Wikipedia:Suggestion box

This is a page for discussing all the little wikiwoes you may encounter in your travels here. This page is not for complaining about other users. See dispute resolution for that. Please list new articles on the bottom.

There is no obvious way to address inaccuracies on "Main Page"

If, for example, a summary item in the "In the News" section is inaccurate, it cannot be edited like any other page, and there is no contact info. The Help pages don't provide assistance for this.

Verdana must be banned from all our style sheets!

Some bad guys have made Verdana the default font in Wikipedia (probably in an attempt to emulate Encarta).  Now that we know about the Verdana bug, it is clear that Verdana should never be used in our style sheets (at least until someone fixes that font).  Do not turn Wikipedia into a Verdana Promotion Society! — Monedula 18:57, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

• • What do you propose instead? -Litefantastic 23:50, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

The best policy is this:  the defaul skin must use the browser's defaul fonts only (i.e. it should not mention any typefaces at all) — because specifying a typeface will almost certainly cause problems for some languages.  The user-selected skins, on the other hand, may use anything.  Still it is better to use Tahoma instead of Verdana.— Monedula 12:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this last contribution - make no mention of typefaces whatsoever, so that a User's broswer can default to their chosen font. Another idea: What about incorporating via CSS the facility to adjust font sizes on the actual page.... this would be a big help for accessibility!! Failing all these suggestions, I would suggest using a Unicode-compliant / friendly font like [[1]] (though this is still incomplete....!) in order to display all characters properly..... pjamescowie

Out with the new! In with the old!

• • I dislike the new "skin" rather a lot. In the first place it has that trendy "blog" feel, which irritates. Worse, it overrides the browser's font (Like Lucida Grande on OS X Safari), which wrecks things. The Greek alphabet polytonic doesn't display under the new "skin". Hmpf, I dislike the term "skin" too. Grumble. 19:56, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

• • I dislike the new style not only to the fact that it looks worse than the former one - it even overrides my fonts aswell as fontsize to the effect that a quick vistit to wikipedia isn't quick due to the oversized (malformed) fontstyle. It seems logging in is a cure to this 'problem' but on the one hand i use to delete my cookies so the 'permanent' login doesn't work and on the other hand i really don't want to log in for every little lookup once a day. Please make the old style the default one to keep it slim and functional.

• • I confess I liked the 'Pedia better when it looked like the skin had been invented in someone's garage. The wikilinks in the new version are hard to see. Plus, all the buttons are in different places, which makes them an absolute pain to find. Who do we petition to go back to the good old days? -Litefantastic 11:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Just a note to you or other people reading this: I have been told you can change the skin in your preferences. Thue 10:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I tried it. I got back to the original color scheme, but the logo was right-justified for some reason. Frustration... I had to go back to the MonoBook look. -Litefantastic 10:56, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the new and old standard style

Jun 1 2004 I discovered that the default look of wikipedia had been changed fundamentally. It looks as if people have been working on it who think a glossy style is more important than practical considerations like readablilty, printablilty, easy access, easy links, etc.

I don't know whether there are a lot of those people, but I suggest that at least they also take into consideration other people, who want to be able to read a page with as little clutter as possible, a default (browser determined) font-size and font-family, a clear background, and, in short, are concerned with content before anything else.

Perhaps the new look of wikipedia is crucially important in establishing a higher status, more casual visitors and more donations. For the sake of argument, I assume that there is some usefullness in it somewhere. However, for the "other" reader, please do make easy links to change the cluttered page into something at least as clear as the old look. I know that for now it is still possible to choose the old look via login - preferences - skin - standard - reload, but this is a lot of work, especially because wikipedia still is quite slow (my connection is not).

If the wikipages were like normal webpages I suppose one way to do that is to allow an alternate stylesheet with only basic interference, via an easy to find link at the top of the page. Further, I personally I would also like an option for a permanent cookie set via my preferences, that would enable the plain style permanenly without the need to log in (some people don't like this, but as an option, what harm could it do, take it or leave it).

BTW, note that mozilla (at least) enables the user to choose a different (and plain) stylesheet as soon as an alternate one is defined in the header.

