Of course Wikipedia is far from alone in this. IMDB and Amazon both suffer from the same problem, just to name two high-profile examples. Wikipedia could be a bold new trendsetter in this regard. Think about it.

I like the new interface. It keeps things fresh. Ignore the people who say "Any change is bad". I haven't had a single one of the problems mentioned on this board so far, and I am running Internet Explorer version 8.

DO YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ THESE COMMENTS? OR IS THIS JUST A LETTERBOX FOR NUISANCE LETTERS?. I HAVE YET TO SEE A REPLY TO ANY USER COMMENT. MY ISSUE IS THIS.....WHEN IS AN UPGRADE NOT AN UPGRADE?, ANSWER...WHEN ITS A DOWNGRADE. IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT, PUT THE SEARCH BOX BACK WHERE IT WAS, YOU HAVE MANAGED TO RUIN A PERFECTLY GOOD SITE WITH 1 ADJUSTMENT. WHY DO SITES HAVE TO CONTINUALLY MOVE THE GOALPOSTS?. I THINK I KNOW WHY, IT IS TO JUSTIFY EMPLOYING WEBSITE DESIGNERS, THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO JUSTIFY THEIR WAGES. WIKIPEDIA WAS PERFECT BEFORE, YOU CANNOT IMPROVE PERFECTION. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS QUICKLY AND MY FAITH IN HUMANITY MAY BE RESTORED.

Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts: For Firefox and IE pressing Alt+Shift+f jumps to the search box ("f" is for "find"). Dragons flight (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can only find some wikipedia articles by using google

I don't know what you did, but half the terms I search on Wikipedia directly return the entry for "null," while the second or third hit for the same term on Google is the Wikipedia article on that same term. Seriously? Seriously. Try searing "Myositis" both ways if you would like to see for yourselves.

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO FIX THE "NULL" SEARCH PROBLEM OR DO YOU EVEN CARE?

When you put in a complete name like this one "Erin Cummings" and then hit enter the site removes your words and puts 'null' in its' place and then gives you the meaning of null.

However it will work if you only put in part of your search word or name like "Erin Cumming" where I dropped the s off the end it searched and found her.

PLEASE FIX THIS VERY ANOYING PROBLEM SOON?

I'm not one of the developers or anything, but let me assure you that the Usability team is looking into all of the bugs that have been found now that the new features have been rolled out to everyone. Some browsers, some particular sequences of actions, lead to bugs that otherwise would remain unknown. Please be patient, and in future reports, you would be particularly helpful were you to provide the following:

• The name and version of the browser you're using
• The name and version of your operating system
• The exact sequence of actions that led to the error

Providing those helps developers duplicate the bug so that it can be more easily (and quickly) fixed. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why fix it if it ain't broke

This new look is awful, it takes forever to load articles and slows my whole pc down, it used to be brilliant, straight into the article no messing. The search box is in a different place and I keep trying to look for it in the old place and when I do find it it either takes forever to accept my typing, or plain just doesn't bother and will only take the forst three letters. I hate this version, give us back out old one, it wasn't broken so why have you 'fixed' it. I used to use wikipedia daily, but doubt I shall bother so long as these issues continue.

We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia - Where, I see no improvements, merely irritations and delays.

I agree. Even allowing that the search bug was fixed, I still have to wonder: why did the developers spend so much time tweaking the user interface for the bazillionth time, then commit themselves to be stuck fixing more bugs and issues for years to come by making it the default, when there are already all sorts of "skins" and such available to users, none of which make any real difference? We could use stuff like a way for the cite error to catch when the last tag eats up all the content, the enabling of the string processing functions, a way for WikiProjects to tag and track articles without actually modifying the article talk page, and (especially) integrated tools (not a third party web site) to import reference information from source news and journal articles. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvmts May2010 Making Usage Very Difficult

Wikipedia's objectives seem to include providing easy usability to people who have low socio-economic status and other handicaps to education and information.

If so, please be aware that the current changes seem to GREATLY slow and impair useage where circumstances limit users to bottom-of-the-barrel computers and internet access.

Some years ago a word in German was created mean "improvement which actually makes matters worse" (schlimbesserung) and I fear that's what's happening now.

Frankly, it was discouraging to have to create an account with a username and a password just to contact Wikipedia about the slow-down problem.

Please try to avoid creating ANY usage obstructions that wall people out - many of us are and always have been walled way outside of advantages the middle-class-and-upward world takes for granted.

Please be careful not to cut yourselves off from ongoing awareness of real needs out here.

Thank you for creating Wikipedia: please keep it open for all of us.

Hardly an improvement

I did not use the new interface long enough but some problems are painfully obvious.

Why is the search bar so small? If you moved it to the top of the page, you might as well have made it longer; otherwise what was the point?

Why do I have to click on "Languages" to see different Language options? Clicking to see hidden options is inconvenient, and it might not even occur to some inexperienced users.

Thanks.

There are always wishlists and bugs, but nevertheless, congratulations on the new design. Definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks for everything.

search box location

The only reason I don't like the search box... If I type in "Journal of the American" I can't see the rest of the possible choices on the right side of my computer screen. Please move the search box back to the left side of the page. Thanks! P.S. I like what you've done with everything else. Lisa ;-)

Return a/the Search Box to the Left Side

I believe more users than just me are accustomed to an instance of the search box being located on the left side of the interface. Otherwise, the new look is fine.

The New Look

The new look is terrible. Please go back to the old look.

Ralph Pessah

Where is the search bar?

This new look is quite a surprise, although I don't see why these changes were made. While the new look is slightly more appealing, the relocation of the search bar is catastrophic. I navigate using the left side of the site since all the buttons are on the left side! Then why should I (and everyone else) switch from left to right each time I change a language, go back to the homepage etc. to do a search?

Maybe finding-the-search-bar-upon-the-very-first-visit-of-wikipedia is the ultimate goal for the technicians, but once we, the users, know where the search bar is, we remember it! Therefore, privileging very first time users over occasional and regular readers doesn't make any sense.

Wikipedia is run and kept alive by users and editors. If making their lives easier is less important than saving a few seconds for some first time readers, then there's a problem.

Search bar not consistent with language

I don't think it makes sense to have the search bar in the far right corner of the page. All major world languages, with the exception of Arabic, are read from left to right. It is very confusing and awkward in the minds of most people to have this most important feature of wikipedia way up in the upper right hand corner in such a non-user friendly spot.

Chinese, Japanese and Korean aren't major world languages? Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts & Writing system#Directionality? In any case, look at how the Arabic wikipedia looks with the new skin [4] and also see my comments below Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Search bar

Put the search bar back on the left side. Why did you change it? There was no need for this. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Search bar position

I think the new position of the search bar is not convenient and you should move it back.

Font

Is it possible to get back to a more readable font on your pages ? I feel like it is worse now, and I reall don't feel like using anymore

Best Regards Sigurd Wiig

i hate the new wiki

I used to have wiki as my homepage... NOT ANYMORE. Bye bye wiki... you just shot yourselves in the foot. BIG TIME!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=123188341040285

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=123188341040285

Wasted space

There's quite a lot of wasted space at the top of pages. About a quarter of my browser window area is taken up by:
1. the `Take me back New Features ... Log out' menu bar;
2. the `Article' `Discussion' etc tabs and search box;
3. `The Call For Participation for Wikimania...' box; and
4. `Notice something different? ...'

In particular, there is a rather large gap between the first items: this gap is about the height of the search box itself. Please reduce this. I've now hidden the CfP and `Notice something different?' boxes, which has improved things somewhat.

Operating system: Windows XP (service pack 3)
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Default font (in case it makes a difference): 16pt Times New Roman

Dricherby (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

FONT SIZE IS MICROSCOPIC

The recent change has rendered Wikipedia completely illegible for me. I don't know if this is a browser issue, but the letters are so small, and incompletely formed, that it would damage my vision to attempt to use this site anymore. Given that many people are visually impaired, Wikipedia should have taken into consideration the impact the new format would have for many. I did manage to squint hard enough to see something about using the old format by clicking on "Take Me Back." But as that link does not appear on my screen (or I can't see it), I must have read incorrectly... not surprising under the circumstances.

List of tools missing in the edit window that were in the old skin

• <math> tag
• horizontal line
• <s> tag
• comment
• <blockquote> tag
• Ctrl+Z capability after clicking tools in IE8 and some other browsers. Now fixed. File:Thumbsup emote.gif
• the feature in IE8 that makes the result of what you type into the edit box appear below the box. 09:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC) _{(there never was a feature, who am I kidding? I think I just remembered the live preview above the edit form - which is working just fine.)} 12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly this was too early to make this thing default. -- Karunyan,20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Return the search box.............

This paying customer really enjoys the console on the left side! I truly dislike the box "out of sight out of mind" in the upper right...this after having tried it for a couple of days as suggested. On the left it is eye-level and easily and quickly accessed for repetitive searches...not so with the new position!!

Center the Search Box

The new search box location and size are ridiculous. This is like painting and renovating the exterior of a nice building with lots of interesting things inside, but removing the front door and replacing it with a little entry hatch at the top of a ladder in the upper right hand corner. Compare this to the elegant, functional simplicity of Google's main page. Be proud of your search box. I say make it twice as wide and place it front and center.

kudos

Yes, Wikipedia is so much better visually. 

I was shocked when I entered the website today ... wow! ... is something wrong? No, it is just different. A very clean look, easy on the eyes, pleasant. Thank you for getting rid of that heavy, and almost archaic, look. As a frequent reader, and a fan of the Wikipedia concept, I thank you.

• And by the way, the search box is perfect where it is. Much more intuitive.

OK but not brilliant

I like the authenticity of the fresh look with the smooth colouring and outline but I really dont like where the search bar is. I think you may have ended up making the site worse. Sorry but i think that is the truth

Pictures

The new format apparently resulted in the complete disappearance of all pictures. That's using Windows Vista and IE8. Reversion to the previous format brought all the pics back. Somebody's made a major mistake.

