Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022

The following is a Requests for Comment (RfC) discussion on whether Vector legacy should be restored as the default skin on the desktop English Wikipedia site. Please add your comments to the bottom of each section.

Jump to:

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Alternate proposal

General comments

Background

On January 18, 2023, at 15:17 UTC, the Wikimedia Foundation Web team deployed Vector 2022 as the new default skin for all users on the desktop English Wikipedia site, after implementing the changes specified by the editors who closed this RfC. This replaced Vector legacy, which has been the default since 2010. Since Vector 2022's deployment, there has been backlash from both users who expressed concerns with the new UI, with complaints at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 and mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. Many editors were also unaware of this change until the launch, and/or did not participate in the previous RfC. This raised questions as to whether there was consensus to deploy Vector 2022, though the Web Team did engage in a multi-year-long process to research, design, collect feedback, and iterate on the redesign.

Please note that registered users can change their skin by going to the Appearance tab in Special:Preferences. Anonymous users do not have the ability to change their skin. For a list of frequently asked questions, please see Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022/FAQ and mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions.

RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin?

Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? ~ HAL333 20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support rolling back to Vector 2010

1. Support as nom The WMF unilaterally forced the 2022 vector skin upon the community, despite a community wide discussion that found there was no consensus for such a change. The ONUS was on the WMF to convince the community and they failed. And the argument that we editors are but a small portion of Wikipedia users is dead on arrival: IP editors and readers are unable to use anything besides the 2022 skin. The WMF had decided that they have no choice, and no voice in this affair. The 2022 skin itself is inferior to its 2010 predecessor. It's indulgent, made by people with at most a modicum of editing experience, and poorly made, with excessive white space and spawning sandwiching and myriad other issues. Let's return to what worked. Let's return to what billions of readers of Wikipedia have been completely content with for over a decade. In brief, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ~ HAL333 20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   So Wikipedia should never change, for all time? 331dot (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I commend your straw man. ~ HAL333 20:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Can you answer the question? Because that is what you are saying. That no change should ever be implemented because it doesn't please everyone- which is impossible. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   That is not what he is saying. There is a significant difference between not pleasing everyone and displeasing a large part of your community. Your argument is empty. I logged in for the first time in ages just to revert this unnecessary change that no significant majority wanted. IronRook (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Nothing on Wikipedia is determined by a majority vote, but by a consensus along with a weighing of arguments. I can't think of any potential change that wouldn't displease many people- that's a recipe for changing nothing. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   An such consensus to apply vector 2022 as default did not exist in any way. The community does not clearly support this. Tvx1 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   The RfC to deploy had neither of those. No consensus, and as the closing editors noted, the weight of arguments went against the issue of fixed-width, ie. making editors and readers use limited width instead of allowing them to use full width if they prefer. If all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed[...], the editors wrote. The WMF has not done this. Instead they added a button readers would need to push on every single page, every single time the readers follow a link or come in from Google or navigate to our site. This is comically inadequate, and it's hard for me to understand why readers would actually do so, instead of being frustrated into giving up and unhappily accepting what they find an inferior viewing experience. As 24.251.3.86 said on mediawiki, it's "far too burdensome to be useful or practical, and as such, basically may as well not exist for all the good it does." --Kizor 01:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   readers would need to push on every single page, every single time the readers follow a link or come in from Google or navigate to our site This is false. The toggle stays, at least for me. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Not for me. Going from 2023 Antiguan general election to Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla to Felipe Pérez Roque to Communist Party of Cuba in an incognito window, I have to toggle full width each time. --Kizor 02:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   incognito is probably the issue, I assume this is implemented with cookies. I'm not sure whether or not this is a problem for the ethos goals though I'm more inclined towards "this is a problem". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC) The actual problem is that it doesn't save preferences for those who are logged-out. omg this is so simple why didn't i realize earlier Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   It does not persist for me, and I have cookies enabled. I use Brave btw. Regardless, it is unsurprising to be behaving differently on different systems, something the developers would have to investigate. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Jeremy Jeremus@Kizor I just realized the factor was whether or not you're signed in. This is obviously a massive problem that probably won't get fixed (save for defaulting to max width) by WMF because of the § Why are there no preferences for anonymous users? section in the faq. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Reader here (I do not log in, and can't, for various reasons), I'm not enjoying the new design. I had to click that "max width" button 10 times already today. I would prefer the absolute minimum amount of whitespace, I don't get what the point of the padding is, I want to use my whole monitor to read articles. 74.199.75.192 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   That is factually wrong or at least, ideally. Transcleanupgal (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   Both links are to essays, which may be considered as advice, but by no means are they policies or guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   So you see the world so black and white. If people don't agree with you, then label them as change adverse. That is sad.

   I'm not saying that they should never change, but I fail to see how this is a step in the positive direction.

   The whole point of wikipedia is to easily convey information to anyone that enters the site. I fail to see how putting such a large white space around the data while making the date about 5/8 its original size on a PC is a positive direction. Now everytime I go to wikipedia, which is very often, I have an extra step. Now I need to zoom in on the page so that I can read it easily. Unfortunatly this has some undesireable side effects.

   If the whole point is to make it work better on phones, don't penalize PC users. Make your software smarter so that it detects which platform it is on and renders the page appropriatly. 134.243.253.241 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

   @HAL333, despite a community wide discussion that found there was no consensus for such a change. The ONUS was on the WMF to convince the community and they failed. - from the closure of the community wide RfC: we see community support to roll out the change (though it should be noted that is preceded by [i]f all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed then).— Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Qwerfjkl: That's a pretty important if there, isn't it? Makes it a conditional consensus, with the condition being (paraphrased) "concerns in relation to the width, non-intuitive icons and the language selector need to be resolved in a satisfactory manner prior to roll-out".

   Considering that the width, the non-intuitive icons/buttons and, to a lesser degree, the language selector behaviour are the three major returning themes of the many, many complaints across the various relevant noticeboards and talk pages, they clearly have not, in fact, been resolved in a satisfactory manner.

   Ergo the condition has not been fulfilled and therefore there is no community consensus for this specific roll-out of Vector 2022. AddWittyNameHere 21:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @AddWittyNameHere, the main issues noted in the closure were the width and the ToC. There were improvements to these (improvements that I don't have the time to find).
   This is hardly, in any case, a damning closure against V22, nor the WMF forcing it on editors. It may not be perfect, but it's hardly worth another huge RfC that is hardly going to be constructive. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Qwerfjkl: You are right, I forgot to add the ToC as another major concern (which happens to also be another recurrent subject of complaints. Such a coincidence). Both the non-intuitive buttons and the language selector behaviour were also explicitly mentioned in the close though. And sure, I don't doubt there have been improvements. That does not make the issues satisfactorily resolved, at this point in time.

   I fully agree it's not a damning closure against V22 or eventual roll-out. It's a "most of the base concept works, but this, this and this needs to be fixed before it's ready to go live as default setting".

   Some complaints, especially from the daily en.wiki editors? Yeah, that's a given with any large change, and doesn't prove much of anything. But when large amounts of IPs and new accounts (read: Wikipedia's readers, rather than editors) go out of their way to find some page where they can register their dissatisfaction, and this dissatisfaction almost always is about the very issues that were highlighted as "fix these first, deploy after", that's a pretty clear clue that things were not, in spite of however many improvements may have been made, fixed in a satisfactory manner.

   Whether an RfC is, or is not, a good idea at this point is a second matter. I can see both good reasons for and against it, and which side wins out largely depends on whether or not the WMF can be expected to actually satisfactorily fix these issues now that the skin has been deployed; and on whether or not there is any chance of such fixes happening anytime soon. (Personally, I suspect "yes and soon" for issues that lean towards the 'it's a bug' side of things, but am not quite so sure when it comes to the rest of the issues, especially because communication from WMF employees so far does not seem to actually acknowledge that certain things are issues in the first place.) AddWittyNameHere 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @AddWittyNameHere, I'm not entirely sure V22 was perfect when rolled out (in fact: it wasn't), but now that it's here, I guess we're stuck with it. Let's just hope that the bugs are resolved and we have a fully-functioning skin (not that V22 isn't functional, and I've never encountered any bugs, but others have).
   Ironically, the main complaint I have is that V22 is too wide. I've somehow enabled something that widens V22, but I prefer it narrow, and I catch glimpses of it when pages initially load. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Also, regarding the large number of complaints, that is probably inevitable, no matter what we do. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Qwerfjkl, I think I can concur with a good portion of that at least from a practical perspective, and the parts I don't quite agree with probably aren't worth further arguing about here, so let's just agree to partially disagree?

   Re:your width issue, check your preferences, tab "Appearance". Is the box before "Enable limited width mode" checked? If not, check that to re-enable limited width. AddWittyNameHere 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @AddWittyNameHere, I agree. And no luck, I have limited width mode enabled. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I think it's the expand button. It doesn't seem to be around any more. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   WP:FAIT - just because it's been done does not inherently mean it cannot (or should not) be undone. WalnutBun (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   That closure does not accurately reflect community consensus. More people opposed than supported the proposal. There was no clear support at all, but rather strong division. A closure review is warrented here. Tvx1 01:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Strongly Support The pet projects of some insider clique shouldn't override general consensus. If Vector2020 is so great, make it an option people can enable, and let us retain the older version that actually used the screen space of a desktop monitor. Forcing readers to make an extra click to access the menu? Just why? LeperColony (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   It's hideous, it makes me register just to revert it. It doesn't read well and it lacks the navigation features. It's also bad enough to stop me donating to the foundation.

   2A02:A450:F52:1:E9B8:23B6:ADAA:FDD2 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2. At least temporarily go back Get feedback from outside of the ivory tower. Fix any clearly identified shortcomings. Then maybe try again. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   North8000 Community input was solicited and not just from an ivory tower, and there was an RFC that led to the deployment. Disagree with its conclusions if you wish, but it was done. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I was referring to on the specifics. E.G. whether or not to bury and hide very heavily used choices, separating out the question of having all of that blank space etc. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @331dot It's not like I care since my skin is set to Vector 2010 still, but RfCs that close with 154 supports and 165 opposes should not be considered a success. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   LilianaUwU Nothing on Wikipedia is done by a majority vote, but by consensus and a weighing of arguments. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   And weighing the arguments you still do not get a consensus in favor in any way. Tvx1 01:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and to disagree with how the arguments were weighed. But they were. 331dot (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   The arguments were weighed by "we're going to do this anyway regardless of the consensus." So I guess at least in that regard, you're correct. The arguments were weighed, they were just irrelevant. LeperColony (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   How about RfAs, there the majority counts. The vote counters failed in the close of the RfC on the launch of Vector 2022 (even though leaving enough room for an optional RfC before the launch) and the width issue isn't clearly visible either as there are numerous editors questioning about it. I haven't found it either, not that I care though. I actually like the Vector 2022 more and more but I can also use it if it is optionally enabled. Anyway, there is now a new RfC and we'll see the outcome. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   In AfDs majority also often counts. If there is no clear consensus, there is no consensus. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   It was done and then disregarded. The consensus was opposed to the changes. Nice try. LeperColony (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Support with an asterisk - a solution that I believe would be of the most benefit would be a button on the sidebar to toggle Vector 2022 and Vector 2010, with the starting position being Vector 2022. I've found that Vector 2022 makes WP annoying to navigate on desktop in non-editing capacities, but I recognize that people do enjoy it. However, the freedom of choice for non-users is absolutely nonexistent, and should be rectified. Very weak support. I dislike the change, but with the point made by Terasail and the fact IPs are unable to choose skins, I can only give a weak support. This is a no-win situation, seemingly. Lucksash (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Non users have the same choices users have. According to the information about the skin, there are privacy issues that prevent allowing IPs to choose a skin. Not everything in life can be a choice. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   My mistake - should have done some reading on the nitty gritty coding. Lucksash (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   What do you mean by privacy issues? I was on the Discord call today and was given to understand that the issue was related to caching - i.e., the site served to logged-out users has to be the same for everyone so that it can be cached. There's no mention of privacy on either the main Wikipedia page or the WikiMedia page.

   (I note that it should be possible to have a persistent setting for at least the amount of whitespace (which seems like the main objection) implemented purely client-side, without significant effects on performance or privacy.) Bakkot (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   there are privacy issues that prevent allowing IPs to choose a skin
   But surely this is fixed by allowing IPs to default to Vector 2010 by choice? By cookie? In essence, opting in to be de-anonymized only insofar as which skin you use. The only argument against this that I've heard is that it uses more server juice. And I find that argument extremely weak. How much server juice will be used by more clicks, more accounts, and more protests from anons who hate this and accounts who default to the old skin? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Shibbolethink, it's explained further below, but this require caching each page in both V22 and V10, which would be very expensive. It can't be stored as a cookie or similar to avoid a flash of unstyled content. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Now that I think about it, what's preventing the site from reading cookies first before serving pages?(Note that I"m only talking about max width mode here) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   To save even more cash, we could stop employing telephone sanitizers web designers.  Card Zero  (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Strong support – The new style is aesthetically bad and has far too much white space (in what appears to be an attempt to mobile-ify the desktop view); there was no proper consensus for rolling it out; and the old version was not broken and did not need replacing. CuriousCabbage (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   So nothing should be changed on Wikipedia ever, for all time? 331dot (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I say this with as much respect as I can - but do you realize how ridiculous that response is? I'll let you look through Template:Fallacies to see where your comment falls. To help: Just because I may not like a particular new commercial for some product, doesn't mean they should stop making commercials or new products. But hey, to continue to follow your line of thought, maybe we should never have webpages; or computers; or electricity; or technology. All because some edit to some website that you like and someone else didn't was merely suggested to be reversed. - jc37 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I find it interesting that people won't answer the question but are criticizing me for asking it. It's not a fallacy because that's what you are implying with "if it aint broke". Something doesn’t have to be broken for it to be changed. I have seen far more comments that Wikipedia looks like it was designed in the 1990s than comments it should stay the same. I am undecided on the skin, but I'm trying it out. There is no change that will please everyone. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Not what I was implying at all. But to respond to someone else saying that they didn't think the style needed wholesale replacement with "So nothing should be changed on Wikipedia ever, for all time?" is very much ridiculous to the extreme. I don't believe anyone is saying that. This change is really a package of changes, and in this case, the package would appear to have issues. If I'm served a gourmet meal, but the bread has mold on it, it doesn't mean that I never want another gourmet meal. - jc37 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   If you are saying changes should be made piecemeal, fair enough- but there is still the issue that no change will please everyone, and doing it piecemeal just draws out the process without making it better. Better to rip it off like a bandaid. The frustration I have here is those saying this was done without community input by dictators in an ivory tower- which is demonstratably false. Disagree with it all one wants, propose all the changes you want, propose ideas for better commuication, that's all great. But seeing the people who worked on this be attacked and insulted and cursed or told "they don't know as much as me with 30 years of experience" for doing their task is sad to see. I just want to see people be civil and have understanding. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Changes shouldn’t be made just for the sake of it either. Your reasoning is utterly fallacious.Tvx1 01:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   They haven't changed it for the sake of changing it. There are reasons, if you'd care to read about them. Feel free to disagree, but this was not done without a reason. 331dot (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Every improvement implies a change. But not every change implies an improvement. Have in mind. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I've been following 331dot's comments, and they're so consistently fallacious that I can only assume that they're an actively malicious vandal. "There was an RfC" Yes, that nobody saw. If you're going to make a sitewide change, post a link to it on EVERY page for a month. 2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD, please assume good faith. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   That's not what I said. But there is nothing wrong or incompatible or broken or outdated or aesthetically displeasing about the previous skin, and all this new skin changes is (i) to add more white space which makes pages harder to read; and (ii) to make the tools menu collapsible and thus more inaccessible and difficult to use. It may well be that in five, ten years time a restyle is needed to keep the pages looking fresh, or to incorporate some new technology or technical capability which becomes available. But Wikipedia at the moment still looks clean and is still easily usable. This specific re-skin only worsens things which were not broken. CuriousCabbage (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   any chance you can stop repeating the same nonsense non-arguments? 82.9.90.69 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Correct. Nothing should be changed on Wikipedia ever. Safari on macOS (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   This is exactly my experience. It's so much wasted space on desktop, which is primarily how I use Wikipedia, and it is much more difficult to read. It seems to definitely privilege mobile devices at the expense of desktop devices. The new look does have an ancillary effect, which is I signed up for a Wikipedia account because that's the only way I could find to return to a more pleasing, easier-to-read version of Wikipedia. I will definitely spend less time on Wikipedia because it's just more difficult to read now. Shoutandecho (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

5. - Support I think this change was poorly made. I'm not against change, just not this one, it should still be worked on and a lot of things corrected. I'm French, I'm suffering this bad design for 2 (?) years now. Of all the thing I resent the WMF for is the total ignorance of negative comments, and a focus on the opinion of a carefully selected few editors. Up until V2022 landed in the French Wikipedia, I was a simple reader like any others, and I think the focus on editors is disheartening, us reader should have a voice in that too, in my point of view this has been decided behind closed doors. DerpFox (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   There is no content to read without editors. The process was an open process with years of comment and studies. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Yes? and? Does it make the editors more important than the readers? No, it doesn't. And now if you could please stop trying to silence any dissenting voice from official WMF official version of things, it would be nice, thank you. DerpFox (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I am not silencing anyone and I take offense at the suggestion. I am responding to comments in a civil manner as part of a discussion. I won't be silenced either. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   @DerpFox, did you notice that one can now get from the bottom of this discussion to the top of the discussion within a one click at the left sideboard by hitting the button (top)? That the sections of an article are now displayed in the sideboard to the left or in the bullets beside the article title without separating the lead from the body? For me those things weigh in much more. There are other features as well that seem good to excellent. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

6. Support for now. Major technical issues like mousewheel support and permanent IP settings should have been addressed prior to rollout, the "mystery meat" icons are untenable, and the language buttons are a tremendous step backwards. These issues need to be fixed behind the scenes, not live post-rollout, and this was clearly communicated to WMF in the previous RFC. VQuakr (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Support until the issues are worked out, especially the squished content. This was very predictable and very preventable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Strong support. To say that the new skin is horrible is a very polite understatement, you know. Why on Earth they've even started designing this? — Mike Novikoff 00:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   If you haven't already, please see WP:VECTOR2022 for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   It's not really interesting. The question was just rhetoric. I'm sure there's a lot of links and even shortcuts to justify the horror, but it's still one. A horror. That I've turned off ASAP. Thanks that we have a link to do so, at least. — Mike Novikoff 04:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   You know, I've just been robbed of Twinkle (for I can't support ES6), so I'm already laying back and thinking of England. Now you want me to try a DP? BTW, it seems to be too much of 331dot around, please stop bludgeoning. — Mike Novikoff 05:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

9. Support so long as it remains impossible for logged out users to revert persistently, which if I gather correctly seems to be the case for technical reasons. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   In the interest of consensus, I will pose my argument more clearly. I hope this cuts through the naysaying and unconvincing opinion-flinging and gets us closer to an end to this discussion: 1) The opinion of all readers is important, not just active people with accounts, and certainly not just the devs or their donors. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia can read logged in, and active people can change their settings anyway. This doesn't necessarily mean a global poll is the best way to find out what's best, but I wouldn't be opposed to one, so long as the interpretation of the results and methodology is pre-agreed. 2) Consensus was not reached and the people who called it made a big mistake thinking there wouldn't be greater backlash. Because of this, there is no legitimate reason to say Vector 2022 being default is justified as fait accompli. The only reason it would remain this way with no attempt to reach consensus properly is because powerful people can get away with it. 3) As far as I can tell this would not be a very technically difficult thing to reverse, and the devs apparently testing on users with no way to opt out other than just not use the website is very annoying. I see no reason why this could not be done at least until consensus is reached for real, except that the people with the keys are irrationally attached to Vector 2022 or they have business interests keeping them from doing so, neither of which are in the service of this website's purpose. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

10. Strong support – Vector 2022 is an eyesore and much more difficult to navigate than Vector legacy. The skin also breaks many pages whose layout was not optimized for Vector 2022. The Web team failed to clearly communicate the change to all active users ahead of time, resulting in the flood of complaints at WT:VECTOR2022 in the past two days. The fact that many editors were unaware of this change until the launch, and/or did not participate in the previous RfC, raises questions as to whether there was consensus to deploy Vector 2022 as the Web team suggests. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
11. Strong support Shinanoki (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
12. Strong support: I am not as active an editor as I was for a while, but I'm still known as 'the guy who edits Wikipedia' in a lot of places I hang out. The past day has been seeing just a massive tidal wave of opposition from a broad spectrum of readers acrosss...everyone I know, frankly. Absolute eruptions into "this is awful" well beyond what you get from most website layout changes. Readers who prefer desktop dislike the aesthetic of the mobile site (there's a reason you get those bots designed to remove m. from mobile links, given it's apparently beyond our capacities to do it on purpose), and they loathe a new skin that intends to copy the aesthetic of the mobile site. Opt-out stats poorly measure reader opinions on skins, because readers don't have accounts and can't be reasonably expected to make them for every context they read Wikipedia. I have not anywhere across thousands of readers from various walks of life heard a single positive word about the new skin, not even as pushback. I also retain all the many complaints I've personally had about this skin for the past two years; the language icons are terrible, the lack of genuine options in the sidebar are terrible, the image formatting is shot, the amount of whitespace is distracting, the community does not actually support the change, etc. (Every not-community-based one of these I've seen repeated vocally and angrily over the past day.)
    If Wikipedia was a more typical website, it would be fairly trivial to solve the skin issue; we could simply add a dropdown menu for all readers to select their preferred skin. The problem is that Wikipedia cannot under its current ideological/philosophical framework do this, as the compromise would require cookie tracking to allow it to persist between sessions. This results in people who complain to info@ getting told to 'just make an account', which is not a scalable solution (and ignores the fact readers tend to be reading Wikipedia on things other than their home computers, where they still want to see their preferred layout). My ha-ha-only-serious solution is "automatically generate an account for each IP address". If this seems untenable to you, fair enough -- these changes being controversial and hard to individually reverse is precisely why it's bad to force them on literally billions of people! Vaticidalprophet 01:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    You have surveyed thousands of readers? I'd be interested in seeing the results of that. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's not how it should work. That should happen before not demanded after pushing it out... - jc37 01:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The Foundation did do surveys and testing. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    See mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey Aaron Liu (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    It is interesting to see how polarized the Overall Satisfaction responses were, yet the Introduction section was written back in September anticipating Vector 2022 becoming default inevitably and irreversibly. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Their survey only polled 152 people, and of those only 24% told them "the new skin is easier to use than the old one". Not only is that nowhere near a representative sample, but they went ahead with this with just a 24% positive response? WalnutBun (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    What makes you think this discussion will be more representative? It's usually people that are dissatisfied with something that speak the loudest about it, more than people who don't have an issue. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    You keep saying things like this, but when the complaint is "The process used to generate this action was bad," a response of "The next process may also be bad" is quite unconvincing. The right way to do this is with broad surveys of all types of users, not 152 people (apparently mostly editors?). 72.49.221.183 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I would argue that this RfC should be announced on the Main Page, and on Wikipedia:News, to solicit opinions from as wide an array of users as possible. As it concerns a radical redesign of the entire site, I am of the belief that the original RfC should have been advertised the same way. Everyone should have had the opportunity to weigh in - and I would argue that relying on people to seek it out on a page they may not know even exists is not conducive to generating a true community consensus, especially on matters that truly affect every user of the site. WalnutBun (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I wouldn't even say the Main Page would be helpful; I visit Wikipedia pretty much every day and never look at the Main Page. Put it on one of those banner notices - I regularly see complaints about requests for donations, so people must be paying attention to those HerrWaus (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    This percentage is very large compared to the amount of people who voted that the original skin was easier. The plurality here voted neutral which is why this percentage is so small Aaron Liu (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    In cases such as this, when considering a radical redesign of an entire website used by hundreds of thousands each day, a neutral response to a survey should be taken as preference for the current design - not as a go-ahead to change things. At minimum, a plurality should have been required. WalnutBun (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    One thing that immediately sticks out to me here is that responses with "foul language" were removed. Strong negative responses often use foul language; I am curious how many of the dropped comments were actually irrelevant and how many were "this design is fucking terrible".

    OVasileva (WMF), is the raw data from this available? ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Good catch, I missed that. Something else to point out is that they clumped the neutral and positive responses together. There's no valid reason for doing that other than manipulation of the reader's perception - it makes it seem as if more people agreed with the change than truly did. A truly neutral article would have more clearly separated the three categories of responses.

    Furthermore, rereading the article shows that they also removed "responses which did not answer all of the questions within the survey". How much feedback was discarded simply for not having filled out the entire form? WalnutBun (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    As a reader who has been using this site for over a decade, what survey? I have never once seen any mention of a survey. It's all well and good claiming that there was a public survey but it may as well have been inside a filing cabinet behind a locked door with a sign reading "beware of leopard". As mentioned above, the survey polled 152 people which by wikipedia's own page is 0.00014% of registered users and who knows how many unregistered ones. I had to create an account just to revert this pointless change. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @DutriusTwo, nice Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I don't understand what you're saying over here. Before what? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

13. Strong support there was not actually consensus for rolling this out in the first place and the new skin is clearly worse than the old one. Since developers are unwilling to allow logged-out users to choose between the two skins, we should go back to the skin that people prefer and are used to. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's not a matter of willingness, there are privacy issues with doing so; that information would have to be stored somewhere. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    There is absolutely no privacy issue with using a client-side cookie for a setting like that. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022#Do not force the creation of a user account which is where I read that claim. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    If you check the thread you link to, you will find that the WMF representative admits that they don't have the technical background to know whether this is the case and are simply repeating information they've read elsewhere. They even admitted that before you posted this. To be clear, there doesn't need to be a trade-off between user privacy and having this feature. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    See Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002#Cookies. Currently Wikipedia is maybe the only major website left that doesn't have to display a giant "do you consent to cookies?" pop-up to visitors from the EU. This would change that. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Your claim is untrue. There is no requirement to show banners for theme-setting cookies. Most of the banners you see are on sites unwilling to stop tracking their users. Moreover, there are 6 cookies currently served to logged-out visitors, including one that appears to contain a geolocation and a bunch of others with timestamps. Clearly a cookie for tracking a skin or dark theme preference is no more privacy eroding that those already in use. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    No, it has nothing to do with privacy. See mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions §§ Why is the opt-out link not available for logged-out users?​ and Why are there no preferences for anonymous users?. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I concur, this new skin primarily affects logged-out frequent readers and the least disruptive option should be default for those not logged in. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

14. Support at least temporarily, based primarily on the "public's" reaction. I do personally prefer 2010 but personal preference isn't the point. The existence of a well advertised RFC in the past does not preclude responding to negative feedback now. With that said, I hope to see the WMF/whoever to respond quickly with either changes to the skin based on feedback or a reversion while they tweak it. SpinningCeres 01:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
15. Support. My biggest issue with this rollout is how it wasn't publicized at all - or, at the very least, not well. I use Wikipedia almost daily (both while logged-in and logged-out) and I can honestly say that I saw no sign of this change even being considered before it suddenly rolled out, and I'm not alone: Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022 is full of people (and at least one wiki administrator) that were also blindsided by this change. WalnutBun (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
16. Support in the strongest possible way. This action is one of the worst I have seen by the WMF. A RFC was held to gauge support and was ignored completetely. The changed was forced through unilaterally and if the WMF has any remote respect for their community they roll that back asap.Tvx1 01:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The RfC WASN'T ignored completely, in fact the problem was the community closers misguidedly decided that if the changes proposed by the opposing side were made then the rollout can be done without any new rfc. The foundation simply acted on this misguided closing that they trusted because it wasn't from the foundation. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Then a closure review is warranted.Tvx1 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm newer to Wikipedia than you, is there some specialized closure review? Otherwise doesn't this rfc suffice as a closure review? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    RfC closure reviews are usually conducted at WP:AN, but this RfC will do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    There's nothing wrong with WMF in this case, the RFC was closed too fast, which make this misunderstanding. Lemonaka (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sure the WMF are in the wrong. The closure clearly stated a follow-up RFC was warranted, WMF just ignored that and unilaterally forced the change. Tvx1 02:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    That was exactly what the closure said against, to quote and in our view no further RfC would be required Aaron Liu (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    BTW, even there is a consensus to change back, I believe WMF will not take that. If they really said

    in our view no further RfC would be required

    , then everything is useless.@Aaron Liu Lemonaka (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Lemonaka Again that was not from WMF, that was from two esteemed editors unrelated to WMF that closed the thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

17. rollback to old version I know that nothing wrong from WMF, but previous RFC is clearly no consensus.
    BTW, I believe if this case is getting hotter and hotter, Arbcom should be noticed. Lemonaka (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
18. Support. As a casual user who's used wikipedia for over a decade myself, I've found the new UI to be aggressively frustrating. I feel like I've been forced to create an account for a website I never had to before to use regularly just to be able to revert the changes. If somehow this rollout could be performed without necessitating account creation to roll-back then It could've gone over a lot smoother with the entire community. As it stands, with no ability to revert without logging in, I find these changes as hostile towards casual users, which appears to be contrary to the entire point of the rollout of changes in the first place...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:ffa0:7002:7aac:8a4b:b978 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
19. Support until there's an easy way to revert to the old interface without having to create an account. For example, Reddit still maintains old.reddit.com (the old interface which is imo better) alongside the (re-designed) reddit.com -FASTILY 02:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The easiest way is to use a redirector extension such as fastforward and redirect every /wiki link to https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Page_title_with_underscores&useskin=vector and redirect every /w link to a link with the &useskin=vector suffix. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    How disconnected and out of touch do you have to be to think that that's the "easiest" way? You're just another one (Personal attack removed) up in his ivory tower who thinks he knows best and that all the people who dislike the change are just backwards idiots who "don't like change." 198.21.192.40 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

20. Strongest possible support - mystery meat navigation, breaking things that don't need to be broken, taking control of text width away from the user, pointless whitespace, reduced information density motivated by dubious statistics in a typical runaway example of Goodhart's Law in which measures gradually gain perceived importance until the design is being made in service of the metrics instead of the metrics in service of the design... this redesign has no good features and many bad features. As an autodidact, independent research and amateur historian who views dozens of pages on here per day, and thus something of a power user despite the fact I don't edit the encyclopedia, if I didn't have the technical savvy to create an account to avoid this awful redesign I would have already started looking elsewhere for information as much as possible. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
21. Support until non-logged-in editors can opt out. Any website that I have to create an account just to read is dead to me. Accounts are for interaction. I don't want to remember another fricking password. Now I happen to have an account here. I happen to interact here. This isn't about me, or most people who can find this page. It's about the person who just wants to read about French history or the Higgs boson, and just got this foisted on them, and is going give up on us forever as just another crappy unusable website. Give. Readers. A. Choice. This isn't impossible. If it's non-trivial then revert the change temporarily. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Most people will be viewing on a phone and so won't see the new skin anyway. If readers cared so strongly about the skin as you suggest, they'd make an account to change it. Garuda3 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Most people don't get much further than Google when it comes to reading wikipedia. its all about perspective. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

22. Support Core issues I have with the change are the massive whitespace which serves no purpose and is an overly harsh color for high contrast monitors, the lack of persistence of core settings unlike other wikis with the limited width feature, the poor visibility of the expand button due to it's thin design and it's placement within the otherwise unutilized whitespace where it blends in, and the expanded view having less body visible than the 2010 version. Since there are warnings on the top, I had to find the original discussion on vector 22 on reddit of all places from there I found the solution was to make an account(had one, never really used), or to use third party scripts.Deadoon (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
23. Support Viewing Wikipedia while logged out is painful because while an article used to take up 80% of my screen now it takes up about 50% or so. What a waste of screen real estate. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
24. Conditional Support I am unable to find any of the cited papers that support the claims about whitespace being good in the FAQ for the redesign (Lin 2004 or the Wichita State lab study whose DOI number goes no where). I made an account after almost 18 years of daily use because I was displeased with the whitespace. I would be moved to change my opinion if someone could actually show the empirical studies that support having whitespace for the sake of reading comprehension without sacrificing reading speed. I can get that this is a design principle that many sites have occupied, but I do not see why Wikipedia must join in on such a trend. What is sleek today is aged tomorrow. Vector 2010 seems to me to be a timeless design. Guidethebored (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I believe when I saw the WMF folks cite the sources they were saying the sources said that it slowed down reading speed in exchange for reading comprehension. I recall the WMF folks said they saw this as an acceptable tradeoff. Cost-free tradeoffs are very rare. I strongly disagree with them on this one. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Below, someone linked me to the two articles: Wichita State and a different article about line length.

    I feel inclined now to change my Condition to Fully Support. The Wichita State study does not apply to Wikipedia; it compares no margins or margins. Wikipedia already had a margin which of course assisted in readability. The other article suggests no correlation between line length and adult reading comprehension. Its Full, Medium, and Narrow paragraphs were variably rated by the metrics of perceived ease of scrolling, concentration, and presentation, with no clear winner at all there. I personally would need to see more to be convinced. Guidethebored (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I found Lin 2004 here. I'm not sure if it's accessible to everyone, but the tested text was in Chinese (Taiwan) and done on 24 participants aged 62-80 recruited from those taking an introductory computer class from a social welfare institute. Eniteris (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

25. Strong support. A total step backwards in terms of readability. A majority in the last RfC were opposed to it and only 24 percent of those polled thought the new skin was easier to use. Tkbrett (✉) 04:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
26. Support – I just can't get around the fact that the October/November RfC ended with 154 support and 165 oppose and they went forward anyway. I realize 'not a vote', but I read those comments and I don't see how the closers came to those conclusions. And when I read that closure Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022)#Discussion I thought it at least meant some things would be fixed before roll out. Well, none of the issues I mentioned in that RfC were fixed. DB1729^talk 05:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
27. Support on desktop, the whole thing now looks like a cheap mobile site. Very difficult to navigate and unrewarding UX. Juno (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
28. Strong support. Frequently used tools (even by the casual, no account user) are now hidden in dropdowns and menus. This not only wastes time by requiring that the user open the menu and then scroll to his selection, but makes it less likely that such features will be discovered at all. It would be one thing if the saved space were used efficiently, but instead we get trendy white space. At the very least, input should be sought from casual and non account users with page banners seeking feedback. Kilometers to Verona (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
29. Support Employing this mobile version for everyone is just a scam for desktop readers to create accounts. Алхимик Темногорск (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
30. Strong support. Thank you for opening this RFC, which has saved me the trouble either of finding a query I posed a couple of years ago after this change was imposed on some non-English WPs or of raising a new one. I have immediately reverted to Vector2010. I detest Vector2022 for two main reasons. (1) It makes switching between languages difficult and tedious. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. I want the list displayed alphabetically on the page, not in some sort of thematic drop-down menu; so that I can immediately see whether or not there is an equivalent. This isn't an issue of simply switching between favoured languages, but of multilingual searching, which I do more than most or possibly anyone; see my UserPage. (2) I want a properly usable ToC on long pages such as WP:ANI, not a difficult-to-navigate floating list.
    I only noticed the change because I bought a new PC three days ago, and my preference was not carried over onto it. Thank you again; you have saved me a lot of frustration.
    I am by no means against change, but am strongly in favour of easy-to-find options; and this isn't one. Narky Blert (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
31. Strong support The primary audience of Wikipedia is unregistered or logged-out users, who are the ones unable to change the appearance of the website. I logged in today for the sole purpose of reverting this visual change, and there is likely a spike in logged-in users since this change was implemented. Reddit has their "old.reddit.com" domain that allows logged-out users to use the older appearance, and I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot use a similar method aside from complete dissociation of the website from its community. The ability for the majority of users of Wikipedia to be able to revert the appearance should have been a bare minimum for the implementation of Vector 2022 as the default. This should not be the default appearance until Wikipedia can give unregistered site viewers a simple method of reverting the visual changes that does not constitute logging in or creating an account. GalacticRuler456 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
32. Strong support There was never a consensus for Vector 2022 anyway. Vector 2022 looks god awful for readers and has worse usability for editors (frequently used links now hidden in dropdown menus). And WMF will tell us that sudden spike in new registrations (because really a lot of people hate the redesign and there is no different option to change it back) would be a success of the new skin, lol. --Icodense (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
33. Support At lease please put the expanded, inline, contents section back. For example: https://imgur.com/a/TULEHvp. --LDF092 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
34. Support I'm a random user who was sufficiently annoyed at a previous poorly implemented feature change to make an account to complain, and here I am again to yet another ill considered design choice. The design is a mistake. Clearly it is the mobile version of the site erroneously being shown to web users. Why else have tiny text in a narrow strip and vast areas of empty space on either side? Either create a proper web version of the site or revert it back. Ikaruseijin (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
35. Support unless Question 2 is adopted Taking on one of the primary concerns of the original RFC as an opt in toggle is ridiculous. 'You can turn the horrific amounts of whitespace off!' should never be the response to feedback. They should be gone by default. Make a toggle that says "Research supported way to read!!!!" that reintroduces them. Parabolist (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
36. Strongly support: I spent a couple of hours trying without success to revert to something I could navigate easily (e.g. Watchlist on the page rather through an opaque drop-down menu). But you have to understand more than I did to do so, e.g. knowing what CSS, Monobook and original Vector meant. Some of the new features are in fact welcome (for example, putting contents in the sidebar rather than below the lead), but overall, the new design is vexing, frustrating and hard to navigate. If technically possible (in an easier and less-confusing way) let editors choose what's useful or preferable for them. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Shakescene While it isn't clear at first glance, the watchlist is already at the top, it's represented by a button with three lines and a star to the left or the user dropdown. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is one of my gripes about the new version: why use icons when words will work much better. Why add some of the clear links at the top of the page into a dropdown box (I use the Sandbox a lot and I now have to go through two clicks when one used to do. If I want to go to my watchlist, I have to look at the unclear icons and try and decipher them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Similarly, I often use "Contributions" to continue working on articles I recently edited, and Vector 2022 places that two clicks away instead of the 2010's skin one click. ~ HAL333 22:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Same for me. Æo (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's incredibly isn't it. In the chase for mobile clicks they've forgot that humans on this site use English words, not emoticons. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

37. Strong Support I'm a user who uses Wikipedia several times a day for professional, personal, and casual purposes. I usually stay logged out, as I have no reason to log in unless I would want to participate on a talk page or edit a protected page, which is a rare occasion. I have two major things to say about this. FIRSTLY: the first time I heard about this new skin was today, when it happened, but apparently discussion has been going on about this for months? This discussion obviously excluded the vast swaths (likely the vast majority?) of users like me - people who use Wikipedia constantly but don't ever log in and keep up with the community. This, to me, is evidence that whatever conversations were had were failures - how can daily users to this site have been unaware that this was in the works for months if the conversations had were adequate? SECONDLY: Why is this layout leaning so hard into a mobile-oriented layout? Doesn't the mobile site already exist for people who wanted this layout? My first reaction to this update was to assume I had wandered on the mobile site by accident. If an article has a lot of pictures (like most articles about topics that are even sort of noteworthy), you can barely read a full sentence that isn't split in half by a line break. The last few minor things I have to say: 1) At least the custom-preference option gives me a reason to stay logged in now. 2) I will not, in the future, be donating to the WMF whenever they ask if decisions like this are going to be made with no meaningful (once again, I'm on this site every day and had no clue about this) notice or feedback beforehand. 3) Even Monospace is a better skin than this new one. To conclude, please just revert the default skin back to Vector 2010. People who actually wanted this new one can change their own preferences to reflect it. Teddybearearth (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
38. Support Regardless of the merits of the skin itself, this was forced through with an extremely shaky interpretation of consensus, and should be reverted until there is actual consensus. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
39. Support for all the support reasons given above, because opposes and badgering like "the devs know better" are not convincing (certainly considering the track record of the WMF devs), and because the new design is a poorer, unintuitive experience, with issues like rarely used options prominently displayed (in text mode even, not as an icon) hile much more common tools are hidden behind obscure icons; all the issues with the "language" dropdown (too many to enumerate here); and the basi, extremely poor design choice to have an extra band of menu items between the article title and the body of the article, creating a "top menu - underlined title - underlined second menu - text" order which makes absolutely no sense. Fram (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Personally I think moving the second menu below the article title makes sense. It's the article container. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's mixing contents and menus in an unnecessary and distracting way (I have just switched back to Vector22 to check my reply, and it is even worse than I remembered, with a menu on top, one on the same line ("languages"), and one below the title! I also again checked the "languages" dropdown, and oh boy, what a total mess (test on Prix-lès-Mézières). "Worldwide", I get Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Then a subsection "America", where I get the same languages, plus things like "Veneto" (in America?). Then a subsection "Europe", which suddenly goes in two colums, with a gap in the left side column for no discernible reason. In the section "Africa", French is missing. And so on... testing on Barack Obama: the "Worldwide" subheader means that instead of a neutral, alphabetical order, you now get an order decided on by some developer (I know, they know better, we should shut up) which means that very small constructed languages come near the top (in the "Worldwide" section), while major languages like Japanese are near the bottom. On articlees with few languages, like Miguel Escalona (Chilean footballer), you get a shortened search in the languages, with the text "search for a". Yep, clearly tested, works as expected. Fram (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I still don't see how it's distracting, it's alright for me. I don't get the shortened "search for a" bug and I like to idea of it but WTF is this sorting? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Good for you if 4 instead of 2 places to find menu items isn't distracting, nor the "underline the title, then underline the menu below it as well", nor the "hey, we have text menu items, and icon menu items, but we didn't have a text + icon yet, let's use that for "languages"!" anomaly. The infallible developers seem to have mistaken the old "tab" design of the "article / talk / ..." menu line for aun underlined one, and when putting it below the title, have somewhat recreated that look which no longer has any meaning here, and only distracts (the old menu had "article" and "read" in white as active "tabs", and things like "talk" and "edit" in gray as inactive tabs: the new vector tries to achieves this by bolder underlining vs. less bold underlining, which just looks amateuristic. The more I use it, the more I see small issues indicating that this product isn't finished at all; e.g. in the old design, if I open Twinkle (the "TW" drop down) and then "More" (the "Move" dropdown), these stand next to each other: in the new layout, the Twinkle one partially obscures the Move one. Another issue: in preview, you get no TOC??? That's seriously annoying. Fram (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

40. Support The way the change was approved in the first place looks dubious to me. This was a big enough change to justify posting to everyone's talk page asking for an opinion. But it was hidden away on some noticeboard, frequented by some, but not enough to justify the change. Even then, there were many in opposition, with a suspicious concensus. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is a community project and the community was not sufficiently consulted on the change- simply because most people weren't aware. JohnmgKing (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
41. Strong Support. I did not create this account to change Wikipedia's skin back to the good one from this horrid pseudo-mobile "New Reddit" one - if you'd make me do that, you clearly don't want me here, so I'm not even going to bother - I created this account to let you know that this entire debacle demonstrates that you have great contempt for your users, laundered through hokey pseudo-science of the worst sort, and if you're really going to force this nonsense on everyone, ruining what remains of the good that people have created through this institution - something legendary in the whole history of humanity, like a modern day Library of Alexandria, as a particularly shining subset of the internet as a whole - then you are all deep, deep in an unrecoverable stage of collapse. I dearly hope you reconsider. Make me feel like a curious young researcher gathering information on all the most fascinating topics in the world, not like a bored dying man with dementia in a nursing home reading insultingly ugly large print magazines about nothing. Good night. Your Design Is Bad (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Moved this comment up from the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF Team section. --Kizor 10:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

42. Support reversion. The many responses I see, from editors and readers, range from "What happened?" to "Please revert" to the unprintable. I see very little praise for the change. Many developers have obviously worked long and hard on Vector 2022, and I thank them for producing an alternative skin which some people will prefer. However, it is very far from being the popular choice and should not be the default. Certes (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
43. Strong support The new layout is a complete joke. Extremely bad, utterly useless. If you do not bring back the old layout, wikipedia is going down for sure. I will stop contributing and using wikipedia from now onwards if the old layout is not brought back.130.88.16.130 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
44. Support in the strongest possible way. I do not like a bit of the new skin. I do think vast majority of users and editors feel the same as I. I edit both with and without login. How do I permanently go back to the old skin without login? I am simply unable and uncomfortable to edit in the new skin.Sunlitsky (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
45. Support. Not even sure if my IP status allows me to comment, but the new requirement for needing JavaScript to view the Table of Contents is bad. For safety and security I don't have JavaScript enabled on any site, so I can't currently see any ToC, nor can I widen the view with the box icon. Thus diminishing the utility of Wikipedia. Plus having useful links hidden behind unnamed icons that require extra clicks just to see what is there is annoying and time wasting. 113.211.110.53 (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
46. Support The new version has too many problems, especially with regards to inflexibly-wasted screen space. Cosmetic and usability changes are fine, but this one is measurably less useful in many ways than the existing skin. --Jayron32 12:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
47. Strong support. I reverted to Vector 2010 immediately. The old Vector provides for much easier work regarding languages (without having to open a menu to see whether a language version is available), has much less whitespace, and is supported by the developed tools. In addition, I find the mixing of various grays on the same page (sidebar vs the article) a poor design choice. Vector 2022 can remain available to opt in, but it is definitely less usable and less aesthetic than the legacy skin. The only thing that I like about the new skin is the availability of the TOC when scrolling. It is sad that the Foundation has unilaterally imposed its decision on the community without a proper consensus but has not supported it where it really matters (for example regarding tech for Commons). If there is a demise of Wikipedia, it will stem from the ever-increasing gap between the Foundation and the community. --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
48. Support As I said in the previous RfC on the matter, Vector 2022 has far too much whitespace and no clear reason for it, particularly when viewing the skin on a large desktop monitor. The toggle to enlarge the page to fill the width of the screen is entirely too small and virtually impossible to notice until you are told that it's there (I know because I tested this, and spent several minutes looking for it). Hiding the languages menu behind an English language dropdown is also of little help to users. In general, there is too much hidden behind icons that, while they may be plainly conspicuous on a mobile display, need to be hunted down on a normal wide display computer screen. Vector 2022, in my humble opinion, should be recalled (at least for desktop users), at least until the Foundation figures out a way to make it possible for unregistered users to select their preferences and have those preferences persist across sessions. The majority of unregisted users do not want to create accounts simply to change how Wikipedia looks; if they wanted an account, they wouldn't be unregistered users. If we want new people to create accounts, it should be done via improving Wikipedia (in all the many ways we might do that), not by telling people to register in order to fix what they perceive as a failure to improve Wikipedia. Pinging @HumanBodyPiloter5. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
49. Support. The new design is worse just because of the major waste of screen space. Endianer (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
50. Support on behalf of all the people who don't edit here who have expressed their loathing of it. XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm also hearing from people that font rendering now changes in the middle of scrolling. This whole "update" is strange and under-tested. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

51. Strong support. What a waist of space on the screen. If you want to change to a different language only 10 out of 100 are shown. For the other languages you have to scroll inside a tiny mini window. --Boehm (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Note: After switching languages a few time it will recommend you the languages you like and there is a search bar. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    No, nothing will be recommended, because I usually clear cookies after closing the browser. And by the way, I do not have a prefferd language. I just want to select myself. Everything was fine before the change. --Boehm (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

52. Strong support: There has been a strong negative backlash against Vector 2022 from both registered and unregistered users (e.g. here and here). The new interface has many problems: the width, the lateral TOC, the general impression that it is designed for mobile, amongst many others. Ultimately, the community does not seem to like and approve the new interface.--Æo (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
53. Support: This shouldn't have been pushed out as the default skin for unregistered readers without the accessibility issues being properly addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
54. Strong support - Every single response I've seen to this change from unregistered non-editors has been overwhelmingly negative, which throws any of the suggestions that this was a change for the sake of readers and that the editors participating in the discussion were a biased sample out of the window. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    For everything, comments will be biased towards negative, since if a reader looks and thinks there is no problem or there’s an improvement they won’t bother leaving a comment unless it’s exceptionally good. There were also reader surveys that indicated more readers liked the new skin. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

55. support – I find the new version interesting but ultimately inferior. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Or at least make an .old.wikipedia handle with the old skin (it is not perfect either, but much better than this mobile device oriented, hard to read, wasteful, eyeburning white design for a desktop users), this push of new skin onto users looks realy forced and not needed. IJustCreatedAccountBecauseOfThis1diocy (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    As said in the FAQ this is very hard for the resources. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

56. Support while question #2 not being addressed. As an IP reader and editor, aside create an account or programming tweaks, the only way I've found to use the old good UI is to append «?useskin=vector» to every requested URL. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
57. Support the old 2010 skin as the default. At minimum there needs to be a way to one-click revert (session lasting) to the 2010 skin, and this needs to be available to all users. Not just logged in users. Most users never log in. Wikipedia is dramatically degraded on desktop browsers currently. This really does need to be fixed. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
58. Support - The new skin, Vector2022, inferior to Vector2010. The new version may be better for readers, but it is awful for those of us who edit regularly. My tools which were previously visible above the page content are buried now in drop down menus with silly icons that don't make sense to me, I am wasting time looking for things that are now in illogical places. The left hand side bar is definitely NOT an improvement, it's just bad design, and those tools have also disappeared, replaced in some instances with the TOC. The TOC should remain in the article content. I tried it out several times before the offical roll out, and have been testing it since it became the default, and I am convinced that the new skin is NOT an improvement. Vector2010 was not broken, so why "fix" it? Please restore Vector 2010 as the default skin, and call Vector 2022 something else. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
59. Support, I guess... but nothing stopped WMF from deploying the skin regardless of the previous RfC. So I don't expect anything else than this one being chucked away with the usual "resistance to change" argument. At this point I oppose the misguided design goals more than anything else. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Again, WMF deployed it according to the misguided closing consensus of the rfc, not against it Aaron Liu (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't say anything about deploying according to or against RfC. I specifically said "regardless of .. RfC". —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I am confused, doesn’t regardless of… mean they ignored it? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

60. Support in principle, even though it will never happen. The real solution is to create extensions for Scalar that will restore the core fratures of Vector.small jars tc 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
61. Support. Tastes do differ, I personally dislike the new layout although believe there are many who accept it. But the way the changes are enforced is plainly insulting. For a long-time editor like me this has been immensely frustrating and I imagine how it feels for unregistered users. The changes must be rolled back. The communication did not happen. The visible and clear notification (not a banner) must be placed in the header, on the main page, everywhere, with an explanation: what is going to happen and what to do. The toggle to switch on or off must be accessible for every user. No dark patterns. A simple form must be proposed to all users: Do you prefer this one or that one. No bad-faith interpretation of metrics. The way it was done it is humiliating. — 2dk (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
62. Support - WMF has fundamentally failed to to bring the community on board with this change. The skin has many well discussed issues: limiting width of content area is absolute nonsense, hiding tools and buttons behind additional clicks makes the experience worse, hiding optout in preferences and then claiming that the optout rate is not high is deceptive, the TOC is worse than before, there are notable bugs, to name just a few. This is all compounded by the fact that logged-out users are not left with any means of using the old skin, and that the width button is non-persistent for logged in users.
    Further to this, WMF has show that it has no interest in consensus building or engaging with the community, as is very evident by the fact that when they had an RFC go against them, they ignored it, and decided that no further RFC is necessary since it obviously would not result in the correct answer.
    This design is the very definition of form over function. The rollout could have been done much better, by progressively rolling the theme to more and more users and carefully listening to the feedback and monitoring the optout rates. Given that this is a product by paid designers working full time for years, it shouldn't have resulted in such poor reception. WMF should revert this change and try again later when their design is approved of by the community. Melmann 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
63. Support - It has been said that this skin is better for readers, however the needs of readers depend on the device and its screen. It is obvious that the skin is something of a port of the mobile interface to a desktop one, an unfortunate but increasingly common trend in today's user-facing interfaces. This is a disservice to desktop users. The driver is not usability, rational design or aesthetics but unified software development, an efficiency (cost-cutting) prerogative. The underlying thinking is that most users read most output on mobile/small/haptic-optimized screens, and they are not going to be bothered much by the change to desktop interfaces. This may not be the case with Wikipedia articles which may be longer and more complex with added media that can be visually and logically better accessed with a larger screen, so that one gets the full impact of the article rather than constantly scrolling (apparent) fragments. This new mobile-to-desktop trend is also ill-suited to interactive sites with anything more than very simple user input. For highly interactive, user-input-intensive functions such as writing prose, adding media, logically arranging an article etc. it is supremely unsuitable. Not all change is good, or even neutral, and one person's progress may be another person's regression. 208.253.152.74 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The new skin was not designed with mobile in mind, see the FAQ Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Ok. But this RfC is an example of my previous comment. Anyone who can follow this discussion on a 6-inch screen with the same comfort and comprehension as in a 26-inch screen is a better person than I am. 208.253.152.74 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's a blatant lie, and they know it. This entire new skin was designed with two things in mind: ad space and mobile users. 198.21.192.40 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Hard disagree. There is zero chance this skin was designed for ad space. If the WMF ran third-party ads on Wikipedia, then the WP:FRAM controversy would look like a drop in the bucket. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Well, never say never. The re-landscaping of screen real estate certainly allows the future option for adding all kinds of extraneous material, including ads. Like every bureaucracy, WMF keeps finding new things to do, subtly, incrementally (and sometimes unilaterally) expanding its scope beyond what has been originally put forth. Language is an ally: the more slogan-like it is, the more obfuscating, vague, and therefore expandable its meaning is. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