With all the changes going on, I am somewhat concerned that de standard look will disappear as well. For the record I would like to sum up (again) some of the aspects that I would not want to see lost on the standard (or any plain or basic) style.

1. Font-size and font-family (at least for the main text) are determined by the browser of the reader.
2. No distracting background.
3. A solid "printable page" option that removes navigation and possibly colliding foating things etc. (actually, I use this option for reading quite frequently as well).
4. No features that slow down loading the page unless really necessary.

I am pretty sure much more can be said about the new style and what a basic style should look like, but I am not a webpage designer, just a reader. I would however suggest as reading material http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html, which claims to be a rant, but makes many suggestions I agree with. --Kornelis 13:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • I haven't heard of a single person (yet) who actually likes the new look. Kornelis, I add to your list of complaints/suggestions:

5. The Wikilinks should have a permanent bar under them, so we can tell what they are. They're simply harder to see than before. 6. The tabs should all be put back where they go. Whose idea was it to put they all at the top of the page, in type too small to see? 7. The Wikipedia won two (prominent!) internet awards looking just the way it did. What people look for in an encyclopedia are ease of reference and content. The content is, as always, good, but the ease of reference, it seems to me, has lessened somewhat with all this flashy nonsense they've added.

In this spirit I've created this, and I encourage you all to sign up. It's the only way we'll get back a useful encyclopedia:

Wikipedia:Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia

All those who want to join should sign up, and put the following message on their User Pages:

This user supports the Old Wikipedia. This user supports the return of the Old Wikipedia, before it obtained this new "blog" look, and would like it changed back.

Code: {{msg:Goodolddays}}

I strongly disagree. The new look takes some getting used to, but I think it's a great improvement over the old one, especially considering how highly customizable it is. I think this look has a much better chance of grabbing the attention of newcomers; the only minor complaints I've had about it (font choice and link styles) are easily fixed by editing my user style. I don't know whether the editing/history tabs are "where they go" or not; those were always on the top in the old default skin (and you can put them on the bottom if you prefer); anything else that is moved is for the better, IMHO. Also, as far as I know the stylesheet used for printing has not changed, so I don't quite understand the request for a "printable page" option; with the right CSS, there is no need for a separate printable version. To get your monobook style to use your browser's font (at least for the main text), add the code:

body, #globalWrapper { font-family: inherit !important; }

to User:YourUserName/monobook.css. -- Wapcaplet 23:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just clarifying my comment on the option printable page: in the standard style it enables users to remove everything but the body of the article. Also, it changes links to readable urls. I did not see this option on the new page, nor did adding &printable=yes to the url work. --Kornelis 09:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Search Engine doesn't work

The search engine has worked properly for about ONE week since I joined in November of '03. What's wrong with it? The site moves like a turtle at times. I'm using broadband and yet it still takes an almost unrealistic amount of time to save changes I've made to pages. Why is this, and can it be fixed? The capital letters issue. If it isn't already a pain to try and correctly type out exact punctuation and spelling in the Search (O Brother, Where Art Thou? haunts me), we must also get the captialization exactly right. I'm in college and this gives me trouble, I feel real pity for grade-schoolers who have to try and find things. -Litefantastic 00:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The search is not optimised enough for our servers to be able to cope with it. Either it needs rewriting, or we need more servers, which are apparently coming. Angela. 19:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Too slow

The site moves like a turtle at times. I'm using broadband and yet it still takes an almost unrealistic amount of time to save changes I've made to pages. -Litefantastic 00:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Five new servers are on order. Hopefully it will be better once they arrive. See also meta:Why Wikipedia runs slow and meta:Why Wikipedia ran slow in late 2003. Angela. 19:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Getting exact punctuation right is a pain...and getting the capital letters all right is even worse

The capital letters issue. If it isn't already a pain to try and correctly type out exact punctuation and spelling in the Search (O Brother, Where Art Thou? haunts me), we must also get the captialization exactly right. I'm in college and this gives me trouble, I feel real pity for grade-schoolers who have to try and find things. -Litefantastic 00:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. It can be a right pain in the arse trying to get the punctuation spot on just so the link to some obscure song title will work. How come the capitalization of the first letter isn't critical but all the rest are??? Lee M 00:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