Agent0060 16:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This was probably a coincidence: we seem to have had a hiccup on our image servers, which may have caused images to become unreachable temporarily. Ig you go back to the new skin now, you should see all pictures. --212.45.63.106 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Special Character Insertion

The toolbar for special character insertion is really useful, but I do have a few minor issues with it. Firstly, if I am inserting, for example, IPA characters from the IPA toolbar, when I press the preview button and the page reloads the toolbar goes back to Latin diacritics, which is somewhat annoying. Secondly, it would be useful if when you hover over a special character, its name pops up in one of those beige boxes. Thirdly, I have my default font set to Arial Unicode MS, which is able to display all the special characters. During the Beta of the new layout, everything was fine and the characters in the toolbar were displayed in my default font. Now however, the characters are displayed in Courier New (which is my default fix-width font) and therefore some of the characters show up as boxes. - Wikitiki89 (talk) - 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Beta was Better

I would just like to comment that I think the Beta of this new layout was better in both functionality and layout. The Beta just looked and worked better. - Wikitiki89 (talk) - 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. Several new features were introduced in the recent switch, that were not tested during the Beta phase and they are quite bad. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit vs View Source

I would like to see the edit button retain the word "Edit" in some form even when an article is protected. Most people may not realize that both buttons do the same thing, and you'll have a situation like this: Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Editing_Closed. This person didn't realize that this was a temporary block, and that all they had to do was create an account. The very nice EDIT NOTICE explaining the block and how to create an account was useless, as they never had an edit button to click on to find out why they can't edit. We are known as the Encyclopedia you can edit, when you take that button away you confuse new editors. I know this isn't a change that was recently made, it is still a problem. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

wow

ITS REALLYY GOOD ITS SOO ORGANIZTED I LOVE IT →→→→→→→→→→19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)19:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)~~““““””””

Printing issues in new format

It's not clear to me if this is part of the Wiki "improvement" issues or some other glitch: I was trying to print a number of pages this afternoon in my normal fashion, i.e., hitting print, or file/print, and I kept getting just one page printing out of a long screen page/article. That has never happened to me before. I kept experimenting, and finally found a complicated way to make the entire article print, but it was unwieldy and awkward and unnecessary: I had to go to 'file/printable version' and click 'print preview' and then 'print' in order to get the whole article to print. I later discovered that 'file/print preview/print' with the regular page will also work, but in neither case could I just hit print while looking at the whole article and get the whole article to print.

More unnecessary complications: When I tried to download the article as a pdf (which *is* a nice option), the viewing page shifted to a 'Rendering" page with no info or connection to the page I had just left, which was disconcerting and confusing to say the least, and then a 'rendering finished' page....with a mild uninformative note that announced "The document file has been generated. Download the file to your computer." without any notification of the article name that was 'rendered'. I've *never* seen a pdf generated in this fashion, and it was so generic in terms of information that I was afraid that you had generated a pdf of the 'rendering...' page. I don't understand this interface at all, and it really needs to be reconsidered and reconfigured to be less off-putting and confusing.

If at all possible, could you state which browser you were using ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Think again; return to goals of Wikipedia

Some people are computer geeks--their brains are wired a certain way...like some people are brilliant at math...or some people have superb social skills. But most people are not computer geeks, and the Web and computer programs should be designed for the average person in mind. Especially Wikipedia. (````Margaret9mary on May 15, 2010)

Drive-by updating

Please forgive my harshness, but the "usability" updates in en.wikipedia in the last few days were quite unusual and too surprising.

The Vector skin was beta-tested for many months. There were animated discussions about some of its smallest bugs and features. Not all of them were properly resolved before completely switching en.wikipedia to it, but that's just a part of the problem.

Several major features were introduced lately, which were not part of the beta testing:

• The updated logo.
• The disappearance of "search" and "go" buttons.
• The hiding by default of the interlanguage links under the collapsible sidebar.

The logo problem is only a cosmetic change, and it is already widely discussed, but the fact that it was changed without any proper announcement to the community or readers and editors - say, through the watchlist or sitenotice - is a good demonstration of the "drive-by shooting" style of user interface updating.

The changes in the search field and in the display of the interlanguage links are major non-cosmetic issues, but they, too, weren't properly discussed with the en.wikipedia community and - unless i'm badly mistaken - they weren't part of the beta test.

In Hebrew we have a word for this - מֶחְטָף mekhtaf; i couldn't find a good translation for it in any dictionary, but it has the same root as the words for "hijacking" and "kidnapping". Either i'm missing something, or the concepts of "beta-testing" and "community consensus" were thrown out the window here. I am getting an unpleasant feeling that WMF took a hint from Facebook, which changes the whole site every few months without any warning or discussion.

Please don't get me wrong - i deeply respect the work invested in developing Wikipedia's infrastructure in general and in the usability updates in particular. I raise these concerns precisely because i do want to use some of the new features, but, apparently, i have to accept them in an "all-or-nothing" fashion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A few of the options can be turned off invidiually easily, for example I believe you can use the new edit toolbar and can turn off the collapsable boxes in your preferences. For other ones, if you want only use other features, you could probably create a custom skin, there already exist example stuff like to change the logo and I'm guessing there's lots of stuff for the searchbox as well. Of course these won't work for users without an account or who can't or don't want to log in, but your mention of all-or-nothing suggests to me that this isn't your issue since if you don't have an account, nothing isn't an option. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot turn off the new "search" box. I put "search" in quotes, because now the only ways to search Wikipedia is to go back to Monobook (which i did) or to type "Special:Search" manually. See mediazilla:23558.

I cannot turn off the collapsible sidebar. And in the first place, this is not a feature that the user should be able to turn off, but rather one that the user should be able to turn on. Having it on by default is terrible. See mediazilla:23497.

But my biggest complaint here is not so much about the bad new features, but about the way they were introduced. About the decision-making. Introducing such major changes to two of the most basic features of this site - searching and interlanguage links - after they were only tested in the "prototype wiki" is very wrong. If you ask me, that's the most important lesson that the site maintainers should learn from this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard to find long entry names in the new Search Box

Having the Search Box on the right-hand side causes some significant difficulties in finding entries with long names. For example, if you type "University of <State name>" in the box, most of the suggested entries are sticking past the right edge of the window, and since the visible text looks identical, you cannot differentiate which entry is which. The window does not expand to accomodate the text, so you cannot scroll the window to the right to view the cut-off text.

The new format noticeably increases the task loading to find information. I think keeping the Search Box on the left-hand side would allow the suggested entries to be as long as necessary to make the correct one easier to find.

Too much unnecessary change is an unhealthy symptom

This is to confirm that the comment Think Again and Return to the Goals of Wikipedia is mine. And I urge you: Don't fix what ain't broke. Keep it simple. Consider how too much change affects the mind.
The most important, complex and competent hard drive we have is between our ears, and it can't be changed for a new model. People are trying to compete with computers and that is not what computers are for.
Let me predict that a few decades from now people who are young now will find their memories failing because of years of an endless overload of information. And let me add--I wonder if younger people are aware of the enormous losses in knowledge that have already occurred since the development of the Web. Many young people can't do basic math in their head; are no longer able to remember something as simple as their telephone number; are losing social/relational skills.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

pls nigeria drives on the left since the miid 1970s

New Layout.

In all honesty I purely HATE this new layout! It's so confusing and the search box is in completely the wrong place, now there is so much white on it as well, no defining blue boxes, change it all back. I've used Wikipedia for ages and just keep it that way please :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.116.202 (talk)

please, please change the search features back

the new search box i worse than before. you can't see what you are writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.56.75 (talk)

Too much unnecessary change is unhealthy

This is to confirm that the comment Think Again and Return to the Goals of Wikipedia is mine (I forgot to log in). Like many I find the new format different without improvement, with some things significantly worse. Please return to the old format. I urge you: Don't fix what ain't broke. Keep it simple. Consider how too much change affects the mind.
The most important, complex and competent hard drive we have is between our ears, and it can't be changed for a new model. People are trying to adjust their minds to computers and that is not what computers are for.
Let me predict that in a few decades people who are young now will find their memories failing because of years of an endless overload of information. And let me add--I wonder if younger people are aware of the enormous losses in knowledge that have already occurred since the development of the Web. Many young people can't do basic math in their head; are no longer able to remember something as simple as their telephone number; are losing social/relational skills. You may laugh now, but time will tell.--Margaret9mary (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates - where did they go?

Whereas we used to have a lot of options, the new one only gives you 3. Where did the others go? Ray^Talk 22:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments on new design

Hi,

My general impressions of the new design are either positive or neutral, but I have a few miscellaneous gripes.

1. The font on the "compare versions" screen (e.g. this) has got smaller and is now unnecessarily hard to read. Could we please restore it to the old size?

2. There seems to be quite a lot of wasted whitespace at the top of the screen. That could and should be tightened.

3. The edit screen now pops up a spurious "Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page" warning when you insert a symbol by clicking on the list (– — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · §) below the edit window.

86.135.28.105 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

nbsp

i find it inconvinient if i have to add the language box all the time i want to an article in another language

the search box should be like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=&button=

the searchbox. it's too small. you can't see the entire seachtext

i don't give much for your reply regarding the searchbox. we too are test subjects and you should take our critique seriously

Searching

What was wron with the old format to key in a search request?

You have made it so complicated an un user friendly.

If it aint broke don't fiz it

Tony Burns

Searching for an article

Impossible to find a "Search" link

Search box

Like many others I don't like the search box being in the upper right corner. I would suggest maybe having two search boxes one on the left where the old one was and one in the top right,were the new one is now, then everybody wins.

(Although I would like to say I think it's great that Wikipedia has made a page for suggestions about the new layout, and that they are trying to make things better for the users!)

Proper testing?