64. Strongest possible support - What actual advantages does this skin provide that cannot be implemented in a hybrid of Vector 2010? Color blind friendly purple clicked links? TOC on the left sidebar? Images in search? These things are absolutely possible to put into Vector 2010 (and I have the first two via plugins already). A restricted reading width could be a toggled option in such a hybrid. I'm not interested in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I see zero reason to keep Vector 2022 as default to maintain these marginal improvements for our end reader at the expense of many extremely plausible downsides. I would also echo Red-tailed Hawk's A/B testing proposal as actual evidence rather than the supposition that has been provided to us. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
65. Support I don't hate Vector 2022, though I do like it less than 2010. I do, though, think it's borderline unacceptable that you have to log in to change between styles. I think that, for as big a change as this is, broader and firmer support should've been built up before WMF pushed the change. I think that trying to enact the change on the basis of very shaky results solicited from ~300 active editors is bordering on the negligent- readers have as much of a stake in Wikipedia's usability as do editors- maybe more, as they're likely to be less experienced at using and navigating the site- and that's a tiny fraction of editors, anyway. For myself, I saw or heard nothing of the coming change that I can recall, and I use Wikipedia every day, and I see multiple comments above to the same effect. I guess that getting a good indication of reader preferences might be hard, but Vector 2022 should not be mandatory or default without a clear mandate from Wikipedia users as a whole. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
66. Support While not against a redesign in general, the crazy amount of white space is distracting every-time it loads I think I'm on the mobile version. chiffre01 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
67. Support The previous RFC did not establish community consensus to change the default style. Yet another example of the WMF pretending to care about volunteer concerns, but ultimately doing what they had intended from the start regardless. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
68. Support I have had an account for going on 15 years, rarely edit anymore but I was so abhorred by the design change I had to make my voice heard, please change it back. --Flappychappy (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
69. Support I appreciate the people who did their best and put in effort into doing what they felt would improve reading and editing for everyone on Wikipedia, but it is clear that the design was not truly approved of beforehand by the majority of users. This coupled with the issues that have arrisen makes me feel that going back to the 2010 version as standard is for the best.★Trekker (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
70. Support My main concern is for text width, but more broadly it seems based on what I have read so far is that a consensus does not appear to have been reached prior to implementation, which ought to be done first. Nl4real (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
71. Support per nom. I never even heard of the new skin before it suddenly showed up with the horrible whitespace and janky layout. A change this huge, and this controversial, should have had an actual consensus before being forced on all readers. --HappyWith (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
72. Strong support: At least as long as logged-out users have to use this as the default layout, I am against it. Requiring the creation of an account just to use the arguably better skin is no different than what Fandom/Wikia does. I have no problem with it being an option, just not the default. gangplank galleon (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
73. Support I've thought over this for awhile now, and I land in the Support column for a variety of reasons. First, in my view the original RFC didn't have a consensus to implement Vector 2022 and the closing statement of the RFC has always kinda baffled me, but that's neither here nor there at this point. Second, I love the width toggle, but the fact that it doesn't persist should've been fixed before the rollout took place. Third, I really feel like the Page Tools and customizable user menu should've been in the skin before the rollout took place too. I think that would've at least calmed down the whitespace complaints somewhat. Also won't belabor the point since it's apparently going to be easier to develop one with Vector 2022, but having a dark mode would've helped this complaint too. Fourth, I will take the WMF's word that Vector 2022 wasn't designed for mobile, but it does have some of the hallmarks of moble web design (text in the middle, hamburger button, etc). I know it's only two people, but here's two of my friends reactions to seeing Vector 2022 for the first time (warning: language): https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/499649691714060299/1066137406576787506/image.png. I don't know how the developers of Vector 2022 could make it look less mobile-y, but there you go. Fifth, the mystery meat navigation issue that was brought up in the original RFC and again here hasn't been fixed. Finally, I feel like Vector 2022 is still not ready for primetime. It feels like a version 0.7 or 0.8 in that it's getting there, but is not fully ready. These are my thoughts anyway. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
74. Strong support on returning to Vector 2010. I think that my main gripe is the TOC. I understand that there's configuration option however the default view is pretty bad and I think increases the number of clicks to get to the information I want. For example on a page with a lot of sub categories, I often find it useful to scan the ENTIRE list to jump directly to the section I'm interested in. Now, again unless customizes, things are collapsed by default AND formatted in a way that makes it difficult to read long titles. So if I'm not logged in, or for any of the HUGE amount of ip only users and editors, it's now multiple clicks to get to relevant information. In the past this was literally the one click to open the page, and the one click on the section desired. Now we're up to potentially 4/5 clicks after getting to the page for what just last week was a single click action.
    I'm also going to put in here similar text from my post on the Talk page on Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements:
    Now that this change has launched why not put this up to ALL users? Put a banner on the top of articles similar to the donation banner and see how desktop users actually respond. If the attitude of "we know change is scary, you'll get used to it, we've done research!" shown in this condescending article must be forced I'm sure a developer would love to make sure that banner shows up only on devices that have had the new layout for "long enough". You could even randomize that, see what a user thinks on day 3 vs day 15.
    If the Wikimedia foundation actually cares about user feedback I don't see why this can't be done. I think it's fairly obvious that a tiny fraction of Wikipedia users actually create an account and basing this change on what has amounted to ~170 users feedback is disingenuous. Show us you care, show us you want to see your research actually validated, it might be, but it's also ok to get it wrong too. I understand the value in continually looking forward and not settling where we are, but if you're going to use "research" as your backing, see if the hypothesis is correct. Zdwagz (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is the opinion of a brand new user. Its their first edit. Its great not to have to scroll all the way up of a long article or talk page but just be able to scroll quickly through the sections in the sidebar. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    So a new user (who, for all you know, has been an IP user for years) shouldn't have any say in the matter? Curious. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Often, users who show up specifically to champion some particular cause have their opinions given less weight. In this case, though, they definitely shouldn't, since this is an issue of design preferences that everyone who reads this website has a reasonable stake in. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And here I thought that an opinion was considered according to its own validity. Not according to official or unofficial club membership, or conspiracy theories and biases regarding the presumed intentions of the signature. That signature is as good as the latest comment preceding it. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah sorry for the late reply, you didn't ping me. As for me, if you want to collaborate on wikipedia seriously, you should create an account. Now to revert to Vector 10 for IPs or newly created accounts who's votes include terms that can be understood in a negative way..., no way. Those votes will just not weigh against the votes of accounts with several years counting. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes first edit but if you see actually looked, the account was created in 2013. I'm a reader, which is a perfectly valid use of Wikipedia. Everyone isn't here to edit and editors shouldn't get special sway on how readers see things. Zdwagz (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @73.8.230.57; @Compassionate727: Paradise Chronicle's message referred to the fact that Zdwagz's comment was originally posted on top of the RfC when it was located at the Village pump; the comment was later moved into the appropriate subsection and afterwards the entire RfC was relocated to its (this) separate page. Æo (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I can only agree with Zdwagz about the problems of the new lateral ToC: it has completely lost its functionality of giving a complete overview of the article, of allowing the reader/editor to move forthwith to the section/subsection of interest, of creating a distinction between the article's lead and the article's body. These problems have been raised by many users, both registered and unregistered. Let me abridge: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, amongst other discussions, including my commentary and proposal of alternatives in the previous RfC. Æo (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    For me it becomes an issue when the ToC is extensive in length and depth. For brief ToC's, the side table is more than acceptable. Perhaps there could be a "__ FORCE_INLINE_TOC __" option for such articles? Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, the old ToC was useful especially in long articles and talk pages, while short articles and stubs without a certain number of subsections didn't have it. As pointed out by StarTrekker here, the new ToC "makes every article look like a stub". Æo (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Æo, would you strike my name from the list above, or mark it in some way to show I don't agree with your conclusion? I don't want to be cited in support of your position; I think the new skin is an improvement over all and the ToC issue is a minor point that doesn't change my view. I see at least one other editor cited in your list who has opposed this RfC, below, so you might make your caveat more general than just naming me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Mike Christie: Yes, I removed your name. Apologies. It was intended as a list of commentators to the various discussions about the problems of the ToC.--Æo (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    No problem; it clearly wasn't intentionally misleading. I do think you should still hedge your comment a bit more since a negative comment about the ToC doesn't imply support for reverting to Vector 2010, but our exchange here is probably enough to point that out. Thanks for the edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    There are many comments about the ToC at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements too; a particularly thoughtful one, in my opinion, is Bring back the TOC (21:35, 20 January). Æo (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

75. YES Definitely return to the vector skin! 2601:644:401:39D0:79D9:58C3:3B6D:651E (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
76. Support: While there are some things I like about the new update, the negatives of it outweigh the positives. So much so that I've come out of my three-month hiatus just to talk to y'all. My main issue with this update has to be the empty white area that takes up a good portion of the screen. It's ugly and wastes too much space. It looked way better when the area was actually used for the words and images. Now you have to scroll more due to the text being so narrow rather than being able to see the big picture. Another thing I hate has to be that everything is now in a drop-down menu instead of being laid out like before. And no, this isn't a case of I hate change, or I will get used to it.
    However, I do love that the table of contents now follows you instead of having to scroll up to change your spot in an article. Also, I asked some of my friends to see if they noticed any change (because I was curious), and one of the three said they did. So I guess it is a subtle change. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
77. Support I will stop using Wikipedia and exclusivly use other sources if I am unable to see the old format. The new format is THAT bad. 2603:3023:180:4800:38B1:9CEB:5048:5F2C (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
78. Strong Support I have been a regular, casual user of Wikipedia nearly since the site launched and have neither had nor wanted an account until this UI rollout forced me to create one to revert back to a more usable layout. The Wikipedia Privacy Policy starts off by saying "Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement", yet I feel as if I was forced to provide a username and password in order to continue participating in using the site. This increases my Internet footprint and its associated risks and I am not happy about that. In addition, the discussions I've read from WMF have seemed quite dismissive of criticism regarding the new UI and its rollout, and IP users do not seem to be considered a part of the "community" in any of these discussions. Furthermore, the stated metrics that WMF is looking at to gauge success of the new skin do not actually measure KPIs related to satisfaction with the new skin among non-logged-in users. As long as a user has to be logged in to change the UI to a usable layout, this new skin should be rolled back. Trynn (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
79. Support. Given the large number of bugs and other issues being raised at the Village Pump, this was far premature, especially since the WMF's record for supporting the tools and interfaces they push out suggests that most of these issues will probably never be fixed. Eventually, we need to do a large survey of the reader base to determine which is actually better, but for now, the lack of one is not a good reason to oppose reversion (or support it, for that matter), since without knowing what readers we think, we kind of have to let editors control this decision. That said, the large number of IPs and SPAs commenting here suggest the change is deeply controversial at best, especially given the immense hurdle readers would have needed to jump to find this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
80. Support It seems that a majority of users here would rather have the old layout be the default, and I agree. Personally, I am specifically not happy with the amount of whitespace in the new layout. ―NK1406 01:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
81. Strongest possible support, far too much white space on the left and many formerly easy to find links are several clicks away. 1.136.110.165 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC).
82. Heavy Support Too much white space. Irritates the eyes. The fact that IP users still can't change visual preferences is also an insult to those with visual impairments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.8.230.57 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Indeed. It violates MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. ~ HAL333 02:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

83. Support on behalf of unregistered users and readers. The older version of Vector itself in my opinion is inferior in most respects and I have never used it (the appearance of mysterious symbols and lots of white space serves as a useful signal that I've been logged out), so I wasn't able to respond very usefully to the "what do you think of these projected skin changes?" questions the WMF asked me over the past year or two. But I'm hearing from people who do use Vector that the new version requires significant juggling of column width and other settings to be made usable, that things jump around and icons change form in different screens and needed adjustments don't hold in preview mode, and that the list of other-language links appears sorted by some high-handed assumptions about which one should want to see, which is just insulting. Those who use Vector have made clear that the new version is a dog's dinner. Unregistered users have no choice, although someone has already rushed out an app to modify the URLs, which should indicate the reception by actual unregistered readers and editors. Give them back what worked relatively well for them. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Yngvadottir: For those of who are curious and out of the loop, what app are you referring to? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Excuse my technical ignorance, extension. For Chrome. (Link via the unnameable site.) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

84. STRONG SUPPORT (Redacted). 78.28.44.127 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's not a "perfectly reasonable" vote that got "censored", it's an open-and-shut UAA ban. Also, just looking at the video title, your "immortal clip" is in poor taste. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    You know what's in poor taste? Ninja-deploying an awful layout change that ruins the experience of millions of users without consensus. And the comment was reasonable; they could've--and should've--just redacted the username. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Pythoncoder: To be honest, I don't know what the normal protocol for such usernames is. But in this case, I think it would have been better to just redact the username. (To be clear, I don't think Donald Albury's revert was unreasonable. I just would have handled the comment differently. The IP's assumption of bad faith is worse, but there probably isn't a point trying to lecture him about it.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    On reflection, I agree, redacting the username without reverting the post would have been better, but I got called away from WP immediately after that for a couple of hours, and didn't see any great need to to try to fix that later. Donald Albury 15:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

85. Support The whitespace problem needs to fixed before Vector 2022 is deployed. One of the pros listed of the spec page is 'Less scrolling'. This couldn't be further from the truth. My 1920 x 1080 is now almost 50% whitespace, meaning there is less text forcing me scroll almost twice as much to read the same amount of text. Gehyra Australis (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Agree with the white/wasted-space issue and increased scrolling required to read text. It is even worse for those using 4:3 aspect-ratio monitors or large font-sizes for accessibility. Hopefully people don't get carpal tunnel syndrome from the excessive mouse scrolling. 98.149.164.167 (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

86. Support But what does it matter? Machinations like this are WMF's bread and butter and it doesn't seem like they care what any volunteer editors think. Azx2 04:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
87. Strong Support. Despite the claim in the faq that "we do not have plans to merge the desktop and mobile experiences", somebody from the WMF said "While building the skin, we also considered bringing it closer in visual design to the mobile site, so that people reading on mobile can still recognize Wikipedia in its desktop form as well. We also aimed to reduce code for skins overall so that it's easier in the future to build features and adapt them across both desktop and mobile skins." (diff) So while it would probably be histrionic of me to call the claim in the faq a lie, it happens to be the opposite of the truth. This skin is part of extinguishing the desktop idiom. Unwittingly, perhaps, it's part of a cultural trend, beneficial to commercial interests centered around phones and advertising, promotion, tracking, de-powering users and making them passive, and discouraging reading. It's a reaction to the demands of those already steeped in this culture. Many responses around the web have been along the lines of "it looks like the mobile site".  Card Zero  (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
88. Strong support for now Tried using the new Vector for a few days and it's just an irritating experience. For example, there's an issue with text becoming randomly bold while scrolling. It may be a Chromium bug (that's what I heard) but I've never experienced it with the old Vector. The actual root cause is somewhat irrelevant, as it impacts the experience either way. Text also seems lighter and harder to read. Overall it feels like additional polish and time is needed before it goes mainstream. GoPats (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
89. Was never broken, should never have been fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
90. Support The new skin is an eyesore and many regular Wikipedia users had no idea this was happening. A poor consultation process. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 05:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
91. Support if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, especially if most users disagree. Toa Nidhiki05 05:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
92. Support While I understand the motivations behind the update, none of the new features are things I asked for nor what I want. The new layout really irritates my eyes from the excess whitespace and the excessive scrolling I'm now forced to do because of the new width. Additionally, the fact that the settings are no longer immediately available on the left is an annoyance. Overall, the new layout is a detriment to my ability to navigate this website.WikEdits5 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
93. Strong support. Enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. This is widely known as "Fisher-Price UI design", which is trendy, but usefulness is more important than trendiness. Also, please stop calling the new UI an "improvement". It's not. -- HLachman (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I like the table of contents on the side, being able to change from an to full-width by clicking on the icon on the bottom right, being able to collapse the side bar, and an uncluttered top bar. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    OK, but I still think enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

94. Strong support The contents section is an entire screen downward now, off to the side, and sub-sections are hidden, whereas before you could see them immediately. This new format is regressive. At the very least, the contents need to be back in the body of the page, either after the article summary, like before, or ahead of it.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
95. Strong support, as strongly as possible. Wikipedia has become practically unnavigable, and at least my eyes get strained from the new layout. Having to dart back and forth every second or two because of how short the lines are when there's tons of eye-burning blank space all around them is just incomprehensible. Reading Wikipedia pages is now genuinely unpleasant and feels harmful to my already bad sight, compared to being comfortable in the past.

    To make it even clearer how bad this is, when I saw the new design (on some pages but not others), at first I was 100% convinced that Wikipedia was having some issues and hoping they'd be fixed. I mean, this new design really seems broken in every way, at least from a reader's perspective (which I count as since I barely edit at all). Literally how I found out that it's not just broken is because of a discussion with other readers about Wikipedia being broken, decided to google to see if anything had been written about it, and... well, you know. VHGW (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Well, looks like I replied to the wrong section because even editing pages doesn't work like it used to. I can't even figure out how to move my comment to the right place... VHGW (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Comment moved by moi. ~ HAL333 06:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

96. Support as an IP user this is making my life a misery. Setting aside how unfinished the sidebar looks, and the fact useful links like recent changes, contents, recent events and things like user contributions (or "what has my address changed to today") are now hidden behind an extra click, the absolute killer is the stupid waste of screen real estate. Widescreen monitors have been fairly standard for many, many, years now and with the new layout almost half of my screen is whitespace. It is absolutely ridiculous that the only way to override it is either to click the button on every single page I visit or create an account. This is not acceptable to me and I would sooner stop contributing to the project and browse via a fork/mirror than do the latter. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:1081:876B:679F:8E58 (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
97. People are creating accounts just to avoid this skin... ansh.666 09:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And this is a bad thing? Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. Yes, it is. These users are not going to contribute to Wikipedia in any way, they just want to look up information and we are forcing them to spend time on setting up an account. Just so they can avoid the Vector 2022 layout, which is confusing for many (remember that a lot of people who are inexperienced with computers read Wikipedia daily). To pretend that it is not bad thing or that it is even a good thing is rather absurd... Walter Klosse (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

98. The strongest support possible. This change is outrageous! Very short lines and tons of blank space on both right and left. It's sad that after 18+ YEARS OF CONTRIBUTING, I feel inclined to quit the project rather than putting up with this nonsense. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
99. Support vector 2022 is a huge blow to the community. It is blatantly evident that most users(especially the IPs whose contributions are indispensible) are going to stop editing from here onwards if rollback is not carried out asap; in any case, vector 2022 already created so much damages that are irreparable.149.36.19.74 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
100. Support on grounds that this is a badly-handled change with insufficient notification. (FWIW - I thought my browser was having problems loading the page at first). The individual wikipedias make their own decisions on content and that includes display. GraemeLeggett (talk)
101. Support. While I think Vector2022 has the opportunity to be superior to Vector legacy without too much additional work, I think there are three disservices to our readers that need to be worked out before. (1) overall brightness. So much white causes eye strain. Either a default fixed-width (I'm against), or a design like this would reduce that. (2) link colours. Talked about this to exhaustion. The visited and unvisited links look the same for those with colour blindness and a significant minority struggles with how light the colours are (phab:T213778). A further iteration, with help of experts, is needed to resolve this. (3) Symmetry: even a small asymmetry can lead to pain for those with neck problems.
     As a power user, there are reasons I've switched back to Legacy too, even though I think our readers should be prioritized in the discussion to deploy. For instance, I don't want contributions to be hidden behind two clicks. Some background pages are difficult to navigate without the ability to enable a numbered TOC (like WP:GAR). There are quite a few things broken still (like {{TOC limit}} phab:T317818. While these shouldn't be blocks for deployment, I would like to get more guarentees that they will be worked on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
102. Strong support – The new style is horrible with too much white space, there was no consensus for it. Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
103. Support. My first reaction was that my browser was acting up (I use Wikipedia daily and I wasn't aware of the change). To those who say "So you think that Wikipedia should never change?", this is my reply: if I have to go north and I notice that I've been driving south for one hour, the only logical reaction is to hit the brakes and do a U-turn. If I keep the course I'll reach my destination only eventually, after circling the globe. The main design choices of the new interface are all pointing south (mystery meat, mobile-friendly line width, less immediate switch to other languages and so on). Rizzardi (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
104. Support - per all of the above. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
105. Strong support - per all of the above. --Blockhaj (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
106. Strong support I've heard claims that this these changes were being openly discussed, but as a long time reader they may as well have been discussed in a basement behind a locked door behind a sign reading "beware of leopard". Literally the first I was aware of changes to the UI was when I opened up a page and suddenly less than half my screen is being used. Why? I've heard claims that it's "more readable" but it really isn't. Seriously, just why? I'm absolutely horrified and appalled by the trend of websites forcing major visual overhauls on their users simply for the sake of looking "sleek, modern and trendy", ESPECIALLY when it looks worse in every way. A desktop site should not look like a mobile app for crying out loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.96.162 (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
107. Strongest support - See the textbook case of Last.fm which to this day has not recovered from the embarrassing forced rollout of it's new UI design in 2008. They knew it was unpopular, they did it anyway, the userbase left. This rollout has looked eerily similar so far. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
108. Strongest Support - As someone who is an extensive user of wikipedia (multiple hours per day), but is only a reader and not an editor, I've found Vector 2022 extremely jaring to use. It feels significantly thinner, it wastes a massive amount of horizontal screen real estate, the excessive whitespace is visually offputting to the reading experience, and having to manually toggle the table of contents side bar and the limited content width button for every single article I open when not logged in is extremly frustrating. Additonally, only finding out about the redesign after it had been implimented with seemingly no effort to consult or poll readers/noneditors seems extremly problematic. Wikipedia should probably be optimized for the vast majority of those who use it, and as a reader Vector 22 is simply a downgrade from Vector Legacy. IanKBania (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
109. Strong Support per all of the above. Delphin64 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
110. Support per the default width issue as well as other bizarre UI changes. Cards84664 17:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
111. Support. At this point, I got only one thing to say, RIP Wikipedia. You had a good run. 148.252.35.10 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
112. Support. Ever since the Vector 2022 rollout helpers on IRC have been receiving a tonne of complaints about it, of varying levels of vitriol, to the point we had to include a new bang command pointing to WT:VECTOR2022 (and, more recently, this Request for Comment). The complaints have mainly been about the large amount of whitespace (with at least one legitimately wondering if advertizements were going to start showing up), how squished everything is, and how everything is hidden under a new dropdown menu. This, plus the requirement to register an account to change it (which isn't an option in jurisdictions prone to human rights abuses or which has lese majeste or equivalent laws) is why I have to support the skin being reverted at this time. (Disclosure: I use, and have always used, MonoBook and I was not switched over to Vector '22; I thus have no personal experience using the skin.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
113. Support. I supported V2022 in the original RFC and my view on that has not changed, but I do not think this change is representative of consensus. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 21:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
114. Strongest support Waste of space. More button clicks to perform the same actions.Lots of mobile influence in desktop(it is bad and should be separated). So revert it back. Wikipedia had the most efficient and slick design. Don't fix it if it ain't broken
115. Support The enormous margins and massive amounts of wasted space just look awful, especially once you start getting to 2k or 4k resolutions, and the moving table of contents, while a nice idea, is super poorly implemented in its current state. This design seems like it was made by a group of people exclusively running on 720p monitors who never thought to check how it looked at any other screen size. KirbychuHRD2 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
116. Support I remember when Monobook was the default skin, and Vector 2010 was an improvement. This is not. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
117. Support Hadn't seen the change until I saw people on another website I frequent complaining about the new look. How the RfC on its introduction was closed as consensus in favour when there were more opposers than supporters is beyond me... Number 57 22:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Number 57, because the closers didn't simply count !votes? — Qwerfjkltalk 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

     Or rather because they just ignored the opposers? Tvx1 22:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

     WP:VINE very explicitly states that majority vote should at least be requirement for UI changes; such as this and the text width issue (in which the latter no vote was taken). The closers should have simply counted the votes, and then check if the support arguments had any merit. Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     An essay. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     so? Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     Essays are neither policies nor guidelines, and are written as advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, as stated in {{essay}}. It's something to consider, but by no means is it mandated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     yes, i know, it's just that @Qwerfjkl replied to me not only stating a list as policy, but getting the criteria for something to be on that list wrong and is being a massive hypocrite. Transcleanupgal (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Transcleanupgal, I wasn't suggesting that WP:200 was a policy, rather that large numbers of editors rarely participate in discussions. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     don't game the system. that's not what you did, period. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Transcleanupgal, please AGF. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

118. Support Old is seriously better! Editorkamran (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
119. Support. I'm here for information density. The users who didn't like the line length could always shrink the window. This is universal and easily achieved; the corresponding method does not exist in reverse for the new design. I've had to install GreaseMonkey and find a script to modify the URL--I'm embarrassed to say this took me a couple hours. Additionally, I will never be in favor of icons rather than text links on websites. They're less accessible to the vast majority of users.
     Furthermore, given how awkward the handling of this has been, I'd support a vote of no-confidence for the decision-makers involved in the rollout. I found it to be a deeply unpleasant surprise, and difficult to find information on. They've forfeited any future donations from me until the people involved are fired. 2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

     Comment moved. ~ HAL333 00:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

120. Support the decision to change was done compleatly behind the average wikiipedia reader, the only way you could have found that discussion was if you actively searched for it or were part of the implementation, in other words; the original discussion should be Moot per WP:POLSILENCE Transcleanupgal (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Transcleanupgal, WP:200. There were enough editors. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     wp:200 states that there needs to be 200 support votes, note 200 total votes, not only did neither the support nor oppose get nearly enough votes, the oppose actually got more votes. so yes, it would be Moot. Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

121. Support. I think there is case to be made for a fresh UI and design. However, currently we have a hodge-podge of screens. Have detailed out some of my notes here [[1]]. Need these to be fixed at the minimum before the roll-out. Ktin (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
122. Support I made an account for the sole reason of changing my skin back. I have not spoken to anyone who supports this change. I have overheard complaints in real life about the new skin. The idea that a small subset of the most active users, who did not reach a clear consensus in favor of this change, can be used to justify this change is absurd. Reading back through the previous RFCs, the design team did not meaningfully take community feedback into account, particularly as it regards fixed-width content. This change should be reverted and changes should be made to the RFC process to ensure this can't happen again. Fwint (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
123. Strongest support New UI is annoying, & seems to assume everyone's on a smartphone. There are a lot of assumptions, in fact; the process seems to have been largely internal, with a lot of confusion as to why more average Wikipedia users didn't join the RFC. Most users don't even make accounts, & their thoughts seem to have been totally ignored. A bad redesign can kill a site, & a stubborn desire to fiddle with stylesheets is not a good reason to risk the whole enterprise. Why not simply deploy this new UI as a "fixed-width mode" or something? See if people adopt it that way. Anything other than a sudden forced change, which users of every site universally hate. It is always a negative user experience, & it has been negative for all the no-account users I've spoken to. In summary, the change needs to account for casual users before it's finalized, & needs to be rolled out in a more thoughtful, consensus-minded way. WizWorldLIVE (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
124. Support I created an account and am fumbling through page edits just to express my strong dislike of the new layout. It is way, way too narrow. Most desktop users view the site on widescreen monitors. There is way too much unused space. Keep the mobile version of the site on mobile devices. Let me use utilize my wide screen on Desktop. I'm seeing lots of arguments from people saying it's easy to just change back to Vector 2010 from the appearance menu, but the vast majority of users aren't logged in and can't do that without registering an account. I'm certainly not going to be bothered to log into my account every time i need to use Wikipedia on another computer. SteveBlanka (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
125. Strongest support The new UI is terrible. I've been using it for a week and I hate it. Low information density, stupid "mobile-like" design, and huge swaths of useless empty space, forcing users to scroll even for short articles. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.244.10 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
126. Support, mainly because IPs don't have the luxury of going back to legacy Vector. I gave Vector 2022 my best shot for about a week, and was happy to return to the old skin; I can't help wondering if the WMF is thinking of trading the mobile site (which has issues, notably WP:TCHY) for Vector 2022. This is reminiscent of WP:VE#Limitations. Miniapolis 02:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
127. Support. Per all of the above, and with concerns about the WMF deploying skins with insufficient consensus. I do not see a consensus to deploy in the last RFC, and the way this one is trending, I do not see a consensus to deploy in this one. A proper consensus should be obtained for something this controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     Today's changes to vector-2022 have messed up the style of my user scripts that I fixed the other day. They have also added padding to each menu item, which doesn't look great in my opinion. They have also deleted padding between menus, which also doesn't look great in my opinion. It's a bit frustrating that the English Wikipedia has turned into a vector-2022 sandbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

128. Support - the biggest issue in my mind was the lack of consensus (or even a plurality) before implementing. And also a lack of communication about it. Personally I saw no banner advising of the implementation time. When it was implemented, I was editing in realtime, and there was no banner indicating that it had changed (yes, there was one later on). The RFC noted that certain improvements needed to be made before implementation. I'm confused why the "Background" section above says that these WERE implemented, as that's not the impression I got. Either in terms of width, or the language improvements. What was promised needs to be done. I also feel that those who actually did the change, without consensus, should have their permissions on the English Wikipedia restricted. Nfitz (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
129. Support - The answer to this question is obvious. And that answer is yes. The new skin is clearly not designed for what would be considered the primary use case: a desktop computer using a landscape monitor. Having to login to switch skins through preferences is annoying. Deadgye (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
130. Support. Just for starters the whitespace is an abomination and makes reading and navigating the website objectively worse on a desktop. I read through the RFC and some of various supporting talk pages and it was interesting to me to see that, although the WMF people generally made a big show of this being a change to the desktop site only and having nothing to do with the mobile site, Card Zero's !vote above pointed out the WMF comment "While building the skin, we also considered bringing it closer in visual design to the mobile site, so that people reading on mobile can still recognize Wikipedia in its desktop form as well. We also aimed to reduce code for skins overall so that it's easier in the future to build features and adapt them across both desktop and mobile skins". What is good for the mobile reader is often not what is good for the dektop reader and trying to make them similar is a recipe for disaster. Surely the WMF gets enough money each year through their relentless advertising that they can develop skins that suit mobile and desktop separately rather than needing to homogonise them. For whatever it's worth I did support the change from monobook to vector at the time so I don't think I am some luddite who just hates change. 2403:5802:19ED:0:21C1:6CBF:2E59:864 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
131. Support The new design is truly abysmal and dysfunctional for a modern website's UI. I'm not opposed to new default displays, but it must reflect buy-in from the community. Both on a substantive and procedural basis, the new design should be rolled-back. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
132. Support. I hope I did this right as I've only been a logged out user until now. When talking about the "Wikipedia community", there seems to be a sole focus on editors. Part of the Wikipedia community also includes logged out users, aka the largest share of Wikipedia. There was no notice to logged out users who were happy with the old design or any real attempt to reach out to logged out users about input for this upcoming change (banners, etc.); Wikipedia gets billions of pageviews a month and the if there were real problems with the layout from a reader's point of view they would have organically come about already. Instead, I woke up to a new design that looks plain bad; I honestly thought I was on mobile for ~10 minutes until I googled the problem and learned it was in fact a redesign. --Newresdesignisdumb420! (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
133. Strong support - new skin is totally unworkable in viewing mode. Don't know what it would be like in editing mode as I got out as quickly as possible, but based of viewing mode it would be a nightmare. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
134. Support I do not understand the modern trend of adding white space to webpages, and this design is particularly egregious in that regard. Adopting a new design is fine, I am not married to the 2010 layout, but this one appears disliked by editors and readers alike. Undo. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 07:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
135. Support. I'm just a user, not an editor, but I'll tell you guys what I told the wikimedia volunteer email: this new site redesign is terrible. Particularly egregious is the bit where it assumes my desktop computer with a full-width monitor is a mobile phone, as though we're moving back in time to a previous and worse era of web design. table of contents on the left I could get used to, but having to click a button to tell your website I would like it to use more than a third of the screen in 2023 is just frankly embarrassing. 2601:645:8200:FF50:0:0:0:EC5F (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
136. Support This new design is a downgrade. It's baffling this has been set to default and unchangeably forced to logged-out users. Ew. — DVRTed (Talk)
137. Support This is horrible. At a minimum allow logged out users to opt out. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC).
138. Support I don't much care for all the wasted space left and right when rendered on my computer monitor. There is a way to override when logged out (i.e append ?useskin=vector to the url) but this doesn't propagate when clicking links. Should be easily be fixable IMO, so please do that. 90.231.239.98 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
139. Support I've read this site almost daily for at least 15 years. I've learned so much from it since, especially from the 'random article' link, and still was - until Wednesday. I remember the old default skin, Monobook, which I always thought had a quirky but tasteful photo of a crumpled white bedsheet as a background, and it changing to the Vector 2010 with a light gray margin that I thought was somewhat generic but still unique and appealing. I didn't care about that change because it was the only real change I noticed and it didn't affect my experience. Despite what many have said in the many parallel ongoing conversations on this site about it looking outdated or being obsolete, I thought it was far and away the best-designed major site on the internet - an example in function over frills and timelessness over trend-following, compared to websites that seem to get overhauled every couple of years that replace self-evident links with weird hieroglyphic buttons, require more and more scrolling, and make more and more space for ads. I'd argue the design kept up with the times, especially compared to Craigslist, which looks very firmly rooted in 2002. As an IP user, I had absolutely no clue this new default skin was planned, and thought my browser was buggy when I first saw it, particularly because pages were being updated to the new skin one-by-one, and I was coming across 'normal' and 'buggy' ones at random. Then I discovered it was a feature, not a bug. I've already said why I liked the previous default skin(s), and this redesign hit like a gut punch. I have to describe the new skin (Vector 2022) as sterile, like an operating room - it's not comfortable to look at, the 'random article' button is hidden behind a hieroglyphic, it takes much more scrolling to read an article, and some articles just look like the layout was wrecked by the skin. It also seems like the black text is somehow brighter and harder to read. I found myself going from being on Wikipedia for hours at a time to a minute at a time until I found a browser extention that would add "?useskin=vector" to every URL every time I clicked a WP link. I have to say that all of this discussion - especially from all the people whose arguments against this request boil down to 'suck it up and get over it' - really puts me off coming back. Why should I patronize a website whose maintainers are themselves patronizing to their readers? It's not exactly welcoming, which is what I would think an online encyclopedia that encourages its readers to become its writers would want to be. --67.6.158.84 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
140. Support Reading articles on a laptop logged-out (i.e. in the normal way) is more difficult – my eyes are distracted by the fact that the text doesn’t start until almost one-third of the way across the page. And it’s weird that there is no visible tab to use to log in. The new skin should be an option – readers and IP editors should be asked if they want to opt-in. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
141. Support. Unfortunately any perceived improvements do not matter a jot when the basic reading/editing experience is fundamentally compromised by what feels like 30-year old design methodology focussing exclusively on small, low-res displays (and simply accepting the resultant mass of dead space on larger, higher resolution displays), that should have long since been consigned to history. This lunacy should not have been inflicted on everyone by default with arrogant and almost total disregard for any and all negative feedback. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
142. Support: the new version looks awful. If the previous version is not broken, why change it, and especially for this? The 2022 version is not an improvement at all, it is a downgrade. I know bad, pseudo-clean website designs are a trend, but that does not mean I have to accept it. Veverve (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
143. Strong support, and I don't use "strong" lightly. The number of IPs and new accounts indicating their displeasure above (and that's just those who managed to find this RfC) indicate how poorly Vector 2022 works for casual readers. Compacted text, large swaths of whitespace, more difficult navigation - this is not an improvement. Many of the opposes below seem to fall into the "it's time for a change" category, but change for the sake of change alone is rarely a good thing. This is not an e-commerce or social media site; it's an encyclopedia. Readers come here for the article content, not for what some might call cutting-edge web design. For editors it can sometimes be easy to lose sight of the fact that these articles are written for Wikipedia readers, not other editors. Maximizing usability for readers is paramount, so the default skin for someone not logged in should not be Vector 2022. --Sable232 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     What about those who actually like Vector 2022? To my knowledge if you dislike something enough you will eventually find somewhere to express your displeasure. But for readers who either don't care or like the new design, how are we supposed to know exactly how many of them there are? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     @0xDeadbeef: I think that they are well represented in the "oppose" category and by the small minority of appreciative comments left on pages like this one. Let me highlight an excerpt from Stable232's comment: "Many of the opposes below seem to fall into the "it's time for a change" category, but change for the sake of change alone is rarely a good thing. This is not an e-commerce or social media site; it's an encyclopedia. Readers come here for the article content, not for what some might call cutting-edge web design." Applause! The same as I think: there seems to be more attention on the "user's experience" than on the contents of the encyclopedia, while a great number of articles are in a wretched state. Æo (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     I was merely pointing out the fact that people who hate the new design and desperately want the old design back will have enough motivation to find this page and others. Wikipedia editors are <0.01% of our readership, so even if a majority of readers actually like the new design, we would not know because people who like the new design would not care about this enough to find this page to express support. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     That's why there have been some thoughts about publicising this page to casual IP readers (#Publicizing this RfC). Many of them have actually found this RfC or other talk pages and have expressed their views, and most of them have been negative. Regarding the segment of readers who "do not care" whether the interface is V2010 or V2022, I think that their view (which, given that they "do not care", is not an "opinion", i.e. a choice, between "options") is ostensibly irrelevant, and they probably do not even care whether Wikipedia exists or not. Æo (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

144. Strong support. This mobilification of desktop sites is a plague on the Web. I'm not very active here any more (much more of a reader than a contributor these days) and as a reader this change is awful. Ignatzmice•talk 15:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
145. Extremely strong support this is the Wikipedia equivalent of New Coke and is an unnecessary inconvenience to logged-out users and readers. Dronebogus (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
146. Support. The old skin was fine, the new one is just... weird. —scs (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
147. Strong support The whole point of responsive layout is that the user determines the width of the screen, not the developers. The other alterations seem unneccesary and unhelpful.John Talbut (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
148. Support Partly because the search field is not immediately usable. --Bensin (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
149. Strong Support The new skin is harder to use than the old one. It makes the text harder to read, for example, and generates wasted space on the sides of the page. Maybe we can make a better skin someday, but the 2022 one is actually worse than what it's replacing and shouldn't be used. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 17:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
150. Support There is too much whitespace and it is harder to navigate with Vector 2022. Kay2370 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
151. Support There's too much whitespace, and it's actually harder to read now. I do not like how the Foundation imposed it upon the community. kulupu ko, many and one (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
152. Support For all the reasons already stated, especially white space, missing menu, and inconvenience of having to hit several buttons just to login. Unless we're anticipating a return to 13" square monitors there is absolutely no need for this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
153. Strong support The new skin is a nightmare both aesthetically and from a usability point of view - it is driving serious contributors as well as readers away from the project. Forcing it on all users by default is rude and shows ignorance and incompetence. Whoever is responsible for this decision at the WMF should be removed from power - donation money should be spent on running the servers, fixing bugs and implementing actually needed core functionality the community has asked for for decades, not on things not needed like the Visual Editor or this new skin. The old Vector skin should be made the default again not only in the English Wikipedia but also in all other Wikipedias unless the users have explicitly opted in to the new skin (having a preferences setting to opt out is not enough). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     No need to make an ad hominem response directed at the person who introduced the skin itself. (And not to get too off-topic, but Visual Editor makes editing less daunting for new users, and more editors is something the project desperately needs). DecafPotato (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

154. Support: This change was completely unnecessary, and the new layout is distracting and harder to read, especially because of the large amount of white space. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
155. Support: It looks like the majority of respondants to the original RFC were not in favor of the new skin as-is, but it seems that the closing statement assumed that their concerns would be addressed. They were not. But ignoring the old RFC and looking at it fresh, there are still a lot of complaints that, unless they can be addressed instantly, should be grounds for a roll-back. The biggest concerns I'd like to point out are that the graphical buttons are not as obvious as they could be. (And they're not really saving space, because the whitespace where the old links would be is still unused.) And the dificulties with full-width mode. I realize that research has shown that narrow lines can be better for long-form reading, but It's my understanding that research has also shown that people don't read Wikipedia like that. They glance around quickly for the fact they're looking for. (I know I usually do.) The toggle for full-width is kind of hidden in my judgement, not really obvious iconography wise, and has a frustrating, seemingly broken behavior for non-logged in users. (I realize that fixing that last would require extra effort that can only be done by the Foundation's programmers, but ... ok, so what?) ApLundell (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
156. Support: The change is not an improvement, and despite what was stated the research did not show the limited width is better. I have read the papers linked at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features/Limiting_content_width but they are twenty years old and do not consider modern wide-screen high-definiton monitors. 80.43.159.95 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC) 22:00 January 2023 UTC
157. Extremely strong support The old style Wikipedia was much easier to use and to edit. I am not sure what was wrong with it, and wish to say "If it's not broken, don't fix it." YTKJ (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     FYI, "extremely strong support" tends to be functionally equal to just "support". DecafPotato (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

     Maybe read that article of TechCrunch and you'll notice the changes a bit better. Its really much more efficient for editors. Then here the developers have also their say on their aims. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     That article would be relevant if the site actually looked like the screenshots the article includes. It does not. On my screen, it looks like this: https://postimg.cc/3ddyCXDj, which is significantly different than the old layout. I'm starting to wonder if those who claim the new layout is not that different are only using lower-res displays and haven't actually seen the problem. I measured the whitespace on my monitor earlier today. There's a solid 9 inches of whitespace to the left of the content, another 8.5 inches of whitespace on the right, and measly 6 inches of actual content in the middle. The content quite literally takes up less than a third of my browser window. That's on a 27" 3840x2160 monitor using 100% OS-level scaling and 100% browser scaling. It's not much better at 125% OS-level scaling. People have also brought up comparisons to other sites using similar design elements, but I checked a lot of the ones mentioned by others, and even those other sites have their UI elements stretch out to fill the entire window even if article content does not. In that regard, Vector 2022 doesn't even follow the design examples of the sites other people are referencing. Trynn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Welcome to Wikipedia Trynn! I believe you have an individual preference. Your username, bell and notifications are above the white space, while my username, bell and notifications are all above the text and the whitespace begins at the Watchlist. Just ask for help at the talk page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

158. Support On a wide desktop monitor the amount of whitespace is baffling and the exact opposite of what I'd expect a website to do with available "real estate". Cpl Syx ^[talk] 23:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
159. Strong Support: I specifically made an account again for this, having lost my old login somewhere along switching emails, because this is the worst design 'improvement' I've seen in quite a few years. It is unpleasant to be unable to see where the sidebar ends and the page starts, and the overwhelming whiteness of the design made pages more difficult to read. It's very much a mobile-centric design on a website I only ever use on desktop, and I'm pretty sure there's already a mobile version. Heavily indented sections, like this page for example, are a nightmare to parse without a clear border like the old design. The non-persistence of having to click on a button to open the menu on the side with every single page change if not logged in is frustrating too. No longer having an easy overview of languages on the left (without having to click on it, again) is a negative too. I personally also hate the move table of contents, specifically how it remains in sight while you scroll, though I can see why some would like it. SiderealMask (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
160. Strong Support: The only way I've found to disable this new UI is a Chrome extension (to add "useskin=vector" to all pages) and that is frankly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.26.93 (talk) 23:04, January 22, 2023 (UTC)
161. Strong Support. The community rejected this before, and the idea that it's being foisted upon us anyway is outrageous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
162. Support for a multitude of reasons. I rarely edit these days and as such rarely log in, but this new skin is so terrible that I have to log into to even do so much as to browse the site effectively.
     1) Whitespace-heavy skin designs work for mobile users because it can be difficult to click on the correct links when there are too many in close proximity. But for desktop users the added whitespace just creates unnecessary scrolling.
     2) The new design clashes visually with established templates, the standard editing interface, and the like: any change to the default skin should consider not just what the new skin looks like in a vacuum, but also how it meshes with the current content of the website. And that was clearly not considered at all in the design of this skin.
     3) When hiding the table of contents there appears to be no way to get it back short of refreshing the page, at least that I can find. This is a horrible design choice for what should be obvious reasons, and the fact that the skin was rolled out this way speaks volumes about how it wasn't ready for deployment.
     4) When I use the search box, then move my mouse cursor, and then type something in, I get unexpected behavior: instead of searching for exactly what I typed in, I instead search for the page in the search results that my mouse cursor happened to be hovering over. This is clearly not what the majority of people typing a term in the search box would expect or intend to do, and again the fact that the skin was rolled out with this "feature" speaks to its unsuitability for use.
     I could talk about other issues as well, but most of what I would say has already been addressed above. Suffice to say, this skin clearly needs more work before becoming the default. That's not to say that there aren't positive aspects to the new skin: the more prominent search bar is a welcome change, as are the page previews that occur during a search. But the issues presented above are too great to make up for these small improvements. ST11 (t • c) 04:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Holy crap, you're right about hiding the contents. How did I not realize this until now... and why did the WMF think this was acceptable to deploy onto a top-20 website? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Hang on, I figured it out... it's the !!! button that shows up next to the article title. But once again, the skin relies on hieroglyphics to communicate important features, when text would've made much more sense. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Eh, I think it's a fairly common icon with a fairly common use. I would prefer if it gave a tooltip when you hover over it, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

163. Support due to the following problems with Vector 2022 that the WMF has showed no signs of interest in fixing:
     • Excessive whitespace at the top — The "Log In" button is hidden behind a … button, which makes things more inconvenient than they were before for no clear reason. I mean, look at the official screenshot — there's plenty of space to make the login button be one click away.
     • Excessive whitespace in the contents sidebar. Like, they could easily cut the CSS margins on the contents by half and it would result in less unnecessary scrolling.
     • The hamburger menu. You can't say with a straight face that this is a desktop-first redesign then proceed to hide content behind a ≡ button by default. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
164. Support per pythoncoder. starship.paint (exalt) 06:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
165. Support: As an avid reader and occasional editor and author with many interests, I don't like that many important links are hidden by the new skin, in particular the login field. What once was a single-click process, needs two clicks and a pull now. It's a small thing, but it is inconvenient nevertheless. I also don't like the extent of the white space, and most importantly (as missing information is often found in other versions), I miss the one-click language links. Hence I find that the previous default skin was much better, but Monobook is still superior to that since all operational controls are on the same side of the screen. But I also see that the new skin may have some advantages for users of mobile devices, restricted as they are in screen size. Then again, as a desktop user I find these characteristics detrimental, and I'd rather have all operation controls visible from the start. Hence I propose a compromise: Let the browser detect the operating system. If it is a mobile one, tell it to display the new skin (or another that is geared towards mini-screens). If it is a desktop one, use something like Monobook, or another of the classic skins, with all bells and whistles on. Don't just cater for one side. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     There's already a mobile skin and its already automatically shown on mobile operating systems. Vector 2022 was designed for desktops. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Was it really meant for desktops? It does not look the part. And here I thought the developers wanted to help users with small screens, which I could have understood. That would mean that the new skin is not good for anything. Pity about the work people have wasted on it, their time would have been better spent on content than on appearance. Hence, upgrade to strong support. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

166. Support: the new Vector skin has some good points but the iconographic "mystery meat navigation" at the top suffers from some serious usability deficiencies that make it harder to use and discriminate against users with certain disabilities. These issues are easily rectified but the interface development don't seem to be interested in taking user feedback into account. Cnbrb (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
167. Strong support: I do not think this move adheres to the RfC close. Whitespace width is still an issue with menus and any page with tables/images; others have raised that IPs can't keep their preference [in fact, I just tested it and I can't find the toggle at all as an IP]; sticky header and menu behavior is confusing and buggy [on a non-16:9 desktop window the sidebar jolts the entire article down instead of sideways, on my tablet talk pages are unreadable thanks to buggy table of contents menus]). These and similar issues were raised in the RfC which was closed with a huge "if" regarding the resolution of these issues, and while I see some improvements in the article body width, it's a huge stretch to say that the community's concerns were all satisfactorily handled, as this entire page should explain. While I do not think Vector legacy is perfect and I would welcome a solid update, this particular update, by consensus of the last RfC, is not it. Blue Edits (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
168. Strong support: This skin is garbage, it's got more blank white space than a ream of fresh copy paper. It sucks ass. Get rid of it, the people who introduced it and the people who designed this monstrosity. It's extremely clear to me that the the full impact of this change was hidden from the wider community in order to force it through regardless of many of the concerns listed above that were advised before. The change wasn't even close to a clear consensus, but it was forced through on the community, the backlash is massive. It's quite clear that it should be immediately reverted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
169. Support as per all the above. For those who say it is a resistance to change, it is not, but is a resistance to idiocracy.Clntkee (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
170. Strong support: A few days ago, I went to look up something on Wikipedia, only to find that its design had, shall we say, uglified. I don't know who complained about the old design, which had nothing wrong with it, but they are definitely in a very small minority. I'm glad to see that many agree with me, and I ask that Wikipedia go back to the old design. 98.20.129.84 (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
171. As pointed out by some people above, this design has an aesthetically bad look — too much white space, which can be perceived as trying to unify mobile and desktop designs. Secondly, as per all the above, WMF completely ignored community consensus and immediately implemented the change (which kind of feels like a throwback to WP:FRAM). Therefore I support a rollback to the old design. Summer ^talk 12:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
172. Support. I rarely see an instance where a big websites changes a classic design and it goes down well with the community. It usually feels like trying to fix what's not broken, and something no one asked for. Changing everyone's UI (rather than just giving them an extra option) is rather presumptuous. Please let this be a lesson for future redesigns to consult the community first, or to just add it to the existing list of skins without changing the default. — Czello 15:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
173. Support. The legacy Vector looks simpler and more elegant, the Vector 2022 looks clunkier. I do like the table of contents to "follow" the reading, but the simpler and wider legacy Vector is better for me. The fact that IP editors can't change that is another problem. A quick fix to this matter is to allow changes to all users - with account or without account. Another important point is that this change is forced on us, and I would never support such changes, no matter how "benevolent" it might be. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
174. Support and in strong terms at that. The redesign attempts to fix what isn't broken. The whitespace and the squeezing of text are just two reasons out of many. For example, I formatted my userpage for the 2010 skin, and because the text has been pushed into the middle the layout has suffered as a result. That to me is enough of a reason. I also think removing section numbering is a huge error, and pushing it into the side and making it so you cannot see all of it at once makes it measurably worse. The only positive thing I could say about it is widening the searchbar along the top. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
175. Strong support The single worst site-wide change I've seen during my 17 years here. The amount of white space this creates is beyond ridiculous. And most of the other changes are clearly retrograde also. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
176. Support. Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, as I made an account to restore my ability to use the old wikipedia style so I'm new to this whole thing. SanJacintoPeak (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
177. Support, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
178. Support rolling back to 2010, for as long as IPs are unable to change skins without signing up and because of the badgering as Fram has pointed out. Decreasing the page width so that skimming eyes on widescreen monitors don't have to travel too far is about the only noticable improvement over the old skin, but that can be easily retrofitted for v2010. Everything else, including the hamburger hell UI, is tedious for desktop browsing and not well supported by older web browsers (one of the major benefits of Wikipedia over other JS/complex-CSS-heavy sites: you could still comfortably read articles on "obsolete" hardware without much lag or broken rendering). DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
179. Strong Support I immediately reverted to Vector 2010 because I hated the new skin so much. I don't like guessing at what a symbol means and I like being able to click on plaintext that says Contributions and Watchlist. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
180. Support As mostly a reader and not an editor I was pretty surprised (not in a good way) by the new look. I was looking into wether there was a CSS error on my end but noticed it as deliberate. Even after a period of trying to have the new look grow on me I just don't understand the reasoning for the change. A simple shrink expand button for Vector 2010 would have been much better. Without an easy way for logged out users to opt out I would like to see this change rolled back on all wikis. Or leave the decision to the admins of every language. Real Joe Cool (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
181. Strongest possible Support The new design is clunky, awkward, hides tools and options, makes the dealing with the ToC a chore, switching languages more cumbersome... (the original full list of languages, on the left, was best) It takes more time and effort, to do anything or get any information. Ones ability to get an overview of things, or to navigate, is clearly diminished. Functionality, practicality and efficiency is severely hampered. Not because it is an unfamiliar set-up, but because it is an inherently, objectively, and significantly, less functional/practical/efficient design. (and this is true of most "upgraded"/"updated"/"modern" website designs, from about the 2010's onward ...which are far from unfamiliar, by now) The new design makes the desktop and mobile designs closer ...but I have yet to see, any reasonable argument (or any argument whatsoever), for why that would be a good thing. Why one should make the desktop version, be closer to a design that has to be severely limited, by the severely limited abilities of mobiles. (most notably, their minimal and extremely clumsy and imprecise touchscreens)--155.4.221.27 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     I agree. I browse Wikipedia on both desktop and mobile, but I only use desktop to contribute, because it is impossible to do serious editing on the mobile version; I use the mobile version only for superficial and quick reading and information-search. Æo (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     ...and mobile is clearly worse, for superficial and quick reading and information-search, as well, other than specifically on a smartphone. (due to the many and severe limitations, of smartphones) 155.4.221.27 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