That was quick. How on earth did you find this page? and to answer your question, it might be because there are things like SPAM and spam with entirely different connotations and identical spelling. These would be a problem if caps were made uniform, but I still think it would be in the common good. -Litefantastic 00:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I found the page on the New Pages list, which I regularly check to see f there are any interesting new articles. Lee M 01:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The routine followed by pressing "Go" should perhaps involve a quick check of all pages with disregard of capitalisation (e.g. use a routine to convert both strings to lowercase). This might give better results. PS I don't think totally eradicating capitals is sensible. Consider mumps and MUMPS, which I disambiguated today.
JFW | T@lk 15:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

When the engine worked (the one time) it gave me a list of pages containing the things I had searched for by keyword, like Google. That would handily solve the problem of finding, as you say, both MUMPS and mumps. -Litefantastic 11:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Why not just use Google to do your search if you want capitalization ignored for a certain case? Like this

http://google.com/search?q=keyword(s) here+site:"wikipedia.com"

Then it will search wikipedia and return the results similar to a web search, but only in the wikipedia.com domain! e-mail:mastermushroom(@)digitalcave(.)org AIM:azx3t

Problems with Wikipedia's computers?

I had worked on this article and now, when I returned to it after a while, something odd was happening: one of the tables that I had written was not showing on screen (that is, the borders are not showing, the content is just "floating" there). I thought that maybe someone had deleted it, but when I checked, it was still there, but for some strange reason it's not being "recognized" (or whatever). As a matter of fact, there have been other instances where what is written in the article's source is not entirely reflected in the visualization. I believe it has gotten worse since the default skin was changed. In that same article, another odd thing took place: it seems that another of the tables in it, which was fine when I had last seen it, got corrupted all on its own. Another user took the time to fix the problem, but there shouldn't have been a problem to fix. I do not believe that the article had been vandalized, although most of its history was erased (also strange). Redux 15:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I haven't seen anything like this; it may have been a one time problem. -Litefantastic 19:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Little Red Question Mark Problem

• My (current) gripe is that all phantom links are now little red question marks, often looking completely stupid in the middle of sentences. Can we put them back? Or do people like the little red question mark look? -Litefantastic 19:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Go to your preferences; under "misc settings", check the box next to "Format broken links like this" to use an underlined link instead of a question mark. Some people may like the question mark look; it's customizable for those who don't. -- Wapcaplet 23:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Minor Complaint Regarding New Skin

It's hard to see line breaks in indented text with the monobook skin. See All Along The Watchtower; the lyrics are three stanzas with line breaks between them. In the normal skin, they are clearly seperated, but in the monobook they are not. Bamos 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They look clearly separated to me in Mozilla Firefox (at least in this older version of the article, which is the one I assume you're referring to). Those stanzas use a definition list (indented via a leading colon ":" like we often use in talk pages) to achieve the indentation; I would guess it's either an issue of different browsers having differing default spacing for definition lists, or a stylesheet problem or maybe some of both. At any rate, you can change your own style preferences for this particular attribute by editing User:Bamos/monobook.css and adding the following code snippet:

dd { padding-bottom: 1em; }

That ought to create extra space. If it creates too much space, you could use 0.5em or some other variation. -- Wapcaplet 23:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MAKE UP YOUR MINDS

• My apollogies for using all caps, but this complaint is about THIS page. Originally, I had it set up so that new complainst went on top, but people were used to new posts on the VfD list, which had newest on bottom. So I changed it. But now people are putting new complaints at BOTH places! Could we resolve this?

No ADD COMMENT button

Wikipedia has lots of articles that are really discussions and should be in Meta: or on talk page or something. Silly people keep adding to these discussions haphazardly instead of putting them on VfD or moving them. Would anyone care to stop this?

And while we're at it, it would be nice if these discussion articles had a +tab or a ADD COMMENTS link or whatever like the talk pages do. --ssd 04:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)