I have searched and maybe I'm just missing it but I have not seen any clear discussion of how this was tested. What I have seen is a discussion of testing which used the gross methodology of measuring how many people who switched to the beta interface, stayed with it. The problem with that method is that it does not separate in any useful fashion what was good and what was bad; what changes tipped the balance and what others were useless or a step backwards but not enough to outweigh the good. Most significantly, I think the editing interface changes are very good, but those have been changed as the default in Monobook as well. As such, they are not a change attributable to this skin. I can see many users during beta testing switching over to Vector simply for the better editing tools, regardless of their feelings regarding other changes, and every user who did so added a false data point because their reason for switching, from the perspective of the present, was not based on a vector feature at all, but a feature bundled into it as if it was a feature of that skin only, that is now global.

So, if indeed each feature was tested separately, and each was integrated because it was preferred until we reached the present skin, please provide some transparency on that testing, how it was done, what the results were for each feature, and so on. If the features were not each tested separately, then you have no idea what features are good and which are bad and you should roll this back until proper testing is done.

My specific complaint is the appearance and I don't mean the layout. Sorry to say, but I think it's awful, and so clearly so that I find it hard to imagine that many would prefer it over Monobook. The way the toolbar links on the left side of the page are now floating with no delineating box surrounding them appears so disorganized. I prefer the bullets as well, but I could live with them gone if you place back the boxed borders around the menus. The tabs at the top have a similar problem. The lack of a top to the tabs and having them fade into the top of the screen is just ugly. What's worse than both is that in Monobook its so very clear what parts of the page are the interface, and what parts are the article you are seeing surrounded by that interface. This has been lost and is extremely unappealing. Another thing that separated the interface clearly, and also made the page much less bland was the open book in the background. With the muted and bland background the page is far sadder.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You can always revert to the old style if you'd like. Just click the "Take me back" link at the top of the page. Also, in your preferences you can enable only the editing toolbar, not the theme. There was a beta test for 6 months+ and tests on this wiki. I like it; I've made some modifications at this page and you can copy them to your page.--moɳo 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed mono's link. I know what Fuhgettaboutit means, though it's been a while. I was initially skeptical of the new skin, but after forcing myself to use it for a couple of days, I started to really enjoy it. There are a few issues, but not much, if anything, that can't be fixed with time, communication (i.e. with the Usability team), or custom JavaScript. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 03:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of how to switch back and did about five minutes after the change was initiated. I tested the beta weeks ago and had the same complaints then. At that time, and again now, I went to the usability initiative and attempted to see what kind of testing was being done. If it is clearly laid out somewhere, finding that place is not at all intuitive. The Beta Feedback Survey is exactly the type of gross study that is well nigh meaningless in analyzing the specifics of the interface. I find nothing else linked from Wikipedia Usability Initiative that provides the answer. In short, I reiterate my request for links to where actual testing was done in a logical manner of each aspect of the skin, including the appearance (or confirmation that that never occurred).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right.

Some features were not tested or even announced, such as collapsible sidebar and the new searchbox.

The testing that was performed was very strange - the developers cared mostly about the retention rate and that, too, was measured in a rather irrelevant way. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hey next time you have free time on your hands, how about you DON'T fuck up what was one of the most intuitive user interfaces in the web, second only to Google? "But durrr it look pretty!" Morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.1.78 (talk)

You can create an account and revert to the previous configuration if you like.--moɳo 02:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"One of the most intuitive user interfaces in the web, second only to Google". You love the monobook skin because you're used to it. But for everyone else, it's quite the opposite. Professionals in design and usability refers to Wikipedia as "something you should not do". Dodoïste (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Change

The search box was well placed as it was! Most of the frequent wikipediausers have wiki as one of the favourites, then the "old" location spare time and movement. Furtehmore the "new" position, crammed into a corner, appears as a mistake made by the typically designtrainee who never will acomplish more than having made trainee.

Rgds

Morten K.H. Nilsen, Norway.

I am sick of so called Editors deleting my entry's because of their WANKER status. For the free world you restrain it, Just because the information you want is not about you and is a favourite pet subject Get out of your dreams and live in the real world.

The information I provided is free an helps fill the gap in your void of knowledge.

Editor Wanker 1: Give your real name, or are you afraid of legal lawsuits against freedom of speech , including written.

White on white

Forcing the background to white but not the foreground to anything can lead to problems for those running a white-on-black type of theme for their OS. GUI/Website design 101.

RACIST

I think you need to fill the gap in the header. It feels like you’re waiting for the rest of the page to load, until you realise that there is no ‘proper’ header. It just feels like the page isn’t complete without a prominent header.

Also, I think the languages list on the left should be expanded by default (as it was). I found Wikipedia useful as a translator for words and phrases that aren’t easily found in language-to-language dictionaries, and even mousing over the links – so as to view the URLs in other languages – was a useful tool.

New Format

I love the new format and it is consistent with other web apps. THANK YOU for putting the "search" in a white space are instead of imbeeded with other non-related text.

I like the simple look and being an IT Project Manager your issues list looks pretty decent to me.

Good job!

Oh my god..

It's so uncomfortable to use this new design. And the error! Often the last letter that i write in the search textbox disappears and it's truly ANNOYING!!! Please... give us the original look!!

where is the searc box??? I'm lossing time and patient trying to use wiki as before.

Regards

FN

Search Box

Despite the finding of your studies, and my honest attempt to adjust, I am having difficulties with the new location of the search box. I feel as though it is much to far to the top right, and would have an easier time if it were closer to the center of the screen. What's more, as a long-time, frequent Wikipedia user, I find it not only natural to look to the left side of the page. Honestly this change has greatly frustrated me, and made me much much more avoidant of Wikipedia. In all honesty, if this is not changed, I think Wikipedia will have lost me as a user. Maybe I am ignorant, but I do not see the harm in having two search boxes, one at the top right, and one at the left side of the page. This would provide the best of both worlds; those who feel more inclined to look to the top right would find a search box there, and those inclined to look to the left would be equally lucky.

Right click menu on tabs

I tried to like Vector. I used it for two or three days. There were a few irritations, but I told myself I would get used to it. But the showstopper that made me decide to switch back to Monobook was the lack of a link right-click menu on the tabs to let you open discussion, article or history page in a new IE tab (I understand this may be an IE8-specific problem). That is such an essential feature when you are in the middle of an article edit and want to open the discussion or history page. And, yes, I know there is a middle button work-around - but you don't have a middle button when you are using a laptop without a mouse. And maybe I could find a work-around for the work-around - but in the end it was just simpler to go back to Monbook. Well, that's my feedback FWIW. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

COLOR

Please add color to Wikipedia. Use a few primary colors. It will enhance user experience.

File:Temporary screenshot problem2.jpg

see the gray line at the top (above the "Notice something different?" system notice), after i logged out in ie8? it's ugly. Yonidebest Ω Talk 08:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the g**m search box ?

Sorry guys, but this change in design is a very poor decision.

In the western world the standard direction in writing is from left to right, so the important things are supposed to be left. Putting the searchbox to the right says "Oh, you can search - but we rather want you to click on random article". Folks, that's Nutrimatic.

Oh - and yes, before I forget, The links to the other languages were very practical. Where in Hell are they.

Sorry, but this "improvements" are just the absolute opposite.

Quite annoyed,

--91.13.8.220 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector should not be the default setting for users who are not logged in IMHO

I have tried vector and I do not like it.

1. The default font size is too small.
2. I read from left to right and want the search box on the left.
3. Monobook looks a little "baroque" and is therefore pleasant for my eyes, vector looks insignificant and unpleasant.

I asked a colleague who uses the German wikipedia regularly (without having an account) to take a look at the english version. He disliked it, especially the new look of the navigation "field" on the left for the lack of the frames around the sections since he misses a comforting structure without them.

With so many disapproving comments here, I think vector is not the right choice as the default skin for users who are not logged in and thus have no choice. I don't think it should be the default for logged in users, either. BNutzer (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Search is the most important use case - so why place the search field in such a non-prominent position and make it so small?

I assume search is by far the most important use case. So why place the search field in such a non-prominent location and make it so small? You've placed it where it appears on sites where search is a minor use case. Instead, it should be placed prominently in the center of the upper part of the page, and be very big, just like on Google's main page - can you image them placing the search bar in the upper right corner and making it so small?

(The previous location of the search bar in the left side was wrong for the same reasons, so I'm not surprised your test panels had problems finding it, and thought that the new location was an improvement. But both locations are wrong.)

I think you need to focus more on what is the important use cases for most of your users. I assume the second most important use case is browsing topics. But the links to do that are not featured prominently in any way. They disappear among lots of much less important links. Also, it seems you are focusing way too much on the editor/contributor use cases, given how few users actually edit and contribute. Of course, you need invite people to participate, but the UI currently seems to be designed specifically for the editor/contributer role, not the normal user role. Why not have one big "Edit" button, and hide things like "View source" and "View history" until the user has hit the edit button and indicated that he is one of the editor/contributer users?

Why have you FORCED the new page layout on all of us?

Frankly, I don't like the new layout. The side toolbar looks horribly cluttered now and the ESSENTIAL SEARCH BOX has been relocated to the top. Whats with the useless options in the sidebar - with the searchbox and language selections gone, its USELESS. Will consider boycotting Wikipedia from now on. I definitely won't be registering an account just to revert back to wikipedia's old layout.

Languages list

I speak three languages, Swedish, English and Chinese. Often I want to switch between these languages, and then its a little cumbersome to open the language list scroll and change the language. Most people speak English and their native language. Since the browser can recognize where the user is coming from, why not have a shortcut to English and the language of the country the browser is surfing from? Or is there a possibility to add languages to a shortcut field that will be stored in the cookie?

The 135th Preakness and its winner, Lookin At Lucky, should be featured in your current event news.

You're totally right. They shouldn't be hidden by default.

I already reported it as a bug: see mediazilla:23497. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Box Again

I like the new features, EXCEPT the actual Search text box: its appearance, its location, and its functionality.