182. Support (edit conflict) As someone who prefers Vector 2022, the backlash is very clear and features that many editors & readers are concerned with should be addressed and fixed as necessary (e.g. random white spaces) before rolling out V22 again. Making the skin optional is also another option. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
183. Support for all the reasons stated above. The amount of blank space it's just ridiculous to me. Tintero21 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
184. Support per many above. While updating the look of many websites is now popular and WMF acted in good faith, setting Vector 2022 as default skin is likely a mistake. The default skin should be the one most familiar and habitual, with Vector 2022 being optional. Brandmeister^talk 23:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
185. Support: this existential change has not been communicated globally, and the en-WP affects each and all language versions and projects (commons etc). Was there even a banner to notify people this was coming up? I can only imagine the issue was pinned in the basement admin bathroom's talk page, just Guide-to-the-Galaxy-style. Well, I have been actively avoiding the fr-WP and the pt-WP for years already, because they had this skin activated for everyone and I had no clue on how to switch it back. Clicking on a fr-interwiki link meant I had to spend extra time to find my way back to the other languages. I don't care at all about all the other horrible design choices of the new design (like rendering half my screen totally empty, and using giant fonts, making featured articles or lists unreadable) ... no, I can tweak that. But what I desperately Need: Interwiki Links, and to have them readily accessible at first glance. These *#ß%É designers HID THEM! Behind a button! You have to endlessly navigate because they are not even sorted by language code anymore but by popularity or whatever!
     Seriously, the sidebar interwiki-links are the most important feature of a multi-language global encyclopedia, and like it or not, the en-WP is the hub connecting all languages. Or... it was. Now, users are actively discouraged of finding information in other languages, thanks to badly designed menus. I know what I'm talking: the French and Portuguese wikis have moved the interwiki-button around several times, and I essentially stopped checking there for info. This has become a SHELL GAME. If accessible interwiki links don't get re-introduced, then goodbye multi-language encyclopaedia. --Enyavar (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
186. Support: Following on the December 2022 banners, yet another disconnect between editors and WMF, with readers caught in the crossfire. While I personally like the skin, the WMF pushed ahead even with significant improvements yet to arrive. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
187. Support This is a Windows 8-level miscalculation. While this skin does make the desktop and mobile versions more similar, 155.4 raises good points about whether that's something we should want in the first place. What works on a smartphone screen or tablet is not necessarily what will work best on a PC. The new layout is not just an eyesore, it hampers desktop functionality.LM2000 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
188. Very Passionate Support. Not to suggest that someone was supposed to inform me of this, but I feel like I really missed the boat in opposing this format ever being rolled out. It's a nightmare to navigate and looks like something out of the 90s. I think the biggest issue here though is the fact that non-member readers (who I'd have to imagine make the vast majority of this site's readers) were woefully underconsidered, especially given they more or less have no choice to use this new format (and even if they make accounts may not be aware of the appearance setting or what it means). I appreciate those who are working to improve this site, but we need to have the whole format sent back to the drawing board. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
189. Weak support I had been using Vector 2022 since last year. The immediate first look for me was that it compressed a large quantity of text, especially for users with smaller monitors and resolutions. This unnecessary compression leaves issues for editing, especially in tables and lists due to how these tables present differently. With this implementation, many tables are now shown in an awkward manner, where text is compressed and elongated. The intention of this design is not at fault, but the lack of consideration of how it impacts different users (on the technical side) is what that makes this change controversial. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
190. Support Yet another desktop redesign trying to make it look like a mobile version even though a mobile version already exists. Vector 2022 is confusing, buggy, and has way too much wasted space. Greyhound 84 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
191. Support rollback. This vector looks unready. I think it was a mistake to make it default while in experimental phase. More thoughts on improving first, before deployment. Sarri.greek (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
192. Support rollback because the redesign fails at making Wikipedia easier to use than the previous skin. In addition, this RfC needs to be shared more widely because I'd wager most editors still haven't seen that they can comment on this. Perhaps WMF should do an editor poll or vote instead of a RfC most people won't see.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
193. Support as the new version is completely unfriendly and makes usability difficult. Vector 2010 was a natural, simple successor to Monobook. This one wasn't to Vector 2010. Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
194. Support I think the foundation have their approach entirely backward. They've made the change and are waiting to see how many people hate it enough to revert back to the previous skin; this is an incredibly low bar for classing the change as a 'good idea.' I propose that they revert the default to the previous design, advertise the new skin, and measure what proportion of people like it enough to change to the 'new' skin voluntarily JeffUK 13:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

     @JeffUK: Notice that this Question #2 is specifically about the width problem. Was your vote/comment intended for the general RfC (above) about the restoration of Vector 2010 as the default interface? Æo (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

     Ack, it was. I blame the new layout! Thanks. JeffUK 15:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

     Comment moved to the correct subsection.--Æo (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

195. Support The new skin is a bug. It's a mobile layout moved mindlessly to the desktop. Vector 2022 does not use the space offered by large screens, hides interface elements and extends the time to access them by requiring additional clicks and mouse movements. The functional blocks of the page are not distinguished in any way, merging with each other. The new table of contents is collapsed by default, making it difficult to keep track of the content, and its width does not allow for comfortable placement of long titles. If someone wants to use the mobile view, they can always do so. If someone does not want to, he should not be forced to do so by authoritative decisions.The new skin is an example of all the evils of current design fashion. It puts a "modern", "clean" mobile-like look above usability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freja Draco (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
196. Support with an asterisk: I appreciate some of the changes, but overall I feel it is worse. Especially please bring back the original Table of Contents (TOC) design (placed below the lead section). Having an additional copy of the TOC that is constantly visible on the left side of the page is fine as an extra feature, but not replacement of the long-standing design. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Al83tito: I agree that the ToC is one of the foremost problems (see #Bring back the TOC), together with the limited width and the hidden toolbar, and I also agree that some other changes are good, especially the the new colour palette and the new horizontal Wikipedia/other WMF project logo. Æo (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

197. Support definitely. But also improve the old and the new skin. Steue (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
198. Support If any skin should be picked as a new default, it should be Timeless. V22 doesn't feel very thought out or even production-ready. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     Agreed. If any other skin is picked, it should be Timeless. Unfortunately, we'll probably never get any consensus for that. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

199. Support. I've been happily using Vector 2022 for several months and assumed that a finished version had been developed and rolled out. Apparently I was wrong: as of today a number of new, ugly and/or broken features have been introduced. Clearly an approach of "roll out first, finish the design later" has been chosen, rather than one that would indicate a modicum of professionalism or respect for readers or editors. This isn't sustainable and it harms the work we're trying to do. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
200. Shouldn't have been changed, to begin with it. PS - Why are editors putting 'Support/Oppose' etc, in their posts? The survey already has 'support/oppose' sub-sections. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     Perhaps to make their thoughts clearer, or because it's common practice, or because the posts here were not initially split between supports and opposes. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

201. Support Excessive amounts of blank space, bad readability, and other features pointed out above. Avilich (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
202. Support — The new design is just plain bad. I have seen many bad designs of websites but this is the first one that made me think there was something wrong with my browser. I don't oppose all change as a kneejerk thing and would be happy to see other options explored, but Vector 2020 is bad. Stratpod (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     that’s vector 2022 Dronebogus (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

203. Weak support. I get formatting errors on most pages (text lower down is bolded) and the new font colors are more difficult to see. I'm surprised actually that they meet the minimum contrast ratio specified by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. DrKay (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     I have actually been getting similar glitches even after I switched back to Vector 2010. Something global must have changed that is incompatible with the old skin, and it makes me concerned that 2010 may become difficult to technically support in the future. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

204. Rolling back to Vector 2010 is actually a bad idea, because obviously the only reasonable thing to do is roll back to Monobook, but since that isn't going to happen, back to Vector 2010 is the lesser evil. JBW (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     Another thought. I see that many comments object to imposing a mobile-like interface on desktop users, but seem to take it for granted that the mobile interface is fine for mobile users. Not so. For reading on a mobile device, the best thing to do by a long way is to select "Desktop", and avoid the well-intentioned but misconceived "mobile" interface. If you do that, Vector2010 is perfectly usable, and Mononbook absolutely fine. For editing on a mobile device, the same applies, except for "the best thing to do" substitute "the only reasonable thing to do". The mobile interface is appallingly badly designed for mobile devices, quite apart from the fact that it's even worse on a computer screen. JBW (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     @JBW, perhaps V10 works well on your mobile device, but it was even worse than the mobile interface (MobileFrontend) for me. The sidebar covered half the screen. That's the main reason I've been using V22 for around a year. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     @Qwerfjkl: Well, actually I do almost all my editing on Monobook, and use Vector only occasionally, when I am editing from an alternative account for which I haven't bothered to change the settings, so perhaps the best I can say is that it's usable for occasional use like that. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I had more experience of it. JBW (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

205. Support So, I'm not an editor. I'm a reader. And I don't read Wikipedia for the articles. I read it for the discussions and I have been reading it for the discussions since the 2007.
     • The method by which Vector 22 was shoved down the throat of the community makes it evident that WMF does not understand how to work with a grassroots, volunteer-driven project such as Wikipedia. The way to have gone about it was to run a contest for a new design created by members of the community, submitting Vector 2022 as one viable option out of say, five. This would have made the community at least feel enfranchised and shown that WMF is willing to trust the volunteers who create and maintain enwp to understand how the project should be presented visually to the public. Instead, WMF bestowed it upon the community as an edict from on high, granting to the community only small adjustments rather than the ability to say "no, thanks, we're fine without this inaccurate depiction of our work."
     • The new design makes what should be a reliable and trustworthy archive of knowledge look like an inflated bimbo with too much makeup. It's unnecessary and undermines the respectability of the entire enterprise. Wikipedia's look should be a little stodgy. It should be dense. Vector 22 would belong just fine on Fandom but it does not belong on enwp.
     • A site does not add a ton of whitespace to their UI if they are not intending to fill that whitespace with ads. I am 100% expecting that WMF will cram their cash cow full of banner ads within the next 12 months. That is how low the level of trust has sunk, and I fully expect WMF is unaware of the extreme level of resentment and mistrust since they're all a bunch of corporate MBAs with no understanding of why an editor or reader buys into the Wikipedia mission and concept.
     • On my phone in desktop mode (the only viable mode) my options are either a) let a page take 30 seconds to load before the JS loads so I can hide the sidebar and get more than 4 columns of text on the screen, or b) disable JS entirely, which means I cannot hide the sidebar at all. There has to be a CSS-only method of hiding the sidebar, and until that is implemented at the very least the design should be rolled back. I use Firefox for Android. I can't install addons that let me force-redirect. I'm never going to register since I'm just a reader. Let me set my skin of choice so I can actually read. 108.250.219.137 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
206. Support: My support is primarily based on the accessibility issues being unresolved. This should have been a point of focus when implementing a new redesign. Hey man im josh (talk)
207. Support: There was insufficient discussion; a coupon of hundred divisively split editors is not a sufficient community discussion for something that affects thousands of editors, especially when it invalidates their editorial choices made over the past decade. Because the placement of the TOC and having all its levels visible has effects on image placement, infobox placement, and decisions about the outline of the article's headers and subheaders. Not having all subheaders available by default makes the TOC far less useful, no matter what anyone claims, because one cannot see at a glance what topics are covered. oknazevad (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
208. Support +1 for accessibility!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8202:fbc0:312e:f28:84b5:626 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
209. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
210. Support - Doesn't seem to be ready. Nigej (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
211. Strong Support - I find myself clicking twice to go to many pages where I only had to click once previously. That alone makes navigating on the skin less productive, and more annoying. Not to mention the weird look and spacing. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
212. Support: Been around for years, mostly edit Gnomishly, but occasionally create an article when I see the opportunity/have the time. Tend to stay out of RFCs and voting etc because I don't consider myself experienced enough to get involved. Had no idea this change was forthcoming, tried it, thought it looked hideous. Now I see there was no consensus?! Nah, change it back. Muchclag (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
213. Support the new skin is not an improvement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
214. Support I heard of the previous RFC. The first thing I did when it changed was to discovered where the skins were in preferences and roll back the change. I am glad I am not an IP user. BeckyAnne(talk) 02:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
215. Strong Support The new theme is mobile styling for desktop, and as such is a bad UX by definition. I've been editing on wikipedia for 15 years, much of it logged out. Now I need to be logged in to even *use* the site. I do think improvements could be made to the previous style, but it is a practical style that serves the public well. There was no need to create such a radical redesign. I thought that the ToC had been *eliminated* until I finally changed the theme for my logged in usage. I saw that the redesign broke the sw.wikipedia as well. Has anyone done a broader survey of which other locales have been broken? TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
216. STRONG SUPPORT this is a hard fail. Accept defeat and revert. Thanks. LeperColony (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
217. Support new skin is not ready, and as many have pointed out, there are a lot of issues that make it less usable than the previous one. Also, the rollout was clearly done without support from the community --Ita140188 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
218. STRONG SUPPORT Rollback to Vector 2010 skin, immediately. It is clean, text-based, no web gimmicks, and fully functional. This is key to the excellent cross-platform compatibilty of Wikipedia. The new skin's pop-ups, its vague, ambiguous, subjective icons (in place of explicit words), and other gimmickry, strip Wikipedia of its essential clarity, simplicity, reliability and convenience. For those infatuated with "new" for the sake of "new", offer an additional menu item (or, if need be, an icon), which allows selection of the newer (or an older) skin. But the new skin should NOT be forced on all users by default. The arrogance of such a contemptuous attitude is indefensible, and a blatant repudiation of WP:Consensus. ~ Penlite (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
219. Support. While the ability to select Vector 2010 as my default display preference rendered the implementation of the new Vector 2022 to merely a one-time annoyance to me, I was not prepared for the number of (non-editor) Wikipedia users who have approached me at school to ask me how they too could restore their display layout as well. This led to many questions as to why the change was made on English Wikipedia (despite an RfC with no consensus to support), the difference between the WMF and en:wp, and why IP users needed to make an account just to "fix the display problem". It is not just editors, but general readers that are not happy with this change. Loopy30 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
220. Support — I don't like flat (+ monochrome) designs that contain mainly whitespace. It takes more effort to grasp the meaning of an element because of the missing UI affordance. For me Vector 2022 is missing visual guidelines for the eye, I prefer content "boxed" and navigation bars clearly seperated, fonts should stay compact and small. Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE) (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
221. Support. I need more time to evaluate Vector 2022, for now, I will edit on it to see how it works vs the legacy version. My general suggestion is to have all the tools except for the tools actually needed for editing to the left, while the tools for editing text should stay where they were, on the top, and the users should have freedom to adjust the width (from default LaTeX style to full-screen) and the skin they way they want. It would also make some sense to have at least some shades of gray and possibly colours to highlight the editing/ToC/tools/special links areas (where did these disappear?) from the text itself. So, there is much room for improvement but it's not awful and I don't think the changes should be hard to implement

     My main issue is with the forcing it on unlogged users, not advertising the discussion itself, deciding the discussion against the established rules for assessing consensus and not actually implementing feedback before unrolling the design. This shoving down the throat is unacceptable. There is a reason Wikipedia, for most things, relies on consensus to implement changes. This may lead to objectively suboptimal results but at least we know what we choose and bear full responsibility for it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

222. Support. I agree with many of the above that the new skin is not ready for implementation. I don't think that the layout and many of the design choices (menus hidden behind buttons, poor use of whitespace, etc) are conducive to reading and editing, despite perhaps being more elegant design. Function should be more important than style. I also don't appreciate the rollout without more consultation. I'm also unhappy with the lack of options made available for logged out editors, besides tech-y hacks there are no real options. Ultimately, this needs a lot more work and a lot more community guidance before it's ready to be forced upon us. Bestagon ⬡ 15:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
223. Support — I felt that the over emphasis of the table of contents, as a sticky menu of the page, is a waste of space and a visual annoyance, especially on tablets – where screen sizes may not be that big, but often uses a desktop sized viewport, making it exceptionally crowded. In my opinion, a more "welcoming" default interface, should be the one that fits small screens on desktop viewport sizes better, not the other way round. Another thing is, the all-round reduction in colour contrasts in the overall interface, makes it harder to focus. All in all, I am not against rethinking of how the default Wiki experience should be, but Vector 2022 feels like a regression, unfortunately. Vincentneo (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
224. Support - I do not like Vector 2022 for a myriad of reasons. There is too much unused space, and it looks bland as a result. I personally find it more difficult to read Wikipedia in Vector 2022 than Vector 2010. L'Mainerque (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
225. Support - The new design is difficult to read. I have had to log into my Wikipedia on every possible device I have, so that I can actually read articles. I have also had to tell friends and family how to make an account and revert the changes, just because they complained that they had difficulty reading with the new design. NorseNorman (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
226. Strong support, not that I expect it to change anything. The development has been a mess and it has created a lot of mess for everyone and anyone who's written and/or maintains a MediaWiki skin, like myself. The development process and rollout was flawed from the get-go and it was obvious to anyone who's been around a bit longer than a year or two that this thing would be deployed, no matter what; yet at the same time the WMF adamantly opposes to certain requests of the similar style that originate from within the community, because they didn't think of it.
     Additionally, the fixed ToC is distracting, as is the excessive whitespace and the narrowing of the content area is just one of the most bizarre design decisions I've come across in a while.
     In its defense, one can say that at least Vector 2022 tries to be responsive...but this was also already partially implemented by community members long before the so-called "Desktop Improvements"; the WMF had no interest in it at the time so the feature was hidden behind an off-by-default configuration variable, which they could later on axe saying that "nobody was using it".
     The "vote" that took place on the English Wikipedia...I think there might be a more descriptive word to describe a process where the outcome is already known prior to the voting taking place. But what would I know, it's not like I've been around and contributing to the MediaWiki software since 2008 with a strong focus on skins and skinning. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
227. Strong Support. New skin sucks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
228. Support rollback to Vector 2010. Structure – such as the table of contents – makes sense at the top, where there is space to show sections and subsections. Unstructured knowledge is not knowledge. IP Editors need to have the convenience in easy finding of tools and should not have to guess, for example, that the three-horizontal-lines ("hamburger") icon needs to be clicked on to get extra tools. Non-logged editors should not be given the impression that Wikipedia is Tik-tok. The review of knowledge should be transparent and the structure and tools should be displayed, not hidden by default. Moreover, WMF should not have imposed this decision against community consensus. Boud (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose rolling back to Vector 2010

1. Oppose as too soon but also as I find the new skin a substantial improvement over the legacy skin. I don't think the ivory tower comment above is representative of the rollout process. I endorse 331dot's comment as well. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Although there are some tweaks I would like to see (better line/color use for separation of the UI sections and less whitespace between the TOC and the article) reverting the whole thing is not a solution. If that is our first instinct, there will never be progress. Besides, the proven benefits of shorter lines and the convenience of the sticky TOC are categorically better for most readers out there. Toadspike (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Any decision about this, now or in the future, should be based on a rigorous reader survey, not an insider straw poll. The pool of people who will fathomably even see this page is a tiny fraction of the number of people who this would affect. Contrary to some claims here and elsewhere, this wasn't some bombshell dropped out of nowhere with no community input; it seems like I've seen several attempts to draw my attention to various feedback processes. Those of us who will actually see this are also the ones who can most easily just change it in our preferences. PS: WP:ONUS, part of our policy on verifying claims in our encyclopedia articles, has nothing to do with this. Live with it a while, provide feedback about any issues or areas that can be improved, and lobby for a good reader survey about it in, say, 6 months (if one isn't planned already). PS: Monobook4everzzz — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I've been trying out Monobook just to see what all the fuss was about, but I really don't think I can live without the sidebar ToC anymore. V22 4 lyfe!! Shells-shells (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I tried Monobook for a few weeks, years before this whole mess, and the thing I couldn't get past was each Twinkle feature (CSD, PROD, Tag...) having its own tab. It got messy very fast, especially on mobile. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

   I agree, but the issue is that this should have been done before the rollout - not after. WalnutBun (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I agree with every word of this. (except the post scriptum). Also, an RFC on a somewhat obscure page like this one, can't possibly override consensus formed on a highly-prominent page, which was advertised in a prominent watchlist notice. DFlhb (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose - As I supported the original RfC to add V22, I clearly don't want legacy back as the default. But beyond that, this is a waste of everyones time because the switch has been flipped, the press release has been sent and no RfC anywhere with less than 100% support will get this switch unflipped. A dark mode is more likley to be released tomorrow than this becoming a reality... Terasail^[✉️] 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   (ec) - And here I thought Fait accompli was frowned upon on Wikipedia. - jc37 22:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Realistically this change was coming if the original RfC had 0% support. It just happens I like the change, but some people just need to accept some changes sometimes. I was watching clips from BBC Archive and people had similar "outrage" over indoor smoking bans and seatbelt enforcement (People don't like change even if it is good for them). This change isn't a deep issue at the end of the day but you would think that the world is ending if you were reading VPT and some other threads.. Terasail^[✉️] 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   "Realistically this change was coming if the original RfC had 0% support." - and therein lies a major problem. You tell me, anytime the WMF has pushed something through without actual community consensus and buy-in - how has that turned out?

   That aside, I agree with you - I expect this to be fait accompli, and we're all just going to be like Kermit the frog waving our arms helplessly in the air. But sitting quiet and saying nothing would be wrong. - jc37 22:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Comparing the pushback to the theme change to resistance to seat belts and indoor smoking strikes me as an example of bad faith. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   @TheMissingMuse, how exactly? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Don't get me wrong, if there is data provided a few months from now that the new skin is worse (Unlikley considering these results would have probably appeared from other wikis with it as the default for ~2 years) then I think the change should be made back to legacy vector but the day after the change just isn't the time. Terasail^[✉️] 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Which wikis was this the default for the last two years? TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   @TheMissingMuse you can get a timeline of its deployment in other wikis here - mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements#Deployment plan and timeline. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for the link! As a fluent speaker of French, I tried to find where they were discussing the theme, but the main discussion link points to: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements which is in en wiki. Will let you know if I can find where the feedback lives in fr wiki. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Here is a link to some feedback in fr: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Am%C3%A9lioration_de_l%27interface_par_la_WMF#Vector_2022_:_des_changements_majeurs_de_mise_en_page_avec_le_Sommaire_fixe. Specific quotes include: "Un tel changement brutal me semble, à mon humble avis, très maladroit" and "Je suis d'accord pour dire que cette smartphonisation du web imposée aux utilisateurs PC est insupportable", which roughly translates to: "this brutal change seems to me IMHO, very poorly done" and "I am good with saying that this smartphone-ization of the web imposes an unsupportable UX". That's not to say that there wasn't other feedback, but stark feedback was coming in through. Was anyone monitoring Vector 2022 discussion in other language wikis? TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The new design is fine, you'll get used to it. People complain about every website redesign no matter how well thought out it is. – Anne drew 22:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   Why does that make me think of lie back and think of England? - jc37 22:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The sticky TOC is very useful and my eyes have started adjusting in a good way. Nirzardp (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose not based on the merits of this discussion but for the fact that there is nothing to suggest this discussion will be more representative than any other. People should express their concerns and suggestions on the Vector 2022 talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But buried on some page away from the VP at this point is unlikely to get response from the WMF, in my opinion. YMMV, of course. - jc37 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

   I'm fairly sure that WMF accounts have been posting at the talk page of WP:VECTOR2022; I haven't seen one here. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   No change because we've already talked about it once before? So nothing should be changed on Wikipedia ever, for all time? AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   No change should be unnecessarily forced upon all WIkipedia users without:

   • A trial demonstration period notifying all editors of the proposed changes, and allowing them to sample the new skin without it being the default.
   • A period for editors to comment -- since they'll be affected the most by the range of changes.
   • A trial demonstration period notifying all users of the proposed changes, and allowing them to sample the new skin without it being the default.
   • A period for community comment -- not only of Wikipedia insiders, but the general public, as well (Editors generally have much higher tech skills with Wikipedia than the general user (reader) base, and therefore are not a fully representative sample of users. What may be easy for editors may be challenging and alienating for ordinary visitors.
   • A sober period of reflection by the decision-makers at Wikipedia. And, no, WP:Consensus on a matter such as this appears to be a semantic illusion. Somebody (or somebodies) in the hierarchy does the actual deciding -- prevailing sentiment, or actual consensus, notwithstanding. Ideally, the decision-makers should be people not personally attached to the proposed change(s).
   • Decision on specific changes, or retention of all status quo, or push to implement all proposed changes, per the decision-makers, who should be transparently identified as such.

   It's the Age of Transparency, people.

   ~ Penlite (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

8. Personally, I oppose undoing the improvements that the new skin brought. On behalf of users sans accounts, a reversion shouldn't take place without seeing analysis of all anonymous users versus those who've edited to voice objection to the change. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose: WMF has been responsive and painstakingly taking feedback on the designs and using data-driven arguments/research for what would benefit our readers. Thoughtful feedback by editors have been incorporated, for example the option to include/exclude margin space. Ultimately experienced editors always have the option to opt out/switch vector skins, but it is our main users, the readers who are not actively in these discussions whom we must have in sight. For what the vector skin does, it is barely a change and I would encourage WMF to be even more aggressive and bold in future. The fact mobile editing/navigation/talk page headers is still broken for so many users bothers me far more than this petty quibble about CSS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose: ^^ I agree with the above

    Feedback from people involved in the process is going to be massively skewed in favour of the technocrats who wanted to shovel this down our throats. It is clear that the wider community that never even knew this was happening do not want it.Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I really don't think this is something editors should decide; leave it to developers and more importantly ask the readers. And it is truly, IMO, too late now. Besides: I'll keep using old Vector, but is this change so horrible? J947 † ^edits 01:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    If they have the power to roll it out, then they have the power to un-roll it out, at least technically. The only reason they couldn't is because it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Well yes. But imagine the shitstorm which would arise if the change was reverted. If it's truly a massive problem, then wait a month or two and then – fill the dreaded whitespace with a reader poll on whether to keep the change or not. J947 † ^edits 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    How would that cause a shitstorm? If anything, waiting a few months to roll it back would cause a shitstorm - reverting the change now is the right move, not waiting and giving people the time to get somewhat used to the change before ripping it out from under them. WalnutBun (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Unfortunately I have seen many comments similar to what Donald Trump said, "I know more than the generals do"- people who think they know better than the developers. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The real problem here is developpers who think they know better than their community members what these members want and just refuse to listen to their complaints! Tvx1 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    That is demonstratably false. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The developers may know more about the technical details of the implementation, but they certainly don't know more about the summation of individual preferences and aims than the collective whole. This is analogous to the classic problem of centrally planned economies. Pure appeals to authority can only go so far. Sure, perhaps the dev team has a whole bunch of data about how decreased information density has xyz benefit and abc tradeoffs, and they also believe the benefits outweigh the costs (one-sided tradeoffs are extremely rare). But, if we disagree on the respective importance of those benefits and costs, then all the statistics in the world have no authority. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

12. Strong Oppose: The new skin IS better, even though there is excess whitespace. Polls from both editors and readers have shown that less prefer the old one. I also fail to see the argument against limiting the text width and the new ToC. Additionally, though this did not contribute to my !vote, this RfC was way too preemptive. It was started less than a day after deployment, which means that a lot of people could simply need to be accustomed. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
13. Oppose I had some issues with the new skin, and they have been fixed. I like being able to know what the readers are seeing. Tired of the wingers and the knockers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
14. Oppose The "Enable limited width mode" should be disabled as the default for all readers, logged in or not. I think that'll get rid of most of the complaints about the new skin. Some1 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is my primary issue with the skin itself, but it won't fix the lack of communication that preceded the rollout. WMF claims they put up banners for almost a year before the change - I never saw anything of the sort, and I know I'm not alone - check Wikipedia_talk:Vector_2022. WalnutBun (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I agree with this. Andre🚐 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

15. Oppose The people who know enough to vote here know how to change their skin. The design team has a lot of incentives to get things right for unregistered accounts and so even if it's not there yet - and I suspect it's not - they'll get there. I wanted to like this change, I found it broke some things I can't live without, I've gone back but that doesn't mean I should impose my preference on a much larger set of people. And I say all this despite the fact that I think the WMF team has made it clear, despite statements to the contrary, that our feedback doesn't matter. Bad form on them for sure. But that's not a reason to rever the change either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Could you please clarify? I've read your comments a couple times now, and they seem to say: "The WMF did this badly on several fronts and this change is causing me issues personally, but that's ok, let the change stand simply because it's already done, and they aren't listening to us anyway."

    What am I missing? - jc37 03:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Jc37 my personal preference shouldn't get to dictate something that works for large numbers of people. The fact that I dislike how the WMF team has acted doesn't change my belief, based on general design research and clear data on Wikipedia, that they're ultimately right that this change benefits readers. The people weighing in here, including me, overhwelmingly have the needs of an editor. These are different needs but nearly all regular editors have registered accounts to which they can switch to a different skin and so the default shouldn't matter to us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

16. Oppose. It's a fine, reader-friendly, long overdue change. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose as I find it a much welcome improvement over the old skin. Lightoil (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
18. I think the best path forward is to keep the Vector 2022 skin in place as the default skin and work on improving it. The design team owns the default site appearance and thus can set the guiding principles it wishes to follow. The community can continue to give feedback on the metrics that should be gathered through user testing (to supplement the user testing that has already been done) to evaluate the efficacy of the default skin. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose It is a fine skin with some important improvements. --Enos733 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Wikipedia has been due for a refresh in its design for a while now, as standards in web design have shifted since 2010. In order for me to support a reversal, I would like to see compelling evidence that the new design is truly detrimental to readers, rather than just procedural arguments (e.g. WMF should have started a new RfC first) or personal preference (e.g. preferring the old design simply because you're more used to it). Two independent media commentators have written that the redesign is "barely noticeable" and "doesn't rock the boat", see [2][3]. Sure, it would have been ideal for the WMF to start a second RfC and get affirmative backing from this community before turning it on, but I do not believe the new skin is so severely bad that we need to roll it back, rather than fix it forward (i.e. fixing issues with the new skin in place). Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Didn't catch the irory behind the cited comentators? 37.134.90.176 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    There is none, unless you show me how the heck this is ironic. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

21. Oppose. Not necessary. Just configure a different skin in your preferences. I was using Monobook for a long time and I still might go back to it, tho I'm giving Vector 22 a try right now. Andre🚐 03:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    To use preferences, one must make an account and use it wherever you might read wikipedia from. If people are making "single purpose" accounts to fix this and complain about it, that should be an indicator of a bad design. Otherwise you are stuck having to use third party scripts, addons or otherwise, as have been suggested in other discussions. The bookmarklet and url modification methods are stopgaps at best, and are among the worst "solutions" provided for ip users. Deadoon (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

22. Oppose. I have chosen to return to the legacy Vector skin until a few of my personal efficiency bugbears have been sorted but I recognize that the new skin has substantial improvements. People have howled at website redesigns with objective improvements since the dawn of the internet. Change is scary, but it's also life. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose - not sure what everyone else is reading, but when I Google "new Wikipedia layout" and read literally anything written about this today, the universal opinion appears to be that it is a barely noticeable but welcome change. I reverted back to the old one, but it seems clear to me the general public likes this. If anything, they think it's not enough of an update. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This recalls to me the idiom: "eat shit, four billion flies cannot be wrong"... Sorry, I can't resist... 37.134.90.176 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

24. Oppose. Wikipedia was long overdue a design update. People were complaining when we switched from monobook to vector, the cycle is repeating now. This is just a knee-jerk reaction against any change, give it some time and people will get used to it. Personally I will continue using legacy vector until it is broken to the point of being unusable, but the way active editors like me use Wikipedia is very different from that of an average reader. I think this change is an improvement for readers, something which people in real life has agreed with me. There is room for improving vector-2022 of course, but rolling it back is not useful. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
25. Strong Oppose (aka No, Just No) - (TLDR: Vector is old/broken, the newer skin looks better and is more usable to casual users, and the team behind it is responsive, just saying I don't like it isn't the way to go) I think the community here has a very strong false assumption that everyone likes seeing Wikipedia the way wikipedia editors (i.e. mostly power users) like to see it. As primarily a Wikipedia reader, this skin is a much better than normal Vector since it has a familiar layout similar to the myriads of technical blog sites, tech news websites, documentation etc. It allows you to consume content without actually having to turn ones head on a widescreen display. Additionally, the ability to choose ones layout even as a IP basically gives you the ability to customize the style you want for reading even without having to log in.
    Also, from a purely technical standpoint, rejecting this skin will be a big blow to our ability to modernize our interface with newer technologies and providing a better experiences by eliminating technical debt. If you personally don't like please shift to a different skin/old Vector, don't block what is arguably better both for users and the technical growth for the project.
    Additionally, based on my personal experiences, the team rolling out this change has been extremely receptive to feedback and has helped immensely in integrating older tools and has made extensive changes to accomodate the same (c.f Wikisource ProofreadPage integration). I think we made a concerted effort of reporting bugs and issues (via phabricator/vpt etc) instead of doing whatever this is, we would be able to reach a equilibrium much faster. -- 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    (note that I am involved in the technical side of the project and have interacted with engineers as well as written multiple patches for ProofreadPage and associated Wikisource related technical issues) -- Sohom Datta (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

26. Oppose - what's done is done. It would be a better use of our time to try to improve Vector 2022 with bug reports and suggestions. The dev team have made it clear they're not going to just abandon this new skin, and they've also already responded to various concerns, such as through the addition of a width button. Anarchyte (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    A width button that may as well not be there for all the good it does, since if you're not logged in, you have to toggle it for every single page you read every single time you open the site. That's not a solution, it's a way to frustrate people into giving up viewing Wikipedia the way they want to view it. --Kizor 09:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

27. Strongest oppose possible – See Wikipedia:Vector for déjà vu. Changes will invariably break things, and if we don't want to break things we might as well don't try anything new in the first place. If you hate this new skin, you can switch to the old skin. Here are a few more reasons why:
    1. The developers do listen to feedback and is really responsive, they've learned from WP:VisualEditor deployments and has made a concrete plan on how to redesign the skin
    2. The new skin reduces friction for readers to digest information
    3. It's ergonomic for editing Wikipedia once you've gotten used to it

    A lot of the support comments are made by people who are behind the technology adoption life cycle and may need more time to adjust to the changes. I, myself, used to dislike Vector 2022, but I've gotten used to it since then and like the changes. CactiStaccingCrane 08:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Evidence to support my claims:

    • Slate – Wikipedia’s Redesign Is Barely Noticeable. That’s the Point.
    • Engadget - Wikipedia's first desktop design update in a decade doesn't rock the boat (updated)

    CactiStaccingCrane 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I am a professional software engineer. Don't presume anything about others that you don't know. I am very familiar with technology. I also think the trend in the past decade of reducing information density at the expense of everything else is terrible. Clearly, many agree with me.

    And no, contrary to your comment on my page, I will not stop voicing my opinion on the redesign. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    That is not deja vu. I don't see a negative reaction on the talk page for the previous Vector, only constructive criticism. Nobody said "I hate it" or "return it to the old version", at least not on that page.  Card Zero  (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    See here for the deja vu Chris 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

28. Oppose. This is pointless grumbling. The English Wikipedia community has the final say on the content of the English Wikipedia. It doesn't have the final say on the software it runs on. Nobody likes design by committee and design by community is even worse. The WMF web team have been extraordinarily patient in soliciting and acting on our feedback up until now, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt and let them do their job. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    It does, and since WMF didn't dismiss swwwiki's appeal to revert the change(WMF said they'll "discuss it") this is clearly possible. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Tha that WMF (rightly) asked us what we think about a change does not mean that they're ceding the decision on it to us. I don't think there's much harm in the RfC (except hammering the wedge between enwiki and the WMF even further in) but I guarantee you it won't get Vector 2022 scrapped. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Nobody is suggesting that Vector 2022 be scrapped, and suggesting that we are is arguing in bad faith. We are requesting that the default UI be reverted back to Vector legacy, and that people be given the option to continue using Vector 2022 if they so desire. WalnutBun (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    That is what I meant by scrapped. – Joe (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

29. Strongest oppose possible. This RFC is balderdash. The idea of "voting" on redesigns is as nonsensical as voting on Duchamp's Fountain. UI design is based on objective principles, not on what a loud minority thinks. Objective feedback can only be obtained through revealed preferences, i.e. by measuring opt-outs. This pushback is caused by resistance to change, not by any objective attributes of the new design. Logged-in users also have no basis to complain on behalf of hypothetical logged-out users; just switch it in your preferences. And no matter the outcome, this can't possibly override the close of the previous, far more prominent RFC. DFlhb (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    If logged out users cant opt out, how do you measure if they've opted out? RFCs are the loud minority you complain about, the overwhelming majority of readers are casual logged-out users that would only consider making an account to revert back to the old skin, if at all.

    Forcing casual readers to make an account just to have a usable visually attractive skin is frankly the worst UX design decision I've ever seen. BadUX (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Many of us *are* logged-out users that only created accounts in the past couple days specifically to change back to a more sensible UI design. So yes, we can actually speak for logged-out users since we are them, and we're pissed off. Trynn (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Trynn, rather, you're a very small subgroup of readers. There around 5-20 accounts posting here that were created for just that purpose, but millions see Wikipedia. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm curious where your information is coming from. Has there been data published showing the number of new accounts created in the past 3 days and switching default profiles? I haven't seen that. I'll agree that there are only a few of us who are upset enough to create accounts and also start participating in this RfC discussion (although there have also been quite a number of comments from IP users). Trynn (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Trynn: Here's some data. The number of daily account creations increased by 3.5k between Jan 17th and Jan 19th. It's reasonable to assume that this is roughly the number of readers who dislike the new skin enough to create an account to disable it. This is a very small subset (0.005%) of the 70 million people who visit Wikipedia each day. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    That may be so - but how many of those who don't create accounts know that switching skins is an option to account holders, or that you don't have to be an editor to create an account? How many are using Wikipedia from locations where account creation is blocked for one reason or another? There are tons of valid reasons that someone who prefers Vector legacy over Vector 2022 wouldn't or couldn't make an account, only some of which can be accounted for using more data. WalnutBun (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for the link. Looking at the graphs though, I think phrasing it as "account creations increased by 3.5k" seems disingenuous, as is comparing it to the total number of readers. You could also phrase it as "daily account creations more than doubled since the UI change" and also be correct, and that interpretation of the data indicates the UI rollout was a significant problem. Clearly this is data that should be looked at and considered carefully, and also published more broadly. Trynn (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Sojourner in the earth: What would be even more informative would be the data from the switch to Vector in 2010 for comparison, but I have no idea where this could be found. small jars tc 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: I think Vector 2010 was rolled out on 13 May; here are the stats on new account creations for that month. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of readers simply don't know that creating an account lets you choose to use the old skin. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack, is it? Why? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Because there is no indication that logged in user can change their skin built into the logged-out interface. Honestly, it's surprising that this number of accountless users figured this out, and it's indicative of many more who haven’t small jars tc 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, or maybe it's common practice for websites to require an account to change the appearance? — Qwerfjkltalk 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sadly, it's not common practice for websites to allow users to change their skin at all (Reddit is the only one that comes to mind). There is no reason for the average reader to assume that Wikipedia is any different. small jars tc 22:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, Reddit is the only one that comes to mind for me as well. Reddit also has entire subreddits that are coded only to support old.reddit because their mods dislike new.reddit, which is unusual in itself. I cannot think of any other examples of websites where creating an account allows you to change the interface so drastically. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Qwerfjkl What world are you living in that this is common practice? Most websites I'm aware of either don't allow the user to change the appearance at all, or allow anyone to do it without requiring an account. The only two I'm aware of are Wikipedia and reddit, and reddit requires users to pay for the privilege of changing their site-wide skin. Wikipedia is, as far as I'm aware, unique in allowing free accounts to drastically change the appearance of the website as part of the website's functionality (as opposed to requiring a browser extension), and as far as I can tell this stems solely from the desire not to show a cookie consent banner. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the page content and JavaScript don't need to change much (if at all) between different skins for logged-out users, so the claim of "caching" is just straight up wrong - and in any case, the server would know what version of the page to send based on the user's cookies which are sent with the initial request. WalnutBun (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @WalnutBun, see this comment and the one posted right after it. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Qwerfjkl that's just linking to the edit that brought the RfC to this page and out of Village Pump. WalnutBun (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    
    @WalnutBun, oops. The comment is near the top of the oppose section; try Ctrl+f "Varnish". — Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    And to the ones who are answering Trynn, they seem to have a special preference approved as their skin looks like this with a lot of white screen, (not like I have it) which they said in an argument here. Maybe someone here can help them out, I just answered them and noticed that they probably have some preference approved.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    UI redesigns may be based on object principles; however, this mostly logged-out user and regular donor bases their level of support on purely subjective things like the subject of this RFC. I'm not the only one. We do, in fact, vote with our pocket books. 129.52.129.65 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    See WP:CANCER. You can be sure that almost none of the participants in this RFC care about the effect the skin will have on donations to the WMF. Ultimately, their concern for reader's experience is either altruistic, or a result of the attachment they have to their own contributions, of which those readers are the audience. small jars tc 10:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding your comment ("This pushback is caused by resistance to change, not by any objective attributes of the new design"), no, that's false. It's objectively true that there's a lot more white space in the new design. It's objectively true that the white space serves no useful purpose. And, since there's no clear evidence that lack of white space was ever a significant complaint, it's objectively true that the added white space solves no particular problem, while also serving no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's objectively true that the white space serves no useful purpose.
    The WMF stated it was done to reduce eye fatigue by eliminating unnecessary saccades and giving space to be used for the eyes' resting spots, so this claim is contentious. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    If "this claim is contentious" means "there's an enormous number of people who don't want the white space, and the arguments in favor of white space are rather contrived", then yes, it's contentious. Note that the claims about "resting spots" are true only when assuming that the user never thought of using someplace off of the screen as a resting place (which is what people have normally done for ages). Notice also that newspapers and magazines have not converted to a format where all content is down the center of the page with large blank areas on left and right. It's not because they haven't figured out the "better way", it's because they know it's not particularly useful to do that (except maybe for people who don't know they can rest their eyes by looking off-page). -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    What I took umbrage with was using the phrase objectively true. Newspapers and magazines have other things to think about like material costs, which Wikipedia thankfully doesn't have to worry about for the time being. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    In fact, that's what I was objecting to, the use of that kind of phrasing (specifically "not by any objective attributes of the new design"). But I don't take umbrage, I just pointed out how the assertion was inaccurate. As for material costs, believe me, if newspapers and magainzes were to identify a more appealing layout, they'd adopt it. Anyway, the magazine thing was a tangent, my main points stand. -- HLachman (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

30. Strongest oppose possible This is a terrible idea. Revert to a technically backwards skin? Really? I switched to Vector 2022 some time ago and have never regretted it. I'm a long time editor with 249564 edits so I have a lot of experience with different skins, and this is by far the best one I've had. Maybe there are some things that can still be improved, eg people complain about a width issue (which I don't have), but the developers have been responsive and I'm sure will continue to be. And this RfC should have at least waited a few weeks for obvious reasons - a lot of people are uncomfortable with change but ever a little while see it as ok or good. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    No-one is going to delete the new skin. You will be free to keep using it. But the millions of people who are impacted by it's terrible design will get the benefit of reverting the default. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

31. Strongest oppose possible Supporting a revert is what keeps us humanity from evolving and making progress. Coldbolt (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    This change wasn’t progression in any way.Tvx1 14:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    How not? Pioneering the change to mustache, adopting newer design guidelines, floating a bar and toc for easy navigation, images in search… Aaron Liu (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    What is "mustache"? Is that a codename for a project, or a typo?  Card Zero  (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Apparently it's a popular programming-language-agnostic coding language for templates, and since 2020, MediaWiki has supported using it to implement custom skins. See our article at Mustache (template system) as well as this relevant page on MediaWiki.org. I wasn't aware of this either and had to look it up. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not all software change is progress. Reverting it's redesign could have saved Quora from decline, but it's management refused to listen to the wishes of it's volunteer community.–small jars tc 17:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

32. Strong oppose - Everyone hates change at first, but i, for one, quite like the new design; it’s just a few sensible updates to bring Wikipedia into its third decade and account for ever-widening screens. (I do agree with some that it would be nice to give IP users a way to toggle the theme!) MarijnFlorence (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    How does it "account for ever widening screens" by cramming everything into the middle, exactly? Sounds like its doing the exact opposite. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

33. Oppose (for the moment). There are a few things not to like at the moment (the default to a narrow view, for example, although that can be altered) and it's taking a bit of time to get used to, but change is normally difficult to accept at the start. One fix I would like to be implemented is to deal with the lack of user links in the top right - having talk, sandbox and contributions hidden in a dropdown is a backwards step for editors (although readers won't worry about it too much) If there is an option for users to decide what links can appear in the top right (and what to consign to a drop down), that would be a step forward. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
34. Oppose for now —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I voted against rollout, but am now fairly neutral on the redesign as my main single complaint (the limited width) was addressed. I think the majority of end users will, once they find the toggle, choose unlimited width (hence my contribution below), but I think Vector 2022 is an improvement. I am opposing for now so we can collect more information. JackWilfred (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
36. Oppose. If you want to revert, set your preferences. Cabayi (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    As many said, no preferences for non-logged users. Must every reader or editor have an account here, against their own desires? 37.134.90.176 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Apparently so. Probably to inflate their account totals. "Look how much people have accounts!" 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

37. Oppose. But this highlights issues with the rollout, and why ~50/50 rfc's make for fragile consensus at best. – SJ + 14:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
38. Inhumanly strong oppose. Every change is going to be met with discomfort at first. But as with all UX/UI changes, we eventually adapt.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
39. Strong oppose - My views align with those expressed above by Shushugah. In this case, the new design aligns with internet accessibility principles and modern design guidelines which I think sit above crowd wisdom. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Modern design guidelines have their place, but should not be held as a golden standard above the will of users. WalnutBun (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

40. Strong Oppose: So the proposal is to force Vector 2010 upon all users because "WMF is forcing Vector 2022 upon all users" (just like they forced Vector 2010 and all other skins before that). I say: unless you can measurably prove that V2010 was so much better switch back to old Vector for yourself and get over it. Imagine cars, sky scrapers, ships and airplanes were designed by popular vote... Ponor (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think this situation is comparable to designing a car or an airplane. It's more akin to deciding what is built in your neighborhood, e.g. whether to build a community garden or a parking space. Which is usually decided by some sort of democratic(ish) approach between actual people living in the neighborhood. Not how to build it, that's the job of engineers. RoadTrain (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I think it’s more like whether to use sprawling parking or compact parking with multiple floors Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    From day one it was Jimbo or WMF or whoever deciding what our "cars" would/should look like. And they left us with some choices: if you like Lada, you choose Lada, if you like Mazda better, you choose Mazda, and if you want to stick with your old Ford, they give you the option to stay with Ford, it's all here Special:Preferences. If we're about to impose the look on other users, are we any different than WMF? What do we base our decision on, the votes of a few loud ones on this page? Ponor (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

41. Oppose per WaltCip above. I don't care for the new skin either. But lots of time has gone into hearing and implementing community feedback. Let's give this six months and see how many of us get used to it. Ajpolino (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    The issue with waiting is that the argument of "but people have had X amount of time to get used to it" crops up. Whether the change is reverted or not, the decision should be made soon. WalnutBun (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @WalnutBun, can you explain this? I'm not sure I understand. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Qwerfjkl if we were to wait, say, three months to hold an RfC over whether or not to revert to Vector legacy as the default skin, then people would (correctly) make the argument that "well, people have had three months to get used to this being the default! If we change it back now, we'd be pulling the rug out from under them!". Regardless of whether or not we revert to Vector legacy, we need to make the change soon, to avoid causing two separate events of disruption to the norm. WalnutBun (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @WalnutBun, I suppose so, but that sounds like a weak argument not to wait. They'll be plenty of disruption is this is rolled back, and even more if it's then rolled out again. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

42. Oppose. I believe we should focus on resolving potential problems with Vector 2022 instead of arguing which skin should be the default, because the latter mostly depends on personal preference. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    If it has enough problems with it that we need to focus on resolving them, then it shouldn't have been made the default skin in the first place. You iron out the large bugs before deployment, not after. WalnutBun (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

43. Oppose – I've been using Vector (2022) on the Mediawiki project since it was changed to default there and made no attempt to change it back to Vector (2010), and have just switched to it on our private wiki but left the system-wide default alone. I want to use it on Wikipedia too, but I cannot just yet. I switched it back to Vector (2010) and use a browser bookmark for the enwiki login using the old skin. Easy-peasy! There are many things I LIKE about the new skin and I can appreciate all the work and long hours that went into its development. I see room (literally) for improvement, and I know that this will come in due time. Although I understand the passion, I DON'T LIKE some of the behaviour towards others. Perhaps they feel it's needed just to be heard. I also noticed that some who participated in the RfC feel like they too were ignored. There may be a need to look at that more closely. Finally, for IP users, giving them a “switch to old look” hyperlink might be worth considering. — WILDSTAR^TALK 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
44. I am !voting Oppose: if the limited width is changed to opt-in, per Question 2 below, everything else in this beta skin can be tweaked and worked on. I have been able to use custom CSS to make my Vector 2022 interface look better; some of that can get incorporated into the skin, and some can become shared scripts and CSS for power users. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
45. Oppose – Vector 2022 is not perfect, but I think its flaws have been blown significantly out of proportion. Switching back and forth is more likely to cause confusion among casual readers than any benefit it might deliver. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
46. Weak oppose – I do actually think the fixed width is a significant improvement in reading experience on wide monitors at least, and something worth exploring further. It's the other things about the new skin that I don't like, namely the "simplification" of the UI due to the lack of visual contrast between the article body, TOC, header and everything else. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
47. Oppose for two main reasons:
    • This has been in the works for quite some time and has been successfully in use in other wikis; given that, had I voted in the previous discussion, I would have said "yes, go ahead and make the changes for the sake of the common reader, even if I will keep using legacy Vector". If anything, I'm more bugged that logged out users will see two different skins depending on which wiki they're on, though by all indication, this won't be a problem in the long term.
    • There are some things that I like better about Vector 2022 - the search bar showing images and short descriptions, the left-hand sidebar being collapsible, and the sticky header and table of contents. The look and feel is something I'll have to get used to, as are the new link colors (which I know were altered with color-blindness in mind); this is a given. It just goes to show that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are both opposing forces grounded in subjectivity.

    I can tell there was a lot of thought put into this new design, and while some aspects are understandably controversial, I am at least happy improvements have been made; I remember the logo placement/spacing being awkward in older versions, but that is happily no longer a problem. I doubt the WMF would reverse this regardless of this RfC's outcome, and I imagine the complaints will die down after some time, but people have voiced their concerns, and if this goes through, that's just the way it is. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    About Vector 2022 being "successfully in use in other wikis", there have been witnesses from the French Wikipedia (the first on which it was implemented) and the Swedish Wikipedia testifying that it caused strong grassroots opposition from the respective communities, which were largely ignored. Æo (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Interesting... noted, but I don't intend to change my vote. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

48. Oppose. There are some things I like about the new UI, some things I don't, but everyone should give it some time to get more used to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
49. Oppose - the new layout is better than previously, and will improve when changes already underway (esp. around page width) have been addressed. I agree with others about change being scary - lots of the above comments reminds me of the hullabaloo about the Facebook redesign back in the day! Turini2 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    No it isn’t even remotely. It’s far worse in every possible way. Tvx1 22:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

50. Oppose per wasted time r. Schierbecker (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
51. Per my original comments which were curiously moved to the bottom of this discussion when it was refactored to place only supports at the top. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
52. Oppose—I have a confession to make: I have never liked Vector 2010. Ever. I thought the hue of pale white it used was drab, depressing, and off-putting. When Vector was set as the default skin for Wikipedia, I immediately set my preferences to "Monobook" (the default pre-2010) and never looked back. I tried out a few other skins in the past, but I found that Monobook remained my favorite, and so it stayed. I'm not inherently averse to change if it involves genuine improvements; by that same token, I'm also not swayed by arguments in favor of new designs or systems that essentially boil down to, "change is a part of life, get used to it." Change isn't always a good thing, especially not if it leaves us worse off than before. With that in mind, I decided to check out the new design myself, using an incognito window on my Chromebook.
    My opinion? Vector 22 is an improvement from 2010. I like that the table of contents section has been moved to the left panel when browsing a page—makes it so that you can navigate between subsections much more easily. I also like how hovering your mouse over a link doesn't just show the name of the page, but a pop-up window with the first few sentences of text accompanied by the infobox image (assuming there is one). Do I think the new design is perfect? Definitely not—there are certainly some improvements to be made that I would deem necessary. For instance, when you click the "hide" button to remove the table of contents from the screen, the "unhide" option (i.e. the jot notes icon beside the article's title) isn't immediately obvious, which I think is problematic. I'd also support making the side panel a different color so as to distinguish it from the page's text. But on the whole, I like Vector 2022, and I'm even thinking about switching from Monobook to the new design.
    In short, I feel that Vector 2022 is more user-friendly, more inviting, and an all-around step up from what came before it. It's not without some shortcomings, but as a default skin for readers, it's probably the best we've got. I say we keep it. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Kurtis: just FYI, the pop-up window with the lead sentence and lead image has also been part of legacy Vector for a few years now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    As Apaugasma pointed out, a pop-up window with the first few sentences of text accompanied by the infobox image (assuming there is one) is actually from a different feature which users can toggle at Preferences → Appearance → Reading preferences = Enable page previews. I believe it is enabled for unregistered users by default. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the heads-up—will strike that part shortly. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

53. Oppose Ok...at first I hated it. To be honest, though, I would've hated ANY interface change for the next year, 10 years, 100 years... Vector 2010 is old. We've needed something new for a while. And of course, we'll adapt. DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
54. Oppose I don't think the issues are big enough to warrant reversion of this, even if the community here could do such a thing. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
55. Oppose - what is done is done. I am just as disappointed in how the skin was rolled out as everyone else who saw the switch to Vector 2022. Feedback for the future: Rather than completely revamping the site, what would be better are incremental changes. Also I think of Vector 2022 as reinventing the wheel; Timeless is a much more polished skin that has responsive support, a decent-sized font, and good use of space on the left and right. As a community, we have bigger fish to fry in terms of managing content. I hated Vector 2010 because of its lack of responsive design and its lack of features. From this point forward, I think WMF's design team should focus its resources on continuously expanding the ability of the new Vector skin, so they are fit for the modern web. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just because something has been done, does not inherently mean it cannot - or should not - be undone. WalnutBun (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think that is a good argument. It is in the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation to manage the technical aspects of the site as office actions, of course usually with but not necessarily always with consultation from the community, and it is in the scope of the community to manage the content that is present on the site, to suggest new features, and to give feedback on office actions. They did this when they originally deployed Vector back in 2009/2010, and they are doing it again while deploying Vector 2022. WMF generally does not manage content. Sure if something immediately breaks the site it will be rolled back for the sanity of Wikipedia, but I don't think this immediately breaks the site in a similar way that a security bug or logic bomb might. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

56. Opposse Its long overdue for a change. The bugs will get ironed out. Don't like it? Do what I'm doing and use Vector 2010. I don't see our readers up in arms, and that's the real metric for reversion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
57. Oppose, the new skin is an improvement compared to the old skin and should be kept as default. Lightoil (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
58. Oppose This skin has been default in my home wiki for years now and while it takes a bit of adjusting to, I realized I actually spend more time reading articles, it's result of years of research and UX rigor (that is also depend on years of research). Ladsgroup^overleg 04:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
59. Oppose Not that this matters to me much, I still use Monobook just because I know where everything is. But I'm aware my own UI preferences are non-standard compared to best practices and the site should, until a user tells them otherwise via skin preferences, reflect those best practices. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
60. Oppose, because there is always room for improvement. I say this as someone who changed their preferences to Vector Legacy 2010 the moment they saw the 2022 rollout. Instead of reverting the entire redesign to get things like full content width and non-contracted menus back, the new skin could be updated so that the hamburger menu button stays when you scroll down, there's even currently a Phabricator request to make the content width switch stay instead of always going back to default when going to new pages, for logged-out users. Quick note: I always feel some oppression when a new significant software redesign comes out and I drool over how much I miss the old one blah blah blah, but I never realise the great merits of the new design until a few weeks pass by, and after that I really start liking it over the old design. Vector 2022 is almost certainly not an exception of this. (end of note) I will very likely be changing back to the Vector 2022 skin soon after some improvements such as the ones I've mentioned are made (I'm that kind of person who likes to skip a v2.0 major software release and rather wait for v2.1 before updating), apparently the content width setting already "sticks" for users logged into accounts now. There are already things I really like about the Vector 2022 skin, such as the significantly better search function, now in the centre (bigger text, with thumbnails in search results), and the table of contents always shown on the left. On Vector 2010 you don't have that, and just get a sidebar with empty space instead when you scroll down a page, which is objectively worse for navigation and also poorer use of screen width. It would be a shame to get rid of all these great things, all because of a few flaws that can be fixed / worked on in the new design. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
61. Oppose, a lot of complaints in the support section about users personally not liking it. If you don't like it, change your skin. The new skin has been developed with regard to online best practices and brings Wikipedia (kicking and screaming, apparently) into the 2020s. If you want to live in the past... well, you can guess what I suggest. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And a lot of the complaints in the oppose section are from users personally liking it. Strawman argument. And there was nothing obsolete with original Vector. No change was needed at all. Tvx1 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

62. Oppose. The new skin is really not bad. It has a few teething problems, sure, but nothing that can't be fixed. The push-back from the community is just the usual thing that happens in any community when the status quo changes. It'll all quieten down in a week or two. — Jumbo T (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    On the contrary. It really is ridiculously bad. And the push-back is not the usual thing , but a logical reaction to a unilaterally enforced very poor change. Tvx1 14:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Maybe this is just my opinion, and you should stop spamming yours as a reply to every oppose vote? Go outside. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I don't see how this is relevant. This is a request for comment, not a deletion discussion; there are no binding outcomes of consensus or lack thereof here. — Jumbo T (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Jumbo T, my point is that your arguments (you and Tvx1) are not reasons, they're opinions. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Qwerfjkl: and my point is that this is not a problem, since this is a request for comment, not a request for a decision backed up by watertight reasoning (as is required at AfD etc.). Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Jumbo T, requests for comment still require !votes to have reasons. That you (don't) like the skin is not a reason it should (not) be used.
    Thanks for the ping.— Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Qwerfjkl: almost all the votes in this mess of an RFC are opinions. That aside, I may not have made it clear, but there was some semblance of a reason in my original comment: any change of this sort and scale will create push-back from a part of the community, no matter how good/bad/confusing the change is. In my opinion (god forbid I invoke my opinion), it's best to wait a while, let tempers cool, and then assess community consensus. Personally, I'm glad a change like this has been made; we wouldn't get anywhere without bold changes. But enough of this, it's getting tiring. — Jumbo T (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Jumbo T, that's why these RfC s are impossible to close, and no consensus is probably going to be the result.
    Personally, I like the skin, I've been using for at least a year. But that doesn't mean others need to use it. I think it'd be fine for them if they did.
    Sorry if I've been too persistent; this RfC is exhausting. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    With a continuous 2 to 1 ratio in favor of rollback, it will actually be difficult to close it with anything other than a consensus to roll back. Tvx1 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    This isn't a vote, though; the arguments still have to be weighed. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I replied to 5 out of 70+. Characterizing that as replying to every oppose is ridiculous. Tvx1 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    cmon man. If you want it in other words, I think people here call it bludgeoning — Jumbo T (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Tvx1, it's not replying to every oppose. It is, however, bludgeoning. Please stop. — Qwerfjkltalk 23:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Please actually read that essay. My volume of comments here isn't specially high at all. And I'm not even remotely disagreeing with every viewpoint presented here. I only reacted to roughly 7% percent of them. Please also note that essay clearly states that falsly accusing someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil. It's not something you can go and throw around when you are confronted with a couple of comments that you consider a nuisance to try and silence the person writing them. Tvx1 00:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

63. This question is outside of the scope of what the community controls. See WP:CONEXCEPT. Users who prefer V2010 can freely switch to it in preferences. I personally prefer Isarra's Timeless based on Jorm's Winter proposal and I see V2022 as a step in that direction. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    No. The vast majority of our users, readers, cannot switch freely at all. Tvx1 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Tvx1, you mean people who aren't logged in? Because readers can have an account. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes I mean people who only read Wikipedia and thus don't have an account and don't login. And that is by far the largest group of our users. Tvx1 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    With the updated tools bar, I find the new use of space to be worthwhile -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

64. Oppose – the new skin is just fine and a clear improvement. -- lomrjyo ^talk 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    No it’s not in any way. More and more technical flaws keep being reported and it didn’t improve anything. Why are you making claims that are blatantly untrue. Tvx1 14:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Go read any newspaper, book printed for written text, (like a schoolbook or an encyclopedia). Limited width is the standard for most written text. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

65. Oppose - I also don't like the new skin, so I solved the problem on my own by clicking on the bolded "return to the old look" link plainly visible in the sidebar. Now my personal preference isn't a sitewide problem. You can do it too: click here, then select "Vector legacy (2010)". Problem solved. If you're an IP user and want to save preferences, create an account to save them to, just like how it works on every other website on the internet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    some people can't create accounts. you should know this as an administrator. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Transcleanupgal: who can't create an account? There are some connections that are technically restricted from creating an account, but there is a process for that. If there's something else preventing people generally from creating accounts, that's something we should address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

66. Oppose per ThadeusOfNazereth, Rhododendrites, and This, that and the other. The skin is fine, the process was fine, and your preferences are available. Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not for IP users. IP users have no option to go back to V2010 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

67. Oppose - Vector 2022 isn't perfect, but neither is Vector 2010. Rolling back now would be reactionary and short-sighted. Give everyone time to get used to the new skin, and a few months for the WMF team to make improvements and changes in response to feedback. In 3-6 months, if there is still strong opposition, an RfC might be useful to gauge the level of that opposition. The other thing to remember is that an RfC generally only surveys editors, and then only those with strong opinions. The opinion of readers, who make up 99% of Wikipedia's users, goes unrecorded. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    So you're just proving that this was a bad idea, seeing as the majority of users (both registered and IP) essentially had no say in the change. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

68. Oppose. The new skin seems a definite improvement to me, and editors (e.g. everyone who dislikes it) can opt to revert to 2010 if they wish. Making 2010 the default again seems a backward step. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
69. Oppose. The new skin comes with improvements to a lot of UX and I think it is overall better for newcomers and for reading Wikipedia. Our reading stats are going down, various reason, but one of them might be bad experience on thin screens. We should take more time make articles work on thin screens and one way is to use Wikipedia in a thinner view. Individual users not ready for the change can always go back to the previous skin. I see no problem here to have both ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nux (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Degrading the experience on wide screens is not a good solution to improving the experience on thin screens. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack Interesting choice of a name ;-). I hope you know you can just switch in preferences (which is quicker then changing a name or creating a puppet or whatever). Nux (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    As has been pointed out countlessly, switching is not a durable option for uregistered readers. Not a solution. Tvx1 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Articles already worked perfectly fine on thin screens, and this update makes them use less than half the screen on wide screens. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    No, tables, mulit-columns with static number of columns, non-gallery galleries etc are a problem. Mobile skin does some hacks to make it kind of fit onto a phone. But those are hacks. This should be resolved and readable on a PC too (thin-view PC). And then it will be more readable. Besides there is a switch to full-width mode on the bottom right (for those articles that really need space). Nux (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    But this RFC is primarily about the skin that will be presented to IP users - 99% of our readerbase, and mostly not the ones making changes to articles. Account users can choose their skin so this is not of much relevance to them. IP users are overwhelmingly here to read, not edit. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes and I think new skin is mostly better for reading. IP readers are also editors. Some of them edit and add tables that are to wide to be readable on all screens. So it is good that they will also see this limitation of width and design to that.

    And also, as said before, IP users can switch to full-width mode with one click (bottom, right button on each article page). Nux (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    IP users cannot just switch to full-width mode with one click. That button does not appear at all for some users, when it does appear it's so far away from the rest of the content/UI as to make it hard to notice it exists, its iconography gives no indication as to what it does, and it does not persist across page views. Trynn (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And that even ignore the vast amount of IP's who have stated since the change that they desire to be able to change to the previous default skin without having to create an account, no just switch to the full-width mode. Tvx1 22:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Trynn The button should be available for all wide screens (the ones which would benefit from the wider view). If it is not you can file a bug on the Phabricator. AFAIK that feature was made specifically after consulting en.wiki community. On one of many meetings with the team I remember Olga said that the icon is meant resemble full-screen icon. Which is kind of what it does. Nux (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    What "full-screen" icon is being referred to here? That button looks nothing like any full-screen window widget in Windows, macOS, or any Linux desktop theme I've ever seen before. Is this mobile UI design language that is being applied to desktop users (which is what it seems to be, and is one of the things being complained about)?

    What is so difficult about developing this new skin to be responsive to window width, like any other well-designed website out there? Instead there's some button that is located off in the boonies (if it appears at all) using a design language not used in the desktop paradigm, that logged-out users are forced to click on for every page view. Why is this considered an acceptable design decision? Trynn (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Trynn: it's this one. Something similar is used universally by video players on the web to toggle full screen, which makes it the most intuitive one to use here. I agree that logged-out users should not be forced to click on this for every page view. The team behind the Vector 2022 screen say they are working on making it persistent across pages (like it is for logged-in users). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Apaugasma I can't see that, where is it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    I also can't see it and never could and if I want to change it I just go to preferences and activate it there. But I sort of like the limited with screen and believe probably 2 columns (you know like in the Bible or any encyclopedia) will be an option to the reader in the future. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Doug Weller and Paradise Chronicle: the toggle should be at the bottom right of the screen. Apparently though, the toggle only appears if your screen is at least 1600 pixels wide (see the documentation here).

    This is properly a feature, but it has also been characterized by some as a bug (see Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022#Toggle box disappears - bug?), because even on big monitors increasing the font size may result in your screen becoming smaller than 1600 pixels.

    If you have a big monitor, try hitting ctrl - a few times to see if the toggle appears (you can restore font size after that by hitting ctrl 0 or increase it again by hitting ctrl +). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just saw that in the thread below OVasileva (WMF) announced that they are working on "lowering the width at which the toggle to make pages wider appears from 1600px to 1400px. This will allow the toggle to show on smaller screens. This change will be available this week.". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

70. Oppose - unless there is some evidence that our readership (i.e. the people who can't change back to Vector 2010 if they want) don't like it. See you all in 10 years when the community is opposed to Vector 2033 and everyone wants it to go back to Vector 2022. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just look at the many readers who have already complained on the various venues and have even made an account just to be able to switch back, for the evidence you are requesting. Tvx1 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    OK, I looked. It's less than 50 out of like a billion. More readers (and editors) than that have given positive reviews in the WMF's surveys. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And the WMF's surveys filtered out any responses containing "foul language", which presumably skewed overwhelmingly negative. These surveys must be presumed unreliable until we are given further information on the responses removed for foul language. The entire process appears to have been fundamentally untrustworthy, with the desire to push a redesign through appearing to be the main motive rather than first seeing what people think and then deciding on a course of action. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Then you didn't look very far obviously. There are 100+ in this RFC alone already. Over the many venues on Wikipedia and MediaWiki there are already thousands. Tvx1 22:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    I have no view on the methodology of WMF's surveys, as I have not looked at them closely, but I do want to point out that there's a bit of selection bias just looking at complaints on "the various venues". The majority of readers who enjoy or at least don't mind the new skin probably don't care enough to post praise for it on internal forums, whereas if a small subset of the readers dislike it enough to complain, then that's all we're going to see. Mz7 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

71. Oppose - The WMF put a lot of work into this and shared the results. Lets give the improvements a try and assume good faith. Me, after some hesitation also switched to Vector 2022 and am rather pleased with it. Also, anyone can return to the Vector 2010 if they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Again, IP users have NO option to change back to V2010. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    It is called registration ;). Creating an account on wiki takes less effort then writing the sentence above. It's the most friction-less registration I know of. You don't even need an e-mail. Just a nick-name and a password. Nux (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    except that some people can't, or don't want to register. Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    And some of us are quite upset at having been forced to create an account just to switch to a more usable UI. And as I mentioned somewhere above, forcing someone to create an account also violates Wikipedia's stated privacy policy. Trynn (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

72. Oppose - THe new skin is perfectly lovely and corresponds with long-tested knowledge about text layout, as well as contemporary user interface design principles. Separately, I have process concerns with re-hashing lengthy design consultations with an immediate RfC.--Carwil (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
73. Oppose—this RfC is pointless. As mentioned above, the Wikipedia community is in control of content, and the developers are in charge of the software. The new skin comports to tenants of good UI design and offers an objective improvement over what we had. Those who are upset about it can change their preferences to use a different skin. They can offer constructive suggestions on how to improve the skin through the additions of options. Reverting the change will not get us progress. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
74. Oppose - it's fine, we'll all get used to it and in a month this RFC will seem about as dated as one asking to roll back to Monobook. Which you can still use. And some do. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
75. Oppose I think it's fine and I know I'll get used to it. As long as other editors retain preferences to choose their preferred skin, I don't see an issue. Einebillion (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
76. Oppose; admittedly it takes a while to get used to it, but also: other skins are still available for those who are unable to adapt —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
77. Oppose per my 2022 RfC comments, including where I, ahem, encourage the WMF to implement this even if the en.wiki community disapprove. The old skin is embarrassing and backwards. The new one is better. We are not professional UI designers. See this comment by Joe Roe in the 2022 RfC also. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Most people here don't seem to have read mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width, which explains why the width has been limited. Without understanding the research and the reasoning, the complaints of disliking it on first sight are not at all compelling.

    There is also a lot of unscientific discussion around sampling. First, the view that "if I didn't take part in the WMF survey then it couldn't be representative". A census is clearly not possible or desirable here, so sampling is the correct method to use. The appropriate sample size does not have to be very large for there to be a high degree of confidence that a census would not yield a drastically different result. On the other hand, selection bias is a genuine issue. And it is an issue much, much more significant in this RfC than in any of the processes by which the WMF has used feedback up to this point. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sampling isn't the correct method. How you think it is is beyond baffling.

    And no, the new design isn't better. Its worse. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for such insightful comments. Sure gives me confidence that this discussion is anything but a waste of time. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    It's true that we are not all professional UI designers (although probably some of our members probably are in real life), but we are the people that actually have to use these UI's. Our opinion how practical we actual find it to use is therefore invaluable. And the truckload of flaws in the new skin that people have been complaining about seriously questions the professionality of the WMF people as well. Tvx1 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

78. Oppose. I've been using the new Vector skin for a couple of months, now, and do like it. I think it is a mistake to reject the new skin without trying it for a few days. It did take me a few days to adjust to the differences (I formerly used Monobook), but it feels quite natural to me now, and I don't understand what the complaints are about. - Donald Albury 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Too much unused space. Everything being crammed into the middle. The fact that those with visual impairments weren't polled at all. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Visual impairments aren't the only accessibility issue either. The mystery-meat buttons and unnecessary dropdown menus don't help either. I like that in Vector 2010 there's nothing hidden behind a dropdown. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack, what do you mean visual impairments. The colour change of the links changed to help visually impaired people. Did anything get worse? — Qwerfjkltalk 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    when was the color change- even, when was color mentioned at all. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

79. Oppose At first I didn't like Vector 22, but I gave it a chance, and can see that it's improvement. Reducing the width for readability is a good move. I think rather than having a kneejerk reaction to the new skin we should give it a chance. Also I don't think it's fair to say that the WMF hasn't been communicative or given editors enough warning about this change. There's been an rfc, they've repeatedly posted notices on various noticeboard, there's been watchlist notices, and a sitenotice. Bar obnoxious flashing red banners, I'm not really sure what else they could have done. --Chris 02:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Absolutely none of the communications you mentioned were shown to users without accounts. As one of those users, I was completely blindsided by this change earlier this week and thought it must've been a bug. It wasn't until I started searching how to report said bug that I found discussions about the UI change and the fact that I had to create an account to switch back to something else. If you want to know what else WMF could have done to be more communicative, it's to actually communicate to the vast majority of users (readers without accounts) that this was coming so they could solicit feedback. Trynn (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think this page was "shown" to users without accounts as well. WMF has already gotten a lot of feedback with other wikis and also enwiki editors enabling it, rolling it out on English Wikipedia is just one of the last steps. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

80. Oppose — I really hoped we were done with this, but here we are: new year, new drama. So is this vote or !vote? If it is vote who has the right to vote, has everyone been invited to vote, is it gonna be 50%+1, is it gonna be 2/3? Few months back I said "people tend to be against new things, and those who are against tend to make effort having their voice heard". Still true. All this worry and care about logged off users... c'mon... almost seventy percent of all users are mobile users and their screens are narrower than anything in vector 20022, if you cared for them you would design for them and would not ask why your 1357px-wide-tables all of a sudden don't fit. There are millions of logged out users who most likely don't really care about any of this. Were it that bad, there would be thousands of them at the gate... with torches. PhilipPirrip (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
81. I don't understand these complaints about width limit at all. How do you people read 1.5 ft long lines, do you turn your head? Try sending a letter to your boss or teacher in landscape, with no margins (such a waste!!) and I'm sure they won't be pleased. I don't have my Word documents edge to edge because I need to have the whole line in my vision field. That's what I want from Wikipedia as well and I vote against going backwards ~ 2604:CA00:179:4BB:0:0:64:6F46 (talk)
82. Strong Oppose I'm staggered by people saying there was nothing wrong with the old design. Have you just become blind to how old-fashioned Wikimedia sites look? How, nearly quarter of the way through the 21st century, we're using a late-90s design for our sites? I've studied perceptual psychology and I do web design professionally, so I know well that more than about 70 characters wide makes it more effortful to read because it's harder to saccade back to the start of the line. This whole RFC is a objectionable because it's a case of feelings over facts; the usability of a web site should be evaluated with usability research, not a gerrymandered discussion in which long-time users are over-represented. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)\
83. Oppose rollback. It is unreasonable to not expect the default to change. It is unreasonable to not to expect continuing development of the default in situ. The new default is easy to read and edit with, imo. (And any suggestion that editors are not readers of Wikipedia, is just not reality -- editors are readers first and foremost). The consultation before the rollout was long, productive, and advertised, and the default can be bypassed by users invested in older skins. (Also, it's established practice that, us, whenever we have been using IPs or registered, we have had to work with or around the default for the entire life of the project (and certainly not voting on it), so dealing with the default is also to be expected.) Finally, per consensus policy, default configuration is not an appropriate subject for a consensus call. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
84. Oppose If you don't like it, you can switch back to old UI in seconds. If new technologies never took hold and we always wanted to do things the same way, I'd still be using PAD to connect to Monochrome BBS on an IBM PS/2 with a VT100 terminal emulator. (And somebody will be along in a minute to call me a young whippersnapper for never having programmed Fortran on punched cards). Incidentally, I opposed the rollout of the skin because of real estate concerns, but accepted consensus didn't go my way. Sometimes, that happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333: I have programmed Fortran on punched cards. Definitely doable, just don't drop the deck in a puddle like I once did. Programmers appreciate whitespace, so the real estate concerns haven't bothered me with V22. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Unregistered readers can’t switch back! Tvx1 02:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

85. Oppose -- I already got used to it over at fr.wp. Now I don't have to remember the difference between the two skins going back and forth between the two. For those who don't like the white space on a wide screen and don't want to change parameters in settings, there's always ctrl-+ (FF) which eliminates the white space (and collapses the sidebar). The TOC never being more than one click away is IMO really useful. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
86. Oppose Please please please, listen to the UX specialists that really know more than most of us editors about this. Years of research and design work went into this. If changes are necessary, let's make incremental changes going forward, and not roll back this massive project. --Gnom (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    FWIW, to my mind, the ideal scenario is a revert to V2010 while the WMF polishes the large number of smaller issues being reported and then deploys it again in perhaps a year. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    user has COI as they were associated with the WMF, this has nothing to do directly with the validity of the argument, It just needs to be disclosed. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Experts can generate all the data in the world but that data is not in itself sufficient to rewire individuals' subjective preferences. If experts calculate that doing XYZ will improve metric ABC by 15%, but 90% of users dislike XYZ regardless and prefer the old design, then the old design should be maintained.

    I think a lot of this RFC has been people talking past each other about data and preference. All the data in the world will not make me (and many others, as apparent from this RFC) subjectively prefer fixed width to widescreen. I've seen a lot of citing of research data (and much of it questionably relevant), but very little cogent reasoning for why that in itself justifies forcing a redesign on people that a clear majority appear to dislike.

    The metrics are made for man - man is not made for the metrics. This sort of objective UX research should be seen as a way to come up with new styles of design to explore, but if everyone hates the design that comes from said research, then that should be the end of that. Always beware of Goodhart's law. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Why should the opinion of UX specialists by allmighty and the people that actually have to use the interface actually be ignored?? Tvx1 02:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

87. Oppose - I've been using this skin since it was announced to the community last year as being in testing. In fact, I initially didn't like it because, due to a bug, narrow screens were hiding the button for the drop down menu entirely, which meant I had no way to see a list of headers for an article or talk page. When I reported it, the bug was fixed promptly, and I've been using the skin ever since. Frankly, the energy spent here demanding it be rolled back entirely would be better spent reporting specific fixes to help alleviate the problems people are running into. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    to most of us, the problem was the discussion process and the change as a whole, not necessarily the design of the new interface, and also, even one of those smaller issues would most likely require duplicating the entirety of all the wikiproject- and would not be solved whether the rollout gets reverted or not Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    The discussion process has been ongoing for at least half a year. I don't know why it's a problem now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Also, you are absolutely WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

88. Oppose For the most part I've found Vector 2022 to be an improvement over Vector 2010. There's a few annoyances that impact me as an editor, versus as a reader. While I love the floating ToC and its reduction in required scrolling for page navigation, I find it annoying that I still have to scroll to the top of the page to access the toolbox. Ideally the toolbox should appear in or just before the floating ToC. It would also be nice if the icon panel, whether the floating one that appears when you scroll down the page, or the one at the top of the page was configurable in some way, as I would like to have specific icons appear there that are not in the default list but are in the dropdown.
    As for the width question, I've been using a CSS override for the skin since testing it in November 2022. I disagree with the comments made by the developers with regards to the research on optimal content width. As our own article on the research states, the research on electronic text line length has not reached a consensus on whether there is an number of characters per line for electronic text. And, speaking with my former webdev hat on, while I recognise that content caching presents challenges for customisation for editors who are not logged in with regards to supporting multiple skins, because the width limit is being enforced by CSS there is no real technical limitation for why the width limit cannot be exposed as a user configurable parameter and stored in and read from a persistent cookiee or a DOM local store during the page load/rendering process. This sort of cookie or use of local storage is arguably "strictly necessary for the delivery of service", and so would generally be except from the EU privacy directive. And the foundation's cookie statement already lists multiple examples where such preferences are stored in either cookies or local storage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    This doesn't matter, there was problems with the procedure, you literally went to my talk page to dispute this, and then you post this without even mentioning it. Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    That there may have been a procedural issue with the closure of the last RfC, which is as you say disputed, is somewhat irrelevant to establishing this consensus. We are in the situation we are in, and potentially changing the closure of the November RfC will not alter that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    this discussion IS the challenging of the closure of the November RfC. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    No it's not. One RfC cannot alter the closure of another, for that you want to follow the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Outside of an explicit closure challenge at the appropriate noticeboard, the consensus of an RfC stands until another one takes its place, however the old closure is not altered simply because a new consensus has formed. Consensus can change over time.

    The question of this RfC is directly above and reads Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? As such the scope of the consensus that forms around this one will be as a result of the rollout of Vector 2022 a few days ago. Either a consensus will be found to keep V22 as the skin, or a consensus will be found to return to V10 as the skin, or unlikely no-consensus will be found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sideswipe9th is correct, whilst this RfC is challenging the actions that have followed on from the previous RfC, it is not challenging the closure directly. Gusfriend (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

89. Oppose: the new skin is better for reading. If you want the old one back, change it in your preferences. Philbert2.71828 22:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    what about IP editors? Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    IP editors should get a default that is easier to use for reading, i.e. the new skin. I suspect that most drive-by readers don't care much either way, so we should just present them with a good default. Logged-in power users can tweak their preferences to their hearts' content. Philbert2.71828 23:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    the new skin being eisier to use is entirely you opinion, this isn't a vote of confidence. Transcleanupgal (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    And it not being easier to use is entirely your opinion? The vast majority of all the votes on this page are based entirely on opinion, and yet you're only bludgeoning the votes you disagree with. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

90. Oppose: The skin is much better for readers, as shown by the research collected by the desktop improvements team. From the table of contents, to the ability to hide the gross sidebar, to easier language switching, to the ever-controversial limited width of articles (which is now optional!), Vector 2022 is best for readers - and the data doesn't lie. If you, as an editor, want the old skin, there is literally nothing stopping you from going back to it yourself. Also, the fact that this RfC was so close to the previous one is really not appropriate. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    compleatly invalid as you are not a reader, how is it being the 2nd most used skin something that makes it's case? Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Please assume good faith instead of declaring opinions you don't like to be "invalid." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    nobody listed on this page is a reader, the statement could be technically true and still be invalid. Transcleanupgal (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    All Wikipedia editors are also by definition Wikipedia readers. How else do we proof read the contributions made on articles by ourselves and others? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Accurate proof reading is much easier when logged-out readers see the same skin that most editors have chosen. Certes (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Depends on what you're proofing. If it's the layout, then yeah I'd agree that being on the same skin makes that much easier and will have more consistent results. But if you're just proof reading the text for spelling, grammar, and factual errors, then it won't really matter what skin the reader is using. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    You didn't look at the research. See the research about readability, the table of contents and sticky header, the language button, and the collapsible sidebar. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

91. Oppose The amount of research and effort that has gone into this change has been significant and it should be given a chance to bed down. Rather than reverting I would prefer ongoing effort at making the skin even betterer. Things like offering editors the choice of icons or text for some menus, dealing with some of the existing Phab issues, etc. Even spending some time on editor tools or getting notifcations working in the mobile app. Let's move forward. Gusfriend (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Adding the additional comment that I am very glad that I am not going to be the one closing this but, with so many comments on both sides, it could be argued that there is not yet sufficient consensus to return to the Vector2010 skin. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    How on earth can you say that?? There is a persistent 2 to 1 ratio in favor of rollback. Tvx1 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    The numbers in the !vote are currently 191 v. 125 v. 11 (there was a formatting issue which was causing the oppose numbering to restart) which is less than 2:1. There is majority support but that is not the same as consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

92. Strongly oppose: Backlash is inevitable with any UI/UX change, and I find it instructive to compare the response here to the response to Vector 2010 and see just how similar they are. Personally, I find this update necessarily forward-looking and a big improvement with regards to readability. For those who oppose the fixed-width, they can easily change it (and WMF have said they're working on making this toggle persistent). Years of effort have been poured into this update with community consultation along the way. If the consensus is that things need to be changed, then make those changes instead of undoing everything. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B1B7:BEB0:D510:9DA (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
93. Oppose – As someone who has been using Vector 2022 for months now, I really appreciate the more clean look, better sidebar, and limited width. This limited width has also been proven to improve accessbility, and the more accessible option shouldn't be hidden behind a preferences menu and a sign-up screen. DecafPotato (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
94. Oppose - Although I will continue to use legacy, I think 2022 is cleaner and more modern then the clunky and overwhelming for a new editor legacy version. We still have editors that use Monobook, yeah? I'm sure there's some historical precedent of Monobook lovers opposing the switch to Vector as the default, I'm just too lazy to go looking. This is good for new editors, IMO. casualdejekyll 01:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
95. Oppose for now. If it were abysmally bad I could see the merit in rolling it back so soon after making it the default, but the complaints I have about it are minor annoyances at worst, such as Sandbox and Contributions being an additional click away. And a number of things the WMF considers improvements (such as the anchored table of contents), I also consider improvements. I’m willing to give them some time to iron out the known bugs and give the rest of us some time to get accustomed to the new look and feel. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    the consensus from the original discussion was that IFF those problems were solved that they could be implemented if their not , then this fall under "abysmally bad" Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

96. Oppose a rollback. It's an improvement over the previous vector. I'm surprised that the sticking point for so many is the line width. There' extensive research showing that shorter linewidth aids readability, which is why essentially every news website and academic journal limits maximum linewidth. There are certainly improvable elements. There will need to be accommodations for wide tables and long section titles where necessary. I'd love to see more use of the right hand panel - ideally holding references similar to journal layouts like PNAS (example). However, if the scenario was switched and we'd been used to the vecto'22 style and vector'10 was being proposed, I can't imagine as many people viewing it as a net improvement over '22. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
97. Oppose – Oyez, oyez, oyez. Oh holiest communion: another RfC about white space. Goodie. I have come forth to express my thoughts on this, err, predicament(?) I'm just gonna come out and say it, the WCAG Success Criterion on line-length must be the backbone of this whole debate (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/visual-presentation.html). No if, ands, or buts about it. Those guidelines are the closest thing to a bible the internet has. If we don’t believe in WCAG we are completely adrift, lost at sea, like the ancient mariner. So that’s that, clear as day, simple as sauce. Though, if it please the court, may I add:
    • None of us have yet to provide a SINGLE piece of research that shows unlimited line-length are the best for reading (but there are plenty showing that limited line-lengths work well)
    • I literally can’t find a single Popular text-based content/information website that doesn’t have limited content width. Not A Single One. .com, .org, .gov,. .net, .info, nada.
    • and well, the Fact that Fandom has a full-width toggle, and it is used by a whopping 0.1% of people (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T319449#8379920). Zero-Point-One-Percent — are all of us just choosing to ignore that? We are the zero-point-one-percent, and we must stand up to the oppressive 99.9%. Huzzah!
    So the WMF make the line-length shorter as they manifestly should, so people can read the articles that WE spend all of our time working on. And the side effect is a bunch of white space for people with big screens. Oh. My. Goodness. Whitespace? You mean like actual space, that is white? NooooooooooOOoooooo. It can’t be. Oh wait…actually…I can’t find a single bit of information on WCAG, or any other design documentation guide AnYwHeRe, saying that white space is bad. Please, somebody, show me Just One design guidebook, rulebook, textbook, whatever, that says: you must fill all the space of the interface (cool rhyme, btw) or else you will be a Complete FAILURE. Where is that written? Is there an underground bible of design that only the zero-point-one-percenters know about? It’s like we are saying that electric cars are too quiet. The silence is deafening. We can’t hear ourselves think over the insane quietness that the car produces. Huh? Apologies, I’m a little adrenalized at this point ~~ exhaleeeee 🧘 ~~ Have we actually devolved from a group of people who esteem research and facts, to a bunch of conspiracy theorists who surmise that every-single-website, every single designer and developer, every single book printed, in the history of this little planet of ours have ALL gotten it COMPLETELY wrong? And the (poor, poor) People at WMF creating this skin are both sheep who just follow “trends”, and at the same time are Complete Tyrants (or Pirates) who don’t listen to feedback?

    You are cross, clearly. I kind of understand why, and I have some sympathies. But uh, my friends, the best critique we can come up with is: there hath been too much white space painted upon this veranda, and it looks like a wolf in a mobile telephone’s clothing? And now we want to burn the entire thing to the ground to prove that we have control over the sheeple? Well shoot, where I come from we call that boneheaded. If someone can show me research saying that line-length should be unlimited, or a credible design guide that says white space is bad, or find a popular text-based website that don't have a limited width, I will gladly eat my proceeding paragraphs of word pudding :)

    WCAG 4 LIFE <3 <3 <3 <3 2600:1700:9FFC:34B0:3178:F130:73A8:2D06 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I think I fell in love with your comment. Thank you. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Use White Spacing (WCAG) does not appear to match how the Vector 2022 skin uses white space. And the Vector 2022 TOC sidebar does not appear to conform to this recommendation: Make it Easy to Find the Most Important Tasks and Features (WCAG), or this Use a Clear and Understandable Page Structure (WCAG), and the use of icons only (instead of also including words) seems contrary to this: Make the Site Hierarchy Easy to Understand and Navigate (WCAG) and Use Clear Visible Labels (WCAG). Beccaynr (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

98. Oppose – The English Wikipedia should not be using an entirely different skin than the rest of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis. This is a decision that should be made globally, not on a wiki-by-wiki basis. Additionally, the new skin, implemented following an RfC, is a dramatic improvement over its predecessor, even if it still requires some tweaking. Graham (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I concur, Is there a way that this discussion could be trans-wiki? Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Transcleanupgal: Yes, this discussion could be had at Meta-Wiki, where issues that affect multiple Wikimedia wikis are discussed. Graham (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    The RfC has already been moved once, and I don't really see a good reason why drama on enwiki should spread to other wikis when it has already been successfully deployed to 300 other WMF wikis already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding "dramatic improvement", please note that enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    The white space is one of the improvements to which I am referring. Graham (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Perhaps it's aesthetically appealing to some minority of users, but that doesn't change the fact that enormous amounts of white space serve no useful purpose. -- HLachman (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Its purpose is discussed at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Frequently asked questions, among other places. Graham (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    At your link, the arguments in favor of white space are rather contrived. The white space is, for the most part, both useless and annoying (as confirmed by an enormous number of people). For more comments on that ("resting spots", etc.), see my reply in comment #28. -- HLachman (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    You mean against the consensus of an RFC… Tvx1 02:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

99. Do not like the design that removing the ToC just below the lead section: the infobox stretches into the main body and pushed right-side images to the next section. But I hope an a-month-of-period to try. --Lopullinen 08:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Lopullinen: see #Bring back the TOC. Æo (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

100. I think it is an improvement. Aircorn (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
101. Oppose as I think the new skin has a more modern look and feel than the old one and the switch had to be made sooner or later. Any remaining bugs and shortcomings can be resolved "in situ" while the new skin is live. Let's rather focus on specific issues or tweaks than reject the whole thing. Let's look forward not backwards. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     It it ain't broke, don't fix it. and it wasn't broken. Progress is not always good. 149.20.252.132 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

102. Oppose. There is no need to flip-flop or turn back the clock here. If you don't like the new skin, turn it off. Any credible argument about what readers think should be based on data, and I've not seen that, except for the one WMF did and led to the change. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     IP USERS, CAN'T DO that Transcleanupgal (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     IP users couldn't pick a skin before this change either. Ckoerner (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     You have been asked repeatedly to stop bludgeoning this discussion, and yet here you are again (with all caps this time). The points you are making have been made elsewhere — you do not need to continue to antagonize the people you disagree with. I'll note that none of the opposers have been bludgeoning the supporters the way you and several other of the supporters have been... 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8552:14FA:1343:4303 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

103. Oppose (This is the same thing I said back in September.) Delete Vector 2010 and never look back. No opt-in skin will ever get as many eyeballs on it to identify and address issues as a new default. It's a 1.0. it's been very thoughtfully designed with readers in mind for over three years. If we implement now, a year from now (maybe even less than for big bugbears) most issues will be resolved. For folks still on the fence, don't just try it for a few days. Settle in and really get to know what it's like. Ckoerner (talk)] 15:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
104. Oppose per Rhododendrites and everyone else. dwadieff ✉ 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
105. Oppose. (NB: I work for WMF. I did not work on Vector 2022. WMF did not ask me or any other WMF employees to respond to this RfC. I am adding my opinion as a volunteer editor.) I find the sticky Table of Contents very useful. Friends that I have asked (four people who are readers/not editors of Wikipedia) also commented how they find the sticky ToC helpful. I personally do not mind the extra white space. I prefer text heavy sites to have a limited text width to help with eye tracking. This is what many text heavy websites do on their article pages (e.g. cbc.ca, bbc.com.) These sites don't have extra white space because they are filled with adverts, related article links, etc, but I prefer fewer distractions when reading an encyclopedia. KindRowboat (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
106. Oppose. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
107. Strong Oppose - The technical justifications for the change that I've seen make sense to me, and the opposition to the changes seem to be primarily rooted in some assertion that "most people don't like it"; notwithstanding that opposition is louder than contentment, I see nothing concrete to indicate that the general outside impression is more negative overall. Furthermore, and this is more of a personal viewpoint, the opinions of longtime users and editors are less pertinent than new and transient users when it comes to the content and layout of the site, that's why registered users are given a "go back" option - this isn't about them. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
108. Oppose As others have said, we shouldn't really care what editors think is best. What matters much more is what works for readers. Unfortunately it's very difficult to actually know what readers prefer. I don't give that much weight to the WMF's research but I give even less weight to editors convinced it's worse for readers for reasons XYZ (e.g. complaints by people who say they never edit here, complaints on other sites, talks with their friends). There are good reasons why these have limited utility especially when making a major change to a UI people are used to. Ultimately since I can't know what's best for readers, I fall back to giving trust as limited as it may be to the WMF's research especially when combined with the fact a lot of what they've done is similar to what other websites are doing. I know a lot of people hate stuff other websites are doing and I don't always either e.g. I much prefer classic Reddit. Maybe all these other websites are really wrong too. OTOH, even more than the WMF, many of these websites ultimately want eyeballs because it's how they make money some way or the other. So there's a lot of money involved and a lot of effort to be sure they're right about what works for the average reader so I definitely consider their research etc matters a lot more than the opinions of random Wikipedians. And while some of them e.g. Reddit are dissimilar enough to Wikipedia that what works for them may have little bearing to us. But there are also a lot of news websites etc who's work and how people interact with them are similar enough that I expect there's a good chance what works for them will carry over in what works for us. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

     Have you completely failed just how many readers have already complained??? And how many readers that have create account just to revert the previous skin?? Also, you make the false assumption that plagued the process of this deployment that editors and readers are completely separate concepts. That is just not true. I myself am an editor, but I actually read Wikipedia much more than I edit it. In fact, nearly of accounts complaing, whom you reduce to editors, have been complaining about the reduced readability.Tvx1 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

109. Oppose as a Monobook user. I wasn't happy with the change to Vector in 2010, and I'm still very grateful that I can retain Monobook for browsing and editing. There was a hullabaloo when Vector was introduced; it died down and Vector became beloved. I'm confident that the same will happen with Vector 22, save for stick in the muds like myself. schetm (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
110.  Oppose per my comments on this page. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
111. Oppose Editors will prefer what they are used to and are resistant to change. That doesn't mean the look of the wiki should stand still in time unless we want Wikipedia to look more and more dated to the reader. Garuda3 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
112. Oppose the rollback — Saying that the design is a significant improvement is an understatement. The legibility and frankly, the approachability of the content is far superior to the earlier designs. From what I can read in the comments, the main issues seem to be the white space and the hamburger menu icon. Both of these complaints are valid and areas that can be iterated on the design with community collaboration. The entire product team worked diligently and openly (blogging, sharing designs, giving talks, holding space for feedback) throughout the development process. It would be disheartening to make a drastic decision for the design, rather than recognizing what is functional about it and collaboratively working to make it better. Iamjessklein (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
113. Oppose the rollback — I believe the new design is a significant improvement and step in the right direction, for all the reasons mentioned here. We (humans) resist change, and it is difficult. However, it seems to me that WMF team was extremely patient and considerate in the redesign, proving in other countries that the new design is worth implementing. Levaplevaplevap (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
114. Oppose the rollback — all for design improvements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.217.207 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
115. Oppose the rollback — The new design is much easier to read. 45.48.30.140 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
116. Oppose the rollback — Change is always jarring and rough. That said, the new design has some functional improvements that I would hate to lose, specifically, the TOC. I would rather see some improvement on the new TOC implementation to reduce the amount of whitespace than to lose it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.83.241.92 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
117. Oppose Whilst the sudden change on 18th January came as quite a surprise for me -and presumably many others who had not been following all the upcoming developments - I fully support the developments WMF has introduced. It's alright us editors expressing a view about our likes and dislikes - and, let's face it, few people ever seem to relish change. But we need to remember the majority of Wikipedia users are actually readers, not editors, and the interface needs to work for them in terms of content accessibility as much, if not far more, than it does for us. A lot of work and research has gone in to making that experience better, and on the whole I believe it is. We editors can, if we're registered, simply switch back to our preferred old ways of doing things. There are millions more casual visitors who will benefit from better page design and layout with Vector 2022. There has evidently not been some enormous 'cliff edge' drop off of visits since 18th January (see here), and we should be prepared to give this time to bed in, whilst identifying any outstanding wrinkles, and awaiting the statistical data from WMF to demonstrate success or failure over the coming months. As an owner of a very small iPhone who prefers to work in 'Desktop View' on it, I now find it much easier to select the right menu options than in old Vector. The icons really help. My one related gripe is that it's still as hard to find the link to switch between Mobile View and Desktop View (and vice versa) as it ever was, and this was a bit of a missed opportunity. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
118. Oppose The new design is more usable and responsive to different screen sizes. This makes it more useful to the public, which is extremely important. The old design was good, but this one is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:500F:DE00:4D0A:68D6:46BF:398C (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
119. Oppose Everyone hates UI changes when they are first introduced to them. After people adjust to them they become fine with it. Give it some time, people, you'll be fine. Endwise (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
120. Oppose — I have been wishing Wikipedia would make some readability improvements for YEARS, instead of just favoring familiarity. I'm glad that the new skin keeps the spirit of the old design while adding welcome clarity, and I'm sure additional iterations can work out any issues on particular content situations. 69.202.234.45 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
121. OpposeThe new design is cleaner, clearer and overall SO much better! Like technology design needs to innovate and evolve over time to be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.110.235 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
122. Oppose As is often the case with design changes, there will be a novelty period where some will laude it for the novelty and some will despise it for the same. After the novelty period, both will fade, and what will be left is usability. Daneah (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
123. Strong oppose I can't believe we are even having this RFC. In addition to reiterating the other !votes that while it's not perfect (no new skin could be), it is in general an improvement that could be further improved, and likely will be, I just have to point out that this is totally the wrong time to have this. Of course right after you make a change, no matter how much you tried to get all the stakeholders involved in discussing it, there will be people who either didn't know about the change till it was made or believed that it would not be are angry about it* and want to go right back, often casting aspersions on the process.