Search Box Appearance: The Search box background and text is no longer white and black, respectfully, by default. Because of eyesight issues, I often have to set my web browser to display web page backgrounds with a dark color (usually black) and text with a light color (usually white) for easier readability. Before, regardless of the background color the Search box was always white with black text and I could see what i was typing into it. Now I can't. The Search box background matches my web page background, as does the text within it. I can no longer see what I am typing. While I have to deal with this issue on other websites, I am disappointed that Wikipedia's new look has changed to that format, as well.

Search Box Location: I dislike the new location of the Search box on the web page. it's also no longer compatible with my computer settings. I have my screen resolution set the way I like, and now that the Search box is at the right edge, so when the options list drop-down, its width forces me to scroll the entire web page horizontally in order to access Search box's vertical scroll bar. When it was located on the left side of the web page, the list would widen as much as needed without affecting the width of the entire web page. Changing screen resolution just to accommodate the width of a drop-down box is not a viable option for me right now because of eyesight issues.

Search Box Scroll Bar Functionality: Besides the drop-down list being cut off because of the box's location, when I do clicking the up/down buttons or the space above/below the thumb-bar on Search scroll bar does not move the list. Also, while the up/down arrow keys on the keyboard work with the Search options list, the Page Up/Page Down keys don't.

Please change the typeface. The type is too small, and REALLY too narrow. The letters are too close to each other, and unless I increase the typesize to Largest in my View panel, I cannot read it at all.

News

I read wikipedia news because it is not a replication of the national syndicate news,that is,bad, negative, depressing news typically consisting of doom and gloom, poverty, and crime and corruption. It is the very reason I don't read newspapers, don't listen to the news on television or read mass sensored news magazines.

Since today, I would open up wikipedia and actually learn something from the news that was useful or informative, whether it was information of the past or present. When I read the articles today, I got an overall antagonistic feeling of disgust and dispair. Please continue your previous format. It was a breath of fresh air and indicated hope for change in this country were one became an individual again with a public concern producing a positive outcome based on a contribution of knowledge, not gross generalizations focusing on negative psychological events. Until I see the change, I will stop reading this too. See ya and have a great day public!

font size

Recently the default font size for Wiki pages has become "smallest" on my browser Safari 3.0.4.. It's very annoying. I have to make the text bigger for every single article.

Appearance and Organization of content

I read several comments on the same subject. I agree with all of them. Why change something that is not broken. Until today, this was a superior website that i referred to a many of people. It was well thought out, organized, had integrity, a sense of principals and values towards knowledge and passing it on.

I currently find the organization of the contents, search, layout, confusing, convaludeted, and messy. Who instigated this change? Who authorized this change? I have seen this done in many other cases, especially education. A textbook, a classroom, a form of teaching changed continually producing nothing but chaos and confusion, ignorance and arrogance.

I don't know how long it took you to make all these changes, but I would recommend going back to what you had and reeding the feedback from the public and make the changes accordingly and then read the feedback again and see if you interrupted their request correctly and met their needs. Someone who reads and looks for knowledge likes it to be organized, efficient, thorough, and factual.

Language annoyance

I really don't get the point of all the languages available per article. I only use Dutch (my mother language) and English. It would really help if there was a way to turn off all the other languages in the sidebar.

-Thijs

A hint on why the font size differs

If you look at the monobook main.css, you will notice the following:

/* Font size:
** We take advantage of keyword scaling- browsers won't go below 9px
** More at http://www.w3.org/2003/07/30-font-size
** http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html
*/

body {
	font: x-small sans-serif;
	background: #f9f9f9 url(headbg.jpg) 0 0 no-repeat;
	color: black;
	margin: 0;
	padding: 0;
}

/* scale back up to a sane default */
#globalWrapper {
	font-size: 127%;
	width: 100%;
	margin: 0;
	padding: 0;
}

The idea behind this is that the defaults in most browsers are rather large (around 16px), but a plain 0.8em obviously creates issues for users who have adjusted the browser default to something less than 16px. Keyword scaling takes the user's preference into account in a nonlinear way (see the cleverchimp doc), providing a compromise between forcing 16px on nontechnical users and very small fonts on more technical users. Gabriel Wicke (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

SEARCH BOX, ARRRGH!!!!

Why move the search box. It was in the perfect location to begin with!!!!! Who said it would be a good idea to move it to the most inconvenient part of the screen. It must not have been someone who uses wikipedia daily...Thanks a bunch (sarcasm)

While I wasn't involved in the design, as I noted here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 May 11#Is a search box to the upper right "intuitive"?, many, many websites put the search box in the top, sometimes top right sometimes centre, and most modern browsers also have a search tab in such a location as do many modern programs including modern OSes. In fact, wikipedia's old search box location is rather rare compared to where most other people put their search boxes. So it's rather odd that everyone else got it wrong as well. The first result in Google about search box location [5] also suggests top left or top right is the best location and they say this partially because of the F-shaped scanning pattern established by research [6]. BTW, since the search & go thing has come up, I would mentioned the website I linked to also discusses the wikipedia search box as an example of bad design precisely because of the search & go issue (although they do suggest a checkbutton would be okay, their main complaint is two buttons). I don't design websites and I have no real idea if they are right, but it does seem possible to me based on the little I do know. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

ICK !!!!

WTH????

The best thing about Wikipedia is that it used to be searchable! If there is no searchbar, I can't use the freakin site. And THEN, it took over half an hour to get to a spot where I can complain to you about it. Whatever. If you think you know more than the people who actually USE the site, then I will find my info elsewhere. I don't have the patience to keep clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and clicking and

Look at the top and right. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Once you find the search bar, good luck with trying to use it for actual searching. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scripts should use an informative User-Agent string with contact information, or they may be IP-blocked without notice.

Please stop blocking perfectly innocent human readers with this message.

"Scripts should use an informative User-Agent string with contact information, or they may be IP-blocked without notice. "

I am not a script. I am a person who, in an attempt to protect myself a little on the web, uses one of the common local proxies (not an anonymising remote proxy).

You have now introduced an undiscriminating piece of software which, when I try to find a topic, imagines I am a script and insists on seeing my user agent, which, in my case, if you are not ill intentioned, is of no use to you for security purposes.

As a result, I can now only use this encyclopaedia by turning off my proxy and thus exposing myself (for the duration of my access) to increased risk from other sources - or even from this site, if it has been compromised.

You use a "real human" device when people first register here. At very least you could allow "cloaked" humans to use such a facility instead of pushing them away with a misplaced reply of

"Scripts should use an informative User-Agent string with contact information, or they may be IP-blocked without notice."

This has nothing to do with the interface, please read about it here, especially the last paragraph. You are MORE unique and recognizable when NOT sending a user-agent. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

why the hell move the search bar??

please move the search bar back, it is very annoying that you have moved it. it was in the perfect place so yes move it back to the place where it was. thank you

Horrible placement for search bar!! Revert back, please!

Having expressed my gratitude by donating $5000 to the Wikipedia Foundation, I am very disappointed and annoyed with the new placement of the search bar. I am not alone in this, everyone I spoke to (12 friends and avid wikipedia users) agree with me. Please place the search bar in a more convenient location, somewhere in the left navigation menu.

Thanks so much!

Search bar is still in wrong place and you know it.

Nice. I like your response.....not.

oooh, testers found the new search bar ok, we will stick with that.

Nah, its dire, and you don't want to back-peddle on your shiny new feature. What a shame, I guess I might have to find another online encyclopedia to use after all.

Feedback page difficult to find

Please add a link to this Feedback page, from Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch. It's bizarre that the only feedback option there right now, is an individualized form, and a link to an off-wiki blog. --Elonka 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please change the search box back to the left-hand side...

The search box needs to be moved back to its original position. At least in English, we read from left to right and our eyes naturally gravitate toward the left-hand side of a webpage. Also, nearly all computer functions for Windows users are on the left side of the screen. This means that the cursor is generally somewhere in the left-hand side of the screen. It is quite annoying having to keep going back and forth due to the placement of the new search box. Please change it back. Thank you.

new format

What have you done!?! The font is so small and fuzzy as to be unreadable. And I depended on you! E. Chapman, Fairhope, AL

new format and cell phone

I have a blackberry and since you did the recent changes to your site it no longer works. The page will load and then as it appears it says my phone has a problem rendering the page. This was never an issue before.....now I cannot view your site....this is a problem since I use my blackberry 99% percent of the time I go to your site.

Thank you.

New Changes???

I've come to this site to find out something about hydrangeo anomaie, and 20 minutes later I still have not found a place to type in the subject I am researching. Previously there was a little box on the home page which took one immediately to their subject. Why have you made it so difficult and complicated now. Stupid!

I'm sure that I'm only repeating what others have said, so I apologize in advance. What on earth were you thinking moving the search tool from the left hand side. It was as good as perfect before. It's what made wikipedia so functional and useful and now it's gone. I can't for the life of me see why they/you've changed it.

Many help pages on Wikipedia now need updating

I wonder if the Usability team is dedicated enough to improving Wikipedia for new users that they will also go and update all the (now inaccurate) Help pages in the Wikipedia namespace that dealt in some way with monobook. I don't know if when they did this site-wide switch to a different default skin that they realized about all the work they've made for those editors that are now stuck with the menial task of tracking down and changing every occurrence of "monobook" to "vector". So that new users going to pages such as Help:User style, who just want to help themselves by looking something up, will not get confused by an obsolete page and end up judging Wikipedia based on its incompetent Help system. Bottom line is, new users should be encouraged to help themselves with learning how to use Wikipedia, and they can't do that very well if the same 'team' who are supposed to be making the site easier for them to use, are ignoring the pages that help make it easier for them to learn for themselves how to use it. -- œ^™ 01:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

NEW FORMAT IS TERRIBLE. ILL QUIT WIKIPEDIA !!

YOUR NEW FORMAT IS TERRIBLE I COULDNT EVEN DO A GOOD SEARCH WHEN I DID .. IT WAS EVEN WORSE

Sound

I have problems regarding Pronunciation so please can u add the sound on the words

Search bar location is really bothersome

At home I can disable the new and nearly unusable interface without any problem, but away (such as at school, etc) I have to log in each time (public computers... will not save login credentials of course) and it is frankly extremely annoying to do so.