     While, yes, support for going back is running higher here, the margin is far too narrow to suggest that the community is of the carefully considered opinion that a mistake has been made. If we really want a discussion like this to be seen as reflective of genuine community consensus, the right thing for those who have started this RFC to do would be to withdraw it immediately, and promise to hold it a year from now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move"

124. Oppose I think we should give the new design a chance and see if Wikipedia can reach a broader readership. Disclaimer: I'm a former employee that was involved with the project. Niedzielski (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
125. Oppose The new design is simpler and easier to read. —Will M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.126.143 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
126. Oppose, there are bugs, but there are always bugs. It has the potential to be better. I find it easier to read once I get used to the changes. (I have poor vision). I like the sticky ToC and will like the sticky toolbar once it is working properly. If logged in you can use whatever skin you loke. If not logged in... well that is your choice. The research suggests the new format will be better for readers. How many of them have complained? 0.001%? More? Fewer? Has anyone measured Reader opinion? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     No, there has been no attempt to measure overall reader opinion, which is one of the many criticisms of this whole thing. According to the Vector 2022 page there was quantitative testing done and some evaluation of beta testers, but I have not seen any mention of soliciting qualitative feedback from logged-out users like is common practice on other large web sites. This RfC is the closest thing. Trynn (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

127. Strong Oppose, Having the outline available at all times is invaluable and iterating on this design to please all parties should be the only considered way forward. As others have said, making snap judgements to reverse new developments will keep Wikipedia stagnant as there will always be someone to veto any change. Carlinmack (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
128. Oppose — Vector 2022 vastly improves the site's layout and typographic design. In addition it follows contemporary best practices for making key UI elements available as you scroll down the page. — James M. DowlandFan (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — DowlandFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
129. Oppose — Vector 2022 is definitely an improvement from a navigation standpoint as it utilizes the breadcrumb approach, allowing you to jump in and out of your search train at any point seamlessly.– JD M Babymodel89 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Babymodel89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
130. Oppose — [Vector 2022 reduces visual noise and follows conventions that improve information comprehension and retention. This is a long overdue update for Wikipedia.] 66.108.33.153 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 66.108.33.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
131. Oppose — The new design, while not perfect, is a substantial improvement for legibility across multiple device sizes and browsers. Strongly oppose rolling back. Reefdog (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
132. Strong Oppose - Change will always create controversy, but it also provides opportunity for meaningful improvement for a *new and wider set of stakeholders than those who were involved in the establishment of the previous status quo*. I understand that this design was created with community feedback, iteration, and with an intent to continue to improve and update based on additional feedback. Wikipedia needs to continue to evolve in order to stay relevant for a new generation of knowledge seekers. That isn't going to happen without updates like this one. Please keep this and please continue to make progress! slifty (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
133. Oppose — I build websites for a living and I think rolling back should only be considered in extreme circumstances, like the site won't load. I read through some of the complaints and it was hard to identify anything that couldn't be better addressed by iterating further on the current Vector 2022 skin. I like the shorter line measure (how wide a single line of text goes before it breaks), I think it improves readability of the article text. Dan Phiffer (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Dan Phiffer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
134. Oppose — I work on a large (top 10) website for a living and and can say that the new design is much more legible and fits best practices for readability and ease of use. I find the new design much easier to read. Change is hard, and of course it will be daunting when a thing we all know and love changes because we're so used to it. That comfort and familiarty is shaken up. But I think with time people will come to appreciate the improvements of the new design and we should listen to how to improve it without rollingback 2600:1700:9770:E000:6C01:C24F:833D:BD78 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9770:E000:6C01:C24F:833D:BD78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
135. Oppose — The new design is a lot more readable, and forward thinking. I'm sure it will continue to improve in the future, but for now this is already a major step forward for people who care about readability. 47.157.79.115 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 47.157.79.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
136. Oppose — I am just a random everyday user of Wikipedia. The new design is a breath of fresh air. I spend so many hours of my life on this website, the least it can do is have a comfortable line length. That alone makes the reading experience significantly better. But there are also loads of other improvements (sticky sidebar? Love it!). Please don't revert! Samanpwbb (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Samanpwbb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
137. Oppose - I am in favor of the the new design because it is more usable and accessible. 198.115.84.241 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 198.115.84.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
138. Oppose - It is much more readable with this design. Neohypatia (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Neohypatia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
139. Oppose — It is clean, easy to follow what's on the page 67.1.30.180 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 67.1.30.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
140. Oppose - As other opposers have said, what issues exist in the new design are nothing that can't be fixed with continued iteration. Couldn't agree more. A bit too much whitespace for me right now, but I adore the nav sidebar, and I'm confident the right balance will be struck. 141.156.130.5 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
141. Oppose - I'm not the biggest fan of the new redesign, but it seems way too soon to roll it back, especially since there were particular reasons of accessibility behind its implementation. 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.229.50 (talk) — 23.31.229.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
142. Oppose - The usability of the new skin improves substantially, and brings Wikipedia's design up to contemporary standards. Empirically, it is easier to use; it adheres to accepted display guidelines, which helps improve accessibility; and user adoption indicates that the new skin is well-received by regular users. I oppose rolling back the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.222.171 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 108.26.222.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
143. Oppose — I frequently hate redesigns, but Wikipedia's is a huge step forward in usefulness and convenience. Ocdtrekkie (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
144. Oppose — Much more usability and taking steps in the right direction. As a designer I think it's more useful to build on this UI with new feedback rather than rollback to the past. 168.91.204.164 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 168.91.204.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
145. Oppose — It is a real shame that the typical Wikipedia visitor will not be represented in this vote due to the immense complexity of casting one. The result is that subtle, meticulously-researched, evidence-backed design improvements clearly made in service of casual readers are being challenged by a small group of insiders, likely editors. These are the few folks on Earth who probably even noticed a change at all because the exceedingly spare improvements that have been made are catering to the casual reader who is likely to miss them. Why? Because a) casual readers don't spend a significant portion of their waking life on Wikipedia and b) with this new design, casual readers are far more likely to see what they came here to find in the first place: the content. By neatly tucking away the main navigation, moving contents to a sidebar, demoting the presence of editor tools, emphasizing language options, and giving over nearly all of the page to the content, this design puts the focus on the reader experience and not the editing process. In a world where most everyone is "doing their research" with their thumbs, the real obvious improvement is how well this new design works on mobile where the experience is night and day. Anyone suggesting a rollback to the 2010 era is doing so for purely personal aesthetics and without any deference to a modern reader. If there are any concerns with this new design, critics should learn why certain choices were made. If there are (evidence-backed) improvements to be made to this new design, critics should suggest them and move forward rather than set Wikipedia back a decade and thereby endanger it's relevance (and ultimately existence). I sincerely hope that this vote is purely a performative exercise intended to allow incredibly important contributors a chance to vent their frustrations but will ultimately have no consequence on design decisions. Editors and wonks are essential to Wikipedia's success, but ultimately Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the casual readers. Rfriedman81 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
146. Oppose I didn't like the new skin when it was first proposed (too much white space), but I've gotten used to it. It is much better for reading longer and more complex articles. I've also found, somewhat to my surprise, that the graphics-heavy articles I mostly work on usually look better, although sometimes I've had to make layout changes. Curiocurio (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
147. Oppose — The dynamic table-of-contents and fixed line length contribute to the usability for me significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.128.14 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 155.33.128.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
148. The new design is beautiful maybe slightly unpolished. I'm only here because a guy from work tweeted there was an uprising, so to speak. Like with any product, the unsatisfied users are more likely to comment, and review pages always show strong bias in that direction. It's like asking folks at G-party's convention what they think of D-party's president, if ya know what I mean. And the guy hasn't even started yet2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) from phone, regular editor otherwise

     @2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2: Do you mind providing a link to this tweet? Thanks. @2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2: IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     You'd be justified in suggesting there is response bias going on here, but I daresay the opposite probably happened in the original discussion. It stands to reason that most readers and very possibly most editors were unaware of the vector change or where to raise concerns about it. This would be particularly problematic for non-editors. Really we lack a decisive way to measure consensus on this issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

     I do mind because it's from a friend and I respect his privacy. Are you with the FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:178:8218:0:0:66:DFA2 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

149. Oppose — The new design has been pretty easy to adapt to and particularly prefer the icon-based headers and the cohesion between different platforms. I do agree that there is a lot of white space that could be better designed. There's far more to gain from improving V2022 instead of rolling back entirely. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
150. Oppose — I love having the TOC available at all times. There will be iterations but rolling the design back is silly and a waste of good work. Let Wikipedia move forward. Sabriel~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
151. Oppose as the new default theme seems more readable and usable, and follows the work of designers who are attempting to implement usability best practices (white space, fixed width reading, accessible navigation). But I also oppose using an RfC to address this kind of design preference question after testing and deployment. This is not intended or claimed to be a representative vote. It was quite challenging for me to even find the RfC even once I heard that one was taking place. I would prefer for the community to give feedback on the design principles and process (which I understand was done, including through surveys and RfCs) and then developers to implement the design and run tests and gather feedback on it, rather than rolling back any UI change which any group dislikes. I especially appreciate the options to choose a theme, and the addition of options even on the default theme for those who especially dislike fixed width layouts. Npdoty (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
152. Oppose. Nothing would ever change or improve if we left every collective design decision up to a crowd consensus. Many of the arguments here supporting a rollback amount to "I don't like it." No given examples of what makes the design inferior, or proof of what works, just cries that it's "poorly made" and that their workflow has been interrupted. Not to mention the repeated claims that a narrower text column is suboptimal, which has been patently untrue for the entire history of publishing. Instead of rolling back these progressive changes, everyone should adapt and perhaps work on improving the look and feel of Vector 2022. Rolling back to the old style is not recommended. There should be an option to revert the theme from preferences, but for the people who don't like having to log in for that, I say deal with it. Down10 ^TACO 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
153. Oppose rolling back - Usually logged-out user dusting off a very old account here. Here's my chain of reasoning: Were the problems in Vector that gave rise to the redesign real? Yes. Is it a good faith attempt to address those problems? Yes. Are the claimed problems in V2022 so bad and impossible to mitigate that they far outweigh the problems V2022 was intended to solve? No. On that basis, any problems with V2022 should be solved by progressive in-situ improvements, not by relitigating the decision to implement it. Polonius (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
154. Oppose. The new skin doesn't seem to be a significant disimprovement to me (I very recently switched to it from monobook, mostly because I think it's a good idea to stay in touch with the way readers see articles). But more to the point, in the ways that it's different from the old skins, the differences tend to bring it closer to the mobile appearance. When bringing things closer to mobile gets in the way of the user experience, that's bad, but when it can be done in a way that is less problematic in that respect, I think it's a good thing. I don't think these changes are overall worse (some things are worse, some better) and to the extent that they are they can be tweaked later. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
155. Oppose — I like the new skin a lot. I find it much easier to navigate and to consume. 170.149.100.107 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — 170.149.100.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
156. Oppose — I think the new interface design should be rolled out for a longer period of time before a rollback is considered. Furthermore, I like the parity with the iOS UX. Overall, my experience using the new design is that is far quicker finding the information I am searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.64.77.163 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
157. Strong Oppose - The new layout is significantly better for reading than the old, and reflects modern design principles. It's been over 10 years since such a major change, so it's not surprising that people are against it. -Cliff Gilley (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
158. Strong Oppose - Found this link via Mashable article and was surprised to see this RFC. Consensus (whatever that means) seems impossible here and this RFC seems like a flawed democracy to me if it's meant to represent the average person - I'm lucky I stumbled across it and even that I almost didn't contribute given the lack of civility and various instances of  WP:BLUDGEON going on here by certain users here. It took me a while to get used to the change but I like it. It's cleaner and easier to read and I love the floating table of contents. For those that are complaining about having to register an account to change the skin - the fact you can even do this is a gift.. do you think any other website would even consider keeping an old skin around as an option..? 64.21.209.118 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

     No-one has ever said Vector 2022 needs to be deleted. It just needs to be reverted as an automatic default forced onto everyone that requires an opt-out to get back to the good functional skin that WMF replaced without consensus. Forcing people to sign up to fix the site is not a "gift". As for "would any other website keep old skins", Reddit does exactly that with old.reddit (and again, no-one is asking for deletion of Vector 2022, so you could opt-in to using that if you felt like it). Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

     Well, if you want to use Reddit as an example, we'd need to make an en.old.wikipedia.org and keep the old skin on there instead EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

159. Oppose — important to continuously improve Wikipedia and look forward to the continued iterations based on more feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2f70:ed50:cc6f:e67:289b:1968 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1700:2f70:ed50:cc6f:e67:289b:1968 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
160. Oppose go forward, not backward. Issues with menus and text width are being fixed. Uwappa (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
161. Oppose Frankly, I hated Vector 2022 when I first tried it last year, but it's grown on me as I've gotten used to it. There are still features I'm still getting used to, and there are definitely elements of the skin that I think are inferior to Vector 2010, but overall I do find reading articles easier with this skin versus Vector 2010. And yes, there are bugs, but there's always going to be bugs when something new rolls out. No UI is ever going to be perfect, and no UI is ever going to make everyone happy. (I do agree that it would be nice if skins or other preferences would be accessible to nonregistered users.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
162. Oppose It is important to improve the interface. I believe with continuous iterative improvements it will only get better, more usable, and accessible. Dchlr23 (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Dchlr23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
163. Oppose — Change is good. We learn new things, we adapt, we make improvements. The new interface is more intuitive and accessible. We can't take our significance for granted and should not be afraid to keep changing for the better. Incabell (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
164. Oppose. The new layout is excellent for readability, and barely affects basic editing. It seems to be a sensible new default for a general audience. If you really miss Vector legacy that much, it's trivially easy to switch back, IP users notwithstanding. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
165. Oppose — It's more organized and more legible. It's no surprise that people balk at changes to products they have been using for a long time, and even invent their rationale afterwards. I can recall people losing it over aesthetic changes to Instagram and Twitter that had a marginal impact on the experience, especially when compared to how they have decided to surface content and such. Keep the design and keep moving forward! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.36.118 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
166. Oppose. It's an improvement for reading; if you don't find it an improvement for editing, you can turn it off again. The Land (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
167. Oppose Per my comments in the previous RfC supporting deployment of Vector 2022. Net positive for the general reader. Editors always have the choice of going back to classic vector if they don't like it. The skin is responsive which makes it usable on mobile, a big win over Vector-2010. Sticky TOC is another improvement. Being deployed as default on English Wikipedia would hopefully mean improvements such as native support for dark mode would be considered in the future, which are impractical to support for Vector 2010 due to its less modern codebase. – SD0001

     Then why is the general reader complaining that Wikipedia is much more difficult to read and is massive amount of them creating accounts just to change back to the old skin??? Furthermore you are yet another person who makes the false assumption that editors only edit and never read. Editors are complaining about readability just as much and only editors being able to chance back is insufficient.Tvx1 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

168. Oppose. The new design is handsome and more legible. The sticky TOC is very helpful. Surprised there's pushback. You don't need to be Robert Bringhurst to see that it's an improvement.

SD0001 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Oppose I think the pages are a lot easier to read. So for not logged in users that's a big benefit. Everybody here who doesn't like it, can easily change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.234.90 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. As a (younger and more tech-savvy?) user who's been using the skin for more than half a year, I've gotten used to it at this point. The whitespace margin issues that are plaguing many others I've solved for myself by enlarging text for the domain, and the only real gripe that I have at this point is not having a persistent hidden table of contents across pages, which is being tracked on Phabricator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Enlarging text size was the solution I also implemented. Personally I've always been a fan of the skin. Moxy- 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   There's a checkbox in the prefs that really fixes it. Andre🚐 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I was made aware of it a while back, though at a much later date than my own fix. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Neutral. As much as I don't like the new skin, it's not like I can't change back to Vector 2010 (and I did just that). However, I'll echo other people who say that if single-purpose accounts are created for the sole purpose of changing back to an older skin, then the design might be to reconsider. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Do you mean SPAs that don't edit? That's the only metric I think would be worth considering - I noticed what looked like a couple SPAs that seemed like they were just made to vote/badger in this discussion, something I can't imagine as being representative of average readers. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   I think we're seeing a new breed of zero-purpose accounts (ZPA?) such as Redesign is utterly awful and IJustCreatedAccountBecauseOfThis1diocy‎ which were set up to comment on the new design and/or to allow use of Special:Preferences. Technically they're not here to build an encyclopedia but, as they have legitimate reasons for being here and do no harm, I hope we can invoke IAR on that one. Some of them may even go on to become valued regular editors, though possibly under a different username. Certes (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   In my own case, I'm here to read articles. Vector2022 actively gets in the way of that. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I created this account specifically so I could view Wikipedia in Vector 2010. I may go on to do some occasional editing afterward now that my interest has been piqued. I plan on either creating a new account or changing my username if possible once these discussions are over. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   It seems that changes that completely disregard the majority of people who come here (simply to read, instead of read and edit) is a bad choice no matter how you look at it. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   The average reader who did not use to edit Wikipedia until this day, found themself so horrified by the new skin that they had to create an account after all just to be able to switch skins and make a statement with their usernames, to lobby against the changes made. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   @ThadeusOfNazereth Yes, that's what I meant. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Neutral I changed to Vector2022 few days ago and it is somewhat mixed experience. There are things I like (table of contents on the left), things I don't like (watchlist etc. buried behind icons) and things I don't care (whitespace - I prefer smaller paragraph width anyway). That is on 2560x1440 display with 150 % UI scaling. My other devices use lower screen resolution (1366x768 on notebook and 1280x1024 on Pegasos 2) and my intention is to thoroughly test Vector2022 with these computers during weekend. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Addendum: I tested Vector2022 with my other computers and results are - yet again - mixed.

   1) The Good: Using new skin on notebook (1366x768, 110 % text size in Firefox) is definitely a better experience than older Vector (tested the same pages side by side with useskin). Using new table of contents really helps (no need to return to the top), especially with longer articles. Paragraph width is shorter than in older Vector, but that a plus for someone, who has problems to read a wider text. Only issue is with the selection of language versions - I would prefer a simple ABC list, not sorting by region.

   2) The Not So Good: Another device I used for my test is nearly 20 years old Pegasos 2 with Odyssey webbrowser based on an older Webkit engine. Original Vector works well with this setup, which is sadly not the case with Vector2022. Some of the new features aren't displayed at all (floating search menu, table of contents), or don't work as intended (language version selection). Basic viewing and editing is OK. Sure, 99.99 % of Wikipedia editors/readers use state of the art devices, so this issue is probably not that important.

   Conclusion: Vector 2022 works well with screens of various size and offers many nice features with few minor issues. It is obviously intended for newer webbrowsers, so it will be really hard choice for me, wich skin to select as default. Pavlor (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Conflicted/Neutral I don't know how I feel about this in all honesty. On the one hand, I got used to Vector 2022 after a bit and didn't really mind it. However on the other hand there appears to be major backlash to this change (yes it might take a bit for people to get used to it but we don't know that) and a general opposition from the community. So I'm not entirely sure. Wikipedia is supposed to be sort of community based, however if the community doesn't like it then should we ignore them because statistics say the new skin is better or should we listen to them? I might add to this !vote later on as I compose my thoughts more on this matter, but for now this is how I feel. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Neutral — I agree with users arguing that changes to user interfaces are most often badly received yet absolutely necessary, and I do think that some of the changes are improvements and that asking for further upgrades to Vector 2022 is the way to go.
   However, I also believe that limiting the line width and thus text density would be detrimental for an encyclopedia (as opposed to others text types in which limited line width is commonly used, to which the research cited seems to be confined), because it makes 'looking up things' much harder (and 'looking up' benefits from being able to see more text and structural elements at once; more on that in my !vote on Question 2 below).
   If unlimited line width would be the default for unregistered users (about whom anything !voted for or against in this RfC should be) in Vector 2022, I would strongly oppose rolling back to legacy Vector. However, if the limited line width must be a part of Vector 2022's default configuration, I think unregistered readers would be better served by legacy Vector, however outdated it may be. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Neutral: Sooner or later, the change had to be coming, it has been over a decade now. However, I would like the devs to be responsive to the community concerns. Many do not like the wasted spaces on the right. Why can't we give every user the ability to extend content. Devs say it's for improved readability, but it so happens that every person is different from every other person. Why not allow people to make changes as they see fit, in the year 2023, when literally every site is so much customisable? zhwiki used to provide js that collapsed the sidebar on vector legacy, providing more content area for those who chose it. Why not hardcode this into software, this time for the right side? And similar small steps that eventually help gain community confidence in this skin. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
7. So, as a mobile user, I don't really have much of a dog in the fight - but seeing so many unregistered users commenting about this gives me pause. I can't say I've read much about the reasons for the skin change, but the fact we don't have any way to allow the general reader to change the skin is pretty crazy. I have been telling people to have an account to fix this if it's a problem for them, but I'm not sure that's a great solution. It's also not really a great look for IPs who think we are trying to get them to all create accounts for a long time, now will have even more ammo. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Neutral I don't like the new skin. But I don't see any scenario where this would be undone. I think a better course of action would be to work on improving, not removing, the new skin. I'd personally like to see moving the page tools to the right, making limited width off by default and adding an option that allows preferences, talk page, contribs and the other buttons to be where they were before and not hidden. If this isn't going to be done, then maybe I'd find myself amongst the supporters, but the Vector 2022 team has already stated that improvement is on the way. I just wish it had been done before it impacted the millions of people who read this site. With that said, I wouldn't be fully against removal, which is why I'm here in neutral. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I am still testing the skin, WMF suggested a week, at least a week they shall get. I want to like the change, find some of the arguments for interesting, and expect any UI change to have a backlash. That said, there are some very odd features pushed out with the skin. The width of the left column changes when you click "hide" on the ToC, shifting the entire screen. An update whose most obvious feature is creating a consistent width, not actually creating a consistent width, is something I haven't seen explained. (Clicking hide on the top of the ToC also makes the entire thing vanish, you can't unhide it without scrolling all the way to the top and finding the very unobvious icon.) The removal of the link to your talkpage from the default links at the top is a change that seems particularly against the community ethos here. The new image preview in search is janky, and the log-in button was hidden. There are other minor UI things I have personal issues with, and that's probably not a problem for any UI change, but these ones mentioned stand out as being generally applicable. Many of these don't seem fundamental to the skin, so they didn't need to be lumped in to something that was bound to generate opposition already. The deployment was further quite odd in being explicitly incomplete. The tools are supposed to be in the right whitespace, but this was not done due to technical issues. It seems a major change, to have what looks now like empty space actually hold something. It is odd the deployment was not delayed alongside this, given previous RfCs raising whitespace quite prominently. CMD (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   Turns out the issue with hiding the login was raised in at least 2021, which does not fill me with optimism it will be fixed at any speed. This issue is particularly notable as if you're logged out, you won't have skin or UI hacks which might solve other issues. CMD (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

10. Not sure: My one gripe at present is that I no longer see a TOC in the sandbox while I prepare an article, nor do I see the floating TOC icon that I gather is the new Vector 2022 style. I'm also (as usual) unable to suss out information in Wikipedia on this issue, and in particular how I might fix this. For context: I'm a relatively new account, and have only recently begun doing any editing/writing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johsebb (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Comment moved from #Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

11. Neutral. Although I agree with this change, there are some problems and it's hard to get used to the change (although viwiki has rolled the change one year ago). The lack of number in the TOC section are my concerns, however as we cannot see the number of talk page sections easily. Thingofme (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Question #2: If Vector 2022 is kept as default, should unlimited text width be the default?

Support alternate proposal

1. Support, although I prefer option 1: reverting to the old design. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. This seems by far the most complained about feature and switching it would make it more similar to how it was before. Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. It seems to be one of the chief complaints about the new skin. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Limited text width looks horrendous in wider screens and distracts from the reading experience. It should be opt-in, not opt-out. Carpimaps (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support ~ HAL333 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Support, as the excess of white space is the main concern with V22. —El Millo (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Support, though I would be upset if the other problems with Vector 2022 go unaddressed, particularly the difficulty in navigation and the all-white design. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Support main complaint of the readers, though I'd prefer finding a solution for the newly created navigation issues as well. --Icodense (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
9. Very strongly support — I designed and composed many tables, over many years, to the then-existing page-width. Some of them still look OK, but others (see List of pre-World Series baseball champions and Demographics of South Africa) are impossible to read completely without endless left-to-right scrolling or shrinking the page to 75% of normal. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
10. Support Unbelievable that this wasn't the default to begin with. It's practically unusable without it. Parabolist (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
11. Support Clearly the new design has to be reverted but the most egregious design flaw is displaying everything in a thin strip down the middle of the page. The text should... by default... fill the majority of the page. Fixed width blocks of text is so 1990's when screens were only 80 characters wide. Ikaruseijin (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
12. Strong Support This new design clearly must be default-reverted, but if it isn't, the massive whitespace drowning out every article is by far the biggest design flaw in this new one. It's hard enough to read the thin strip of text as it is; if the article has pictures (as most articles about notable topics do), it's nearly impossible to coherently follow the flow of the text.
13. Support I've just spend 15 minutes to use an account I've almost never used to try to understand why this limited width is enforced. On a 16:10, 32 inch screen, wikipedia is two mini columns barely readable embedded in a white page. The full screen button is a joke, as soon as you change from a page to a new one, it resets to the limited width. Only after login in and setting my preferences to full width, it becomes usable. You cannot seriously think that all wikipedia users will create an account and login in right? You may have another kind of problems if we would all do so. For the rest about vector 2, I am not well enough into editing to complain. But clearly, the designers knew the problem of the limited width and of the folded left menu, otherwise they would not have added a button to unfold the menu and another one to extend the width. The major bug is that the status of these buttons are not cached and are reset at each clicks. Please, fixed that urgently. It is pretty clear that most of the complains are only due to this, mine included. What an oversight!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdirt (talk • contribs)

    Agree. I think this is a good compromise, especially for such a drastic change. I think there should be a button that allows the user to enable "reading mode", which removes the clutters and present content in a fixed width. CactiStaccingCrane 08:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Most browsers have that built in these days. Nobody has to bother reimplementing it. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    ...and the ability to reduce window width has been built in since the dawn of graphical operating systems.–small jars tc 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

14. Strong Support I switched my vote in the original RFC from oppose to neutral because it sounded like the width thing was going to be solved. It sounds like it was solved poorly. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
15. Support Limited-width text is good, but this should be limited to text. Instead, the new skin limits the width of everything, putting infoboxes, images, tables and other non-text items into the same narrow strip of content, with white all around. Either we redesign the website to put non-text items on the empty sides, or limited-width doesn't make any sense. By the way, I would support a real redesign which would move infoboxes, images etc. on the sides and limit the text width. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
16. Support The whitespace problem is a distraction. Narrow content space is fine on vertical-oriented phones, where the phone doesn't have whitespace on the sides. In a horizontally oriented monitor, it's fundamentally a waste of resources to leave so much of the screen unusable. By leaving the width to float to the maximum width of the device, it conforms naturally to the user's own setup in a way that is most useful. If users wish to increase their own whitespace for their own preferences, let them... The default should be to fit each device best, not force a one-size-fits-all design onto a multitude of devices for which it is not well suited. It's also my only real complaint about the new Vector skin. I actually like many of the design and functionality choices, and would return to using it if the screen width problem was fixed.--Jayron32 12:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
17. Support Would solve a few of the primary issues I have with the design. The whitespace replaced with functional content, and the toggle between no longer being extremely isolated giving it some semblance of contrast. Even with the black on white design, text alone is more than enough to break up the blinding nature of the background and make it less painful to look at on high contrast displays, compared to the extremely pale gray of the standard whitespace. Although it would be less able to utilize the space provided, considering the toggle takes up it's own unique margin, and itself doesn't compress when expanded.Deadoon (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
18. Strong support. The excessive white space is literally the only problem I have with the new skin. Endianer (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
19. Support, at least temporarily Though I personally dislike the new aesthetic, and agree with the sentiment of not fixing what isn't broken, I recognise that part of why I may feel that way is likely influenced by me just being used to Vector 2010. But there are some aspects of the redesign that really bug me outside of the aesthetic and the big white space. For example: why is create account always visible on logged out screens but log in is hidden behind a menu? My issues with this redesign include the aesthetic, but also the functional. I don't think it works the way it is.Xx78900 (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
20. Support This is the basis of almost all complaints I've seen from end users about Vector 2022, and the reason I opposed it in the initial RfC. We sort of accepted that we as editors weren't the intended audience for the limited width and that this was something that would work for end users, but that does not appear to be the case. JackWilfred (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
21. Support Definitely. The excess white space is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) problems with the new design. The toggle button isn't consistent, and casual readers shouldn't have to be forced to create an account just to disable the option in the Preferences. Limited width should be opt-in, not opt-out IMO. Some1 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
22. Support.--Æo (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
23. Support Too much white space, too hard to navigate, the previous 2010 design was simpler, more manageable on a wider variety of displays, rather than this newer version which looks like a poor mobile-display conversion. Also, so many people have written about it in the Teahouse, unsurprisingly, but only actual users with accounts can opt-out, that's clearly a bad idea. My first instinct upon seeing the new design was to turn it off. ButterCashier (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
24. Support as an IP reader and editor, while no better solution found and implemented. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
25. Unsure on one hand this is the biggest complaint and the button doesn't persist, on the other hand this is the entire point of including this as the default and as a fact it is better looking. I'm not sure what to say on this. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Until the content flash issue for pagetools issue is addressed, I will be conditional supporting this.Aaron Liu (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
26. Strong support, because the line width shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how I (and, I believe, many others) use Wikipedia. I am usually an early adopter of new interfaces. The sidebar TOC here is an improvement, in my opinion (even though it's still buggy). The width is not. I'm a lawyer in my day job, and lawyers (especially appellate lawyers) are heavily invested in making their briefs easier to read and understand. (Have you ever been on #AppellateTwitter? It's a trip.) I am intimately familiar with white space. My briefs use low-density fonts, are left-aligned rather than fully justified, don't use blockquotes or ALLCAPS headings or unnecessary defined terms or acronyms, and so on. These have been daily considerations for me in my professional life. What I've come to realize over the last few days, though, is that I don't read Wikipedia in the same way or for the same purpose that I read a legal brief or judicial opinion (or a novel). I almost exclusively *scan* Wikipedia. High information density is very important to me here; it's a feature, not a bug. I want the maximum possible amount of information on my screen when I am doing the kind of reading I am doing on Wikipedia. I want to be able to see the nearby headings for context (which, again, is a mark in favor of the sidebar TOC). The width works against all of that *for the type of reading I come to Wikipedia to do*. Here's a simile that may help illustrate the issue. Reading is like eating. There are lots of different reasons I eat. Sometimes I eat to fill my belly; sometimes I eat to fuel myself for a hike or river paddle; sometimes I eat for pleasure. I eat differently in all those situations (respectively: more high-calorie-density and protein-rich foods to fuel a hike; mainly low-calorie-density, high-fiber foods like vegetables for everyday living; sugary sweets and confections for pleasure). I read for different reasons too, and *why* I'm reading matters to *what* and *how* I'm reading. The change in width is like forcing me to eat celery when I need to be carbo loading. So while I absolutely understand "giving the reader a break" and "slowing down the firehose of information" from most documents, I'm understanding now that it just doesn't make sense for this site. Jeffreynye (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Hear, hear! I come here specifically FOR the "firehose of information". If I want a break, I close the browser. I really don't appreciate having these self-appointed efficiency experts hobble the reading experience because they believe they know what I'm looking for better than I do myself. It's analogous to the information problem of top-down economies in a different form. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

27. Support - The white space problem is significantly disruptive to my editing experience. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
28. Support My biggest gripe with the new skin, and why I'm using the legacy version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
29. Support I went to dig up my old account for this, because I do not approve of this change. Of the changes, I don't particularly mind the decision to add the ToC to the side, but the huge amount of whitespace is horrible for my experience reading articles, and makes it feel like I'm using a mobile website. If that was changed, I think the new Vector would be a much more acceptable design. SkyAmp6 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
30. Support This would fix one of the bigguest problems with it. The other being hiding and burying some of the most heavily used menu items. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
31. Support–Constriction is not a feature.small jars tc 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
32. Support. Establishing unlimited text width as the default would resolve what is, in my opinion, the primary problem with the moment-to-moment user experience of Vector 2022. See also Jeffreynye's thorough and eloquent explanation of why unlimited text width is particularly suitable for the Wikipedia environment, as opposed to that of other text-focused websites. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
33. Support. This is the single biggest gripe with the new skin, and it is something that the majority of editors wanted at the RfC that was held on whether or not to move to new vector. If this cannot be achived upstream in the skin itself due to a lack of willingness by the WMF, we can simply use common.css to keep this fixed for everyone until switching the default in the code (something that is technically trivial to do, by the way) is implemented. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
34. Support. Anonymous readers do not have a way to set a preference for wide-screen viewing, and the limited width was by far the primary objection in the rollout RFC (read through the oppose votes, and you'll see that 90+% of those who cited a specific problem state that the width is a problem). The previous RFC would have sailed through as "support" if the width problems had been resolved, and the limited width continues to be the primary objection among post-rollout commenters. All of the incompatibility with tools and scripts for us power users can be resolved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
35. Support. This is the #1 reason why Vector 2022 is bad. Restricting width like this uses so little screen space at the expense of any customizability in width to the user. If anything, it should be default expanded width and then a toggle button for restricted width. I see no quality evidence that this improves readability beyond the cherry-picking provided by WMF. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
36. Support. Even after pressing the button, it's still too narrow for my taste. There's nearly an inch of white space to the left of the text and about half an inch to the right. Just give us widescreen, get rid of the button, and let the small minority of users that want a restrictive narrow column find it in the settings. Fix these issues and I'd accept Vector 2022 as the default. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
37. Support, per Jeffreynye's comment above. There are some things I personally don't like about V22, some things I do like, and also some things I just love. But I'm not !voting based on that, nor should anyone: since any registered user can revert to legacy vector, this RfC should be about unregistered users' experience only. But this involves more: registered users should also switch to whatever skin unregistered users have every time they are working on the lay-out of articles, and the width that unregistered users will get to see is in fact of fundamental importance for all our future lay-out decisions.
    Now while I appreciate the research cited by the web team showing that limited line width is beneficial for reading comprehension, I am not entirely convinced that this research can simply be generalized to every type of application. Contrary to the websites which are often cited as examples of big players who use limited width, we are an encyclopedia. The type of information we offer is fundamentally different from what is usually offered on the web. I believe that it may be the case that encyclopedic content heavily benefits from text density, because people who are looking for a specific piece of information will want to scan a lot of text at once, and because all readers will have a strong need to orient themselves within the structure of the text (which is benefited by seeing as much as possible of the section headings and other structural elements, as well as of the info in other parts of the text).
    This is not based on any research, but on my long-term (+10 years) and heavy use of Wikipedia for research purposes. Still, I think that contrary to the non-specific research on the benefits of limited line width, my experience may be generalized: people do primarily use Wikipedia to do research, whether it be scholarly research like me or just 'looking things up'. It is my belief that the limited width will be detrimental to that 'looking up'. At the very least, I would like to see research that is specific to Wikipedia or encyclopedic text in general before moving to the limited width lay-out. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Comment—What about allowing readers (logged-in or otherwise) the option of toggling wide text on and off? --Kurtis ^(talk) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    They can (by clicking the 'full screen' button at the bottom to the right), though it doesn't persist across pages. This persistence is something the web team has said they are willing to work on. However, when editing we need to base our lay-out on one of the two views, and the large majority of unregistered readers will see the default view most of the time. Customization options are always only used by a minority. This makes determining what the default view should be a crucial decision.

    ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

38. Support, graphs tend to be too small. Sometimes, you can hardly read what is written on the axis. There is not enough space to have graphs, which are large enough. One can click on the graph to view it without problems. So, now we have too small graphs combined with wasted space. That does not make any sense. --Boehm (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
39. Support, everything else was fine, it was just the width that causes all sorts of table layout issues (such as with WP:RJL). --Rschen7754 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Then why on earth do you oppose???? Tvx1 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

40. Support "but", You don't use an encyclopedia the same way as a social media, a news, or a novel. As long as there is no better way found, and thoroughly test, to display the content of an encyclopedia, thing should stay as they are. A good web design should be adapted to the content and the usage, not the other way around. There is always room for improvement and innovation, not to be a trend follower. DerpFox (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
41. Strongest Support possible My biggest gripe with the new skin is the limited text so making it unlimited would be a great improvement. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
42. Support Wasted monitor space makes it a lot more work to read something. Also showing far less of the article at once makes it very difficult to take a fast overall look. This problem is compounded when editing / reviewing in editing mode where the presence of long references makes even less of the article even worse when editing because This aspect of the change is so huge that they should have requested feedback on it separately. If they asked for that specific feedback, they would have received feedback relevant to reading and editing an electronic encyclopedia and even more specifically reading and editing Wikipedia instead of going by self-interpreting other less applicable studies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
43. Support I find that this makes me scroll more because there is less information on the screen at a time, and it is a major contributor to the excess whitespace, which irritates my eyes.WikEdits5 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
44. Support per the majority of people here Toa Nidhiki05 05:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
45. Support This is my main gripe with the new layout, and it blatently disregards responsive design principles. On my 4k monitor, content takes up less than half of overall window. The amount of whitespace shown on either side is excessive and incredibly distracting. In contrast, viewing the new UI on my iPad is actually not that bad; but that's because the content and UI elements fill the majority of the smaller screen size of an iPad. Many of us prefer browsing on a desktop explicitly because we can get more content on the screen at one time. Whitespace is not necessarily bad, but it needs to be used with intent and purpose. The excessive whitespace of the new UI when rendered on high res displays does not fulfill any useful purpose. Trynn (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
46. Support only if reverting back to the old design is vetoed by the powers that be. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
47. Strongest support possible The FAQ that tries to explain the reasoning behind this points to research done almost two decades ago. The main article used to justify the shorter lines (by Peter orton, PhD) explicitly says "Isn’t reading text on a low resolution computer monitor difficult enough?" Well, maybe in 2007 this was true or relevant, but technology has moved on. The scientific articles also acknowledges that this is a polarizing issue - people who like short lines actively hate longer lines, and vice versa. Arbitrarily forcing one choice as the default was bound to create backlash. Rizzardi (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
48. Support as the best option conditional on a bad choice of action. Mindlessly following trends of web design is absurd. Waving about studies that don't pertain to the specific needs of an electronic encyclopedia doesn't make the trend-following any more mindful, either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
49. Support. Easily the worst aspect of this skin. Cards84664 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
50. Support - Most of the complaints we get on the IRC side are about the whitespace and squished text. This would address those concerns directly. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
51. Support Justiyaya 03:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
52. Support - The answer to this question is also obvious. Artificially creating dead space on your website for a desktop skin is backwards design. If I wanted less width then I would decease the width of my browser. Deadgye (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
53. Support The whitespace is not good, and while I find myself in neutral concerning rolling back the deployment, I strongly support this. As others have said, this is bad design. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
54. Support: As others have mentioned, this is the main problem with the new layout. Changing this alone might solve most of the issues with the layout. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
55. Strong Support; yet still... based on what nux said but flipped on it's head, if WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would be used in an opposing vote. If that doesn't apply, then the outcome would most likely be support, and I don't think it applies here per the essay WP:VINE. However, we shouldn't need to have votes backed up with reasoning, this should be a count of who likes it, and who doesn't. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Given that this is a consensus discussion, and that consensus is determined based on the relative strengths and qualities of the arguments presented, !votes that amount to "I like it" or "I don't like it" will ultimately be weighed as being of low quality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    _{could you at least read Wikipedia:VINE before objecting,} Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I've read both the VINE and PNSD essays. VINE does not apply here, because policy states that this is not a vote. This, like all RfCs, is a consensus discussion.Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    no other RFC has that note that it is nor, if wp:VINE doesn't apply her then it applies nowhere; so it applies here via wp:IAR, as is essentially how all essays apply.Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    According to the transclusion count, the {{not a vote}} template has been used in at least 7621 discussions. Some of these are RfCs, some are deletion discussions. You can find a list of all of the uses of that template, both for live and archived discussions here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    the one other instance I could find with an rfc and not a vote together was one other one and it was not a simple yes or no vote, also you responded to the wrong comment Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure why you could only find a single RfC, as there are at least 29 non-archive transclusions of that template on the first page alone, and there are at least 150 pages of results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I checked explicitly in the category of rfc's and then searched for articles within the category with the template, only 3 showed up, my methodology could be wrong.Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    ah yep. it was bad methodology, only three wikipedia RfC have that template, including this one, so there is still no prescient, but it is reasonable that it still applied to previous RfC and that it was just never needed on that fact alone. Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. While RfCs do get added to Category:Wikipedia requests for comment, they are only in that category as long as the RfC has an active {{Rfc}} header. Legobot automatically removes that header from RfCs after thirty days, however regardless of that removal, RfCs continue until either the discussion tapers off or someone formally closes it.

    As such, there will be a significant number of RfCs, including currently active ones that do not have a {{Rfc}} header due to being open longer than 30 days, that will not be in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. Additionally, from looking at the source of the {{not a vote}} template, it does not appear to add any maintenance categories whenever it is added to a page. If you wish to see all uses of the template, you either need to parse through the transclusion count which I linked before, or you can try a hastemplate: search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    You provided no arguments so your vote is empty. You might want to scroll to top and read the frames in one of the top sections #RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin? Nux (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I've provided an argument that I don't care that I haven't provided an argument it doesn't matter also that only applies to the first discussion and has no precedent even there. Transcleanupgal (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

56. Support I don't get why there's all the white space there. "Optimal line length for reading" means jack shit if it's 1. dead space, one of the biggest crimes of UX and 2. looks pretty dang ugly. Use all the space you're given. I already don't like the blank space on the side of Legacy underneath the sidebar, to be honest. casualdejekyll 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    You might want to read UX.stack: What is the best number of paragraph width for readability?. Or look at how W3C WCAG and many other have constrained their width. Note how very popular Medium.com have quite thin articles and a sidebar (much like Wikipedia with Vector'22). Nux (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

57. Support Use available width. Speed up reading with narrow text columns. Uwappa (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
58. Strong support. Let's use whatever space we have got. Users may have different browsers, may use different window sizes and font sizes, hence a fixed text width does not fit all and may even get in the way. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    There is a fixed max-width, not a fixed width. V'22 is actually more responsive then V'10. Nux (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's better, but I'd still let the users (or rather, each user individually on his or her screen) decide how it should look like. Anyway, when logged in, I don't use any of the Vector skins. Maybe that's why I find the new one particularly unsuitable. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

59. Support - Insofar as this would make it closer to the 2010 default skin; however, I'd still prefer Vector 2010 to a modification of Vector 2022. But, if 2022 stays the default, this should definitely be implemented as a compromise. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
60. Strong Support If reverting is impossible, this is a fairer middle ground. Noonan2 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
61. Support Narrowing the pages also messes with tables and images placement done with a wider page in mind. The default width should not have such excessive whitespace, though if there is no TOC it should not take up the full width either so that all pages are consistent. the lack of the gray background and dividing line makes it even worse. Absolutely ridiculous to put the toolbar on the right side now, narrowing the page even further. Moreover, the expand button only shows up "In a wide browser window". Well, I think my laptop is wide enough to want a wider text, but this doesn't even appear for me to use! Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose alternate proposal

1. Oppose, ILIKEIT and it's better for reading according to the research mentioned in the RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   ILIKEIT very much describes the pro-2022 crowd, and on the topic of that "research": Lies, damned lies, and statistics. HAL333 07:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   @HAL333, and IDONTLIKEIT describes the anti-V22 crowd. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Touché. HAL333 14:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   You can prove anything with statistics except the truth. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Which means the "research" in the RfC is nothing but useless fluff. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Qwerfjkl what the hell are you talking about? Transcleanupgal (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   @Transcleanupgal, this is a quote, not my opinion. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   there was nothing there implying it was a quote. Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   A quote it is, nonetheless. I was offering an explanation, not a criticism. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - There's a button to make it fullscreen if you want (even for IP's) and the width actually makes sense on a widescreen. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   No, that button doesn't work for IPs. I just logged out and tested it out. You have to re-click it every single time you load a new page. And it seems that the dev team has no interest in fixing this, even though all it would require is a cookie and a few lines of JavaScript. Furthermore, the button is an instance of mystery meat navigation, and it is small and hidden in a very inconvenient location all the way at the footer of the page, below the bottom of the article. On a wide screen monitor, like on any other monitor, if you want narrower text you can resize your window. The redesign hides that ability for all but patient (have to re-select on every new page load) and competent (find mystery meat button hiding in weird corner) IP users. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack Is there a phabricator task for the bug that your describing here ? Sohom Datta (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I have no idea what phabricator is. I created this account yesterday to get the old look back. And from what I can tell this is perceived as a "feature", not a bug, since it is allegedly impossible to store a simple cookie and ten lines of javascript for IP users due to "caching issues" or something. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Right, sorry about that, but phabricator is where you report to developers if you have a issue with the Wikipedia interface (link to bug reporting teplate). Once it's on Phabricator, engineers can follow up and solve the issue at hand (much like issues of Github etc).

   Also, whatever you mentioned about "caching issues" is unfortunately probably a fairly valid explanation, since the solution using ten lines of Javascript is going cause a FOUC (flash of unstyled content) where the layout changes after it has been rendered (leading people to believe that the site is slow/sluggish etc). To do this properly, you need some kind of server-side mechanism to figure out which layout the user wants before each and every page is rendered, which imo is slightly difficult when your having to do for one of the world's most popular sites.

   ( Sohom Datta (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   For context, currently we just have one version of a page which are cached in Varnish servers which is then served to everyone (with the cache being refreshed periodically), which is a lot less server intensive. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Just wanted to second what @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack is saying here. That button is small and (more importantly) nowhere near any other elements on the screen. On a 4k monitor, it's literally inches away from any other content or UI widgets with nothing but whitespace in between. Also, since the intent of the line-length limit is to reduce eye movement, that also hinders discoverability of that button. When I first experienced the new UI (and like many others, thought it was bug that was displaying a mobile site), I had no idea that button even existed until I started reading comments in the various talk pages that mentioned it. If "but there's a button" is going to be used an excuse then that button also has to be extremely obvious, which it currently isn't. Trynn (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Unfortunately all it needs for those cookies and strings of javascripts is just a couple of dozens of millions of dollars of Wikipedia serverspace. Another argument thus to get rid of Vector 2022 as quickly as possible. Tvx1 14:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   As a wide screen user I would say the width actually makes no sense on a widescreen. As any other widescreen user, anyone, who wants to keep less info on the screen can use multi-window layout or narrow their window. There is no reason to force users. This is wikipedian, not facebook. 193.239.57.118 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Fixed-width layout is a pretty common way of formatting articles on the Internet these days. For example, almost all common news websites use it to format their articles, e.g. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. Think about how much whitespace there is looking at a Google search result page on a large monitor—theoretically Google could fill up the entire page with text, but the fixed-width layout centralizes things and makes it more readable. A similar concept is applicable to Wikipedia. I'm sure it looks a bit wonky for us editors who have been using the old style for decades, but in reality, the fixed-width layout is not the unambiguously detrimental feature that others are making it out to be. Mz7 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Crowd-sourcing encyclopaedia articles is a fantastic idea. Crowd-sourcing web design... not so much. Leave it to the professionals. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   The same professionals who shown themselves to be hopeless amateurs over the last few days?? Tvx1 14:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   No personal insults, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   This critique was re. skills, not the person, so I consider it acceptable. I've seen much harder words on this page and the other.

   Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

   Well then your judgment is very very very foolish and inept (see, I'm critiquing your judgment SKILLS rather than YOU so it's clearly above board.)

   In seriousness: broadly insulting a professional's skills is the same as insulting the professional person. It also adds no value to the conversation. But, hey, I'm just an IP address so don't mind me 173.49.243.134 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

   Pinging @Steue.— Qwerfjkltalk 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Strong oppose. Regarless of vocal pushback, limited content width has been widely upheld as a fundamentally good design principle across the entire field of UI design for more than a decade. It's great for accessibility among other reasons. Practically every website has a width limit. Apple.com does. NYTimes.com does. WashingtonPost.com does. Google.com does! Only UI designers are qualified to objectively evaluate the merits of this; the rest of us are just expressing resistance to change. I used to hate the limited width too, but now I like it.

   The idea that the limited width breaks tables, or that these tables now require scrolling, is also simply false. The tables are not affected by the limited width, and will take up the whole width of the user's web browser.

   As is, I don't believe this question could lead to a binding consensus; this needs to be based on surveys of non-logged in users, which the WMF should go out of its way to conduct, in order to reassure detractors. edit: Nope, I'm satisfied with the surveys which were already conducted. DFlhb (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Only UI designers are qualified to objectively evaluate the merits of this Only artists can critique art, only game developers can critique games, movie directors can critique movies, writers can critique books, and so on. The general user who has to experience that has no say at all? Apple is only limited width for a section, google uses full width at 1080p when you search(and their email is always full width), nyt and wapo uses much more as well. Wikipedia is the most constricted version of any I have encountered, and has no mechanisms for using that extra space either, even fandom will fill the voids at the edges with wiki-art and ads. At ratios higher than 16:9 1080p, it becomes a tiny island in a sea of blindingly bright whitespace, with a practically invisible toggle that doesn't even work when logged out nestled in the corner of all that whitespace. Deadoon (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Contrary to what you say, every page I list rigidly limits page width for contents (not other page elements). And yes, non-designers can claim to speak objectively ("this is worse!"), but what they always mean is simply "I don't like it". Interface design is objective, and has nothing to do with personal tastes, yet the entirety of the opposition to the redesign rests on personal taste and preference. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   The enjoyment of the design is subjective, claiming objectivity in matters of opinion and subjective matters is the most disingenuous thing you can do. In your opinion the design should only be evaluated by people with a some nebulous qualifications and everyone else should be thrown in the trash and ignored because apparently the general public doesn't matter. Great "opinion" you have there. I guess third part developers will love all the new traffic they get to their addons, scripts, and other tutorials on how fix this problem, afterall that is what is leading many people here, a near doubling of user accounts created, looking for solutions to a problem that didn't exist a few days ago.

   Deadoon (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Wrong. Users can limit the width at the browser level if they are some weirdo who doesn't want their widescreen monitor to actually output widescreen content. There is zero justification for this enforced low-information default. It's terrible design. My desktop is not a phone. Stop treating it like one 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   For reference, WMF's response to that argument in the FAQ is Most users don't resize their browser windows or use browser plugins to improve the design of the websites they view. Wikis should be good-looking immediately, in their basic form. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   A claim that is utterly false. Tvx1 14:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   In most cases, limited content width is used, not to improve reader experience, but to fill the periphery with commercials. I fear that with Wikipedia—one of the last bastions of uncommercialized space on the web—adopting this format, they will soon follow suit and cram it with ads. ~ HAL333 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   @HAL333, I think one result of Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners was that there won't be ads in the foreseeable future. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Good. That's comforting. ~ HAL333 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   That is a reasonable fear. Hopefully it won't come to pass. DFlhb (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   It actually isn't all that accessible for many people, me included. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   The comparison to NYT is awful. The NYT has full-size images that fully break the text. We have thumbnail images on the left or right side of the text (as well as infoboxes, tables, etc) which do not work as well with narrow paragraphs. Our articles are not the same as newspaper articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

6. Strong oppose — It’s easily the best part of the new design, and just good design sense. MarijnFlorence (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose. First of all I don't think this RfC can or should be binding since this change overwhelmingly affects non-editors who will not participate here. That being said there's a lot of evidence that limiting the line length improves readability. If you prefer full width, there's a button to toggle that. My only complaint is that the full-width preference doesn't persist between pages and on reload for IP users. Surely that preference should be stored in a cookie or something. – Anne drew 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   I'm echoing my comments in question one above. I've seen a lot of references to the evidence that limited line length improves readability, but I can't actually find any of the papers being cited in the documentation for the new design (Lin 2004 and a Wichita State lab study were both cited by outbound links). Do you happen to have that evidence or can point me toward it? Guidethebored (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Reading Online text 2004 Wichita State Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Thank you very much! Guidethebored (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Hi @Anne drew Andrew and Drew - we're working showing the toggle at lower widths right now (expected to roll out next width) and investigating what progress we can make on persistence, see our update below for more info. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   So, the update was rolled out while manifestly incomplete? In the hope that the possibility of progressing towards fixing it could one day be investigated? XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   If you prefer full width, there's a button to toggle that.
   Why not have a toggle for restricted width? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Most of Wikipedia's viewers are non-editors.

   Sounds like the elite few trying to make decisions for the common masses.

   73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

   73.8.230.57, who is this in response to?

   @Anne drew Andrew and Drew said that this RfC is not binding because there are few readers here. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

8. Oppose, line length has been limited for centuries. Data&science based decisions, anyone? Ponor (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose – Fixed width is actually the main part of the new skin that I prefer over the old one (and the sole reason I started using it before its official deployment). IMO this would just make it a worse version of the old skin, with the lack of visual borders between the content, TOC, header, and everything else; just a sea of white. I do agree that the non-persistence of the width toggle is annoying. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose based on research and rationales behind the change in the first place. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose... but to be honest I never liked the unlimited width, it's unique to wikipedia in, like, a bad way DecrepitlyOnward (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I'm using Vector legacy on a laptop and I feel like anything wider than my current configuration would make pages hard to read.

    pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    And that's admittedly subjective, but so are most of the judgements from support voters.

    —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    You probably toggled the wide view by hitting the 'full screen' button at the bottom right. The default view is objectively less wide, by design.

    ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

13. Oppose. This change went live in my home wiki years ago and at first I didn't like it (although I like basically everything else about the new vector) but after a while I realized that not just I like it, I spend more time reading articles and I enjoy reading much more. The concept of smaller width is not new. Look at academic papers. People have data to back this up. Here is my slightly unpopular opinion: This should have been deployed with max-width set to 2000px at first and then every week, we'd reduce 100px from it until we reach the value we want. That way, the new change is not shocking to users and it let them get used to it slowly (ebay did this when changing their background color long time ago) but it's too late for it now.

    [user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]^overleg 04:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Screens have different amounts of pixels per inch. So, going by pixels would result in different effects, depending on the screen's pixels per inch; not a good idea.

    Why not let people themselves decide what they are happy with?

    Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Joe Roe. I am also having a hard time understanding what would be implemented exactly per the phrasing of the question. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose The design works for what its designed for, if any users prefer the other style the option exists for them to set that for themselves. But the default should adhere to UX research and best practices. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think limited width is good in general for readability. Getting the look more consistent across devices will make it easier to make articles look okay and to consistently avoid WP:sandwiching. However, the current design is not pleasing to the eye: I think a better design on the sides will make the whitespace less grating (for instance design 8 of the visual refinements. Having both a grey and then a white border does not look good. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose The data is clear that limited width is best for readers. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose As many others have hashed out, lines that are too long are hard to read. I have mixed feelings about the new theme, and limited width is the only change I support without reservation. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose per best design practices. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Established industry design practice.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just because many others do it doesn't mean we have to. Part of the reason many websites limit width is so they have dedicated space for ads. Wikipedia does not have ads and hopefully never will. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's not part of the reason other websites use limited width. Even websites that have no ads use limited width. And because many other s do it does mean we should do it, that's how web design works.

    Editors should appreciate that web design isn't about aesthetics. It's not about making the website look good. A web design is a user interface -- it's a tool used to allow human beings to operate computers. Like any tool, the optimum design is determined by testing, not by opinions. Professional Design 101 says that nobody ever makes a design decision based on what they personally like or don't like. All design decisions are made by testing, data, results, objective facts. And decades of this testing has determined that optimum line width is about 50-85 characters, which is why every publisher in the known world uses fixed widths, e.g. column display on widescreen, or whitespace gutters, or a combination. And this has been the case, again, for like almost 100 years now, I think. Open any book and behold the wide margins. Count how many characters per line if you want. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Levivich: I think this may be a hyperbolic representation of how things really are. Yes, optimal design should be based on testing, but not everything has been tested. Moreover, that what has been tested may be more ambiguous than you represent it.

    I'm not at all an expert here, but isn't it the case that traditional printed encyclopedias used a larger page format than, say, novels or monographs, precisely to allow for greater text density? Yes, this text was spread in columns, which does not work well in a web interface, but it did have greater density, right? I believe that some of the research cited by the web team says that while limiting text width increases reading comprehension, it decreases reading speed. It's worse for quickly scanning a text for information, to 'look up things', because that benefits from being able to see more text and structural elements (paragraphs, line breaks, infoboxes, images, etc.) at once.

    This seems to be the trade-off, it's not a one-way street. It may well be that reading comprehension is more important for the average Wikipedia reader than the speed of scanning the text and finding a specific bit of information, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. I think more specific research into the usage of encyclopedic text types is needed before we make this important shift. Then again, I'm very far from being an expert on this matter, and I would be happy to be shown wrong here.

    ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    open any kind of book... read a newspaper...a magazine...the opposes of Vector 2010 don't have arguments for it. It was in front of our eyes all the time. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Industry design practice has been damaging software usability for at least a decade. The industry is out of touch with people that actually use their software. I've been using computers since DOS 2.0, and as far as I'm concerned, peak interface clarity and usability happened around Win2k, and has been downhill ever since.

    As an example off the top of my head, Microsoft's move to the Ribbon in products like Microsoft Office was proven to be 50% slower for older users, and 17% slower for TEENAGERS.

    If we keep listening to the "industry," we're going to have exclusively voice-activated toilets, and if that doesn't cause you existential horror, there's something wrong with you.

    2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

21. Oppose - widespread, universal, long-time, established industry design practice, supported by decades of scientific research and testing. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
22. Oppose per multiple reasons given above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose because, and I don't think WMF really got into this, but right now editors are creating content for multiple platforms. A huge portion of the reader base is coming here on a smartphone. Then there's a substantial portion on tablets, many in portrait orientation. Another giant chunk on laptops. Another chunk on desktops with laptop-esque screens. Another chunk on desktops with ultra-wide screens. Another chunk on desktop with square or portrait screens. A big part of the problem with the narrow reading area for me, is when I go to an article with non-prose content, especially tables, that were clearly crafted in a wider display area. I think that means though, that Vector 2022 is highlighting a previously existing problem. Editors are most likely to edit on a wider screen than our average reader. In that sense, the places where a narrow display area really squishes the article are actually highlighting a problem that does need to be resolved. Overall, I'm not a fan of Vector 2022 but I don't think trying to roll back the skin bit by bit is a solution. What I believe would be even worse is some kind of midpoint Frankenstein between the two skins. The WMF have some kind of plan for the blank space on the right side of the screen that they are still working on. I would much rather them focus on getting that to testing.Rjjiii (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
24. Opposeread a book, a newspaper or a magazine, the text width is narrower than our desktop since centuries. Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but maybe thats the new modern. Back to the future...to renaissance humanism Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
25. Oppose. This appears to be the main advantage 2022 has over 2010. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
26. Strongly oppose per Paradise Chronicle above. The limited text width is an improvement. There is a reason why many major producers of written content online (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Seattle Times, Semafor, Politico, and The Verge to name just a few) operate in limited columns.

    ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    People don't use Wikipedia the way they use news websites. This decision should be made for Wikipedia usage. Narrow widths may make sense for shortform articles in online news publications, but to apply this standard to an encyclopedia soley because to fall in line with non-encyclopedias would not be a reasonable move.

    WikEdits5 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is a false premise but fine, let's look at other encyclopedias. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, which comprises dozens of different encyclopedias (including Grove Music Online) uses a single, limited column. A random sample of five Springer encyclopedias I have access to showed that their entries are all organized in single, limited columns. The print versions of those five are also arranged in columns. Encyclopedia.com and Encyclopædia Britannica are laid out in (you guessed it) single, limited columns. Expanding the comparison to beyond just encyclopedias shows the same things - World Bank print publications are typically laid out in columns, as are many journals published by University of Chicago Press and many journals published by Taylor & Francis.

    ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

27. Oppose I agree with those above who say that web design decisions shouldn't be left to the opinions of amateurs. "Wikipedia equates the opinions on randoms on the internet with peer-reviewed knowledge" is usually a misconception that trainers like myself have to dispel, but discussions like this give the criticism some bit. What study have the supporters done of the human visual system? How are they making saccades across hundreds of characters when 65-70 characters is a well-recognised optimum? Wikimedia sites are made for human beings; if you swear your visual system works differently from the standard human one, fine: we respect that diversity! Log in and set a full-width skin, but let the default design presented to the world reflect actual research. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
28. Oppose: as I said above ctrl-+ makes the white space a moot point. The benefits of the persistent TOC and the space-saving language button outweigh any negatives. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
29. Oppose: Please please please, listen to the UX experts that have put years of research and design work into this. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    User has COI for having connections to the WMF Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    This is a nonsensical statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

30. Oppose: Text gets hard to read if it runs interminably wide. Limited text width has been good design for ages. Philbert2.71828 22:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
31. Strong oppose: We already developed a compromise to have it be toggleable. The data shows that this is a good change for readability. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean that you force your fear of change upon everyone. BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
32. Oppose – There is already an option to have unlimited screen width on Vector 2022 to satisfy those who wish to use it, but unlimited width is annoying for widescreen monitors and users with certain disabilities. DecafPotato (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
33. Strong oppose – there is quite a lot of reasearch around optimal line lenght for reading. On top of that I would like to point out especially that it is not even possible to pass WCAG AAA without having a restricted width (WCAG says 80 characters is a maximum width) (correction: 80 characters limit is less solid then I thought, but thaere is a recomendation for 80 characters; "Lines should not exceed 80 characters or glyphs" [4]). I do hope that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY will prevail and that actual scientific research will be taken seriously. There is also a Reading Mode in Firefox with width constraint (and AFAIK there is something similar in Chrome too), but those are not interactive, so do not replace a proper layout for Wikipedia.

    Nux (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's not quite right with respect to WCAG. As stated in WCAG2.1 Technique C20 and Technique G204, the standard does not require developers to limit the maximum line width to 80 characters or less. The standard requires that websites are responsive to window sizing, such that if a user narrows their browser window, the website responds in such a manner that it does not interfere with text reflow and present horizontal scrollbars. The proper accessibility standard is to allow for the reader to decide on how many characters per line are presented based on how wide or narrow their browser window is.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Actually they do "For people with some reading or vision disabilities, long lines of text can become a significant barrier. They have trouble keeping their place and following the flow of text. Having a narrow block of text makes it easier for them to continue on to the next line in a block. Lines should not exceed 80 characters or glyphs (40 if ), where glyphs are the element of writing in the writing system for the text. Studies have shown that Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) characters are approximately twice as wide as non-CJK characters when both types of characters are displayed with characteristics that achieve the same readability, so the maximum line width for CJK characters is half that of non-CJK characters." Understanding SC 1.4.8 (WCAG)

    Nux (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    You're linking to an older version of that text, the current version is here. I would also link to the relevant section of the current draft of WCAG3, however it does not yet have a recommendation on character limits per lines.

    While the 2.1 guidance does state no more than 80 characters, the two techniques for actually implementing the guidance; C20 and G204 which I linked previously, both state that text should be responsive based on the user's browser width, and not interfere with text reflow as a user scales up or down their browser window. The purpose of the WCAG is to provide disabled readers with choices to meet their individual needs, instead of assuming that all readers have the same minimum needs. In practice this means that ideally there should be no prescribed minimum or maximum number of characters per line, as the website user can adjust their browser window size based on their reading device(s) and individual needs.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    WCAG2.1 states exactly the same and WCAG 3.0 is clearly not released yet so I cannot comment on that. But that's beside the point. The recommendation are quite clear. And coincidently people with good eyesight also prefer smaller width to be able to read fast. For to wide text you have to move your head, not just your eyes. There are links provided by WMF too if you care to expand your knowledge. There have been studies around optimal width of text and found it is about 60-70 characters with max reaching 80 Readability: The Optimal Line Length, Baymard Institute, NANAVATI, A. A. et al, Optimal Line Length in Reading—a Literature Review. Visible Language, s. l., v. 39, n. 2, p. 121–145, 2005 (and more in the links provided by WMF). There are some variations with font size, margin width etc, but width should be below 80 for comfortable and fast reading.

    Nux (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    If your argument is that the new UI should be used because it limits content width to a max of 80 characters, then your understanding is wrong. Character limits vary based on desktop resolution size. At the resolution and scaling I use (3840x2160 @125%), the new Vector UI already blows way past that maximum character limit by showing about 140-150 characters per line. And that's with the content only using a third of my screen real estate. If you want a max line limit of 80 characters, you'd be asking for the whitespace problem to be even worse by restricting the content width to about half what was implemented for Vector 2022. Vector 2022 doesn't even follow the guidelines it's supposedly relying upon.

    Trynn (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Technically the limit is 60em (see `mw-content-container` class). Yes, 60em is above 80 characters, but it is still a start. Also note that due to having infoboxes and images actual text column is smaller and about 100 characters. Yes, that is too big for WCAG AAA and I hope we can someday make a step to smaller width. Maybe with two column layout.

    Nux (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yes I have read the research, I also have read the research linked at Line length#Electronic text, as well as other more recently published papers, and from that I know that there is no scientific consensus on the optimal line length when reading on a computer screen. Some research shows readers prefer a short line length of around 30 characters, and other research shows they prefer line lengths in excess of 100 characters. Current research shows there is no difference in comprehension between readers who prefer shorter or longer line lengths.

    As for WCAG, again please look at the techniques for implementing the guidance, which I linked to in my first reply. The implementation notes for the guidance states that the guidance does not require a maximum line length of 80 characters, and that line length should be responsive based on the size of the browser window. This allows for websites to cater to readers whose ideal line length is both low and high, as it allows the reader to specify which line length they prefer.

    Actually, now that I'm testing this more fully, Vector 2022 is actually in violation of this guideline's no minimum line length requirement, because it causes horizontal scrolling at around 70-73 characters per line, and will now allow the browser window to go any smaller than that. In this screenshot, the line length is at 80 characters per line. In this screenshot, the window will not scale any smaller horizontally, and the text width is 72 characters per line. The implementation notes for Technique G204 states that websites should not interfere with the reflow of text if the window is narrowed, and unfortunately Vector 2022 is preventing the reflow of text below that amount.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Interesting, can you point me to that "more recently published papers" that did large studies and shown that unlimited width is OK? I have access to the Wikipedia Library so anything you find there is fine for me to read. Note that I'm specifically interest in fast or comfortable reading of text not scanning for words. Different things. Also note that for those that prefer bigger width for reading there is an option in preferences. Anons can either register (takes about 1-2 minutes) or install Stylus.

    Nux (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Specifically with regards to unlimited width studies, I'm not aware of any. With only one exception that I can recall, which had counts of 347 and 240 CPL on some graphs but not elsewhere in the result, all studies I've read have maxed out at around 120-130 CPL. That said, and not citing anything that's already been cited at Line length:

    • This 2015 paper found that the preferred line length varied with age, with younger readers preferring longer lines (90 and 120 CPL about even), older and people with low vision preferring shorter lines (30 and 60 CPL about even), and with most participants preferring 90 CPL.
    • This 2012 study found that the participants preferred line lengths of between 60 and 90 CPL, but were fastest at reading 120 CPL. I'm wary of the conclusions on comprehension from this study though, as other studies have found line lengths in excess of 100 CPL to not affect comprehension (cited on Line length article).
    • This 2021 article (non-peer reviewed, but written by Dr Mary Dyson, one of the more prolific authors and experts in this area), points out some of the inconsistencies in findings on screen based line length research, and makes commentary on some interesting research on saccades published in 2019 and 2020 that conflicted with older research. It concludes with a suggestion that designers should challenge the conventional wisdom with regards to upper and lower line lengths and typesetting.

    Unfortunately there hasn't been a review or meta-analysis paper that I'm aware of in this area since the mid 2000s, so I think we're a bit overdue for one. Overall though, the takeaway from this should not be that shorter lines are better than longer lines, or vice versa. Despite some research recommendations and common wisdom of 70-80 CPL as a maximum, there is evidence that some readers benefit and prefer lines as short as 40 CPL, with others preferring lines at least as large as 130 CPL. Therefore the takeaway should be that there is no research consensus on whether there should be an upper or lower limit. Speaking anecdotally, I'm most comfortable reading text between 200 and 300 CPL, dependent on font size, and I currently have Vector 2022 set up to allow that.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Sideswipe9th thank you for that. Interesting research for tablets and with age-groups. The groups seems quite small (~20 participants per group), especially that it was a questionnaire... But the preference difference seems significant, which I find interesting.

    However, taking into account the studies you cited, it is clear from them that by default the lines should still be limited and at best not larger than 120 cpl. Coincidently 60em that is set by WMF is actually about 120 characters. Not sure if they did that fully intentional ;), but it seems they made a good choice to set 120 characters limit.

    So the default option set on new Vector is correct. It's good that there is an option to change width limitation, but there should be a width constraint by default.

    Nux (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I feel like we're talking in circles here!

    With regards to CPL preference differences, there are also some older studies that show a similar preference distribution by age. The article by Dr Dyson cites, in the "Further doubt" section, a 1978 paper by Hartley et al., of children aged 11-13, who apparently preferred longer lines. Unfortunately this paper isn't available digitally as far as I can tell, so I've not been able to read it. There's also four papers cited in the "Line length on screen" section, some of which are cited on our Line length article, showing an inconsistent preference towards longer lines than recommended by conventional wisdom.

    The groups seems quite small (~20 participants per group), especially that it was a questionnaire Most studies sadly, regardless of field, tend to have small groups. It's often expensive to get funding for larger groups, which puts them out of reach of many researchers. The major exception that I'm aware of is clinical trials in medicine, which can have group sizes in the low to mid hundreds.

    • With regards to characters to em units, there's no exact mapping from em to CPL, as the rendered size of 1em is relative with regards to the font-size being applied to the element, but it is not relative with regards to font-family. By default (ie, no font-size override set) 1em is the equivalent of 16 pixels on the user's device, regardless of what font-family they are using.

    If you're targeting modern browsers, I believe you're better off specifying a ch value for max-width or min-width. That unit is always relative in size to the 0 glyph of the font-family that is being used to render the output on a user's device. Theoretically there's no technical reason why the WMF couldn't expose a setting to both logged in and logged out editors that would directly and accurately allow them to set an exact number of CPL, by giving them direct control of the ch value which is applied to the relevant max-width properties. The only real "gotcha" to watch out for with ch values is that some fonts like Helvetica or Georgia do not have fixed-width characters, so you will on occasion get uneven line justification. But again, the font-family could be exposed as a setting to the user, which gets applied at rendering time. Exposing either or both of these settings will not affect page caching, because CSS interpretation and rendering is always done on the user's device. If the WMF have considered this as an option though, and ruled it out, I would be interested to know why, as I've not seen it discussed on either of these two RfCs.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Sideswipe9th "I feel like we're talking in circles here!" Are we? I was sure we arrived at the conclusion. You haven't found any good sources that would say unlimited width is good. Sources say that 120 cpl is good. New Vector default is very close to that. All is good, right?

    People that want to stay anonymous can use Stylus. You seem to be a programmer. Stylus supports variables. You can write a style that is configurable with whatever cpl the user wants. Even with no authentication.

    Nux (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah, we're talking in circles. We're interpreting the same evidence and reaching different conclusions based on it. My position is still that unlimited width is ideal, as there are users who prefer very long line lengths far in excess of 120 CPL. The research on whether there is an ideal CPL value, or a maximum CPL value for screen reading has not yet reached a consensus for either question.

    Stylus is an option, one that I use daily to enforce dark-mode on websites that do not have native dark-mode support, but it is not without its own accessibility challenges. In order to take advantage of it, you either need to know how to write your own custom CSS rules and be comfortable with updating it whenever any regular maintenance or tweaks happen behind the scenes, or you're reliant on some other user of the website both making, maintaining, and releasing a style sheet that meets your needs.

    The better option as I see it would be exposing two CSS properties in a settings widget (the ch value for max-width, and font-family value), similar in style to the patch being trialled by Jdlrobson in phab:T91201, that gives the user (whether logged in or out) direct control over the maximum number of characters per line. This would be instead of or supplementary to the straight on/off toggle for limited content width. This allows non-technical users to easily set an exact line length dependent on their needs, in a unit that is relative to the font being used to render the content.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I think smart defaults means providing defaults that most of the people want. If you cannot agree on that then yes, further discussion is pointless.

    As for Stylus -- there is a form for user options. There is just one thing to change and you are done.

    Nux (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Smart defaults do not preclude ease of configuration and customisation.

    There is just one thing to change and you are done. Ok, pretend for a moment you've never made a website before, maybe even never programmed anything before. How do you know there's a property to change that will fix the problem you are having? How do you know what that property is? How do you know what value to set that property to? Assuming you can figure out that there is a max-width property you can set, how do you make sure that you're only overriding it for the main content area, and not any of the other defined areas on the site like the TOC sidebar or header? How do you know that HTML tags have optional class or ID parameters? How do you know how to limit your max-width override to the specific subset of classes and IDs that only affect the primary content area?

    Stylus is a good option, if you're a user with a technical background, and know how to write and modify HTML and CSS rules. But very few people actually have the technical background to do that. Most people don't have the requisite skills or background to do that however, and will very quickly give up in frustration if you say to them "Get this browser extension, and fix it yourself" and/or "Read the manual, here's a link".

    Also I feel it's important to point out that the rather nifty looking form in the screenshot that is at the top of that documentation linked requires foreknowledge of both Stylus' preprocessor directives to create the form, and of StackOverflow's class names, ID names, and HTML attribute nesting to determine which those preprocessor directives will be applied to which element. It is not a one-click solution to make a similar form for Wikipedia. And while yes you can copy and paste that into a fresh Stylus install on your local machine, and hopefully have it work if they haven't redesigned the site since it was written, it will likely not work on other websites, which will almost certainly have different HTML attribute nesting and property names.

    Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

34. Oppose for reading mode. The research on narrower linewidth and readability is so extensive. An argument could be made for fullwidth in source editing templates where nested templates and functions where less line wrapping can sometimes make code easier to parse. Although IP editors can't change to vector'10. But this change has brought the interface up to standards that became the norm a decade ago, it's really not pushing anything desperately new. I've commented above on further improvements (like my person preference for emphasising references by placing them on the right rather than the bottom e.g. PNAS's layout), but wider content width would be a distinct downgrade for the average reader. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose – I was sceptical of the research around line length that was used as a rationale for the change, and it did take me a couple months to get used to the new skin (as I was accustomed to the older one), but I found that articles are much more readable with the short line length. Graham (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
36. Oppose I prefer limited text width (though the width should be discussed), as it may help editors to set page layout for most of readers. A page has a good effect in 1280px width screen, but may seems ugly in 2048px. (Or vice versa, a wide table suit for 2048px is horrible for 1280px.)--Lopullinen 08:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
37. Oppose - Mostly for the same reason I opposed above. These decisions shouldn't be based on the personal design preferences of a small fraction of the audience that can easily just change the display in their personal wiki preferences. I guess this is fine as a petition to let the WMF know what that part of the audience thinks, but I'd caution those under the impression that an on-wiki poll like this will somehow be binding. As an aside, this is a proposal that doesn't even define what it's asking about. Is "unlimited text width" a subjective description based on "there's too much whitespace"? Is it a technical term? Does it refer to a specific CSS property? What are the implications for making the change? How does it interact with the other elements of design? Update: A clearer way to word this is "oppose" to the extent that this is trying to force a change; "neutral" as a way of providing feedback (anecdotally, people I've talked to mostly like the change, but I haven't talked to many people, and I personally don't have a strong opinion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    "These decisions shouldn't be based on the personal design preferences of a small fraction..." describes the shift to V22 as the default pretty well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    Something that was developed, repeatedly tested, with multiple stages of surveys/feedback, over three years is not "based on personal design preferences", regardless of whether you like the result or think they should've weighed editors' opinions more heavily. But you also left off part of the sentence, which is where I think you and I disagree most: you think that Wikipedians should be prioritized over readers when it comes to reader experience; I think readers should be prioritized over Wikipedians. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    I absolutely think that readers should be prioritised over Wikipedians, or at least taken just as seriously as editors in discussions. However, the surveys and feedback were not open to everybody (I hadn't heard about them until V22 started to become big news in the community). The fact that we have IPs coming over here to discuss, IPs that are just average readers, shows that they too have a voice. This RfC provides a much more diverse and probably more comprehensive (if not more accessible) feedback to V22. We have over 300 participants, this has just as much weight as any pre-V22 survey, with discussion from both experts and normal readers. The IPs cannot change anything because they don't have preferences, which is why it's a positive thing to have their voices heard here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

38. Oppose. Per my comments regarding text width in question #1. (NB: I work for WMF. I did not work on Vector 2022. I was not asked to post here by WMF. This is my opinion as a volunteer editor.) KindRowboat (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
39. Oppose my opinions here are basically the same as in why I support keeping Vactor 2022. I'd note that despite a lot of people claiming this is some sort of mobile centric focus, I definitely recall reading about such issues in the early days where widescreen monitors were starting to get more popular, before the iPhone existed. However I would strongly encourage the WMF to find a way they can allow unregistered editors to have a saved default preference regardless of the need for cookies and double caching. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
40. Oppose per my comment in the main RfC, per the research underpinning the advantages of fixed-width over unlimited-width, per the WCAG guidelines and per the specific research and testing that the WMF has done with Vector 2022. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
41. Oppose the shorter line length is the main improvement over the old design, so no. This whole discussion got me to tweak the Vector 2022 design a little bit, here is my custom CSS, with larger text and system fonts. But keep the limited text width! Dan Phiffer (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
42. Oppose — Fixed width is better for readability Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE) (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
43. Oppose As the research says, fixed width is better for readability. – SD0001 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
44. Weak oppose assuming we are speaking of desktops, fixed width does improve the readability (there's a reason almost all of news sources have fixed width on their websites), but the user should have an intuitive option to make it wider, even if logged out. All of the functional buttons and links should be sticked at the left side (though also all should disappear if the user chooses so). What I definitely oppose is the current way of choosing (or rather, not choosing it): changing the blank space is not obvious or requires HTML/CSS/JS knowledge, users have to dig in preferences instead of having this on-screen and this option is not available for IPs. But once an easy toggle is done, this isn't that much of an issue.

Also, look up [5], [6] and [7]. Notice that the second one is way better readable than the first one, and the third one probably even more so. Also, even text files are wrapped to about 1/3 on screen size (on my computer). Still, to each their own, and if they want wide lines - the reader's wish should be WMF's command. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Sub-rfc void - Considering the low participation I expect this sub-rfc to get, I don't see how any consensus here should or could affect the site-wide skin features. While I see how the community can vote on if the skin becomes the default or not, I remain unconvinced that the community should or could vote on specific features like this, especially (IIRC) the option to toggle the particular feature is possible. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also notice that this sub-RfC seems to be creating confusion in some users, who are voting here thinking that it is the main RfC. Æo (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Correction: could vote -> could vote in a way that is binding. And if it is not, as that is the de facto state of the large rfc, there is no reason for this to 'double up' a previous, wider consensus. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you're not logged in, the toggle must be pressed on every single page, every single time you come here. For the vast majority who read Wikipedia without registering an account, it may as well not be there for all the good it does. --Kizor 15:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Kizor, I understand, but how does that affect the relationship between this RfC and the previous one? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is a WP:CENT-listed request for Comment. This question is neutral and brief, and I see no reason why the RfC is anything other than valid. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ixtal: Please don't poison the well by declaring the RFC "low participation" when it's only a few hours old. I will note that at my count, in less than a day, we've had over 50 comments. Don't know if the rates are going to decrease or not over the next few days, but even accounting for gradual slowdowns in participation, we're still likely to hit WP:200 or WP:300 levels in a week or so; that's pretty much the definition of a "High participation" RFC. I mean, vote how you want to vote, but don't tell everyone who hasn't voted yet "Don't bother, your vote doesn't matter". That's rude and uncalled for. Let people make up their own minds what they think, and don't try to nullify their opinions before they even give them. --Jayron32 19:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron32, I had not noticed that the RFC was this recent and will cross out the text about low participation. Thanks for pointing that out. Nonetheless, I still do not see how this subrfc would be binding and disagree that me stating that nullifies others' opinions. Additionally, I do not see voicing that opinion as being 'rude'. In my eyes, this question 2 should not have been asked until question 1 is closed, especially as the WMF is still tweaking the implementation of Vector2022. My doubts as to the standing us as editors have to make design decisions on specific features like text width still remains and if you are of the mind that not only question 2 is a valid rfc but that a consensus here would require the WMF to alter Vector2022's defaults I would really appreciate if you could expand on that in a reply. I greatly respect your thoughts on wiki matters and would like to better understand why and where we disagree :). Hope you enjoy the weekend. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral + Comment – the empty space issue doesn't actually seem that dramatic on my 16:9 1440p display with 125% upscale (so 2048×1152 effective resolution). Looking at the feedback by others on here, the issue seems more pronounced on higher resolutions like those of 2560px width. Perhaps a way to improve on that aspect is to introduce another level of content width limitation for those higher resolutions - i.e. have a default level 1 shorter width (like, 1800px) for medium resolutions like 16:9 1080p, and then a default level 2 content width (like, 2200px) for high resolutions. It's good that the colour light grey has been chosen for the empty space on the sides, rather than plain white that a lot of websites seem to use. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Irrelevant - this is a survey of editors, and those users sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to comment on its internal workings (indeed competent to find this discussion in the first place). This sort of decision needs to be based on feedback from readers, i.e. through a formal survey, not a straw poll. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Dead simple choice for the devs. In a single-digit number of keystrokes, silence 80–85% of complainants, pretend to have acknowledged user input, and be ready to get back to work on whatever else it is nobody asked for or wanted. What's not to love? 172.58.30.177 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  Monobook 5lyfe! Sent from a mobile device in a van on top of a hill where I have signal. Who has a desktop monitor in this economy?
• {I would like to sort the comments,
  would you please use one of above sections?
  Steue (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC) }

  Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

General comments

• Comment. I don't yet know what I think about the new skin yet; I'm actually trying it out instead of insulting the developers or thinking I'm smarter than them or cursing at them or any of this other unreasonable hostility. But what makes you think that this RFC will be more representative than the one they already did? Especially since people are more likely to complain than praise. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Revert to MonoBook, my favorite skin Why stop at 2010 vector? I use MonoBook which was the default before 2010 Vector, so let's go back to my favorite skin. It's also still the default on BulbaPedia, one of the largest Pokemon wikis, so at least one other large community agrees with me that Vector 2010 was inferior to MonoBook. This is all tongue-in-cheek, of course, because none of this affects me as a MonoBook user. I didn't like Vector 2010, so I changed the settings to use a skin I did like; I don't see how that's not a solution if the complaints are mostly aesthetic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes A big complaint I see is that IPs or users who rarely edit don't want to(for some reason) have to log in to use their preferred skin. I have to log in to my bank website every day to see how much of my money they have, I don't see how this is different. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm a strong proponent of unregistered editing, but if a reader feels so strongly about the aesthetics of a website, creating an account to save their preferences seems like a reasonably common trade-off all things considered. Unregistered editing comes with many, more serious trade-offs that those editors must accept---disclosure of IP info, unstable attribution, susceptibility to range blocks, limited participation in project governance---so I don't think adding "susceptible to decennial skin changes" is something I find too onerous to put on unregistered editors. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to create an account just to "fix" what was never broken. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, no one should be forced to "become a member" (so to say) to read it properly. Clearly a lot of people are not comfortable with having to get an account, there are probably many different reasons (none of which I'm likely to be able to related to) but their reasons clearly exist and are important to them.★Trekker (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@StarTrekker, they're forced to "become a member" to change the appearance of the site if they don't like it. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what this comment is for. They aren't disagreeing with that. They're saying that you SHOULDN'T be forced to create an account. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No one is being "forced" to do anything. By your argument, anyone who wanted to use the scripts available for highlighting which users are Admins are "forced" to create an account in order to use that script. Disliking the fix-width text is fine, but claiming anyone is twisting your arm to make an account over it is rather overstating the severity of the issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Corporate policy at work is 'no personal accounts on corporate computers' - and getting a corporate account is very nearly impossible. This isn't a case of 'do not want'; it's a case of 'not allowed by policy'. 192.157.110.190 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a thin reasoning. You can always use "Bill from Corporation ACME" as your username. I don't think the community will find fault in this username scheme unless you are WP:COI. – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Corporation might not like that though. "Only authorized people are allowed to represent the company" sort of thing. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 for monobook. Everything is where I expect it to be. But in all honesty thats probably a little bit of 'get off my lawn' coming through. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Another +1 for Monobook. I have found it the most useful skin by far since I joined in 2009. All controls are immediately accessible. Only the default font size could be a little bigger. Incidentally, I found that local (intranet-type) wikis often stick to Monobook. It's not about esthetics, it's about functionality. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the RFC asks the wrong question. As I said in the previous RFC, if the WMF would just make "wide mode" the default instead of opt-in, there would be much wider acceptance of Vector 2022. As it stands, if IP readers want "wide mode", they have to click the toggle (if it appears for them; it does not appear in some wide browser windows) on every page. There is no persistent "wide mode" for logged-out readers. If "wide mode" becomes the default, an IP reader who wants a persistent narrower mode will only have to shrink their browser window. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

....which kinda goes to the root of the problem here in that there is no single change that every user will approve of. Improvements can always be made. Suggestions offered. This isn't the end, it's the beginning. People could at least try it out, the WMF says most of its testing showed that people got used to it after a few days. People use it for five minutes and see a single change they don't like and then curse the developers or say they are stupid. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

They needed/need to seek more and more specific feedback and integrate that into the design process. Nothing about curse or stupid. Some people might be quicker to get angry due to past history of WMF ivory tower and high-handedness incidents and that such seems to becoming systemic. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough- and I thank you for your civility- but asking for broad community input on every minor change is a recipe for disaster and obstruction to changes. I saw far more complaints that Wikipedia appears like it was designed in the 1990s than calls to keep it the same. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The absurd amount of white space in Vector 2022 is, and always has been, the primary objection to it. I haven't done a full count, but the first ten out of ten Oppose comments in the RFC mentioned the width problems, and they have not been fixed adequately. Many of us have tried to advise the WMF that making the white-space version opt-in rather than (sometimes) opt-out would greatly improve acceptance of the new skin, but our words fell on stubborn ears, unfortunately. As a result, we get lots of drama instead of a few fun, geeky conversations about how to tweak tools and menus to make them compatible with the new skin. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, asking for input for every minor change would be needlessly bothersome - but changing the default skin for the entire site is not a minor change. WalnutBun (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the WMF has a pretty terrible record for adequately maintaining their development projects (VisualEditor, Page Curation, the mobile version, etc.). I am afraid that if we politely lodge our complaints without making a ruckus like this, they'll never fix anything and we'll be stuck with this new default skin that even many opposing the rollback agree has some issues. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The complaints about the new Vector are in some ways strikingly similar to the complaints about the new Vector. Shells-shells (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Plus ça change... — Qwerfjkltalk 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, that's a fascinating read. A lot of those comments about Vector 2010 are indeed strikingly familiar: "This is a new-Coke Wikipedia"; "the new style is just plain ugly"; "I think there is too much white space"; "WP has made the mistake of starting to follow website fashions"; "I'm exceptionally unhappy at being forced to log in"; "I will no longer be using Wikipedia"; "Will consider boycotting Wikipedia from now on"; "NEW FORMAT IS TERRIBLE. I'LL QUIT WIKIPEDIA!!" I have to wonder how many of the same people are complaining this time around. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not, because a) the option to retain Old Vector is still provided, and b) I've got Old Vector heavily customized so that it looks like the old Classic skin in layout, font, and even color. I didn't think it was possible for a serious, non-parody skin to look worse than Old Vector, but wow. DS (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Shells-shells, it's like being a 17-year-old high school student again, accidentally sent 30 13 years into the past in Doc Brown's time-traveling DeLorean. Thanks for the link. — WILDSTAR^TALK 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  ❤️‍🔥 – SJ + 05:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Shells-shellsI got confused by this for a moment, pretty sure you mean the complaints about Vector in 2010. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu I intended to be deliberately ambiguous for rhetorical effect. In both cases the "new Vector" is being complained about, but in 2010 that phrase had a meaning slightly different from what it means now. Shells-shells (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, nice Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this link for those of us who weren't around so long ago. The similarities are fascinating and I can't help but think that, much like how all the complaints on those pages seemed to start fizzling out after about a month, this too shall pass. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  1) Those complaints were right: MonoBook is better than Vector (more density, separate search and go, same font in headings and body) 2) The naming of "Vector 2022" is deceptive, and a look at the three skins reveals that Vector is much closer to MonoBook than "Vector" is to Vector, so these discussions can't be compared.–small jars tc 10:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Are there statistics available about the number of reverts to the legacy version? The Banner talk 21:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @The Banner, 20% in the beta tests (I think). — Qwerfjkltalk 21:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • At WP:V22RFC we find the statistic: On average, 87% of active editors across our pilot wikis (incl. French and Portuguese Wikipedias) continue to use the new skin once they try it. This appears roughly in line with the statistics on Vector 2010 when it was first deployed to enwiki: The opt-out rate is estimated from 13% to 22%. Shells-shells (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

    Is this stats for editors, or users in general? In particular: does that include accounts created by people who formerly browsed Wikipedia anonymously, and created an account solely to opt-out? 192.157.110.190 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    I believe it includes all user accounts. There is also a poll for IPs that visited specific pages on this wikipedia at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

    Good find, Shells-shells! However, if I remember correctly, Vector had some button or other way to go back to monobook which made things easier than having to find the option in Special:Preferences. I remember that years later some WMF staff wondered whether the sizable group of people still using monobook was influenced by this early feature. So the same figure 13 % may have different meaning in the two situations. Other discussions of numbers are at Why was the sentiment survey gamed?, Impact, Re: The iterative design of the Vector interface: the case of moving interlingual links. Nemo 07:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• What about the inverse? Was there ever a period where WMF recorded what percent of editors opted in for the 2022 vector prior to the switch? I would think there's probably a great deal of inertia, in which editors just swing with the default. ~ HAL333 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @HAL333 - thanks for your question. Prior to deployment, Vector 2022 was the most popular non-default skin across English Wikipedia, with more users than Monobook, Timeless, or other skins. Check out the graph in this section of the landing page for a detailed breakdown. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't a minor change at all. Nothing close to previous changes in usability in my opinion. So to sit up and spout platitudes isn't helpful at all. Sorry.

  I find several style choices make the new version nigh un-usable, or at the least un-helpful and counter-intuitive. And I'd like to consider myself fairly computer saavy enough to navigate a webpage. I really dislike the moving of the table of contents (especially for talk pages). I never thought I'd see the day where the focus of a change to Wikipedia was to reduce navigation ability. - jc37 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37, but the point of moving the ToC is to aid navigation ability (as I'm sure is mentioned in the RfC). — Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am happy to believe that was the intent. But's it's a pretty decent fail in my opinion, if that was the intent. So many of the changes seem to be to hide useability from the user. extra clicks, extra motion. This is not how to encourage people to engage in your website. - jc37 22:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• WP:CONEXCEPT remains pertinent reading from the first RFC, even if you happen to believe that RFC displayed no consensus for a rollout. Izno (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but one would hope they would use CONEXCEPT sparingly. I'm not sure that's been the case in the last 2 years. As they say, ultimate power only exists so long as you rarely use it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm frustrated that WT:VECTOR2022 was not notified of this RfC. An RfC was already being drafted at WT:VECTOR2022#‎Requests for comment/Reverse deployment of Vector (2022) before HAL333 jumped the gun and started the RfC themselves. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @InfiniteNexus, this RfC was unfortunately nowhere near as well thought out as the last one. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Notice a post from a WMF account, Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)#Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF team. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• This is a clear case of WP:CONEXCEPT per meta:Limits_to_configuration_changes. Anyways, Timeless or bust. Legoktm (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Legoktm The swahili wikipedia already did this. They successfully passed an rfc to revert this because they didn't have the manpower to update help images. And WMF's response was not to immediately deny per your link, their response was to "discuss it". So I think this is an exception to that since the default skin IS being changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: to clarify, I think this should fall under CONEXCEPT. The WMF has recently decided to hypocritically switch its longstanding stance on this position after most recently using it to deny switching to a volunteer-driven skin, for reasons I've elaborated elsewhere. Legoktm (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Here's what I'd suggest: at least temporarily bring back the old one, and have for a time on the main page at the top (like those "please donate" messages) a message saying "do you think wikipedia should use the new or old skin" (and include a link to the new/old versions). If the majority is new, change to the new version; if the majority want the old version, go with the old version. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Do an A/B test. We can simply A/B test Wikipedia with the new skin vs the old skin, and specifically ask readers which skin they prefer in an up-or-down manner. If the answer is the new skin, then it would not make sense to switch back from the new skin. If the answer is the old skin, then it would make sense to switch back to the old skin. An A/B test should not be challenging to implement whatsoever (just randomly assign 20 of the top-viewed pages of the past week and you should get a good enough sample), so I hope that this information would be clarifying. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  There was some sort of survey at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey but the results seem to have been obfuscated by WMF. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware of that, which is why I'm asking for a straight up-down A/B test and survey. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  More than just obfuscation, the page is full of contradiction. "Insufficient usage: respondents taking the survey were only allowed a single pageview and a static screenshot of the new experience, which is likely insufficient to be able to answer questions around usability" followed a bit later by "The majority of respondents reported that the new experience is easier to use or that the new and old experience are equally easy to use.". On one hand, they are telling us they doubt of their result being meaningful, on the other hand they have been using the same result to justify the push for Vector 2022. I don't really know what to think of that, I want to trust the WMF to do the right thing but ever since I started to take a look inside (Wikipedia and the WMF are some of the most opaque organizations I've ever seen) they keep giving me reason to not trust them. DerpFox (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• The issue of wasted spaced will be mostly moot after the pagetools deployment. Look at Vietnamese Wikipedia Ladsgroup^overleg 05:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wait just a cotton-picking minute! Are you telling me the vast void on the right actually has an envisioned purpose, and they just decided to put it there before they had the thing ready to go in it? Why in the world would the powers that be make such a decision? Seems to me a lot of this brouhaha could have been avoided just by waiting to do the narrow pages at the same time as the tools. Smh. Ntsimp (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Woah, what??? THat space is supposed to be used???

  These look like regular links on the left sidebar, why do we have to move them to the right? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Aaron Liu - thanks for the question. We've just deployed this and I'll be posting a longer update in a little bit but wanted to give you a quick answer here too. In Vector legacy, the left sidebar/main menu showed tools that were both relevant to the page as a whole (global navigation such as main page, random) as well as tools that were only used for the page itself (related changes, permanent link, etc). More page-specific tools were available in the more menu in the top right as well, which meant that page-specific tools were split across two separate menus. Many new editors found this confusing. Currently, we've collected them in a single menu and separated them from the links that work across the entire website so that readers and new editors will have an easier time being able to distinguish what each link does. If you're curious, more info is also available on the project page. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Seriously, why is the "Log in" button buried under a mystery menu when there's plenty of empty space nearby? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Just wanted to mention while a lot of focus seems to be on text line width, I think contrast is just as big of an issue. The old Vector has different tones of white and grey that help to frame the content. The new look is almost entirely #fff white with around 40% of the space being completely empty. It's extremely harsh on the eyes, especially since there's no option for a dark theme. --Darksal Axe (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Darksal Axe, I'm fairly sure it's the same colour. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    No. I'm on old Vector right now. Non-content areas have a light gray color. #eee or something. New Vector does not have this. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

    New vector is f8f9fa while old vector is f6f6f6. I also think they're talking about the gradient. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Very much agree with this sentiment. The grey sidebar with blue border surrounding the article on top left and bottom is very important to the look and identity of Wikipedia, and losing it is a big shame. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  There was a great mockup of some different ways to tweak Vector 2022 to make this more distinguished. I like #9 personally. Ckoerner (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Structure of this page: I presume, disucssions will be eventually archived. Maybe it would be clearer if only signatures should be place here, perhaps +a link to a disucssion which represents each one's opinion. Also, where do we place our signatures? The anchors direct us at the top of each section: so, it is normal to add every new opinion+signature at top. Thank you Sarri.greek (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

NO, you always add things at the bottom just like any regular talk page.

• Comment There are positives and negatives to the new theme. Making small changes to it may be better than reverting entirely. The two largest improvements are placing the contents on the sidebar, and limiting the width of lines. It's now far easier to jump between sections of articles. Limited line widths are more readable, there's extensive research supporting this. The largest downside is lack of color. While flat UIs are all the rage, color and shading make it easier for your eyes to find things on the page. The resulting look is less "clean" and "modern" but faster to use. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not see them rolling back to Vector2010: the Vector2022 skin has already been put in place in many, many versions of Wikipedia. Same goes for making changes to Vector2022 (e.g. in the width): other communities already use the current Vector2022 and are used to it. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Veverve WP:FAIT accompli is never an accepted argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Be aware that the arbitration statement you cited applies specifically to editors making edits, and not to Wikimedia or office actions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  We should not accept fait accompli as an argument, even if ArbCom's words of wisdom do not apply here. Certes (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  According to this and this comment, respectively from the French and from the Swedish Wikipedia, Vector 2022 caused strong grassroots opposition from the respective communities, which were largely ignored. Æo (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  According to T317529, there was a 3.81% among editors and 13.43% among active editors on frwiki. I couldn't find any data for svwiki. Note that the definition is number of users who optout vector2022 out of editors who edited at least 1 edits or [for "active editors"] 5 edits on its wiki between 2021-11-01 and 2022-08-31. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a second. I think you meant the Swahili Wikipedia(swwiki) not the Swedish Wikipedia. I admit that swwiki wholey opposed the change after the change was enacted. However WMF has not denied to change them. THeir latest message was 6 days ago We have discussed internally and have prepared a few options for moving forward. We've written up these options for next steps and plan on sharing them with the Swahili community on the Swahili Wikipedia Village Pump as well as scheduling a meeting with the community where we can make a plan on moving forward together. How does this sound? replying to something one and a half month ago which does make me question their good faith, but the swwiki matter is still inconclusive since swwiki has not replied since. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering how many times the ones who prefer the Vector 22 already enjoyed not having to scroll all the way up through all sections but were able to just click on the top button in the left sidebar.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have set Vector 2010 as my interface in global preferences, but when I am logged out I am forced to use Vector 2022, and I continue to think that the new lateral ToC is the foremost problem (or on par with the width problem) of the new interface. The new ToC does not provide a clear overview of the articles' structure, I have to scroll and click continuously to view the collapsed subsections, and I never use the "top" button to jump to the lede. The new ToC is a disaster. This or this version of V22 with *both* the fixed in-article ToC and the sticky ToC following the screen would be much better. Æo (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all all I see here is you criticizing the TOC's treatment of long tocs and collapsing headers. I get the impression that you don't think any of the rest is a problem, so if that's not what you think, please let me know.

Secondly don't you also have to scroll down in Sushi? Song doesn't demonstrate what will happen for long TOCs but I'm assuming it'll also get a scrollbar. you have to scroll and click either way. If you're talking about the collapsible headers, the TOC automatically expands the headers if the TOC is short so you won't have to click on short articles/pages(such as this one). It only collapses when the TOC is long enough and I don't see a better solution for long pages. Are you saying that you think there should be a preference of some sort to always auto-expand? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: In my opinion, with the new lateral sticky ToC there is a sort of disarticulation of the correspondence between the sticky ToC itself (with its subsections) and the article (and its subsections), apart from the informative, illustrative, and structural problems already underlined in my previous comment(s) (i.e. the ToC under the lede as in V2010 has informative, illustrative and structural functions: general overview of the article and division of the text lead from the text body, as pointed out by StarTrekker here and by Dc.samizdat here). With both V2010 and V2022 I have to scroll the article (which is obvious, and I have nothing against it and I do not mind doing it); with V2022 I have to scroll *both* the article and the sticky ToC, and I have to click on the sticky ToC's sections to see if they have subsections. The ToC as a real ToC should be under the lead and always fully expanded and with sections numbered; as pointed out by Dc.samizdat in his linked comment, the new lateral sticky ToC is something completely different, and I would say that it is no longer a ToC. Something in the wake of the Sushi and Song versions of V2022 would solve at least part of V2022's problems.

As for the other problems beyond the ToC, the serious ones in my opinion are the limited width and the hidden toolbar (which has been replaced by the sticky ToC), and also the "article/page" and "talk" buttons which should be put back over the page's title and not under it. The languages menu and the new user buttons in the upper right corner of the screen are not a big problem and may be even better than their V2010 versions (the user buttons in particular; I have not experimented and thought much about the languages menu). The only things that I like about V2022 are the new colour palette and the new logo in the upper left corner of the screen. Æo (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And I remember that the Chinese Wikipedia already had both the classic in-article ToC *and* a blue arrow that appeared in the lower right corner of the screen when the ToC was off-screen and allowed to jump directly to the top of very long pages.--Æo (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A variation of these arrows also appear in the WP:TEAHOUSE Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

wait, actually, the arrows are {{Skip to top and bottom}} on this Wikipedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

comment Most of users who commented here are login users. Please be careful when make a conclusion, login user can change back to vector-legacy by setting preference, while IP users cannot. Please take a look of the misleading of the statistics. Lemonaka (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• We began by considering the current default experience on desktop (Vector) and asking ourselves: in what ways can we improve upon this?. From Research and design: Phase 1. Please don't ask yourselves. Ask the users, employing proper sampling, testing and analysis. Hint 1: if there is no groundswell against the existing regime, ask yourselves something else. Hint 2: if there is no clear benefit fo users, stop there. Hint 3: if there is no perceived benefit but there is an actual one, change user perceptions before forcing a new default. Thanks. 24.103.63.182 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC has seen a lot of people give their opinion but is no closer to consensus than before it started. When you get rid of all the personal skin preferences and the appeals to/insults of various persons/orgs, there are only a few things I see as really being argued over: 1) Whose opinions matter? IPs? Devs? The WMF? How can this be gauged? 2) Was the previous decision justified, and if not, is the result just an unchangeable fait accompli? And 3) How painful/difficult would it be to reverse the decision? Without these core things being settled I don't see anyone getting the consensus, though tbh the Vector 2010 side (my side) has the most to lose by not presenting a compelling case. --Jeremy Jeremus (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Answers are in the comment above yours. The hints offered have universal application. 71.105.141.131 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: What about Timeless? I didn't even know Timeless existed until like right now, but it seems to me to largely do all the things Vector 2022 does, while having been made first, specifically for the purpose of fixing the problems with Vector, and seemingly has none of the problems that Vector 2022 appears to have?
  Is there a good reason for not talking about making the default skin Timeless beyond "nobody's seriously brought it up"? Was there some previous discussion about it in ye olden days of 20-whatever that I missed? Please ping on reply. casualdejekyll 23:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Casualdejekyll: The WMF has recently decided to hypocritically switch its longstanding stance on this position after most recently using it to deny switching to a volunteer-driven skin, for reasons I've elaborated elsewhere. —Legoktm Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu - This might be a little "wishful thinking" of me, but do you think the community would accept starting an RfC on setting Timeless to the default skin on enwiki? In the very near future? casualdejekyll 14:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  It’s certainly more likely than accepting v22, but I don’t think the WMF would accept that, unlike v22. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, my "hot take" is that the WMF made their bed, so they must lie in it. If enwiki consensus can pick between v10 and v22, then it must be able to pick Timeless.

  I think such an RfC is worth considering once / if this one runs its course - it will take significant preperation work to launch a proper proposal on it which I might start myself soon (but no promises, I have a tendency to promise I'll write something on wiki and then not write it, unfortunately) casualdejekyll 18:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Casualdejekyll: I agree with you, the WMF has changed the rules of the game and as such, if the community can decide between Vector variants, then it should also have the power to pick Timeless (I fully disagree with this on principle, but the ship has sailed).

  That said, in my opinion (developer hat on), Timeless is not ready to be the default skin today, my estimate is that it's 6 months of engineering work away (e.g. Jorm has some tweaks he recommends). I think an RfC would be better framed as "Invest in Timeless so it can become the default skin". Happy to work with you and others on this.

  Fundamentally getting editors to accept a new skin is a PR battle. The fact that Timeless was created by a volunteer Wikipedian, who wanted to make a better skin for Wikipedia, and embraced by volunteers rather than being pushed by WMF should give a significant advantage. I hope. Legoktm (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone here has the right to an opinion, but I find it alarming how many individuals seem to be opposed to the rollback under reasons such as "you'll get used to it", "we can't roll it back" or "you people need to stop being opposed to progress". These arguments range from simply incorrect (#2) to passive-aggressive personal attacks (#3). We need to focus on what's really important here - the question of if this change is beneficial to the reading and editing experience here on Wikipedia. DarkSide830 (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's level-headed. I hope more people can grasp that. -- HLachman (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's an article on ycombinator that may provide relevant insights: Whitespace killed an enterprise app. Wikipedia is mentioned positively (but that was before the recent Vector rollout). -- HLachman (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The desire to improve and make Wikipedia more readable is laudable. However, these changes clearly lacked consensus. I did not know about them until they were implemented. I think a wiser way to go about it is to make improvements incrementally; making design decisions one by one, seeking community input, implementing them piecemeal, and getting feedback on each individual design piece. Also it would be beneficial in starting with making limited and optional rollouts by first going to Beta, and testing there what level of adoption and acceptance they get. This wholesale change was too big and sudden to work well. It is more difficult to have a nuanced and constructive conversation about how to refine a change, when there are many happening at once. If changes had been implemented bit by bit, it would be easier to refine and yet keep the good parts. Al83tito (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I like the idea of incremental updates. The comp I see is the omnibus bills that the US Congress passes (bear with me please, this is NOT a FORUM comment). In theory, it can only take 51% of people being supportive of 51% of a change to generate a "consensus", as I believe occurs in the case of these bills. This generates change, but can get less desirable elements to come into effect simply because of a narrow consensus in favor of other elements that have been attached to them. What is clear is a more drawn-out process to vet specific changes was needed, and more input requested into each change rather than more or less just requiring this 51% in support of 51% issue from happening. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Longer time to change language.