The search bar is the most important tool of Wikipedia because its vast database must be searched in order for Wikipedia to be any use. Most of us use this site to search for something. Returning it to its old location would eliminate this point of contention that I have with the new interface and I would then have no problem using the new interface as then it would be easier and more comfortable to use.

I am not a Playstation 3 user, however... but it seems the new changes basically broke Wikipedia for the PS3. At least find a way to detect if a user is using a Playstation 3, so the old interface can then be automatically employed. If not, either fix the new interface to work with PS3 or get rid of it altogether.

Moving (or copying) the search bar to its old location would also show that Wikipedia actually listens to its users as well and would generally be an expression of goodwill. Few like the change as it is really awkward and annoying and no one is complaining with the intention of being completely ignored.

I would also like to mention that the removal of languages on the side of an article is also kind of a retarded thing to do.

And my opinion on these usability studies is that there were none performed. They are probably fake. I bet this new interface is just a way to get people to log in so they don't have to bear the annoyance of it anymore.

Joe Capricorn (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since having been introduced to Wikipedia a few years ago i have consulted it extensively on a great variety of subjects and found it usually not only quite reliable ,but very easy to consult.And i happen to be a rather highly trained professional and academic with a fair I.Q.And now i find that searching and finding information with your new presentation has become nearly impossible.Who the hell thought that system up?What kind of idiot was in charge of these changes?What is this or these imbeciles trying to prove except that he or they indeed are idiots trying to prove how smart he or they are?I must now search for an alternative to what used to be Wikipedia .I have no time to play that kind of game.What a perfect example of screwing things up.Other words come to mind. "IF IT AINT BROKE,DONT FIX IT" Sig.:George W.Wexler M.D. F.R.C.S.Can.( gwwexlermd@Sympatico.ca)

I've reverted

I ve stuck with vector as long as I could but reverted because it was stopping me from editing at the rate I am accustomed to. I have little new to add- it was just cummulative. I couldn't see if a page was watched- I was spending more time finding the search box than searching- and than the hassle of mousing across the test to to start a new line. I don like this editor- but the new one was just adding extra keystrokes. There were good features and the discussion has been valuable but monobook is a better starting point to add improvements that vector. Finally it is a huge relief to be able to edit again.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

languages

please reinclude the language bar on the left side. it was very useful to me as i work between a number of languages, and that quick ability to switch from one to another is now gone.

also it would be interesting for me, although obviously more work for you, if the results of a single search could come up in a number of languages, perhaps sorted according to view counts. if i´m not sure about the spelling of a term, or even the language i want to look it up in, i could just type it in and then have the results sorted according to languages. obviously this option would require more thought and planning than just this, but if made right, it would be really help`ful to me.

Search Box wrong

When I use the back button my cursor is on the top left of the screen and now the search is on the right of the screen. Please move it back to the left of the screen, much more efficient. Thanks

Search is terrible!

A typical search now yields hundreds to thousands of possibilities but the original search terms entered usually do not even show up in the first page of times returned by the search. For example the search Dr. Tim Ball with or without quotes does not yield a link to an article about Dr. Tim Ball. But Tim and Eric's Show comes up as third in the list? How the hell is that? There are three terms Dr. Tim and Ball. And none of the links which come up on the first page of this search have these three terms. But a search outside of Wikipedia, say for instance in Google, the article on Dr. Tim Ball is the first hit listed. This is how the search in Wikipedia used to work. What the hell is wrong with the moron who changed this?

No, really the search simply does not work. There isn't enough time in my day to deal with this kind of lunacy. This renders Wikipedia rather useless to someone looking for quick access to links offering more information which is what most people use Wikipedia for. So why change this?

Search is terrible - edited

A typical search now yields hundreds to thousands of possibilities but the original search terms entered usually do not even show up in the first page returned by the search. For example the search Dr. Tim Ball with or without quotes does not yield any links to articles about Dr. Tim Ball on the first page. Tim and Eric's Show comes up as third in the list? How the hell is that? There are three terms Dr. Tim and Ball. And none of the links which come up on the first page of this search have these three terms. But a search outside of Wikipedia, say for instance using Google, the article on Dr. Tim Ball is the first hit listed. This is how the search in Wikipedia used to work. What the hell is wrong with the moron who changed this?

No, really the search simply does not work. There isn't enough time in my day to deal with this kind of lunacy. This renders Wikipedia rather useless to someone looking for quick access to links offering more information which is what most people use Wikipedia for. So why change this?

And why can't the search be something like the standard which one sees most anywhere? for example: Why is there no "and" operator? Why can't one use quotes? And as I was complaining about above, why don't the most relevant results come up first? Of course I can use Google to search through the Wikipedia website but that is not as convenient as using Wikipedia as was the case before and besides doesn't that seem absurd?

A link to old version

Please add a link to old version appearance, the interlanguage link can't function without javascript, which is not supported by some devices.

I visited the wikipedia via UCWEB. --Cosmia (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Firefox browser, when JavaScript is disabled, the links just appear. But the browser that you are using may behave differently.

Could you please report it at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

don't fix what isn't broke ...

I can't find any useful reason why you changed to a "new look". i've immediately switched back to where things were and how i knew to find them quickly. e.g the searchbox on the left.. loved it. top right? can't stand it.

a classic of example of fixing what wasn't broke.

i fear that somewhere down the line you will force the change upon everyone and we won't be able to have the 'classic' view.

Thanks A Lot!

Do to your recent changes:

Notice something different? We've made a few improvements to Wikipedia. Learn more!

I am no longer able to access Wikipedia.

Since the Main_Page freezes my browser (IE 6.0) I am not able to log in and revert to the older version.

I contributed money to the foundation and this is what I get.

Search button is missing in Blazer browser

Viewing on a Palm Treo with CSS disabled (as recommended here), there is no search button. I can type in the box but not actually search for anything (and it looks worse than ever with CSS enabled). This new button seems like more of a style choice than a usability improvement. Please make this button a standard-type link, so that older browsers will have no problem with it. Also, a standard link would enable opening in a new tab in Firefox.

It might also be a good idea to make the search bar take up more space on wider screens that aren't full of tabs. On my screen in Firefox I've got about 16 inches of white space in the tab line, and a tiny 2-inch search box. Scalable would be nice. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar hides search suggestions

While the search bar was on the left of the page it made it easy to see your suggestions. Now that it is on the right side of the page the suggestions are obscured and completely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.74.83 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A response to Howie F.'s response

Hello, Howie.

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005. I've been testing the Beta since its first days. I reported some problems on Bugzilla when it was appropriate, but there are some problems about organization and decision making of this process for which Bugzilla was not appropriate, so i reported them on foundation-l. Andrew accused me there of toxic trollish behavior, and i apologize if anyone was hurt by my comments, because nothing could be further from the truth: I think that the developers of MediaWiki in general and of Vector in particular are doing a fantastic job, but there are severe problems in other areas, which must be addressed. Your reply here at the top exemplifies them well.

So please understand me correctly: I want the Usability Initiative to succeed, but in order to succeed, its developers and managers should change a few things in their attitude to this website called Wikipedia.

1. You use the word "nav" a few times. It's the first time i saw it and it took me a while to guess what "nav" means - and i'm an experienced internet surfer and developer. Think about the people who aren't. The more you use internal developer lingo instead of the usual Wikipedian lingo, the more you are likely to alienate Wikipedians.
2. You acknowledge that quite a lot of people expressed frustration about the location of the search. I am actually not so frustrated about its location as i am frustrated about the fact that this search box can't be used for searching (see below), but i am very frustrated about your response to the people who don't like the box's new location. You basically say that this change satisfies the crash test dummies from the usability tests. The strategy of alienating experienced editors in order to satisfy a little bunch of random people from the test sessions is wrong.
3. You don't even mention the fact that the new search box cannot actually be used for searching. See bug 23558.
4. You say that you are aware of the fact that there are "Issues with certain browsers". As i actually read the comments, i understand that "certain" browsers, which are used by a lot of people - Blackberry, Nokia, PS3, UCWEB - are not simply "not fully supported" by Wikipedia since the switch, but can't display Wikipedia at all. These browsers may be non-standard and buggy, but as far as their users are concerned, before the switch Wikipedia worked in them, and now Wikipedia doesn't.
5. "Languages in the left nav" - there's a whole bunch of problems with your reply about this:

• First of all, they have a name: "interlanguage links" or "interwiki links". See #1.
• Furthermore, you say: "We felt this tradeoff made sense". Who is "we"? The developers? Was it tested in the usability test sessions with English speakers? with non-English speakers? Why wasn't it included in the Beta?
• "Tradeoff"? What's the tradeoff, exactly? Tradeoff is when you win something and lose something. And what is lost from hiding the links, in your opinion? And what is won? What problem were you trying to solve? Did you consider asking the people who run interwiki bots about this problem? Did you consider raising this problem at Help talk:Interlanguage links? Foundation-l? Wikipedia-l?
• "the language links were used relatively infrequently based on tracking data " - Can we see this tracking data? What is the meaning of "relatively infrequently"? Did you track their usage since the switch?

Yet again, i may sound grumpy, but my intention is to help the usability initiative to succeed.

Sincerely, --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Master of diagrammes

In the editor of pages of Wikipedia the master is necessary for automatic creation of diagrammes. This master will allow readers to see dynamics of development of many events in as much as possible evident kind. Now authors create diagrammes - who as can, in further they cannot be prolonged. Uniformity of design, beauty and an encyclopaedia urgency suffers from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.238.151 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't Open Edit/History/Discussion Pages in New Window

I'm quite displeased that I can no longer open the discussion, history, or edit pages for an article in a fresh browser window. This is something that I routinely did with the old format, so that I could, for instance, read a discussion on a topic and reference the current article text by simply changing windows. Similarly, by opening the edit page in a fresh window I could easily view the existing text to avoid making sloppy edits. I don't have a wikipedia account and do not wish to start one, so I'm not able to revert to the old format.