- In Vector 2010 I do: move the mouse wheel, and see ALL language links. I can also start typing the first letters of the language name on the page and the selected link will be highlighted and the window will scroll to it.

- In Vector 2020 I have to: move the mouse to the right place on the screen and click the icon. As a result, I will see a TINY window with a list of languages that I have to scroll through to see them all. This may make sense on a mobile device, but on PC it's just sub-optimal, wasting the user's time. Freja Draco (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Longer login time. I need two clicks instead of one as before. This is a functional regression. Freja Draco (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Since I’m perpetually logged in I’d like to ask: Don’t you also need to click twice in v10? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu, I believe there's a link to login. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Special:Login? That hasn't changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Longer time to access the table of contents. To see the full table of contents, I now have to click several times on collapsed subcategories. This makes it difficult to know what sub-points a given topic contains. Header numbers are also missing. Freja Draco (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Freja Draco: I agree; see #Bring back the TOC. Æo (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Longer user interface interaction dute to flat desing. As research shows Flat design is less usable and intuitive.

"By making all design elements (menus, buttons, links, etc.) flat, distinguishing what function an element serves may become more difficult, for example, determining whether an element is a button or an indicator.[22][23] Research has shown that flat design is more popular with young adults than older adults. Research also showed that, while young people seem faster at navigating flat designs, they also have trouble with understanding the user interface.[24] In 2013 Jakob Nielsen, an expert in user interface design and usability, dubbed flat design as a «threat to tablet usability» (...) Nielsen group conducted research in 2017 that showed that use of interfaces using flat design was 22% slower on average". Freja Draco (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Publicizing this RfC

I've notified Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), but most users do not watch those pages. How can this RfC be publicized to as many users as possible? I'm thinking mass messages to all active Wikipidia users, is that feasible? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Also notified Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements. Not sure if notifying WP:AN is in order. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AN would make sense to me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've posted there, and I've also asked them about potential mass messages to publicize this RfC. See WP:AN#Wikipedia:Vector 2022 has an RFC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

NO, do not use mass message to publicize this rfc, that is using a hammer to crack a nut that will result to the displeasure of many.

There's an essay at WP:Publicising discussions. I have already done {{Centralized discussion}} and I started a discussion for adding it to watchlist notices(the latter of which one editor objected to). I don't think this warrants a site notice though. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the essay, but I'd argue this is an exceptional case since it literally affects the entire community and the millions of users who use the English Wikipedia. The closest comparison I can think of is ArbCom elections, which also uses MMS, but even that does not have as large of an impact as a UI change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This RfC isn't THAT significant. Just following the guidance under "...affecting the whole community" and "General..." would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is extremely significant. It affects every single page view by every single user, whether logged in or not. That's billions of impressions daily. This is far more significant/important than whatever esoteric internal governance issues appear to be the subject of the other RFC solicitations linked at the top of this page.

Consider that most internal decisions presumably don't have tons of people creating new accounts just to argue against the decision. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but mass messaging and 100% sitenotices would spam every user. Your proposal below is better. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If not all active users, at least everyone with extended-confirmed permissions or above who has made at least 5 edits within the past three months. Heck, we could even just reuse the mailing list for last year's ArbCom elections. Any other method would be too passive, and we can see how that approach failed last time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. These changes effect everyone and everyone should get a chance to weigh in on it. I still support a site-wide poll for the next week to get the best possible data about where users' stand. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was that editor 😲 Terasail^[✉️] 21:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

yes 🤓 Aaron Liu (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

YES, notify everyone, this is extremely important and all editors should be made aware that they get a say.★Trekker (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: use some mechanism (perhaps a random number generator?) to send an alert to 1 out of 100 pageviews soliciting feedback. Qualitative feedback is far more useful than the design team's dubiously meaningful statistics anyway! IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: In my opinion, this RfC was a bit rushed and not well-thought-out. It would have been better to plan carefully how to advertise it to all users, both registered and unregistered. Also, while RfCs are not polls, I think that it would have been better if the comments were split into two sections, support and oppose, and numbered as it was in the previous RfC. Æo (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Separating into sections was what we were planning to do, as being discussed on WT:VECTOR2022, but then another editor jumped the gun and created this RfC without even consulting WT:VECTOR2022. If they had, they would've noticed the discussion where the RfC was being drafted. This was the format that was being planned, which is far superior in my opinion. It was also intended to be hosted on a standalone page, but I'll save my comments on that matter at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Move Vector RFC to subpage. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What's stopping us from switching this RfC to a support/oppose/discussion format? It's still new and managably small, reordering the !votes into categories would be a bit of work but I could do it. Plus it would probably solve the issue of people mistaking question #2 for where to weigh in on #1 - that's rapidly become a problem. --Kizor 17:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is the sheer volume of new responses causing Edit conflicts. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've worked in articles for ongoing disasters that had far greater volume of edits than this. The volume here is not ideal but it's manageable. Move a couple dozen at a time, incorporate the edits that happened during the switchover. There'd be a bit of disruption during this, but a lot less, I think, than from leaving things as is. We need to take action to differentiate question #2 and any & all further questions from the main event. Should I get cracking? --Kizor 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus and another user have proposed to move the RfC into a separate page (cfr.). I think you should reorganise the comments while moving them there. Æo (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep those jobs separate. Trying to do both at once would probably lead to more disruption, not less, and take longer, meaning more potential edit conflicts, meaning more time spent sorting those out, meaning more potential edit conflicts, et al. This may not be rocket science, but it still calls for keeping payloads small. Also, do you know how long it'll take to get the support to go through with the move? --Kizor 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the move will require many support votes to be done, after all a formal RfC in the style of the previous one is what they were planning since before this RfC was opened. But, if InfiniteNexus agrees, proceed with the reorganisation. Then this entire page will likely become a redirect. Æo (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus is in favor. I'm pulling the trigger on this change. Brace yourselves. --Kizor 19:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and @InfiniteNexus for cleaning this entire thing up! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to do plenty of cleaning my own mess up, thank Red-tailed Hawk for cleaning up after me. --Kizor 02:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I do have some concerns on Question #2 though. CUrrently it's awkwardly under discussion which means that subscribing you to discussion also subscribes to future !votes. It also isn't really discussion. I'm not sure to move it above discussion or below though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I got nothin', you're the smart one and I don't know anything about subscribing. --Kizor 02:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the RfC has its own subpage now, maybe the second question can be a level 2 heading above §Discussion? That way comments about the second question can go under §Discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now I've done that, now the looooong title of that section just looks weird. However the q#2 part can't be dropped bc of how many people talk about it. Would moving the rest of the header to the body and signing it with @IWantTheOldInterfaceBack's signature be a good course of action? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a regular at RfCs, so I'm not sure what the convention is behind how headings should be formatted or what they should contain, but it's not the longest I've seen, so I'm not bothered by it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The current title is fine, I don't see a need to change it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've finished inspecting the work and contacted all users whose formatting I changed or who should be asked where they'd like their remarks to go. --Kizor 02:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that this rfc was not from infinite nexus but from Hal 333 without much communication or deliberation. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: feel free to reword the text to question #2 for clarity if necessary (of course without changing the substantive meaning). I'm not super familiar with all the jargon used around here and I've been using "skin", "design", and "interface" interchangeably. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it was great as-is. But I just changed "the new design" to "Vector 2022" to be a bit more future-proof and remove any need to debate skin vs design vs interface. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 is meant specifically for questions surrounding the deployment of Vector 2022 on English Wikipedia, shouldn't this RfC feature prominently in the talk header over there? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma I believe FAQ Q5 is enough prominence. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  If editors find it necessary, I'm open to removing that FAQ question and adding a more prominent tmbox on the talk page (both on the header and the editnotice) instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Mass messaging sounds a terrible idea and overkill. And of course misses the only editors, those who use IP addresses, who have no choice but to use the new skin. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do not understand the concern for IPs. If you want to be part of Wikipedia and get involved, create an account. I'd be curious what would be a valid concern. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron LiuOn your FAQ, I'd say that A3 is dismissing the fact that a majority opposed the launch and a voluntary RfC was enabled by the closers in the case the developers had addressed the issues and suggested if they had not addressed the issues raised in the RfC. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think a fact about which "side" had the majority is needed. Including it would imply that some unseen force overturned and ignored the entire discussion.

  A5 already includes this new rfc, I don't see why it would be needed in A3. Also, I invite you to be bold and edit it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: I didn't see it was already in there, thanks for that! @Paradise Chronicle: the point of IPs is that they are 99.9999% of Wikipedia's readers, and so that their preferences should be quasi the only ones that count when it comes to user experience. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus; @Apaugasma: I agree that it would behove to find a way to advertise the RfC to unregistered users (IPs) so as to convey their opinion; they are the majority of readers, either editors or (most of them) silent non-editors. Most of them are probably still unaware either of this RfC or even of the ways to participate in Wikipedia discussions; I see that many continue to post messages on talk pages, e.g. here. Æo (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Æo, that's the right place to talk about V22. — Qwerfjkltalk 23:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma Yeah, yet it is not for us to decide what "they" like. Wikipedia is for many issues the most accessible source for information. If Wikipedia gets less popular due to the change, (which is very unlikely), it will be adapted, but the change has some efficient new features for the editors. The IPs will get used to it and most probably won't even notice it if they weren't actively informed about it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a ton of stalkers, but I've hereby linked this section to my edit history; it can't hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk Wait, what? Where is the link? Why would you do that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu, see their contributions. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Aye. It was more a question of why not than why, just seemed like every bit could help. Now that I'm posting more and it's scrolling down the page, it helps less and less, but this one here should give it a bump. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah so you're basically "contributing" to this page so your "stalkers" can see it? hmmmm i get it now Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo. But don't let their name scare you, many are thoughtful, respectful and productive members of the community, who may just not have heard. A few bad apples, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I originally reached this page through the Vector 2022 article, that had a useful link at the top. This link has now been removed by Epicgenius with the explanation "Remove links to internal discussion pages. This is almost definitely a violation of WP:SELFREF. It's dubious whether this topic should even have an article, but that's another discussion." I've read WP:SELFREF and it doesn't seem to apply to this case. Should the link be reinstated? I think it's a good way to get more people involved in the RfC. Rizzardi (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The link has since been reinstated, but in the "response" section due to NPOV concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The link has been removed again, this time by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4. I really don't want to start a revert war, but this feels like an attempt to hide the fact that there's an ongoing discussion. Rizzardi (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That "removal" was what I just said, they reinstated it in a different part of the article due to NPOV concerns. I'm not sure about this actually. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just (re)checked the "response" section of the article Vector 2022, there's a link that points to the original RfC, but there's nothing pointing to this page. Am I missing something? Rizzardi (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind then. I think a link to this rfc can also be added in the responses section. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I do think a link to a discussion page violates WP:CANVASS as well as WP:SELFREF. In particular, SELFREF very much applies because Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policies or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided in the article namespace where it is unnecessary. ... Mentioning the Wikipedia community, or website features, can confuse readers of derived works. It would be acceptable as an external link, but not while the discussion is ongoing.

I see @Kizor restored the link here with an edit summary that read, in part, It's in Wikipedia's best interest to get eyeballs on a change to the viewing experience of hundreds of millions of readers, To me, this seems like a very blatant violation of WP:CANVASS, since we do not link internal Wikimedia discussions in this way, especially not active discussions. A better way to attract input is via Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, although this RFC is already linked there. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the link was spamming, campaigning, vote-stacking, stealth canvassing, or soliciting support other than by posting direct messages. Therefore, I don't think the link was a violation of WP:CANVASS. That said, another editor re-removed the link, and I'm not gonna force it. --Kizor 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The closest thing I can think of is that articles are off-wiki which counts it as WP:STEALTH canvassing? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Would it be problematic to just have a banner placed on the homepage? I understand this is a bit unconventional, but this seems like a situation where we should want as many opinions factored in as possible, and this would be the best way to get everyone (both editors and not) to be able to know there is a discussion ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It falls under WP:INAPPNOTE's spamming. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF Team

Hi everyone - we have posted an update to the technical Village Pump with some information about the deployment, responses to feedback we've received so far, and some upcoming changes we will be making to the skin. We encourage you to check it out and leave any comments or questions. Thank you! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You really should be rolling back this unwanted change instead.Tvx1 01:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's unwanted by you, change to the old skin. There are people who do want it. Personally I am undecided, but at least willing to try it. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As Daß Wölf put it in the previous RfC: "We can't pretend the settings are accessible to everyone when the user would have to go through all the steps of creating an account and logging in to use them. That would be a dark pattern." --Kizor 02:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That cuts both ways, though. We have several officially supported skins, and you can only set a different default if you are a logged-in user; whichever one we choose as default forces some IP users to either put up with their less preferred skin, or create an account. People were just as upset by change when old Vector became the default, but today people are just used to that being the default interface. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It only cuts both ways if we don't allow cookies to default a skin per user-agent. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, this works both ways. If it was wanted by you, you could have just switched to the new one. No need to impose it on everyone, including those without accounts. RoadTrain (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no reason to make a highly contentious change like this a forced default. This should have been an option for those who like the new skin, not a forced global one. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the thing. There are those who like Vector 2022, and there are those who hate it. For what reason should WMF favor those who like Vector 2022 over those who hate it, besides the fact that the new UI was designed by the Foundation? In XFDs, if editors are divided on what to do, the discussion is closed as "no consensus" and no action is taken. The page doesn't automatically get deleted or moved. Why should this situation be any different? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus, I'm fairly sure there will never be consensus concerning this, at least not now. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There can be if the Web team addresses most of the community's concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot "people who do want it" can do it. Why do they impose it on others who don't, that is the point. 2dk (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you summoned me here I will only say that the Foundation can decide what software they wish this website to run on and who has access to what. The community decides on the content that software displays. That's how it works. The Foundation can request input if it chooses(and they have, extensively, for years) but the software they use and its configuration is up to them. The guests to my home do not get to force me to paint my walls a certain color even if I ask for their opinions. I have disengaged from this discussion; I am no longer following this discussion and will probably ignore further pings to it. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Very much glad to see the feedback heard - hope to see Vector '22 refined to a state many more will be happy with. Lucksash (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• If this RfC fails to find consensus for the WMF's BOLD decision, will you respect the community and return to the STATUS QUO? ~ HAL333 06:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  To ask the same question more pointedly - if consensus turns out to actively exist in favor of reverting the change, and English Wikipedia implements such a reversion, will the redesign developers respect this, or will they forcibly overrule said reversion? (it's still a very open question how consensus will turn out, since it's been less than half a day and non-account-holding users of Wikipedia have not yet been notified of this discussion in any way, shape or form) IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  At the very least, the WMF should try to take a measure of IP user sentiment, maybe through a click poll on the front page. If the readers like the new skin, I will gladly yield. I'm on Wikipedia for the reader, and most editors are. ~ HAL333 06:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  They've been doing that, and are continuing to do it, and have shared the results. That's how they know that, e.g. from the post linked in the OP, the sticky Table of Contents made editors 53% more likely and readers 46% more likely to navigate across multiple sections of a page. Levivich (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Those numbers alone mean nothing. I suspect that the 46% and 53% numbers refer specifically to navigation via the table of contents in particular, excluding navigation by scrolling up and down. This is no surprise, since the massive empty space introduced in the redesign makes scrolling much slower. This does not tell us anything about whether these users like or dislike the redesign. Stats alone can be massaged to manufacture almost any narrative. They tell us much less than qualitative feedback. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not numbers alone, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022)/More about Vector (2022)#Process for developing the new skin has an overview about the testing, mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository has links to reports about specific tests, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Vector 2022 Post-Deployment Update from WMF team is the latest update. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF has a preternatural ability to say so little with so much. Have they presented us with a clear-cut statistic as to how many readers prefer Vector 2022 to Vector 2010? Or did they avoid taking such a count because they anticapted an result they didn't like? ~ HAL333 16:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @HAL333: Which is it? "Lies, damned lies, and statistics", or "Have they presented us with a clear-cut statistic as to how many readers prefer Vector 2022 to Vector 2022?"? You want data? Read the reports! There's data. There's testing. Yes, people who use Vector 2022 prefer it over Vector 2010. You want anecdotal evidence? Read the press reports: the reviews are positive. You want to know what editors think? Look at the last RFC: we support it as long as there's a width toggle. You personally don't like it, but there is objective evidence that you're in the minority, and waiving it away because it's not "a clear-cut statistic" is just silly. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Aren't these clear-cut statistics in both of the first two links? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Don' tsee any basis for a survey on the overall change. And specifically for the fixed-width, that should be measured through revealed preference, i.e. the amount of people clicking full-screen mode. A survey would only capture resistance to change, and would yield nothing informative. DFlhb (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As has been stated above, this RfC is a psuedo-review of the previous RfC's close. I'm not convinced that the closing comment interpreted the results of the discussion accurately (i.e. that there was consensus to roll out Vector 2022 if a limited-width toggle is added), and the comments on WT:VECTOR2022 indicates that many users did not even have a chance to weigh in on the RfC, which means the RfC may not have been representative of the entire Wikipedia community. I agree that if this RfC closes as "no consensus", WMF should restore the old skin immediately. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And to reiterate my comments at WT:VECTOR2022#‎Requests for comment/Reverse deployment of Vector (2022), a close that does not end in the Web team's favor will not close the door on Vector 2022 being re-deployed in the future. If Vector 2022 is rolled back, the Web team is welcome to improve the skin to address the concerns raised here, come back with a follow-up discussion asking for more feedback, and then after most concerns have been addressed, a third RfC can be held. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When are you guys rolling back the Vector 2022 update? Thanks! AdmiralBeans (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@AdmiralBeans WP:CONSENSUS has not been reached. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Or a lack thereof. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu you didn't ask for our consensus when introducing it either, did you? 2dk (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was misinterpreted on the previous RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised it didn't get taken to WP:Close review. But I guess WMF is the law of the land. That closure smelled to me of "regulatory capture" e.g. the closers closed with a bit of deference to what WMF actually wanted, even if not told to do so, and even if subconsciously so. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite possibly. When the community rejects the WMF's pet projects, they tend to force them on us anyway. Perhaps the closers were hoping that a "there would be a consensus if these things were fixed" close would result in the things actually getting fixed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that Vector 2022 is a WMF fait accompli and it doesn't matter how many of us come to an editorial consensus that we disagree with the "2022" changes, it's a done deal. They've made the kids a shiny new toy and many of us kids just don't want to play with it (somewhere I read that almost 40% of us are reverting to Vector Classic - aka "Vector 2010") Shearonink (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't and won't have to use fait accompli, they can just use office actions. Though I really hope that is not the case and they use this RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Introducing what?@2dk

If you’re talking about the new skin, I am not affiliated with WMF in any way. Also, the skin change was abiding by the misguided closing consensus at WP:V22RFC. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure where to post this question: I switched the skin on en.WP back to Vector10. I don't have an account on any other language WP. When I switch from an English page, e.g., George Santos, to the page in a language that uses Vector22 (French), my username is blue and I don't get a warning that my IP address will be published - I didn't check whether it would or not. Is this new behavior or a bug? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  See mw:Extension:CentralAuth and mw:Extension:GlobalUserPage. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Allowing for IP users to change the skin back if Vector 2022 is kept as the default

Maybe we should create an easy way for IP users (and all Wikipedians) to be able to switch back to the old look? I know if I turn my skin on to Vector 2022, on the side, there is a button that says "Switch to old look." We could maybe do something like that with cookies. It seems like at the Teahouse, there are a lot of IP users complaining about the skin. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The stated objection is the increased load on the servers caused by the need for more caching. I have outlined some possible technical solutions to this here (ctrl+F "particular items that have been listed"). IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

They have a $100 million dollar endowment. I think that's sufficient to get servers that can do that. ~ HAL333 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that there should be a way that they can implement preferences like that. It shouldn't be impossible given that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileOptions&returnto=Main+Page exists in mobile. CactiStaccingCrane 08:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Its possible but i doubt that will happen as i think the WMF wants more registered users and I wont be surprised if they remove the ability of IP users to edit or even to read articles in the future Qwv (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's particularly funny since the WMF has generally been then one pushing back against community attempts to limit edits from IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have outlined some possible technical solutions to this here
here is a permalink to your comment. I agree the argument against having skin-specific cookies for those who wish to default away from V22 is extraordinarily weak. We wouldn't need to cookie everyone, just those who wish to go back to V10. And any server usage increases must be weighed against those increases attributable to new accounts who wish to default to V10, increased clicks and reloads from navigation issues, need to have expandedwidth toggles, etc. It's not a decision that's made in a vacuum.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If their current technical staff can't handle this then they need to do some new hiring. They have plenty of money to do so. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4102:7C99:2804:8FC3 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

yes that stated objection is not a true one. they are just trying to force user to use the new look.

this would be a trivial thing to implement.

one single cookie can solve this... 82.9.90.69 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Bull. If they force this crap on IP users, they should just as easily allow them to revert to V10 73.8.230.57 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think any such creation of this should be handled upstream, not with any sort of hacks here. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it hilarious and sad that, after spending the entire year begging me for money, you then go and make a chance like this which makes me LESS likely to come here anymore. I'll get my information elsewhere. You aren't the only wiki in town anymore, fan wikis often have far more information anyway. 2603:3023:180:4800:112D:D97D:8F55:28B3 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Wikimedia Foundation are the ones who put up the donation banners, not the unpaid volunteers of Wikipedia; and they certainly do not need you or your money. Have fun on those fan wikis, though, which I personally find impossible to navigate due to the obnoxious ad banners. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of Vector 2022 and think the 2010 version should be standard your snyde comment about "this not being the only Wiki in town anymore" doesn't make much sense to me, Wikipedia covers hundreds of different subjects from an encyclopedic point of view while fan Wikias cover specific fandoms in detail and are aimed at a specific audience, they don't serve the same function for the majority of people.★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This could be done with cookies but it would be very clunky, and I wouldn't support doing it on the server end since one user's preferences would stick to the next user on that IP address. Just as is the case with just about every website on the internet these days: if you want to save preferences, create an account to save them to. Otherwise you get whatever defaults the website gives you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector I agree, and I'm also pretty sure there are better ways to spend the money on software. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. I don’t find the technical arguments against this very convincing given that there’s already a way to switch between the mobile and desktop interfaces. I personally am not a fan of the new design and therefore would (selfishly) prefer the default to be changed back to “Vector 2010”, but I’d also be perfectly content with keeping the default as Vector 2022 as long as there was an easy way for me to switch back without having to make an account. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. It goes against the entire spirit of Wikipedia to require log-ins. And it should not require JavaScript either like the expand width button requires. I can't overstate how much I feel the people who worked on this redesign do not understand some very fundamental things about the web. Web content should be viewable by everyone without having to take extensive measures to see it. Simplicity. Simplicity. Simplicity. Exactly like Tim Berners-Lee designed it. Wikipedia, until recently, had been an example of how to properly do Web content for everyone. It did not require CSS edits. It didn't require JavaScript. It was minimalist, simplistic, and excellent. This redesign takes things in exactly the wrong direction. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4920:A572:D62A:79E4 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support as nom. I don't really like the skin, but I don't mind the change since I can just log into my account and switch my skin. It's the IP editors who are being affected by this the most, and they are the ones who read Wikipedia the most. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Link to the research about limited line width

mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Limiting content width#Research

Although I personally believe that this research may not be specific enough for encyclopedic text-types and that the way Wikipedia is used by most readers may actually suffer from limiting line width (see my !vote above), I would of course be happy to be shown wrong, and in general !voters in Question 2 may want to read up on this research. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your side comment is important. If they asked for feedback on this specific issue they would have info relevant to reading and editing an electronic encyclopedia and even more specifically reading and editing Wikipedia instead of going by self-interpreting other less applicable studies. North8000 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Selection bias

Having mostly registered editors decide which skin is best for unregistered editors doesn't seem to be the right discussion to have. Even if there are IP editors coming to the discussions to express their opinion, the comments would be biased because people who hate the new skin generally have more interest in navigating to the discussions about the new skin than readers who would find Vector 2022 better. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worse than that, because this is attracting regular editors + previously unregistered editors who disliked the new look so strongly that they made the effort to make an account and track down this page. The WMF have already said that they will be conducting proper, statistically-backed UX research on the impact of this change, which makes this discussion doubly redundant. – Joe (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Except their statistical criteria are "heads we win, tails you lose". It's rigged from the start so the WMF will be "right" and spared the humiliation of having to backtrack on the redesign. They aren't honestly trying to evaluate whether the changes are beneficial and popular. 2600:1700:1471:2550:4920:A572:D62A:79E4 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There isn’t much reason to distrust the data right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, is the data for any kind of statistical test publicly available? TheMissingMuse (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheMissingMuse There is a bunch at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Repository, including an anon survey at mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sentiment Survey. However the latter is quite a bit obfuscated. Regardless there are still other things in there such as mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Sticky Header and Table of Contents User Testing and mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository/Hureo User Research Report (latter is third-party). Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think surveys are good measures. In order to evaluate the impact, you would need things like bounce rate, session duration, and other behavioral metrics gathered in an A/B test or in pre/post metrics. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Their previous "proper" qualitative research included hardly any desktop users. It also focused on users from countries where mobile usage is prevalent, which makes even less sense, since those users will overwhelmingly interact with WP through the mobile app or the mobile site, which already had a different, perfectly fine skin.

Maybe WMF should ask the actual people affected what they think? A small popup or maybe a small banner in the header like the one for donations? 89.102.98.143 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, all of their research was based on desktop users. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Except the WMF already made that decision for unregistered editors and everyone else. Having "mostly registered editors" make this decision is preferable to WMF deciding which skin is best for everyone. But you know what would be even better? Allowing readers to have a voice in this matter, potentially through something like Red-tailed hawk's A/B testing proposal ~ HAL333 06:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF already do extensive A/B testing before and after deployment. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  And where is the resulting data? ~ HAL333 15:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Repository Levivich (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but that page and its links are not informative. As a Wikipedia editor I would fail it on several grounds: promotion, NPOV, sloganeering, jargon etc. As an institution supporting an encyclopedia I expect the Foundation to be in alignment with basic policies that undergo extensive real-life A/B testing by the community on a daily basis. In essence, the "extensive A/B testing" by the WMF seems to be that the Foundation partners with other Foundations to pronounce their joint ventures a success. The pushback against the simple request to make Vector 2022 optional rather than default (no radical removal of the new skin is advocated) is ominous. Perhaps a much more in-depth examination of the WMF's role and scope of action is in order. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  As a site focusing on the development of the software, mediawiki.org DOES NOT have to oblige with wp policies such as NPOV bc the devs who predominantly write it will nautrally be biased. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  The question has nothing to do with development. It is about not forcing the users and content providers of a user-content-based property into a certain mode of work that directly affects usability. The skin itself is not important. The fact that is not presented as an option but as an obligatory default is. Optioning it is neutral; forcing it is biased. There seems to be a mindset that doesn't recognize this framing or this framing's affinity with what a truly encyclopedic site should be. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  The IP I replied to was saying that the page Levivich linked to doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yes it does not. But that is only because imo it fails to be an honest statement in general. It is basically positional and prescriptive, and therefore useless in forming an objective opinion about the worth of its advocacy. 65.88.88.70 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  How? It’s just feedback and data. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, I don't see any A/B test data for the Vector 22 on that linked reports page. Is there any? TheMissingMuse (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TheMissingMuse: I haven't read everything on that reports page, but I remember reading about the A/B testing of the language switching feature and sticky header; I'm not sure which other reports involve A/B testing. Levivich (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  A/B testing a feature is a very different thing from A/B testing the theme. It appears that A/B testing the theme change was not done. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think A/B testing is for single variables, not an entire skin. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  They’re two “variants”, either could be true. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if there should've been a central notice displayed to all readers (including unregistered ones) informing them about the discussion of the planned redesign? I mean, we already promote less important things like Wikimania or the photo of the year contest that way. At the very least it might have left regular readers less shocked when the redesign actually happened. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There absolutely should have been a notice. As a regular reader this change came entirely out of the blue. DutriusTwo (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This would have been my preference. I use wikipedia every day, and to be blindsided by this is shocking. 2601:645:0:41C0:D1A0:EB6A:A0C7:18BD (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There should have been a notice and an opt-in option 2 years ago when they started testing that design live. As I said, a couple of times already, I come from the French Wikipedia, and at that time I created an account just to op-out and track a page (that was really well hidden) to know what the f... was happening. We've never been informed publicly about the creation of a new design or that we were a test wiki. We just were forced the design on us, all our pleas to revert fell into deaf ears. Same for the same critics about Vector 2022 as are shown today, very few things have, in fact, changed since that test. Add to that the awful communication from WMF, we were told that the new design was meant to be rolled out on all Wikipedia "soon" not that we were a test wiki, I had to search for that info. The WMF served us the same "studies" and justification with the understatement that the new design was a fait accompli, and it was better and no matter what would be said nothing would change. I can also add the very strange tactic used by the WMF to test Vector 2022 on communities on big enough communities to be stylistically relevant but with enough people who don't speak English and holding every single talk about the design solely in English, so they won't be able to voice an opinion. Now they use the French Wikipedia and other test wikis as example to how well Vector 2022 was received. DerpFox (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well we can always advertise the RFC at Mediawiki:sitenotice and MediaWiki:Anonnotice.©Geni (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Question for the Web team

@OVasileva (WMF), SGrabarczuk (WMF), and AHollender (WMF): I've just been told that if this RfC ends with consensus to roll back Vector 2022, or it becomes evident that there is no consensus to use Vector 2022, the WMF will likely refuse to honor the community's will because of point four of WP:CONEXEMPT, which states that WMF actions are outside of Wikipedians' control and there is nothing we can do about it. Is that true? InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As to me one should respect the outcome of an RfC if there is one. I am not surprised that the community doubles down on the outcome even though several of the opposes are from "new accounts". You could have made a second RfC and seen where it leads to. This is just a consensus kind of reasoning and not an answer to the quality of your work, which in my personal view, (despite an initial hesitation) is rather helpful for the editors. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New accounts could be longtime IP users who are forced to make an account to revert these horrible changes. 73.8.230.57 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF): Hi there, could you please respond to my question? Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF), @SGrabarczuk (WMF), can you confirm whether or not community feedback on rolling back Vector 2022 is being considered? TheMissingMuse (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So people may not like it - now what?

One thing I wonder is would it be too much to allow for skin preferences to have skin preferences for logged in readers? Like storing the status of the limited width and even the currently selected skin? Fandom is able to do that with no problem with their Fandom Desktop skin's limited width and dark mode options, so I'd figure if there is a way to do that, or even have that for MediaWiki, it would alleviate all the concerns that there currently are with Vector 2022 and lack of choice for anonymous readers. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 07:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the default now, isn't it? And a reason many readers are suddenly making accounts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim, logged-in readers? That's already the case. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahh - I meant logged out. But the rest of my point remains the same. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim, in that case - yes, it's too much. There's a comment that explains it better, but in essence it would be to expensive on account of the cache required to avoid a flash of unstyled content. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a good approach that can be done in the future is kind of like modern SNS and news sites. Rather than loading the skin all over again, it just loads the text, and maybe changes the buttons based on the text present. Granted it will break every single user script, but for logged out users this solution may work fine. That will also allow for caching of page content asked for via the MediaWiki API while enabling dynamic loading of the page. Sure on first load the skin will have to load and then readers would have to put up with a loading bar or loading screen while the page content loads, but the skin interface could also be cached. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That's how skins basically work we're just faster. You just described wikitext. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What I am describing is dynamic loading of the page using JavaScript. So clicking on Apple would just load the text from the MediaWiki API and then replace the #mw-content-text with that and the title with the displayed title. If I am not mistaken currently the page is loaded largely by PHP before the page gets sent off to the browser. The use of JavaScript like this to load contents can possibly make the site one step closer towards PWA. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So we’re moving processing to the frontend… interesting proposal Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

PWA, meaning progressive web app? Why would you want that? I don't want everything to be served in mysterious, de-empowering ways by javascript. It's not necessary, this is just a kind of techno fetishism.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that turning Wikipedia into a web app has little if not none benefits, but I do like the idea of moving rendering to the frontend. This can probably effect ip prefs. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a web app already, by most definitions. What did you mean by turning WP into a web app? 89.102.98.143 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

By what definition is Wikipedia an app? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The progressive in PWA stands for progressive enhancement, i.e. the app works as much as possible without JS, but is enhanced when JS is available. There is nothing de-empowering about having more of the rendering running on a device you control, just the opposite. It would probably even save some significant bandwidth, meaning less server costs and more battery-life. You would still need the back-end to provide services like search.

On a related note, the performance of mobile devices has increased by a few orders of magnitude, so maybe it's time for WP to consider moving the bulk of the rendering to the client. This should also make the back-end simpler, probably more like the smartphone app back-end. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and for those few times when JavaScript is not working there can be a fallback directory where pages are rendered in the backend, but then you lose all IP preferences that way. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If we end up reverting this skin change, can I still opt back into Vector 2022 as a logged-in user? --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip, yes.— Qwerfjkltalk 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What if any changes did the WMF make in response to the RfC closure conditions?

We need more discussion about the conditions which the WMF had to meet in order to comply with the RfC closure. This is an issue of fundamental importance, since e.g. if the conditions were hypothetically met, then that would mean that the WMF team complied with our procedures in all respects, and therefore there would be no real grounds for objecting to the rollout. (I don't think there can be any serious doubt about the closure itself at this point.)

From reading the closure, I extracted the following two conditions:

• The most substantial concern, and the only clear blocker, was the issue of fixed-width. The idea of using a community-maintained gadget is deemed insufficient. It should be possible to achieve a full-width experience using a WMF-maintained toggle, which is clearly visible and available to both logged-out and logged-in users.
• There were also notable concerns about non-intuitive icons in the sticky header and the behaviour of the language selector, which we believe need to be addressed to achieve a firm consensus.

The closers added that they could not determine whether or not the issues in the second point were also blockers.

They conclude that If all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed then we see community support to roll out the change.

They also mentioned other legitimate concerns by editors, for example unresolved bugs (particularly relating to the TOC) and comments about link colours, but these were not considered to be potential blockers, since they were not included in the concerns outlined above (emphasis added).

So, as someone who has not seriously tested the new interface, and has not previously been participating in these discussions:

• Did they address any of these points?
• Did they attempt to address them?
• Was any of this announced or made available anywhere before the rollout occurred?
• Did the team have any discussions with editors about whether any changes they made were sufficient?

It may be that some of this is obvious (I've made some inferences myself, of course), but either way the answers to these questions need to be clearly laid out in detail.

ETA: Wikipedia:Vector 2022 claims The RfC concluded that the skin may be adopted provided that a way to configure the page width is available for logged-in and logged-out users, which is clearly incorrect based on what I've described. This description appears to be framed more narrowly than the first condition (which does mention a toggle but also refers more generally to the issue of fixed-width), and it misses the second condition entirely. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not know what the icons were at the time of that RfC, but as of now it looks pretty intuitive to me. But that is obviously subjective. As for the page width, there is an icon on bottom right. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There are screenshots at WP:V22RFC and it appears these haven't changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

According to the RFC close, the "only clear blocker" was the fixed-width issue. The WMF addressed this by creating a user preference for logged-in users and a toggle for logged-out users. See Summary and next steps from the Web team. Whether or not this was a "satisfactory" response is obviously a matter of opinion. Many of the other concerns raised are being actively worked on, and since these were not represented as "clear blockers" to deployment, the WMF have (in my view) done nothing contrary to the RFC result. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I should add that I don't believe the WMF ever needed community consensus in the first place, per WP:CONEXEMPT. The lengthy consultation was a huge concession and a show of good faith on their part; it's just unfortunate that the final stage of that consultation was framed as an RfC, which was the wrong format for that kind of discussion. This current RfC also has no validity, in my opinion, hence I'm refraining from casting a !vote. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just asking: What format would you think to be appropriate? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just an informal discussion, advertised through watchlists and CENT, soliciting feedback on the new design. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth I'd personally taken the use of an RfC as acceptance of community consensus on the issue. They did more than enough discussion with experienced editors beforehand to be aware of the nature of RfCs. That's not committed them to it for perpetuity, so I believe they can have the rollout reverted for failure to meet the RfC's obligations - but !votes premised on any other grounds (of which there are quite a few) I don't believe are on safe policy grounds.

The non-perpetual toggle is, in functional terms, non-viable. I'd love to see some stats of those who read, say, 20 articles, and click the toggle on all of them.

I believe it could also be questioned whether the general VPT discussion met the minimum criteria of specific discussions on the other "possible-blocker" points. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be putting more emphasis on the first word, only clear blocker, and not enough on the second, only clear blocker. In my view, the latter is more accurate, as the closers made it clear there were additional issues and that they couldn't determine whether or not they were blockers as well. Furthermore, these additional issues are included as part of the quote If all the concerns outlined above are satisfactorily addressed then we see community support to roll out the change.

Also, I would strongly disagree with framing cooperation and attempting to follow our established processes as "concession". Certainly the WMF may choose to disregard consensus (although the community can also take other actions in response to that), but regardless, my interest here is in whether the WMF followed consensus in this instance. RfCs are effectively the only broadly accepted method for this context (absent proposing and adopting another method of DR), so that part is fine, but it's possible the team may have misread or misinterpreted the RfC closure. Sunrise (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The "toggle" is non-persistent for logged out users, imagine if numlock turned off every time you pressed another button, that is the level of anti-use design that button has. It is a temporary and must be reapplied every new page viewed. It has low contrast, as it is a thin shape that fits in the corner, has same coloring as the whitespace, and blends into the taskbar and scroll bars. Hard to see, missing core functionality, and is placed away from all other active elements of the page. Deadoon (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it is that a blocker means that the WMF must address that specific point at least to get consensus. To get a firm consensus, they have to make headway with the other two issues too (which I don't think has happened?), but they need not be both completely solved. Given that the fixed-width is not completely solved yet (80% there?), I do not think the criteria for consensus are quite met. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The toggle is not persistent for IP users - 99% of our users. Furthermore, it's a mystery meat navigation button hidden in a location far from anything else. So no, I do not think this was meaningfully addressed. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone with a browser window that is 1,230 pixels wide, I have never seen this toggle on a Wikipedia page except in screen shots. Nevertheless, the content is restricted to a band in the middle of the page and I am unable to make it nearly as wide as content in Vector 2010 without major changes to my personal CSS. I have done my best to communicate this problem to the WMF developers (see T326887, including providing the screen shots linked from that ticket), but they have not made enough progress to meet the conditions of the RFC. It's too bad, because Vector 2022 with my customizations to remove excessive white space in many places has become a pretty nice skin. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference between reading an encyclopedia article and reading a book or news article

When you are reading a book, or a news article, you are generally reading from beginning to end. Skimming is less important. Comprehension matters a lot. When reading an encyclopedia article, skimming comes into play much more. Yes, sometimes we read them closely, start to finish. But other times we are looking for one particular fact about something. What's the molecular weight of iron? Who was the leading Union general in the Battle of Gettysburg? Who were the leaders of the 1607 expedition to settle Jamestown? In these cases, which involve skimming for a particular factoid, reading speed' matters much more than reading comprehension, because you are only seeking to comprehend one piece of information, and you are seeking to locate this needle amidst the haystack of other information which is irrelevant to your current inquiry. The massive sea of whitespace which now exists on the right side of the screen cuts the amount of text on the screen at a time in half or more, and thus slows the speed of skimming by half or more. Thus, reading an encyclopedia entry is different in qualitative nature than reading a book or newspaper article, and I posit that studies and metrics about tradeoffs for those other forms of media are irrelevant when it comes to an encyclopedia in particular. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

...and thus slows the speed of skimming by half or more. Thus, reading an encyclopedia entry is different in qualitative nature than reading a book or newspaper article,

Actual studies: 1991 study Kolers et al. (1981) suggested that narrow columns might improve skimming because they eliminate the need for lateral eye movements. The shorter line lengths in the book condition (60 compared to 85 characters on-screen) may have facilitated skimming from the book., 2001 study A medium line length (55 characters per line) appears to support effective reading at normal and fast speeds., 2015 study called "Significance of Line Length for Tablet PC Users" is worthy of a lengthier quote, as it summarizes prior research:

On screen readability has variant line length because of multiple sizes of screens. Weber conducted a study on “Line length of newspapers and books” and found that in newspapers and books the line length need to be four inches and it should never exceed than six inches [2]. According to Tinker et al., the best line length for reading books and other information need to be between 3 and 3.5 inches [1]. Moreover, they found that if the line length exceeds 7.5 inches, it becomes very difficult for the reader to find the next line after finishing the first line. Ducknicky et al. were the first to find out the optimal line length for onscreen readability [3]. They went on saying that if the text is stretched to full screen it becomes easier to read than the text only filled one third of the screen. Dyson et al. shows that the reading efficiency of the readers increases by more number of letters per line [4]. Bernard et al. examined three different line lengths (3.3, 5.7 and 9.6 inches) with same Fig. 1. Sample of different line lengths Significance of Line Length for Tablet PC Users 589 size of text that was 12 points in times new roman [5]. The results of the experiments performed by Shaikh were similar with the study conducted on difference of reading speed for efficiency conducted by Shaikh [6]. The study investigated the line length for reading online newspapers and books vs. paper based reading. On the other front, in most of the studies it can be seen that longer line lengths lead towards faster and efficient reading while medium line lengths lead towards the average reading. In view of this the readers preferred line length between 90 CPL to 120 CPL.

Now ask yourself how many characters per line (CPL) you're comfortable with--the "full width" of Vector 2010? If you're not sure, just copy and paste one line from your screen now into www.wordcounter.net and see how many characters it is. I bet it's like 150+, maybe even 200+... far, far longer than any research has ever recommended. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Now ask yourself how many characters per line (CPL) you're comfortable with--the "full width" of Vector 2010? Yes, even on my widescreen. Clearly many agree with me. You completely ignored everything I wrote to cite a bunch of studies addressing topics that I already explained the irrelevance of. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A handful of people disliking the new design is not a valid reason for changing the default skin back. There is actual science behind the new design, as Levivich just showed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a book or a newspaper, so the science about reading books and newspapers is irrelevant. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2015 study was specifically about tablet PCs, and the 2001 study was specifically for reading from screen.. Where are you getting the "science about reading books and newspapers" from? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 18:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a book with linearly read texts. Wikipedia is a source of information that you need to be able to navigate quickly. Wikipedia contains tables and mathematical formulas, contains extensive lists of categories, often requiring a large width. However, if someone wants to reduce the width of the displayed columns, they can always just shrink the browser window, using the universal solutions of their operating system and not having to learn specific "inventions" of a given page, such as a special expansion button. Freja Draco (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes reading speed matters but the studies clearly also address speed. That's what he is trying to prove with the studies. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You might have just convinced me and probably also the RfC closers. I do not understand much of what you say here but it sounds much better than the arguments of the ones who want to return to vector 2010. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment before was meant for Levivich.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've read the 2015 study; I'd like to raise two points about it: 1) it's aimed specifically at portable devices (Tablet PCs), where the screen width is limited by physical constraints. Also, 2) the study partecipants were asked to choose among different line lengths *up to* 120 characters, and a quarter of them still opted for the longest line size available. The study doesn't indicate that 120 is the recommended line length (indeed, as you quote, "if the text is stretched to full screen it becomes easier to read than the text only filled one third of the screen."). Rizzardi (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

a quarter of them still opted for the longest line size available means 75% opted for a line length shorter than 120 CPM, which suggests we should have a line length shorter than 120 CPM. No, the study doesn't indicate that 120 CPM is the recommended line length. The 2015 study says The results of the study revealed that 90 characters per line (CPL) were preferred by most of the participants. Nonetheless, some participants falling between the ages of 35 and 40 years preferred 60 CPL. And also that On the other front, in most of the studies it can be seen that longer line lengths lead towards faster and efficient reading while medium line lengths lead towards the average reading. In view of this the readers preferred line length between 90 CPL to 120 CPL. So... 60 CPL for some participants between 35-40, 90 CPL for most, 120 CPL for faster reading. And that's just one study, specifically for tablets. If you look at all studies, it's consistently in the 55-85 or so range: never like 150 CPL or anything like that. I'm not aware of any study that even tested above 120. What I was responding to, though, was the OP. There is no science that supports the claim by the OP that fixed width "slows the speed of skimming by half or more" or that reading an encyclopedia entry is different from reading a magazine article or a book or something else (people skim all sorts of materials, not just encyclopedia articles). It's true that longer is better for skimming than shorter (studies have shown that), but it's also relative, the study that found longer is better for skimming also found the optimal length for skimming was 55 CPL, which they call 'medium' length. This other study brings it up to 120 CPL, but we're still way below Vector 2010's unlimited width. The reason every publisher in the world uses fixed width is because every study in history supports it. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: if legacy Vector's line width is far above 120 CPL, and there is no study that has tested CPL above 120, the conclusion should not be that studies support abandoning line widths above 120 CPL. This simply does not follow. Rather, the studies support nothing about it, because they haven't tested it. There are a great many things in this world about which we still do not have any scientific research-based knowledge, and in such cases we must look to other things.

One of them is established usage, which often has been shaped into something fairly efficient by mere 'evolutionary factors'. Another is common sense. Line lengths of 90-120 CPL were found to increase reading speed when compared to smaller line lengths, so perhaps we wouldn't go far wrong in suspecting that this gain would be preserved with +120 line lengths. Of course, people do skim encyclopedia articles more often than they skim novels; this far common sense can really be trusted. Also, OP's claim that limiting line width slows the speed of skimming by half or more was based on the fact that it cuts the amount of text on the screen at a time in half or more: now this does not necessarily follow, but obviously making the reader skim one part of the text before they can scroll down to skim another part will make the process somewhat slower.

True, there is no science to back this up, but it is based in common sense, and this common sense is used in a situation where we do not have immediate access to relevant scientific analysis. I think that precisely in such situations, it is important not to pretend that we have scientific answers to everything, and throw away common sense in the process. Nothing more dangerous then claiming science backs up an argument when in fact the science is lacking or ambiguous. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case here (we might just choose to trust the web team), but we should be wary about that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

making the reader skim one part of the text before they can scroll down to skim another part will make the process somewhat slower I disagree. No matter the line width, the reader will skim a certain amount of characters before scrolling down to skim another part. Line width doesn't play into this. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

They will skim more characters before scrolling if there are more characters viewable at the same time, and if their skimming speed is high enough this will significantly impact the amount of characters skimmed per second. It should be a common experience: having to scroll down to look for something (think a graph or infobox, which naturally has a very high skimming speed) vs seeing it at a glance because it is in the upper part of the screen. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2015 study found that 75% or more of participants preferred a line length shorter than 120 CPL. I don't see why they would need to repeat the study with a longer line length. Here's a question: can anyone show me an article complaining about Wikipedia's new design having a short line length? If it really was this big of a problem, wouldn't somebody in the media say so? I see lots of media reports reviewing the new design favorably (or saying it just isn't a big change at all), I haven't yet come across anyone in the media complaining about line length or too much whitespace. Levivich (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I just think it's clear that the research cited until now is far from conclusive about what is best for our actual use case as Wikipedia (none of it even comes close to considering everything that is important for us), and the way that the research is cited (to the point of being cherry-picked) as if everything in it supports this design decision comes over as rather tendentious, whence my skepticism. The question about media reactions is an entirely different but equally interesting tack, and deserves its own subsection in this discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Also the 1981 study predates real-world windowing interfaces. IIRC, application windows on mini-computer and mainframe terminals were resizable, and I believe Visicalc on Apple ProDOS (probably the most popular micro-computer application of the time) had a resizable window. The omission of the fact that application (and later system) windows are resizable as a simple user action is mystifying, especially for the later studies. The only justification being that the later studies were focused on mobile interfaces, where window resizing is moot in the vast majority of cases. The argument for making any skin a user preference is exactly because users may prefer to use desktops. Optimizations of mobile interfaces have very little bearing on this. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Window resizing is irrelevant here, we’re talking about the benefits and detriments of line widths itself without user modification. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't like a line width and I change it by resizing the window, not exactly an advanced operation. Except if I want to increase line width to fit my screen/window with the new skin, because it is more comfortable and productive for me. Is there an option to do that? There is always an option to decrease. 24.103.63.182 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There is, but it isn't implemented very well. It's in the bottom right corner of the entire page, in the right grey margin. If you don't see it zoom out. Since you aren't logged in you'll need to press it on every single page/refresh which is a very strong argument against the skin. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You can eat your cake and have it. You can use the full available width and have text in small columns that can be read in one eye fixation, fall into the sharp seeing Fovea_centralis. The solution is to have text in many narrow columns. The eye will be able to read a whole chunk of words in parallel, then move to the next chunk. Reading speed will go up. And full screenwidth is available. See real life example, from Queen Elizabeth II Uwappa (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd go with such small columns but here's a better example (columns are about 45-55 CPL, resize your screen to see them change):

You can eat your cake and have it. You can use the full available width and have text in small columns that can be read in one eye fixation, fall into the sharp seeing Fovea_centralis. The solution is to have text in many narrow columns. The eye will be able to read a whole chunk of words in parallel, then move to the next chunk. Reading speed will go up. And full screenwidth is available. See real life example, from Queen Elizabeth II Uwappa (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Why such small columns? Because the Fovea_centralis is very small. With such small column the eye can read all text of it in one eye fixation, then move on to the next chunk to read all of that. Uwappa (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

For me I have to move down my eye a lot which actually makes it more tiring. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is more annoying to read than the two-column version Levivich provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Fovea_centralis is round, a kind of circle shape. Read multiple lines of a small column with one eye fixation, no movement yet. The move will be horizontal, to the next column. Uwappa (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes you can read three lines without moving your eye but it is common to automatically move your eye down after finishing a line. Most people will move the eye down a lot
2. It's annoying to read because there are a lot of broken sentences which means a lot more breaks in flow/logic

Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Presumably this would be less annoying with the columns tens of lines long instead of two as in these examples (at least they are two lines long on my desktop screen). Even then, it does feel like the worst of both world. Columnar pagination is much more difficult for the web, where you can scroll and there are infinitely many different screen sizes, than it is for printed media. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that these tables were formatted specifically for v22 with limited line width which is an incredibly bad idea by Wikipedia's own policies. Screenie on v22 w/ limited width Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2010 is compatible with any line width because the line width is directly related to the window width, while getting the same level of control is a challenge for readers under Vector 2022. It is not our or the WMFs role to constrain readers to one reading experience, even if backed up by science. I hate that kind of we know what's best attitude. This is a problem of freedom, not optimisation.–small jars tc 20:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

For an example with more lines per column, see real life example, from Queen Elizabeth II. Feel free to test that example with different window widths and see how the columns dynamically use the available space. Freedom is not a worry. You can have any layout you want by creating your own stylesheet. Uwappa (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

99% of readers never create an account, and of those who do probably 90% are not technically proficient enough to create their own CSS stylesheet. This RFC primarily concerns non-account readers. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

STILL, these column widths are WAY TOO SHORT to read comfortably. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I already know about common.css. I am only considering the freedom of logged out readers. Personally, I will continue to use MonoBook. small jars tc 20:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"You can just make your own stylesheet" is not a reasonable solution. That's like if Ford suggested customers simply upholster the seats themselves if they dislike the options WizWorldLIVE (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, the point is that the default look should be helpful ( "look good" ). If you want to change the appearance, then just create an account. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I want all readers to be able to change the appearance in the easiest way possible. The easiest way possible to change the line width is to change the window width. Vector 2022 makes this method impossible. How is this helpful? What does "looking good" have to do with being helpful? small jars tc 20:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, nevermind, I misunderstood your comment. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Would [Firefox Reader View] be an option for the 99%? Uwappa (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Uwappa, no, that won't be accessible for most readers. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Right - more generally, anything that requires a browser plugin will not work for most users. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Uwappa: Just tried this. Galleries and IPA failed to render properly on the first article I tested. The line-width starts much narrower than Vector 2022, but Firefox does provide detailed controls to change this and the font size. small jars tc 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Mobile devices present the option to switch between "Desktop" and "Mobile" view at the very bottom of the screen. Switching to "Desktop" on a small screen makes for an agonizing experience. There is a failure to understand that the opposite may be true too: forcing a quasi-"Mobile view" on a larger (say 12"+ landscape) screen may have equally agonizing results for many users. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviews of Vector 2022

If this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?