Hopefully, this is the result of a (fixable) bug and was not the intention of the design team. I would hope the capability of opening the discussion, history, and edit pages in separate windows is restored, or that the capability of using the old layout is provided to non-registered users as well as registered users.164.64.74.44 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

font

All of a sudden your font has enlarged considerably. It makes it almost impossible to navigate any articles. This is only happening on your web site. All other areas I visit are normal. I'm using vista, Int Exp. and this is a new Dell system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.145.10 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Text colours

Here's another issue I've noticed: the difference in shades of blue used for different links in the new skin is less than it was under the old system. In particular, the difference between the shades for 'page you've been to before' and 'page you haven't been to' is too small. Under the old skin, the first was a clearly distinct purple and the second a light blue; now they're darker and lighter shades of blue, and with light on the screen one can look like the other. The shade used for external links is also not as different as it used to be. I'd prefer greater differentiation of these colours, please. Robofish (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Love the new look

Kudos, its with the times without being all web 2.0 in your face... simple changes are usually the best.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.89.202 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Language selection, old skin and privacy dangers

Why have the language selection in a dropdown menu? i often switch between swedish and english and now i have to do click on the menu everytime i visit if ive closed firefox since my cookies are deleted after every session for security reason. same goes with having to be logged in to change back to the old skin! why?! you have a prototype adress to the wiki why not have a old.wikipedia.com for everyone who dislikes the new skin?

you cant rely on statistics since you can easly block those and the referrers, and that also just proves even more that you like to log people surfing habits and dont give a sh*t about peoples privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.101.29 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough about the Search box!

All these angry comments about the search box being in a slightly different place are not only severely damaging my faith in humanity's ability to adapt to minuscule changes, but are drowning out complaints about REAL problems, and stifling discussion about REAL solutions.

Many of you need to be ashamed of how lazy and automatic you've become, and worry about fixing that instead of whining to Wikipedia about such a minor change. Sure, in the first few seconds you visited the new Wikipedia, you may have had to glance around the screen for the box. But you all evidently found it! Are you seriously saying the programmers should go through the trouble of reverting all they've done over the last few months, rather than you having to spend a millisecond moving your cursor way over to the other end of the screen?!

Give your heads a shake!

InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that little rant. It was very amusing- but hardly feedback. Now I have reverted to monobook I feel far less stressed so I no longer take constructive suggestions personally. I would suggest the only problem left is that monobook is no longer the default, and if that could be switched back, occasional users could have the same positive experience as all of us here have. We, by now have reverted or like vector.

So extracting, the points that Inedible has made.

• Feedback is not about complaint- it is not about reporting bugs or problems- it is about reporting the experience. Tonight I saw Vector in a situation where it looked really good- it was on a neighbour's media centre that used a wide screen. As a regular user seeing it for the first time- his comment was negative- 'What the bloody hell have they done to it- where the search box' you mean I ve got to use the Google box to search- but won't I get google.' Which shows that yes users are confused, and yes they are conservative, and yes they aren 't interested in anything else apart from getting the info

• Minor change- this is the programmer perspective. This feedback shows otherwise.
• A few seconds to find the search box, is not the issue for heavy duty editor. When writing a substantial article the search box is used constantly to check links, and in a left right language the majority of edits are on the left margin. Ideally, when editing the left hand search box would vertically lock to the top of the edittext box to save outer scrolling as well.
• Should programmers revert several month work. Obviously yes. If the feedback says that changes do not fulfill their clients needs or expectations, then you rollback. That is the final stage in the software development cycle.
• Millisecond to move the cursor issue. This is not the issue, please read the feedback to find out what the problem is. Were it to be that, I suggest that this is hyperbole. 800ms is probably my quickest,(more for correct landing time). But user perception is that it is more. Now multiply this by 100 links in a 32Kb article and the figure and we are starting to get a measureable figure.

• Having established that roll back is technically the correct option, there are elements of coding that can and should be introduced into the next skin. Vector is fine for those who want it. But not as the default skin- and the feedback exercise has proved this.

--ClemRutter (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things to touch on in response. First, I realize my post wasn't exactly feedback on Wikipedia's new look. Just thought it might make the whiners see the search box move as less of, or not a problem. I have put my two cents in regarding the complete destruction of the site on the PS3 browser, and the inability to sign in to "Take Me Back".

Also, I think you may be misinterpreting an angry and vocal minority as a majority of Wikipedia users. People are generally more prone to criticize what they dislike than praise what they like. I can't cite any study to illustrate this or anything, but if you've read enough comment boards on the internet, you may well agree.

Not sure what you mean by your "100 links in a 32 kb article" equation, or what the argument behind it is. Would like to understand, though.

Anyway, just saying the Search Box gripes seem trivial compared to the PS3 (and other) issues, and shouldn't be getting the focus they do. Hopefully within another day or two, the angry masses will be reconditioned to top right, and we can move on. 66.185.211.13 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"100 links in a 32 kb article". Lack of clarity is one of my signatures! So to explain, I provide content, and have a few sizeable articles under my belt, which I usually prepare offline, then cut and paste into a new page. Now at this point I have a lot of links- some showing red, some showing blue. Each of these need to be checked. (at this point am searching for an example of ambiguity so I am heading for the search box) For example, Philip Stott the great Oldham architect- both links need to be checked. In doing so I find that Oldham doesn't lead to a disambiguation page, but Philip Stott leads me to a geographer. More work- so I try Stott. New page (Now I must do another search to check this example) Stott article works- find him, go to the Sir Philip Stott, 1st Baronet article, check it isn't a redirect- copy the heading from this page (which is adjacent to the search box)- move from there to browser 'back page button' which is almost adjacent in MonoBook, and paste in the correct link. The point being that for most of the time, I am working in a small triangle in the top left of the screen. It is a pure estimate that I will have 100 links to check in an article- but it feels like that. Now having found the Philip Stott page I see it is technically a mess- so it needs referencing and correctly linking, and the process is recursive. Altering css and javascript is not what I do here on wiki- though I have two non-wiki jobs on my desk at the moment that will require a bit of both-I try to confine myself to content- happy in the knowledge that others will come after me and clean up my spelling and grammar and others will write bots. I quite see that those folk will not understand the editing, link verifying and related searching processes, but in my neck of the wikiwoods the issue is critical. So I hope that helps- if you have any sparetime..... --ClemRutter (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see how that would affect an editor in your situation. I was a bit lost because I thought you were saying it made READING a problem. Still seems most (not all) of the whiners are unregistered users and and, judging from their writing, are not(or shouldn't be) editors. I'll also take the time to reiterate here to the powers that be that PS3 WIKIPEDIA IS STILL QUITE BROKEN! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

uncaught exception: java.lang.ClassCastException

Why does it say "uncaught exception: java.lang.ClassCastException" on my Blackberry in the last few days when I try to load a Wikipedia page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.162 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an American-born translator and editor living in Germany. In the past, I would Google a name like sociologist John C. Meyer, it would come up with the German Wikipedia page, but then I could hit the "English" link on the bottom left, so that I could read about him in English and also -- very important for us text professionals (and thus also important for Wikipedia) -- scan for specialist terms and references for my English translation/editing.

Ever since the new "look" (not much difference), I get the German page, but IT SHOWS NO LINK TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR THE SAME RESULT. This causes me tons of trouble and wasted time, as I have to keep thinking up Google searches that will get me to the English Wikipedia page. Living in Germany, it defaults to the German results, SO it is IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE ENGLISH-PAGE LINK!!! One possible solution -- to set the English Wikipedia site as my default -- is not workable, as I sometimes also need to look up German terms and personalities (some are covered more extensively in the German version because they are more Germany-related).

Please fix this.

Return search box to left

I don't see how having the search box on the top is any better and we are all used to having it on the left, with other menu items. I like it on the left. My google box is on the left, up in the "margin" stuff.

Please put the search box back on the left.

As to anything else, haven't seen good or bad from my use; Wikipedia is my homepage and I use it often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.168.162 (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Switching easily to other languages

Ugh! Forget the "clean" look of collapsible menus, and bring back the instantly visible list of available languages! Since the new "look", going back and forth from English to German (a) sometimes means one extra click (annoying for heavy users, like me, and all those extra clicks are bad for repetitive strain injury and carpal tunnel syndrome); and (b) sometimes the option doesn't appear at all -- there isn't even a language menu, those I know that in the past I have been able to switch languages for that topic.

The new version may be cleaner-looking for occasional users, but for frequent users, it's just more time-consuming and less easy to maneuver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.144.184 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

story

"add your story?" oh please. 1) this isn't katrina. 2) you really want the talk page flooded with "I used and liked it" and "I used it and didn't like it"? that's an invitation for washing out serious discussion. I too remember the swimming hole in audra fondly. — eitch 01:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia iPhone app

You should add caching to the iPhone app. Due to the new changes my third party wikiamo app no longer works. I like the official app, but it loads the featured page on every load. It should cache the last item I searched so I do t have to go back to it. Also this causes the app to load slowly as it load the featured page evryone time I open the app.

A suggestion to transmit information quicker and more efficiently

When reading about a new subject on Wikipedia it is often explained to the reader by using a vocabulary intended for people who are literate in that subject, which is not the same as the vocabulary of a complete novice. This creates a steeper learning curve than is desired for an ideal learning situation, but is helped by giving the "vocabulary words" of a certain subject links to the Wikipedia articles about them. Unfortunately, the act of clicking to open a new page creates a minor break in the thought process. These little breaks are like sneezes, one or two isn't that bad, but fifty in a row just sucks.

With that said, it would be ideal to allow the user to learn the meaning of vocabulary words without having to navigate away from the page.

My suggestion would be to have a feature that shows a pop-up window when a word is hovered over for 5 seconds. This pop up window would show the first paragraph in the article that it links to. This allows the user to gain a limited understanding of an idea as quickly and efficiently as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.16.133 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This exists, as navigation popups. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Style problem: undefined default font color

Creating a new style for Wikipedia is a worthy goal, in my opinion. But you made a rather amateurish web design mistake: Defining your web site's background color without defining a default text color.

The rule of thumb for CSS styling is that, if you define the background color for your web-site, you must also define the text color. The reason for this is that, the way CSS is designed, any colors you do not select are left open for the application (web-browser) to decide. In most cases, the web browser uses the system defaults or theme colors of the client's operating system.

This means that, although your site will show up "correctly" on most system, where black is the system's default text color, on other systems the site will look odd, or even be completely unreadable. On my system, for example, the desktop theme uses an "inverted" color scheme, which defaults to white text on a black background. So when I view your site, I see white text (system default) on a white background (defined by your CSS)!

I'm not sure about your CSS (which looks rather complicated), but most of the time this can be fixed by just adding "color: black" to the CSS for the body tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.75.199 (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cursor in search box

It would be better if the cursor automatically goes to the search box when we open the wikipedia website rather than clicking on the search box before typing in it. It would be very much helpful for users like me who use keyboard shortcuts a lot than mouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyam Prabhu G (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Bar Location

I found the old location much more convenient, on the left edge of the window. The search bar being located in the top right seems to be too far from the center of the page's focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.19.77 (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I get the previous version ?

Do the improvements come with additional overhead & slower downloads? The page format is pretty sloppy on my current browser, compared to your previous version. Is there a way to switch back to an "all-text" version or something like the Previous, for those of us that cannot afford the latest operating systems? Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.112.181 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Plse return Search field to left hand side.

There was no need to redesign Wikipedia, but since you have please return the Search filed to the left hand side. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.13.254 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo

The logo appears to be floating in the top left hand corner of the page, hiding the top left part of the page and its content. It's not aligned with the left hand nav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.205.196 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

THE NEW FONT SIZE IS FR TOO SMALL AND I CANNOT CHANGE IT USING BROWSER PREFERENCE IN SAFARI (MAC) NOR COULD I FIND ANY USEFUL INFORMATION IN THE HELP SECTION. UNBELIEVABLE THE CHANGE TO A MINUSCULE FIXED (?) FONT SIZE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE RECENT CHANGES SECTION.... PLS HELP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.207.220.177 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

font size

Um, I can't read Wikipedia now. Text is much too small. Please increase its size to match the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.85.98 (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The search bar has moved to the top right corner!

Most internet programs have the major buttons in the top left corner! By having moved the search bar to the top right, Wikipedia users have to frustratingly and time-consumingly drag their mouse icon all the way across to the other side of the screen. I appreciate Wikipedia being free and have never made a contribution. Thank you Wiki! I will continue to use Wikipedia as my first source of general information regardless. But, it would make such a difference Yours, Wikipedia User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.167.230.164 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and 1 more thing!

thefreedictionary.com, for example, automatically puts an active cursor in the search bar at the beginning of a session and subsequently after every search, reducing the need to scroll up to the top of the page and click it manually- saving considerable time, frustration and web-surf rhythm! Wikipedia would be an even bigger BOMB than the magnificent mastermind it already is if it did this! Yours, Wikipedia User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.167.230.164 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slowed Down

Sites seems to have slowed down a lot. Takes an age to bring up a page compared to b4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.54.188 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rid-ler

It will be the mayor.

Font Size

The font size is ridiculous. It can take half an hour to scroll down a page to read it. It is so large that I can read it from twenty feet away. Please go back to normal font size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.115.228 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

enlarging font size

Wikipedia is my great friend who helps me understand an unfamiliar terminology popped up during my research for work. Thanks to you...

I have one question for better user experience.

As i connect the site quite frequently, sometimes, it's very tired to focus on PC monitor for a long time. My eyes get sore easily mainly due to its small font size.

I have good eye site 12/12. So i can imagine how it would be more uncomfortable to other people who have worse eye site.

Can you add a simple icon on main page which can enlarge font size easily? If each user can adjust font size easily on their eye site, it would be very use friendly environment.

I hope there's no technical barrier to implement this function on your site.

Please let me know your feedback through my E-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun911 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No.

Just no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.4 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fine people!

One comment about the new functionality. When you search for an item or topic the "matches" are truncated in the narrow display column below. Is there any way to widen the column to accommodate every length or match presented in the search function? For example, if I search for "post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease" using "post-trans" the system pulls up many long descriptions which are all truncated after letter number 24. If would be nice to see the full descriptions. Is this a function of Wikipedia or my desk top display?

I donated during the last donation drive and totally love Wikipedia.

Thank You Neil Reed Kaysville, Utah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.174.63 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Search Box Problems

The search box is in the wrong place.It should be on the left beacuse... 1. That's it's natural place. 2. When I press back page arrow my cursor is on the top left. 3. The Windows search box always comes up top right covering your search box. I use this a lot to find one word or phrase on the page. 4. Drop down suggestion list goes way off the screen if they are very long. 5. Lots of people hate it. Does that not say something. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.125.167 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Placement of Search Box

Speaking only for me, I find that, after a good week of use, the placement of the search box in the upper right is more difficult to use than its old location on the left in the sidebar. It has to do with using large displays (24" min) and having to look further away from the center of focus than previously. I hope you may consider allowing a configurable format so we can choose its location. As always- an outstanding tool and experiance. Many thanks for your dedicated efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that the previous position, on the left side, was much more easier and intuitive to use. Wikipedia pages are formatted on the left side, and most of the links are on that side too. At first, after the change, I couldn't find the seach box; and now, after some use, I still find the new location not handy at all. Luigi-71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi-71 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slow page loading

Since the changes have been introduced, the page loading times have become far too long. It's taking around one minute for a page to load in full. (The content appears relatively quickly but the page is frozen.)

I appreciate Wikipedia's advice that the problem should not re-occur once the javascript or CSS is cached, but this doesn't seen to be the case. It has happened with every Wikipedia page I have downloaded. In any case, a minute is still too long for an initial page load.

I've recently become a contributor and had so far ejoyed the editing I've done. However, making contributions is now frustratingly difficult. 'Wiki' means 'fast'. Is the extra functionality contained in the javascript really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.230.152 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The NEW pages are hard to read due to the small type.. The changes that you have instituted are not for the better and only add to the distraction of what is being reviewed for information of pertient facts that I was using for various subjects of interest...Change is not always welcome especially when it is extensive unwelcome changes...Return to the format that was acceptable...This advice is from what you will call a "geezer"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.93.150 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

kinds of peonies and their scientific names

I found the information in your articles very helpful. I have been looking for certain species of peonies and the wikipedia provided the information I needed. Thanks Pam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.176.132.112 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Changing the location of the search box and making the font size so minuscule are both serious errors. Please bring back print size that people can read without magnifiers. Not every one of your users are still age 25.

Your heading is sadly mistaken - it is definitely not an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonmur (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Arrogant fools

Why can't I have the old style without creating an account?

If you can do it for logged in users you can do it for anyone. You're just being controlling because you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.58 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New changes

I don't have any story. But I have a question to ask: Who is the moron responsible for these idiotic changes? The old Wikipedia was great. Please, f**cking please!!, restore the old format. If not that just get rid of the stupid big type and being forced to scroll down to read even small articles. Whose stupid idea was this?? Change, change, we all need change!! You can disregard my opinion, it comes from a 66 year old who just can't seem to 'get with it'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphiep (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wee Cumbrae belongs not to the blassed yohgi- but is part of UK and when it is HM government says pay the poll tax or let Her Majesty, decide whom realy owns her Royal Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.240.53 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DAMMIT!

You have succeeded in making Wiki take four times as long to use for research with no discernable benefit. The new search box location is off the page while reading and does not show up in my background screen color, making it virtually invisible. And no, I DON'T NEED OR WANT "SUGGESTIONS" added to my searches. The old disambiguation pages, which popped up a full minute before the new search finishes running, were quite serviceable.

Please consider that 90% or more of people using Wiki are doing research and have NO desire to get involved in the infamious internal bickerings regarding editing and changes. I've also learned to copy any information I find here and want to refer to again, on the probability that the most interesting stuff has a bad habit of disappearing overnight. Still, I could never have even begun, let alone finished, my last novel without Wiki. I'm really disappointed that you're busy trying to "improve" what WAS a very serviceable working tool. Please. Forget bells and whistles. Just let me get to the article I want without waiting for fifteen fancy scripts to load. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.95.134 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing comments

The material could be improved by making the text a bit bigger and darker. For example, most of the text is very small, at least on my 17" screen. To get the text to a useful size the text runs over the edge. This box is lovely and big, but is perhaps 20 words wide, which is too wide. I am a proof reader and editor.

Some text is in small blue and sometimes italics - not god.

Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.228.69 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

add languages links at the bottom of each page

i think it would be a good idea to add "languages links" at the bottom of each page - and they will take you to the same article or most closed topic on each different language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.150.16 (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

script is too small

I have been using Wikipedia for several years and am very happy with it. It is the only site where I get an unbiased view.

Recently a change was made to your site. Now the script is so small it almost illegible. I am now unable to read the material.

Naturally I am very unhappy and dissatisfied with your recent changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.27.220 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

i second that. small fonts are unnecessary, bad for usability, unfair against the elderly and people with visual impairment; and, contrary to a popular developers believe, they dont even look good. if you have such a tidied up site like wikipedia, there is no need to use small fonts. at all. 87.243.151.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

I truly love Wikipedia, but beg someone take a copy and bury it once every X months (and dont say when to anyone)

Dear concerned human,

I could go on and on but "I get it Wikipedia is just so empowering!" but as time passes, in my way, I can tell the decay happens- citations are less clear, phraseology is more spun and less crystal as the less elite figure out how to post. (myself included, incidentally).

Also giant megaconcerns have noted Wikipedia and its (voluminous)power to advertise and relate a sitation (getting in the first word, if you will, setting the issue stage thereby askew).

I know a certain product causes neurological problems, my doctors know it, are not even mildly surprised (erucic acid content is not fantasy). But it wont stay in Wikipedia overnight.

Because an entire country (other than USA) profits, lives of the monetary gains of selling to their best international buddy. No doctor will say the truth. Nor will Wikipedia now.

I beg, fervently, and suggest:

"Make a copy of Wikipedia- text, links, preferably a functional copy and TAKE IT OFFLINE.

1) Wiki is greatest human acheivement, lets remember it can get cheesy and worthless with spin and artful word use. Make a dang copy and seal it in a lead box.

2) My understanding is all of (text) Wikipedia (every page!) fits with room on a modern Hard Disc drive. A few more hard discs and you have the drawings and images (forget video for now if any).

3) I have tried, am able to hear convincingly how it is done, but am unable. My intent was to make copies and send to remote places so Wikipedia in its present (undoped, if you will) iteration can do good for all mankind. I cant do it, please take over, it could readily make a sizeable monetary profit for a few hours work (as I hear it said)

4) Get me a copy and I will pay for it, for humanity. I dont care WHEN but SOON AS POSSIBLE.

5) There are things and facts and instances and effects and influences upon us all that defy documentation and description (consider "False arguments" wiki!) but I know, you may know, Wikipedia is exposed to the moneyed, positioned, the hidden (Government persons too) to be perverted and I already did, first hand, witness it.

I know any person with a love and respect for Wikipedia would, knowing what I know would understand my request.(The current level of human intelligence is not guaranteed to be replaced with a greater more salient one, it goes in great vacillations and movements!)

Thanks for giving to the world, Jimmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.116.95 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot harder than you might think. It'd require hundreds of DVDs. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A better Vector is possible

Hi, these are my current settings:

• User:Virgolette/vector.css
• User:Virgolette/vector.js

as you can see I managed to have the search box on the left, a bigger font more easy to read (0.9em instead of 0.8em), the old logo and all the tabs shifted to the left and then up in order to reduce the waste of space. Despite the font size is bigger than Vector default, I can resize the browser window to less than 800px, as proved by this screenshot. All this works also with big screens and huge font sizes (pressing Ctrl++ several times on Firefox). I know that my settings probably work only with Firefox (at the moment), but I hope that this message will arrive: a better Vector is possible. In particular, the increased space for tabs can allow a normal "watch/unwatch" tab instead of the puzzling star, it can help users like me who normally split the screen with other applications (e.g. a text editor), and foreign languages wikies will have space for long tabs names. --Virgolette (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! I hope the usability team incorporates your changes or at least makes them available in preferences. All users -- including unregistered ones -- deserve the best Wikipedia experience possible. --Albany NY (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

private hospittals in mian channo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.91 (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Great wikipedia

Thank you Wikipedia your work is great for students —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhandup (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You've taken something that was so easy & convenient to use everybody loved it...

...and transformed it into a rat maze worthy of the most fastidious German pedant who ever pursued a subjunctive thru 9 centuries and 900 volumes. In doing so, YOU CERTAINLY DID NOT HAVE THE AVERAGE PERSON MIND. You SAY I need not use this new system, and I need not log on to look anything up, but you FORCE ME TO DO BOTH. There is NO OTHER WAY to get on but to log on and you can spend HOURS trying to do it with Wikipedia CONSTANTLY finding something wrong with the way you're doing it, until FINALLY, if you're lucky, you get a blank box in which to ask your question. AND YOU HAVE TO GO THRU ALL THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU WANT TO LOOK SOMETHING UP ON WIKIPEDIA. And if you don't like it & want to say why, and you hit CONTACT US, you are given a royal run-around unmatched in the history of royal run-arounds, and you soon find out there is NO WAY TO CONTACT YOU UNLESS YOU ACCIDENTALLY STUMBLE ON THIS OBSCURE FEEDBACK LINK. And then you discover this is NOT for giving feedback on what you think of this new system; it's the EDITING section, for correcting articles -- THE WRONG AREA -- where it will be seen by NOBODY. ...You jackasses remind me of the manager of my local CVS pharmacy, who, as soon as he arrived, moved everything on the right side of the store to the left, and everything on the left side to the right, and broke up every aisle into 3 little ones, so that you can kill yourself walking around trying to locate anything. YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO SAY THAT IF I DONT CREATE AN ACCOUNT YOU WILL PUBLISH MY FEEDBACK FOR ANYBODY TO SEE?? GO AHEAD. I don't give a damn. You deserve all the opprobrium you get for destroying a miraculous godsend to the public, that used to make needed information easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.79.93 (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

the opel corsa 1996 they all have a probelm in the petrol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.111.180 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign languages

The use of wikipedia in English has been greatly diminished by the removal of the foreign language options on the left side panel. I have no idea why you did this, but it means I can no longer check what the equivalent wikipedia page in another language says (there is often additional or different material). Fortuanately it is still available in Spanish and other languages and I will be using these pages in future in prefence to the English ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.133.166 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Languages on the left nav

I was looking for Luis Salinas, the Argentinean guitarist, I was quite sure that I could get more information on a Wikipedia Spanish page but I couldn't choose another page 'cause there are no other languages on the left nav. I thought was a bug from the new version but I realize that the problem is different. I think it's important that who creates the page on a subject checks if there are other information on the same subject in other languages and link the pages. For instance there is a page on Luis Salinas on es.wikipedia.org that should appear on both pages (English/Spanish) as different choice of languages. Do you think it's possible improve this? I am Italian and I know very well that a lot of pages in Italian language have less information than other languages so usually I look for different pages in different languages just to get all the information I need. Do you think that any one could make a link between different pages? I mean do you think it could be useful? Have I to do it when it happens? And if it is so how can I do it? Thanks a lot, and god bless you for the wonderful work you are doing. Giovanni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabgio (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you did to the font, please undo it...

I normally operate with my browser with View -> Text Size -> Smaller, which is fine for almost every thing I view. Now I have to reset the Text Size every time I use Wikipedia. I have no idea how changing the font size was an improvement. It certainly wasn't for me. It makes using Wikipedia somewhat annoying and makes me hesitate to use it.

As for the search box, I can get used to the new location. I guess the advantage is that I no longer scroll past it on a very long page, but overall, I was fine with it on the left.

Bottom line is that things were done very well in the first place, so as far as the appearance is concerned, the font change, for me, is a big step backwards. It bothered me enough to take the time to create an account and to write about it...

smp —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkerW (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

TYPE SIZES BIG, MeDiUm, small

When I bring up wikipedia (www.wik...), my Internet Explorer window's Text Size is automaticly now reset to "Largest". It's got to be 50-point type; like, I can barely get a sentence to fit on my screen... I have to set it back to my Default Explorer size of "Medium". WHY-O-WHY-O-WHY-O??? I consider this little "feature" of yours to be a BBBBB---UUUUUU-GGGGGG, a.k.a. "cucceracia" (sp?) In plain English: This is a BUG! I signed up so that MAYBE I can avoid irritations like this.

BTW, I LOVE this entity called "Wikimania"; there's SOOO much information here.

Jimm88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimm88 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot reproduce the problem you are experiencing with Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7. The text size is set medium and it remains the same size font. I can use browser zoom to adjust the font size too. What version of Internet Explorer and which OS do you use? (Naoko Komura, User Experience Programs at Wikimedia Foundation) --Shuhari (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Will changes be published to MediaWiki?

Hello,

Love the changes. Currently hosting multiple MediaWiki sites. Will these changes be published to the open-source MediaWiki source? If so when will this happen?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Freezing Posts of Verified Data

Our particular problem (we are a California State University) has been when other users come in and try to alter posted lists of known factual data. Most notably we include a historic list of the school's superintendents and presidents since its founding. Unfortunately, we have had repeated problems with someone coming in sporadically and changing one of the names on the list of individuals and it has happened more than once. The facts are the facts in this case and not something subject to interpretation. Where a verified representative can provide documented proof that the information posted is historically factual, why is it not possible to then lock that information down so that it cannot be subject to further revision? It is easy to say that we can "monitor the page" for changes, but this continually diverts us from our regular work and is frankly an annoyance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweb823 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Change it back!!!!

Why Why Why????? PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufflittledude (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree boycott wikipedia until they change it back!!!!! there was no reason to make a search engine harder to use!!!!!! It' rediculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufflittledude (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw the version of Wikipedia. I can't read Wikipedia now. Text is much too small. Please increase its size to match the previous version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.145.121 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia everyday. In the past week since wikipedia's new changes, wikipedia has been moving so slow. It takes almost a minute for a page to load so its very diffiult how I usually use wikipedia from site to site. Any other website I go to I have quick connections except for wikipedia. I don't know if its the changes or something else, but it really frustrates me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.13.27 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

slooooooooow

wikipedia is covered in molasses n standing in quicksand--it took me 5 days just to get to this page so i could complain haha--fixin things when they arent broken seems to b the thing to do on the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.5.35 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mac Dictionary/Wikipedia App Broken

The wikipedia app built into the dictionary app for OSX is broken. It only loads a portion of the page. You can not scroll to the rest of the page. There is nt even a scroll bar present.

There are many others who have this problem. Please fix it with or without Apple. Thanks.

References: http://www.corndogcomputers.com/tips/macos-dictionary-app-scroll-bug/ http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=916518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.226.178 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackberry OS v4.5.0.169 Wiki English Load Error

I am now unable to load pages past the "Global" entry page with my Blackberry Curve 8330,running OS v 4.5.0.169 (highest available upgrade). My carrier's tech support has no work-around to offer. I have tested newer Blackberry models running their OS v 5.0x and Wikipedia pages load properly. Regrettably, my phone (14 months old) does not support OS v5.0x, and I am therefore unable to access Wiki pages. I am hopeful that a debug/revert is in the works. Bummed for now - I miss my handy held Wikipedia... Stevepeterson58103 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The search box needs to be relocated to its previous location.

Please do not separate the search box from its home. It needs to be put back together with the search links. You are breaking up a family. HOMEWRECKERS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.9.195 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)