• Popular Science [8]

  The changes, which are rolling out to the desktop version of the site starting this week, make for a cleaner, easier reading experience...But even as Wikipedia’s content has been kept up-to-date, its appearance hasn’t been. It’s had largely the same look and layout since 2003, though updates in 2005 and 2011 stopped it from looking like Geocities, and kept it readable as screens got larger and higher-resolution. The latest tweaks aren’t huge and certainly don’t change the overall “black and blue text on a white background” look of the site that everyone knows and tolerates, but they will make it easier to use...As well as generally embracing a slightly more modern, minimalist design, there are two big features of note. The first is the new table of contents sidebar...The second big change is the new language drop-down inline with the article title...In addition to these changes, Wikipedia said that it is changing its default font-size and setting a maximum line length to make long articles easier to read—especially on bigger screens....While the sum total of the changes might be small, all in all, they make for a nicer-looking Wikipedia that still maintains the site’s character—for better or worse. At the current rate, we can expect the mobile site to be updated in 2033.

• Gizmodo [9]

  Try and Spot the Differences in Wikipedia's First New Look in 11 Years...At first glance most folk would struggle to see any real changes to the old formula...The most obvious change was the top logo has been made smaller...There are a few noticeable changes that do add a bit of functionality. The header and a few other widgets are also set to scroll along with the user, making it easier to see what page you’re currently reading and also search for a new page. The language selection bar now sits at the level of the title as well, making it easier to switch to another language version of Wikipedia midway through the page...There’s a few other changes meant to increase readability. The site now has a smaller maximum text width...

• Fast Company [10]

  You may not have noticed Wikipedia’s decade-in-the-making update...With a focus on usability and access, the update introduces a variety of new features, including: An improved search experience...leading to a 30% increase in user searches, according to tests. More prominently placed language-switching tools...An updated sticky header...with a decreased scroll rate of more than 15%. A table of contents that provides context on the article and the ability to navigate to chapters throughout the page...But the website, bless it, still looks a lot like it did when it started: black text on a white background, blue-purple links, no fancy animations. It’s fast and legible. And yes, it has those unmissable top banners asking for donations, but it’s still ad-free...As with all redesigns on the internet—indeed, as with any significant change anywhere on Wikipedia—predictably, someone will not be happy...Ultimately, amid disagreement over the amount of white space, the design team has made it default as of Wednesday, but added a toggle to switch back to the old design...

• Business Insider [11]

  It's not just you — Wikipedia looks different...Wikipedia got its first desktop interface update in over a decade that includes improved search...It's not a jarring difference, but you'll probably notice a lot more white — the gray background elements and shading are largely gone...New features in the update include an "improved search experience"...Commonly used links, like Search and Sections, move as users who are logged in scroll through the page...language-switching tools are "more prominently-placed,"...

• Slate [12]

  Wikipedia’s Redesign Is Barely Noticeable. That’s the Point...The Wikipedia editors are waiting to hear you scream...For all the hype, Vector 2022 isn’t dramatically different...Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, just with more whitespace, a more prominent search bar and language switcher, and a sticky table of contents. There’s also a collapsible sidebar and maximum line width, which make the site more clean and less cluttered...it doesn’t look all that different than it did 23 years ago, when it was run by a few guys in an office in Florida. The text-heavy website resembles an email inbox, or Craigslist, or Old Reddit. It’s a barrage of straightforward white and blue text, a rather unsightly assemblage of lines and squares...Crotchety Wikipedia veterans practically yelled “too much white space!” in unison while starry-eyed progressives condemned the kneejerk resistance to change. A few clever thinkers crafted a compromise plan. In the end, the 165 people who voted to oppose the redesign outnumbered the 153 supporters. Nevertheless, it’s happening...The design team took some of the advice, adding a toggle to appease the whitespace-haters...Wikipedians, characteristically skeptical, aren’t the only online community that has put forth a big fat resistance to redesign...To an outsider, the meticulous, sometimes combative arguments about, say, moving a button five pixels to the left seem pointless. I beg of thee, please, touch grass! But to many, Wikipedia is sort of a home on the internet. And people want to live somewhere nice...

• TechCrunch [13]

  Wikipedia gets its first makeover in over a decade… and it’s fairly subtle...an updated interface aimed at making the site more accessible and easier to use with additions like improved search, a more prominently located tool for switching between languages, an updated header offering access to commonly used links, an updated table of contents section...The changes being introduced are not very dramatic — in fact, they may not even be immediately noticed by some users...Other changes to the site include the addition of a collapsible sidebar for a more distraction-free reading experience and a change to the maximum line width. The foundation explained that limiting the width of long-form text makes for a more comfortable reading experience and improves retention of the content. However, a toggle is available for logged-in and logged-out users on every page if the monitor is 1600 pixels or wider, allowing users to increase the width of the page. Logged-in users can also set a width in their preferences page...Given the size of Wikipedia’s readership, it’s clear the organization was careful not to make disruptive changes...

• Mashable [14]

  Yes, Wikipedia looks weird. Don’t freak out. A thing changed! Argh!...Perhaps your brain rejected all the new white space, or the way the "sticky" new table of contents hovers while you scroll. But also maybe you just hate change. There's no right way to react to a thing happening on the internet, so whining and nitpicking, along with inexplicable fear,(Opens in a new window) are to be expected at a time like this...But nothing has fundamentally changed...And once you get used to the new maximum line width, users of monitors with high resolutions might appreciate not having to read single lines of text as long as the entire Gettysburg Address...So if this gets you fired up, and you just need the old Wikipedia back, well, join one of the long, long, discussion threads about that. Or, since this is Wikipedia after all, just customize your experience, and leave the Wikipedians to their weirdly aggressive arguments about steam engines.

• Digital Trends [15] (Spanish edition; translations via Google Translate)

  It's an updated interface intended to make the site more accessible and user-friendly with additions like improved search, a more prominent tool for switching between languages, an updated header offering access to commonly used links, an updated table of contents section content for Wikipedia articles and other design changes for a better reading experience.

• The Express Tribune [16]

  ...first makeover on a desktop after almost a decade....The new additions have included an improved search, a more prominently located tool for switching between languages, an updated header offering access to commonly used links, an updated table of contents section for Wikipedia articles, and other design changes and improvements for a better reading experience...Though subtle, the changes were deemed necessary by the foundation to keep up with the next generation of internet users, especially those unfamiliar with the internet...Due to the large viewership size of the website, major changes would have been disruptive and an annoyance to adapt to the change...

• India Times [17]

  Wikipedia's First Makeover In A Decade Makes Reading And Navigation Easier...Wikipedia's updated features include improved search, a tool to switch between languages, a new header that leads to commonly visited links, a new table of contents section and other design tweaks to add to Wikipedia's readability...The thing about these new changes at Wikipedia is that not all people might notice them at first glance...

• The Indian Express [18]

  ...The new updated interface emphasises on usability and ease of sharing knowledge...What’s new?...new search experience...language-switching tools...updated sticky header...Table of contents...

• Businessworld [19]

  The desktop edition of Wikipedia has undergone a number of minor modifications, including an updated sticky header and the left-side panel of article subheadings shifting as you scroll down...A number of small changes have been made to Wikipedia's desktop version...the language switcher...search function...

• ABP News [20]

  ...Some of the notable changes that the design overhaul brings are a collapsible sidebar and the default font size that has been made larger, to reduce the strain on readers' eyes...

• Jagran Prakashan [21]

  ...Popular information provider Wikipedia gets a UI revamp after over 10 years, adds different tools to enhance reading experience...a clean, minimalistic look...Speaking of improvements, users of Wikipedia's desktop version will now have access to a table of contents, a tool for switching languages, new options for line width and font size, a collapsible sidebar, and more along with a better search experience...

• Sportskeeda [22]

  ...In addition to simplifying usability, the update modernizes the platform's iconic design. However, users will find the design changes to be minimal, keeping the online encyclopedia close to what they are familiar with...Wikipedia will now feature an easier-to-access navigation module that allows users to easily switch to a new language from a database containing 300 dialects for their convenience. The article space now features a maximum line width, ensuring that users have a comfortable reading experience...The update, which is currently being rolled out, also brings an improved search experience, a new collapsible sidebar to minimize any distraction caused by a long menu, and an updated header that moves along with the reader and eliminates the need to scroll up multiple times...Although subtle, the latest update has given the desktop website a much-needed facelift, which will surely boost its popularity...

• News.am [23]

  Wikipedia changes its design for 1st time in 12 years...The new design is called Vector 2022. It features the table of contents of articles was moved to the left side of the page, which accelerated the navigation through the materials. There is a dynamic setting maximum line width. The new feature is needed for better display of content on widescreen monitors. In addition, designers moved the language switch button to a more prominent place - in the upper right corner...According to Mashable, some of the changes were not easy for the developers and caused heated arguments in the group.

• How-To Geek [24]

  Wikipedia Has a Fresh New Look...Wikipedia has largely looked the same for the last decade, with no major variations to its design. Now, though, Wikipedia has rolled out what might be its largest redesign ever. Wikipedia is rolling out a new, more modernized design...The more important change that you’ll notice, though, is the reduced line width, which is vastly reduced to improve readability on wider screens — a helpful change for all those ultrawide monitor owners. The new layout also makes it easier to both navigate through articles and read articles in other languages...

• Tech Spot [25]

  New Wikipedia design improves access to the world's knowledge: An improved look that doesn't remove any previous functionality...The improved desktop interface features a new "table of contents" navigation panel that remains visible as users scroll down the page, a more prominently-placed link to find and switch the available languages an article is written in, a maximum line width which should make long texts more comfortable to read and easier to retain.

• The Shortcut [26]

  The world's largest online encyclopedia looks a tiny bit different...The Wikimedia Foundation has rolled out the first big redesign to the desktop interface of Wikipedia in 12 years, and while it’s not exactly a mind-blowing do-over, some subtle changes have been made to the hugely popular online encyclopedia...Perhaps the most obvious change is the site’s shorter line width. Wikipedia articles now appear at a maximum width that better centers their content on the screen, which will hopefully make for a more comfortable reading experience and better retention of content...

• Mezha.Media (Ukraine) [27]

  ...The changes are not radical...Among the innovations: improved search, a more visible tool for switching between languages, updated article title and its content section, etc.

• There are more, like [28], [29], [30], and [31].

Notice that most reviews say the changes are minor. To the extent they give an opinion, the reviews are positive, and I cannot find a single RS review making a complaint about the line width... many don't even mention it at all. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia bases internal decisions on what journalists think. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales did once. That's why he lost his privileges. --Kizor 18:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The "reviews" seem to be based closely on WMF press releases, which obviously present a positive view of the changes. Actual readers I've spoken with unanimously prefer the previous appearance, though not violently so. Certes (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to wonder - are any of the "reviews" cited above (ooooo, yes, I am using scare-quotes!) coming from actual editors? Any of these "reviewers" ongoing participants in the Wikipedia Experiment?... I kind of doubt it. And personally I don't care what an outside reviewer has to say about this change. I only care about what my fellow participant-editors have to say, here on this page and the many other pages like Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, the many Vector 2022 subsections at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), the many, many subsections at Wikipedia:Help desk and elsewhere where the debate is raging on.

Btw, does it bother any of the other previously-registered accounts/named accounts that this New! Improved! Vector is now forcing IPs to register an account in order to ameliorate their desired experience? I sure as hell bothers me. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not bothered if no reviews are from editors, because we are a small minority of Wikipedia users and have a Preferences page. I am bothered if the reviews are not from readers, or are from someone who doesn't remember Vector 2010 or know how to view a page with it now for comparison. Certes (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Yeah, at least from regular users/actual readers, the people who use Wikipedia on an ongoing basis, not writers who seem to regard Wikipedia as some kind of strange beast. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If this was an article at AfD, I think we would need to consider WP:ADMASQ and the guidelines at WP:NCORP that are designed to help protect the encyclopedia from low-quality websites churning PR copy. Perhaps reputable news outlets will examine this situation in greater depth, and ask what appear to be unanswered questions about accessibility and the impact on unregistered users, and fisk the "research" relied upon for the changes. It apparently seems easy to snark on anonymous editors and users trying to communicate their concerns, but maybe actual journalism will garner some respect. Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Popular Science is not actual journalism? Levivich (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That report does not appear to be an in-depth review of the changes, and instead discusses Wikipedia generally and seems to rely on "Wikipedia recommends", "Wikipedia said" and "Wikipedia also claims" for a superficial overview of the announced changes. Overall, I do not think the initial flurry of reports about what Wikipedia says and claims brings much substance to this challenging discussion. There seems to be much that could be examined in-depth by independent and reliable sources, but it may take some time, if it ever happens. Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe every word of Popular Science I quoted above is in the author's own voice, not "Wikipedia said". Levivich (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote above includes "Wikipedia said that it is changing its default font-size and setting a maximum line length to make long articles easier to read", which seems to refer to one of the more contentious issues in this discussion. Sources that are often disregarded at AfD as superficial coverage do not seem as helpful as sources with greater depth, e.g. examining the research, accessibility issues, and other concerns raised during discussions about the new skin. In the meantime, we can use the press release "Wikipedia Gets a Fresh New Look: First Desktop Update in a Decade Puts Usability at the Forefront" (WMF, 18 Jan 2023) to help distinguish independent secondary coverage from the PR churn. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that sentence. Everything else, though, is the author's voice. Good idea about comparing sources to the PR itself. Here's WP:DUPDET for PopSci and the PR: [32] I don't think it's fair to call the PopSci article churnalism. The point, however, is that if the limited width or other changes were as big of a problem as some editors suggest, somebody in the media would be saying that. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be too early to make that call. Presumably, an article going into the downsides (real or otherwise) would require more effort to write than regurgitating a press release. (I, respectfully, disagree with your assessment of the Popular Science article, and I think the Slate article was mostly written before the roll-out.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Counter example, every critical review of mass effect 3 was positive, with some having minor issues. User reviews were pretty mediocre to bad, with one major reason being the ending being a massive middle finger to the concept the series had built upon to that point that your actions have long lasting consequences. Fallout 4 suffered from serious issues plaguing it's game design simply to give the player and reviewers in their short time with the game a taste of power. It made an category of equipment overpowered, and a supposedly powerful weapon useless. General users and critics aren't the same audience, and something tailored towards critics with press releases telling them "it's good and barely different" they might just tow that line to avoid being the contrarian that disses on Wikipedia and end up not getting that early press release next time something happens. Oh yeah, then you had the diablo 3 thing in 2012, Mass positive response from critics, with few dissenters, still widely disliked by general players. Deadoon (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Weren't Mass Effect 3, Fallout 4, and Diablo III, all huge commercial successes, among the best-selling video games in history, with the first two also winning a number of industry awards? What evidence is there that these games were widely disliked? Levivich (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, for the first two, see their Steam pages for starters. Although 75-80% positive reviews overall is not exceptionally bad, it is pretty mediocre, especially when compared to ratings for earlier titles in those series. I generally avoid buying games rated that poorly, I have found them to be not worth my money. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The steam release was done much later in 2020, when ea moved many games to steam. It is not the original release which had serious negative response, it is the fixed version which solved the problem the community had with the game on launch that led to the original negative user reviews that can be found on metactitic. Deadoon (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that just makes its poor ratings even harder to justify. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The steam reviews are the best representation of the user's general opinion of the game in it's current state. However the current state was not the state that the original critics which reviewed mass effect 3 had. They reviewed it in it's launch state, which was poorly received. The reviews of wikipedia in it's launch state are still highly relevent to it's current state as no major changes have occured thus far. My whole point was the release states of mass effect 3 and diablo 3 were very poorly recieved by general playerbase, but the critic reviewers were very positive about them. The fallout 4 comment was primarily about the side effects of the critic pandering leading to power armor being overtuned, and miniguns being undertuned to give the player a taste of power, but not allow them to steam roll the whole game with starting gear. Deadoon (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Fallout 4 I made no claim it was widely disliked. It was actually reasonably well liked, but suffered as a whole due to it's pandering to critics. The others can be seen on metacritic and from articles speaking of their respective incidents.

Mass effect 3 had completely remade the ending sequence due to discontent and backlash from the general community.

Diablo 3 has some of the most divisive user reviews of all time. Basically it wasn't what many players considered diablo, had serious issues due to being early always on drm, and did not really fit in with the themes of prior titles. Deadoon (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ME3 has 6.0 user score on Metacritic. That's not "widely disliked". But I am not at all persuaded by Metacritic's user score. Diablo 3 sold over 30 million copies, but has a low 4.6 user score on Metacritic based on 10,000 ratings. Ten thousand out of thirty million? Those are the ten thousand players who hated the game. The other 29,990,000 didn't bother to rate it on Metacritic, but they did buy the game. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? There is an entire article on mass effect 3 controversies involving the ending among other problems. I only mentioned metacritic to give you a simple single number comparison.

And yet here we are in an article that has only a few hundred respondents on a website with a few hundred million page views a day. Only a small subset of any group will actually put in the effort to give a review. 10k reviews should be a pretty decent indication of common user response. Deadoon (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not if the 10k are self-selected. And yeah, the respondents on this page are in no way indicative of the general public, nor even indicative of editors in general. Nor are editors indicative of readers. We are a tiny little self-selected subgroup, just like Metacritic and Steam reviewers. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What you just said is that user reviews are pointless and should be ignored because they chose to review their products themselves? Only journalists which have financial incentives to have their announcements out immediately to ensure they get the first day ad revenue spike should be listened to. I'm sorry but what? That is about the most anti-consumer stance I have read in a while. Deadoon (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are we comparing huge, complex games to a single trivial, but annoying aesthetic change to Wikipedia? Apples to oranges. Plus games tend to get review-bombed for stupid reasons, whereas this is pretty clearly a case of people just not liking it. (Off-topic but the “problems” with Fallout 4 are seriously overblown) Dronebogus (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Deadoon was pointing out that good critical reception is not necessarily an indicator of good popular reception. It got off-topic when we started arguing about whether or not the examples he cited had, in fact, been poorly received by the public. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I agree with his argument even though it was a bad analogy. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately most tech websites regurgitate PR releases to bulk out content. The similarity of talking points and phrasing show that's likely the case with these reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You believe Popular Science and Gizmodo regurgitate press releases under their own bylines? Are you really suggesting that the opinions written in those articles under those bylines are not the opinions of the authors, and they only wrote it because it was in a WMF press release? I find that very hard to swallow. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

When they closely paraphrase the WMF talking points? Yes. And I find it very easy to swallow, the tech web has been in poor shape for awhile. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you quoted a mix. The Slate article is clearly an actual article. The India Times and News.am are clearly regurgitated press releases. The Popular Science article looks to me like one too, with some trivia thrown in beef up with its length. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that, a mix. But... nobody wrote one complaining about too much white space? Levivich (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it has only been a couple of days. We might get some yet. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that journalists are used to very short lines because newspapers are usually formatted in narrow columns. This might explain why the changes introduced by the new skin seem very minor to most of them - it makes Wikipedia look more like a newspaper, which suits them fine. Rizzardi (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers also adopted the good limited text width graphic design gizmo. It’s because they’re accustomed to the good limited with brings. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also mass dumping references is never very convincing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. During the course of this conversations, editors have, in turn, discounted scientific studies, discounted WMF's testing, discounted the last RFC results, discounted media reports... why, it seems the only reliable source is their own opinion. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Scientific studies: see my response to Gnom above about data vs preferences and how they aren't one and the same.
• WMF testing: the WMF obfuscated the results by filtering out responses containing "offensive language" and in another part of their results lumped neutral and positive feedback together to manufacture a narrative that the feedback didn't actually support. Until the WMF reveals the impact of the offensive-language-containing feedback (presumably overwhelmingly negative) all their feedback data must be treated as suspect.
• RFC results: There were more opposers than supporters, and there was particular vituperation at the fixed width issue. The closer of the RFC ignored this to manufacture a consensus in favor of Vector 2022 that didn't exist, and even then the closer conceded that fixed-width was a blocking issue. This has emphatically not been resolved - the toggle is a mystery-meat button hidden in the least likely spot far from everything else, it is invisible on screens below 1600px, and it is not persistent. There were several other issues which were also mentioned as potential blockers - these have not been resolved either.
• Media reports - completely irrelevant. This is for us to decide, not a few outside journalists with their own interests and motives.

IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean the media reports based on the foundations press release, which was based off of internal polls that would be best described as inconclusive with them taking every effort possible to discredit negative findings, and a rfc that was closed as mostly negative that never had it's main concerns actually solved? Seriously that survey they did showed more people liked the old one and they were taking every effort possible to spin it against them it was 60-37/65-44 in favor of vector 10, additionally that survey had removed 75% of all responses, meaning it could have been gamed as well. Deadoon (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, god, Wikipedia is a self-government project, why should we ask journalists for advice instead of making a consensus locally? Lemonaka (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This whole affair has been a massive opportunity for the WMF to undermine the concept of self governance. Look out for language like “vocal minority” when they come to evaluate the legitimacy of this RFC. small jars tc 21:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, how exactly is this a massive opportunity? Anyway, it will hardly be the WMF who closes this RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with people above who have pointed out that many of these articles look more like rephrased versions of a WMF press release than independent critical appraisals. It’s also possible that people who work for publications like Gizmodo and Digital Trends have a bias in favor of trendy new styles. Honestly, I would be more inclined to look at Twitter to gauge the general public’s reactions reactions, see e.g. [twitter.com/search?q=%22Wikipedia%20redesign%22&f=live this search], where there are at least as many people complaining about as celebrating the change. (The spam filter won’t let me add the actual link, but I give permission to anyone who is able to circumvent this to edit my comment and then delete this parenthetical.) 70.172.194.25 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’m looking at that page right now and if anything it seems like reaction is more negative than positive over there. But maybe that’s Twitter being Twitter. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  By a pretty large margin, too, much larger than in this RfC. I've read a few hundred, I'd guess it's about 4:1 against. The inefficient use of space is, unsurprisingly, by far the most salient issue. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  The exact search term seems surprisingly salient, though. [twitter.com/search?q=Wikipedia%20skin&src=typed_query&f=live] seems to be a lot more evenly split, although I'm struggling to ignore the vast amount of unrelated stuff. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Journalism today is broken. It's pointless to gauge anything from news media anymore. Way too much paid reviews, bias, poor journalistic ethics, etc. I mean the claim that the new design is barely noticeable is laughable. It's objectively false. 2600:1700:1471:2550:2195:BD59:6E8E:AB0C (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While it's very surprising, most people (admittingly students) I asked about the new skin didn't realize the change at first glance until they look at the old vector skin. I don't know why people think this way either, but it's true. I didn't show the max width or TOC though as I showed the main page on an iPad. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the changes are going to be a lot less noticeable if you are browsing on a mobile device, as most readers do. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're on mobile you'll only see the difference if you use the desktop view switch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about using v22 on an iPad. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Journalism was never good. Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So what if the media likes it? Surely Wikipedia is the authority on it, we as Wikipedians should be the ones to decide it ourselves. We are the ones whom it affects the most, and we should be the ones to vote on it; we shouldn't go off of what "the media" wants, we should go off of what Wikipedians want. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

AMEN BROTHER! Dronebogus (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why should it be a facepalm? God forbid anybody on an RfC present an opinion on something... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My guess is there's a facepalm because:

1. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

2. The media doesn't want anything, they are just observing the skin and reporting on its changes.

3. Despite the storming-the-Bastille sentiment, It's still not clear whether the outcome of this RfC reflects how all Wikipedians (including readers) feel, or if it just reflects a subset of editors who are passionate about the subject. With that in mind, even if this RfC gains a consensus to support the rollback, it's not likely that will be sufficient to spur WMF into any sort of action. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but what is the point of this RfC if the results don't matter anyway? I'm not advocating polling, I'm saying what Wikipedians want should be respected; I don't think that we should take a headcount, I just think what the community decides through discussion should be taken into account.

2. Again, I'm aware the media (that is, the media as a bodiless, abstract entity) doesn't want anything itself, but if that's so, why was the point "if this change is so bad, where are the negative reviews in the media?" made in the first place? It implies that the media should accurately reflect what Wikipedians want (a very wrong assumption given the current state of this RfC) which, as I have said, is not true. It also might be construed as "polling is a substitute for discussion" as it takes a sample of articles from the net and shows them as "this sample shows positive reviews towards V22, hence it should be the default" without discussion from anywhere at all.

3. My third and final reason as to why I stand by my original comment is similar to the first. If the WMF don't respect it, what is the point of this RfC if the results don't matter anyway? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See, I simply don't get this. I can see the argument that the changes were good, or that they weren't a complete overhaul of the system, but the overall sentiment that seems to be present here is that little clearly changed, which simply doesn't track IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Bring back the TOC

Alongside the limited width and the hidden toolbar, another oft-criticised big problem of V2022 is the new lateral sticky ToC. Some discussions and specific comments of negative critique about it may be found at the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, amongst others, including my commentary and proposal of alternatives in the foregoing RfC. Still other negative discussions and comments may be found at the Desktop Improvements talk page on MediaWiki, and amongst them I found one that, in my opinion, is particularly thoughtful and hits the mark by indicating that the new lateral sticky ToC is no longer a ToC, but a new, completely different feature, which may co-exist with the "real" (static) ToC. The comment is Bring back the TOC; let me quote it (the permission to quote it was asked to the author, and granted, here):

There are many things about the new 2022 interface that made me a bit uncomfortable on first using it, but in my experience so far the designers have made only one game changer, deal breaker change, by removing a feature I can't give up, so I will stay with the 2010 interface forever if they don't bring that feature back, at least as a user appearance preference. That's their removal of the old inline TOC at the top of the article, of course. The new pop-up sidebar TOC with its floating button is not a static TOC, it's a different feature entirely, innovative and useful in its own way (although the way its floating button always blocks the upper left corner of the page is very visually annoying, and you cannot get it out of the way no matter what you do by repositioning the page). But no matter — that's not the deal-breaker. The pop-up sidebar TOC, whether you like it or not, isn't a TOC at the beginning of the article, which has been the signature appearance of every Wikipedia article since time immemorial.

When you open a Wikipedia article you expect to see a lede (like the abstract of a research article), followed by a table of contents showing the structure and organization of the article, giving you an instant idea of whether this article is 1 or 100 pages long, and how developed it is. As you refer to the article again and again over time, you will probably depart from that TOC to places you have discovered within the article again and again, your body developing a kind of muscle memory for the way the space inside the article branches out from the top. Your mind is learning the geometry of part of the vast space that is Wikipedia. The TOC at the top of every article illustrates one local part of that space. The TOC is the article editors' best attempt to choose a geometry for that subject that makes sense. It is editor-written content, artistry, not merely a generated index or search results; in fact it is the most important content in the article, after the lede. Sometimes it's all you read of an article (the lede and the TOC), and it tells you that you don't need to know any more. It can be collapsed or expanded, as suits your personal need of it, but surely it should not be entirely hidden in an always-collapsed pop-up sidebar.

The designers should fix this flaw in the new interface by simply bringing back the static TOC exactly as it is in the 2010 interface. The pop-up sidebar displaying the TOC can remain too, just don't display its floating button until the display is scrolled down to below the static TOC. It would also be a diplomatic policy decision (a no-brainer, really) to provide a user appearance preference for a static TOC, a pop-up TOC, or both.
— Dc.samizdat, 21:35, 20 January 2023

With the new lateral sticky ToC there is a sort of disarticulation and mismatch between the sticky ToC itself with its subsections and the article, and the article's subsections, therefore producing illustrative, informative, and structural problems — impeding the general overview of the article's structure in the reader's mind, disrupting the article's very spatial geometry, cancelling the distinction between the article's lead and body —, as it emerges from the linked discussions and comments and as it is well explained in Dc.samizdat's one.--Æo (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While I still don’t get whatever geometry the TOC brings, I agree that there should be a preference to restore the inline TOC. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote makes a good point about the artistry behind the ToC, but the more practical concern is that the sudden squishing of the lede into the rest of the article is causing MOS:sandwich issues that are going to take years of collective time to fix. I'm not actually against the idea of a floating ToC existing, maybe only appearing after scrolling past the main one, but the way that it tries to keep up as you read the article in the v2022 implementation is pretty janky and distracting. small jars tc 17:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as expressed here by StarTrekker, cit. "The lack of space between the lead section and rest of the content makes every article look like a stub [...] Generally having a TOC separate the lead from the rest of the article was an indication to me that a page was not a stub but a more extensive article [...]", and by A. Parrot, cit. "[...] I think there should still be more space between the lead section and the rest of the article. Perhaps the Wikipedias in other languages do it differently, but on en-wiki, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the body, which I feel means it should be somewhat set apart from the rest of the article. And adding a little space after the lead section would at least reduce the image-crowding problems that other editors have complained about". The MOS:SANDWICHing and disruption of the layout of articles with many images, templates and tables is an immediate consequence of the cancellation of the space between articles' lead and body. I think something in the wake of V2022 propotypes Sushi and Song with both the classic "real" ToC (fully collapsed and numbered, as many comments demand) and the new sticky thing would be a good compromise. Æo (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe something among the lines of the {{clear}} template could be placed after the lead section to space things out? Granted, excessive whitespace may still be an issue in a different way. Also, wouldn't that sandwiching problem exist in legacy Vector, too, if you use its "hide ToC" button? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

«Or maybe something among the lines of the {{clear}} template could be placed after the lead section to space things out?» — Yet this would not solve the illustrative/informative/conceptual and navigational problems yielded by the deletion of the real in-article ToC as explained in Dc.samizdat's and in my comments above; the sticky ToC in my opinion is not a ToC at all, it is a sort of unwieldy navigation bar.

«Wouldn't that sandwiching problem exist in legacy Vector, too, if you use its "hide ToC" button?» — Hidden ToC is not the default in V2010, it is an option. Æo (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also have a scroll of a heading-dense article like list of railroad truck parts with the contents open. The dynamic bolding and unbolding of the links gets seriously annoying! small jars tc 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

They could combine the new floating ToC and the old static ToC by making the old static ToC scrollable and "float" on the left just like the new one. The new ToC is a cool feature, but the subsection headings aren't indented enough so heading 1 looks like it's about on the same level as heading 1.1, for example. Some1 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

On long articles, the old ToC is an eyesore--it can be a big chunk of (effectively white) space before the body of the article even starts. DecafPotato (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually think that the new one is an eyesore and a dysfunctional nightmare. The old one was fine (even to the eye) for the role it had as a table of contents, which the new one fails to fulfil. Æo (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support: Indeed for me the biggest issue with the new redesign is the loss of the long-standing TOC fully visible (no collapsible parts), wide and readable, placed under the lead section of each article. I am ok keeping the new "sticky" one on the side, but an addition to and not as a replacement of the classic TOC. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, the old TOC creates huge amounts of dead whitespace on a significant group of articles, most exaggerately so in long lists with many sections, no infobox and a one- or two-sentence lead. The old TOC is worse than the paper medium equivalent: in most non-fiction books, you will not just have a TOC at the start but book name/chapter headers at the top of each page. (Our equivalent is article title and section names.) I grabbed the nearest three non-fiction books I had and this is true in all of them. The new TOC and floating top bar, on the other hand, serves both of these purposes, as well as allowing immediate navigation from, say, halfway through the "Oppose" !votes in this RfC to the start of the "Support" section, and navigation to other articles with the search bar.

I've been using Vector 2022 for several months now and I don't know how I coped with the old TOC. It was one of my main issues with Vector 2010 and a frequent annoyance that was apparent to me as a disadvantage of the skin for the 8 or so years I used it. I was frequently pressing Home+PgDn to find the TOC to move section or Home to get to the search bar and not having this experience on any other website. — Bilorv (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is the biggest issue for me too. Not necessarily because of the appearance issues, although I agree that suddenly there are a whole lot of page layout issues because people designing the look of articles on the screen were working with the assumption that the ToC would be in that location and have that appearance. But also because the choices of headers, and what level to put them on, were based on the assumption that the entire TOC would be fully visible and therefore contents being in a given subsection would be easily seen by seeing the subheader on the TOC. Putting a key bot of info about the topic on a subsection wasn't seen as detrimental because it would still be apparent. Now it is not.

In fact, in many ways that's the overall issue. Wikipedia editors have not been just writing text, but designing entire pages, layout and all, based on consistent knowledge of how the site's layout overall layout works. Changing that with insufficient input ignores that, and still seems to be stuck on the idea that it's 2003. Oh, and no matter what anyone says, it was definitely insufficient input; a couple of hundred comments, heavily divided at the most generous description, is not sufficient input for something that effects the volunteer efforts of thousands of editors. Period. oknazevad (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Most readers are on mobile, so editors should not be writing wikitext based on an assumption of a TOC and headers as on desktop. — Bilorv (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why should the desktop version be adapted to the mobile version? Serious editing is impossible on the mobile version, and I think mobile editing is one of the main causes of the general qualitative deterioration of the articles. Æo (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The new desktop version is not like the mobile version. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The new desktop version may not be like the mobile version, but it is styled *as* a mobile layout. This makes the UX very poor. TheMissingMuse (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand these mobile arguments. Is it just responsiveness and swapping text for icons? Is that the "mobile UX" y'all are talking about? To me the UX is almost the same as v10. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Mobile UX is all about hiding features behind small compact elements so that features are still accessible on a constrained viewport. When you are dealing with modern desktops, using design elements like that only makes the site harder to use. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also add myself to the camp particularly bothered by this. I think reverting the ToC change alone would go a long way to fixing Vector 2022 for me, at least visually. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that, in response to some of the points raised here, I wrote a user script to modify how the TOC is displayed under the Vector 2022 skin. The TOC is still on the left but now all sections are unfolded and they are numbered like in the Vector 2010 legacy skin. Instructions on how to install it and a screenshot showing the difference can be found at User:Phlsph7/UnfoldedNumberedTOC(Vector2022). Phlsph7 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What changes, if any, need to happen in order to make skin preferences work for anons?

I am not 100% convinced, even after reading the FAQ, that it is impossible to have different readers have different skins, while at the same time allowing for the use of caching. I think WMF outlines that it might be difficult right now, but I don't think it is impossible. I point to Fandom Desktop and how readers have options between both light and dark mode while logged out and even changing the width of the content. Of course, Fandom will do Fandom, but I actually am wondering what changes would need to be made to make skin preferences work for anons? If this can be done, then I think it should be a high priority task. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay - so I took a look at Fandom does use LocalStorage, which then I also saw "legacy browsers" but I do not think it is worth supporting browsers that a very small percentage of users use. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree with this. I don't think that Wikipedia and the other WMF projects, which are encyclopedic projects, should take Fandom, which are fandom projects (not encyclopedic projects), as a model. I think that in the case of Wikipedia et al. a unified interface is more appropriate and staid. Æo (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was taking about ip skin prefs, not changing the global default skin. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The options were discussed in the previous RfC and are also covered in the Phabricator ticket phab:T321498. As is generally the case with software development, almost anything can be done; there's just drawbacks and costs that have to be considered. The way most sites would alter the client-side appearance without requiring an account is to run Javascript in the client that makes the appropriate changes (depending on configuration stored locally in the client). This requires that the user allows Javascript to run (most users do allow this, though a few of the commenters in this discussion have complained about the need for Javascript), and either will cause the client to pause rendering and simultaneous download of everything needed to display the page and thus delay the final result, or the client will display an initial layout and then change it to the final layout (this latter option is the one usually adopted these days, as the first choice adds a significant delay to responsiveness). The shifting layout can be distracting, and can cause problems when the user tries to interact with the page as it initially appears, but due to the changing layout, ends up selecting something else on the page. It's the simplest approach, though, so sites using this method will just try to minimize the effect of a changing layout. Note this isn't a good choice for something like a dark mode theme, since the initial layout would be the opposite of what the user wants.

The other option is for the servers to render different output based on a returned cookie from the client. Note in order to support the large number of Wikipedia page requests made at every moment, there are caching servers where the pages have already been transformed from the underlying wikitext to the ready-to-send HTML files, for non-logged in users. Because logged-in users have many preferences that can alter the page appearance, it's ineffective to cache pages for them and thus they are generated each time (for simplification, I'm ignoring intermediate levels of caching, which still occur for logged-in users). Thus in order for this option to maintain adequate performance, more server resources (including everything that entails) are required to cache different versions of the pre-rendered pages. When you're serving pages at a high rate, milliseconds in the page delivery process matter a lot. The WMF has done a lot of work to avoid cache fragmentation by reducing, as much as possible, the number of variations that need to be rendered. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If the CSS is written with dark mode in mind, you only need a small snippet of CSS to control the dark and light modes. The rest can be the same and thus amenable to caching. The server will serve one of two version of the snippet with the default state set according to a cookie. The snippet would go in <head> or perhaps inline, so it's loaded before the content, avoiding the white flash and reflow. This approach might even work for multiple skins, if they are similar enough, and certainly for a simple width setting. It doesn't even need JS on the client, you can use a form with a checkbox somewhere and have the server serve the cookie. If JS is available, create the cookies on the client. So, you end up adding something like one branching on a boolean and 1kB to cache server-side.

Now, I have very little idea about how the CSS is done in reality, and even less idea about the backend, but to claim that this can't be done without reflow is incorrect. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the second option I described. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The following CSS can be used for light/dark mode theming:

@media (prefers-color-scheme: light) {...}

and

@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {...}

Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this digression can be covered elsewhere, to save on more edits to this page? isaacl (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan 23 update from Web team: page tools and more upcoming changes

Hey everyone,

Thank you all for continuing the conversation on the new skin and reporting thoughts, issues, and bugs as you come across them. We’re reading through everything, collecting your feedback, and planning next steps.

Today, the new page tools menu was deployed to the Vector 2022 skin for logged-in users. The page tools menu allows for a separation between navigation that is related to the entire wiki (Main page, random page, etc) and tools that are related to a specific page (what links here, related changes, cite this page, etc). It also collects all page-specific tools in a single menu, rather than splitting them between the main menu and the more menu. The goal here is to make it easier to understand what these links do for new readers and editors. The new menu can also be pinned and unpinned as needed. More information is available on the project page. The new menu will also be available for logged-out users in one to two weeks.

Moving this menu to the right side of the page has the benefit of showing the table of contents further up the page without requiring people to scroll down to see the table of contents. We’ve noticed that this is one of the concerns we’ve been hearing over the last couple of days and hope this addresses it.

Let us know if you have any questions or experience issues with the tools menu. We have already noted that the menu doesn’t work with the Content Translation beta feature on the Contributions page - a quick fix for this will be available tomorrow morning. Later, the pinned menu will also be sticky, just as the Table of Contents and the left menu.

I also wanted to give a quick update on the status of other fixes, requests, and explorations:

1. We are lowering the width at which the toggle to make pages wider appears from 1600px to 1400px. This will allow the toggle to show on smaller screens. This change will be available this week.
2. We have a fix for the scrolling issue on Chromium-based browsers on Windows operating systems. This fix will also go out tomorrow.
3. We are still working on a short-term solution for making the width toggle persistent across pageviews for logged-out users. I will be updating later this week with news and a potential timeline.

Thank you all again and let us know if you have any questions or concerns! We’ll be posting another update later this week. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF): When you moved the page tools to a sidebar on the right hand side of the screen is there a reason why you made them not float like the table of contents? At present, this means that a huge amount of screen space is lost to empty space for the majority of content on longer pages. While this slightly improves upon the amount of scrolling before the ToC appears for readers, it at best does nothing for editors who still have to return to the top of the page before they can use the tools and at worst makes the experience for them worse as the content area is narrower. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Sideswipe9th. Thanks for asking! This is purely temporary. We will make it float: T318169. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Awesome! I look forward to that! Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I liked the old one better due to the spacing and indentation. Is there a way to switch to the old one? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aaron Liu -- I'm Marshall Miller; one of the directors of product at WMF. Thank you for engaging so deeply with this Vector deployment situation; I've noticed your comments in lots of places! Have you tried clicking "[hide]" in that new menu to pop it back into the header of the article? Does that do the trick, or do you mean something else? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, basically, you Marshall Miller are one of the main responsibles of all these mess. As one of your critics, I would like some of you reply sometimes to any from that side, not only to those who appeals the new skin. You are really biased, sorry to say. I've posted my objections reduntantly, most polilely here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements#Aimed_to_help_you, but neither reply nor comment at all (not to me but to the subject, I mean). I expect nothing, so I still append «?useskin=vector» to every requested URL, and I advocate and promote this among the non-logged users. Will you give us counters of requests with that option «?useskin=vector», as part of your surveys on the (hypothetical) success of the new UI? I guess not... 37.134.90.176 (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A tiny fraction of readers will add useskin=, simply because 99% don't know about it. Unfortunately, that tells us nothing about which skin they prefer. Certes (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Then, add a banner explaining it: «If you want to use the previous visual style of Wikipedia, please: a) create an account and set your preference, or b) add ?useskin=vector to the URL.» Easy, isn't it? (Not sarcasm at all). 37.134.90.176 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are now extensions for Chrome and Firefox, I haven't checked the other browsers, but there is likely something available too. If not, one can use a generic redirect extension with a redirect rule. Crucially, to use these, one does not even need to understand what an URL is. Pretty much like with old reddit. This is how I'm going to insulate myself from the new changes. It will make the URLs ugly but so be it. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, basically, you Marshall Miller are one of the main responsibles of all these mess. As one of your critics,... In fairness, having interacted with MMiller before on Growth Team product launches, I can say he's an excellent product manager who communicated actively and substantially with the community at each step of product development and deployment, including starting multiple community consensus discussions while rolling out new product features. (I don't know what his involvement in Vector 2022 is.) IIRC this opinion was universally held among editors involved in those discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The criticism is most unfair, regardless of one's opinions on Vector 2022. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you're more concerned about criticism, not about technical objections. Mr. Miller introduced himself, and I guess he didn't if there was no problem at all with this new skin. But it resounds... In my job, I must to face criticism when results are not as expected, so Why you don't? Still, no comment about the flaws I and many detected and communicate you (aside that both you decided to patch) what is what I'm interested in, not disputes. Anyway, thank you for answer me this time. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello 37.134.90.176 -- thank you for writing out your thoughts on Vector 2022 and for being an editor. I'm sorry we hadn't responded previously. As you can see, there are lots of comments coming in and the team is doing its best to get to them. I read the list you linked to of the 7 points you wrote out. There were some that I've heard before but others that I hadn't (like your point about how articles with and without tables of contents start at different parts of the screen). We'll be recording your thoughts along with the rest of what we're reading in everyone's comments to figure out what is coming up the most often.

@ProcrastinatingReader -- just to shed a little more light on how we're structured at WMF, as a director of product, my job oversees the work of multiple product teams (whereas I used to be the product manager of the Growth team). The teams I work with now are the Web, Editing, and Growth teams. So while I am not as intimately familiar with all the details and nuts and bolts as someone who works with the Web team every day, I do follow along and advise on the work. And since this is such a big conversation with the deployment of the new skin, I am reading comments and helping reply where I can. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much to be personally answered by you, Mr. Miller. Not for the answer it itself, but to realize myself you're taking into account the flaws I (and many others) pointed you. Many people complaint not only about the UI technical flaws (aesthetics is always a matter of personal taste), but the way how all of you in WMF have handled all the case. But done is done. As an experienced developer, I want to contribute to correct every technical fault, from the point of view of an IP editor (and potential donator, you know). This is the right way. Your involvement here is a proof to me that the team did poorly testing (many flaws of design were detected at first sight), and now all this mess must be put under control. This is sufficient to me, and I expect to be to many others. Thank you again. Regards. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MMiller (WMF), it was something else. Besides T327719, I have a couple of issues with it:

1. On the left, the texts are short, creating a lot of empty space for the whole right half of the left sidebar. This isn't "useful whitespace" as it is obstructed by the section ribbons and it is grey. Couldn't we shorten the width and/or right-align it?
2. On the left the spacing appears to be sparser than the article. This just makes it a lot more eye-catching than the old sidebar which is distracting.
3. For whatever reason, Twinkle doesn't appear in the tools sidebar.
4. The tools sidebar doesn't have a background or border, which doesn't make it nicely separated from the main article. This looks confusing and distracting to me.
5. On an iPad, the pagetools create a content flash before auto hiding due to responsiveness. Why do we have a content flash? If the content flash is needed, shouldn't IP prefs with cookies/local storage also be implemented?
6. The content flashing sometimes causes Safari on iPad to crash and refresh repeatedly before admitting defeat "A problem repeatedly occurred".

Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, jumping to sections occurs BEFORE the content flash which makes the jump useless as the flash made it scroll to other places anyways. Also if there’s a TOC on sidebar for small screens shouldn’t we be able to move the left sidebar to the sidebar?Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the specifics, @Aaron Liu. The Web team is going to find those reflections useful. I'm pinging @OVasileva (WMF) who can react in better detail than I can, since she is a lot closer to the nuts and bolts of the design. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for this post - I'm fine with the Vector 2022 layout, but was not impressed to find that wikipedia had changed again this morning. Not everyone monitors RfC like a hawk, and this took some finding! Could you maybe give people the heads up when you make changes like this? Letting people know that you can hide the tools is also useful - esp. when you read more than you edit! Turini2 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Turini2 - thanks, you raise a good point. We had initially announced this last week on the Village Pump as well as the Vector 2022 landing page, but are still looking at more options to get notices and alerts out about any upcoming changes as we move forward. We're also trying to respond to feedback and concerns quickly, so our rate of making changes right now is probably a bit faster than usual. That said, the page tools menu is the largest of these changes that we currently have planned. Some smaller changes are coming up that I've mentioned above as well. We'll continue updating here and on VPT as we move forward and learn. Hope this is helpful! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not plan next steps. This is not ironic or a clever choice of words. There is an RfC in progress with wide participation over whether the new skin should basically be an option. Respect the process by not moving the goalposts through adding more "features". It is however fine to debug the new interface. If I'm reading correctly, most users' objections have to do with look-and-feel and usability and not with any bugs present in the current skin build. I suggest you devote any extra development resources into making it easy for all users to seamlessly switch between skins depending on the device/screen size they use at the time. Or develop a proper iteration of the new skin for screens over 12" landscape. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

1 and 3 ARE community look and feel expressed here and at WT:V22. And bugs should definitely take priority especially for a giant scrolling bug. An RfC should not prevent changes from being made to improve it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Were these look-and-feel issues not noticed before forcing them as default? The tacit admission (to paraphrase, "everything is getting fixed/better! look here, not there!") regarding bugs in the new interface does not inspire confidence. The fundamental questions remain: what consensus requested an obligatory new skin/view? If it is a technical issue that for some reason requires the new skin as default, what issue is it? It is obvious that many users do not consider the change positive or neutral. 65.88.88.59 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

aaa See FAQ Q3. The community closers unaffiliated with WMF of WP:V22RFC said that they think the !votes there indicate that v22 can be adopted without another discussion (hence consensus) as long as the fixed width toggle was added. There is some debate as to whether or not the text says that two also issues also need to be fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, I think those bugs should be fixed. But discussion of those bugs aren't really relevant on this page. This page is for discussing whether or not to roll back the the theme, not whether this or that bug fix should be done sooner or later. TheMissingMuse (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the page does'nt discuss the bug fix it discusses whther to adopt the old skin as default or not so the timing of bug-fixes are irrelevant and shouldn't be delayed by an rfc. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've read carefully the thread T326887, and I see you're struggled only with the amount of pixels for some kind of threshold. But, you know, on screen font size depends also of dots per inch (dpi) logical resolution. While many display on MS Windows use 96 dpi by default, recent displays have greater pixel density, in my case it is using 1920×1080 at 144 dpi in a 17" laptop display. That is, it is using more pixels per character than at default 96 dpi. Even more, users can change that setting (Config→Screen→Change text size) at their taste/need. So please don't rely in pixels, but in some other logical unit, as "em". Even better if the text width toggle button is unconditionally visible always, if there is a chance it will expand the text a single "l" character, or if wide text has been already set (to unset it). 37.134.90.176 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

CSS pixels are already virtual. E.g. for people with high DPI displays the CSS pixels are not equal to actual pixels. 89.102.98.143 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I already know, I'm a web designer and developer, but if you read that thread, it gives the impression they don't know it. I realized many times that some developers didn't know about some basic details, and this could be the case. May be they rely only in test-and-error while looking only to their screens, otherwise it is hard to believe they didn't find that flaw while testing, as it has been obvious to many at first sight. CSS virtual pixels make browsers' zoom to work. But even at 100%, dpi must be taken into account, because the system's font renderer engine rely upon it. A better testing should imply not only viewport width, but also browser zoom and system dpi settings. Have in mind. 37.134.90.176 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant. One of my complaints was that Vector22 increased the place and number of menus, so now instead of 4 locations with menus (left, top, right of title, under title), they are spread over 5 locations, compared to the two of Vector (left and top). Also looks extremely rushed, e.g. couldn't even be bothered to use the same grey background the left side menu has. No idea why, on Preferences, I get the "upload file" option on the left and on the right, has nothing to do with Preferences??? All in all, it makes Vector22 even less appetizing, creating a very tiring look with way too much distraction from the actual essence, the article. Fram (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram: The double "upload file" link is a pre-existing issue, you should see it in legacy Vector, Timeless, etc. with two links on the left side. It's because the English Wikipedia added the upload link to the sidebar (per this RfC) and then hid the default one with CSS. Except said CSS doesn't work on Special:Preferences for security reasons, so now there are two upload links. Maybe the declining of T255381 should be reconsidered, idk. Legoktm (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange pattern in recent opposes

I am noticing that the last 14 consecutive opposes (as of oppose #140) have all been from IPs or new accounts. This is not a bad thing in itself - I've actually praised the participation of IPs and new accounts like myself in the RFC - but up until this recent string of opooses, we'd only been 10-20% of participants on both sides. Between this and some similarities in content and formatting among these 14 opposes, it makes me wonder if something is going on. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the same. I already reported it a few minutes ago on Fram's talk page here, as they already deleted some of those comments here. They are all weirdly similar in style.

@Avilich: You have been tagging some of those comments as suspicious; notice that one of the new accounts has deleted some of your tags a few minutes ago.--Æo (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this at this very moment, and was about to reinstate the tags. Avilich (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Increasing awareness of the vote will bring more people out who aren't regular participants. I didn't want to be an IP so I dug out my account to vote, but I basically never sign into Wikipedia, despite using it daily. Ocdtrekkie (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense at the individual level, but the pattern is exceptionally strong, especially since so many of the recent opposes are using similar formatting and almost identical languages (your oppose is not one of the ones with such language). It also started very suddenly. Were you made aware of this RFC by some link or discussion on an external site urging you to vote? IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they're part of whatever's been happening, they don't use the high-level vocabulary and doesn't talk about designering. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

At least 3 of the recent string of opposes have claimed that they design websites for a living. Makes me wonder if this RFC has been linked on some UX or web design forum. IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This, this and this coming in within an hour of each other is a bit much. Add how this editor, identifying themselves as "James M." is followed by an extremely similar comment from this editor identifying themselves as "JD M" and yeah, we're being bombarded by a sockpuppeted or canvassed attempt to skew the discussion. --Kizor 20:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned it, from the start I thought it was strange that so many newly registered users came to an obscure page like this one to vote against an obvious improvement, and that they are making sure their voice is being heard by leaving tens of messages where there should be one. Sorry to say, but this whole RFC VOTE is a joke. 2604:CA00:168:403A:0:0:1061:E10 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Says the SPA? Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? --Kizor 20:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A bit like yourself, then? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of those "newly registered users" are only registered because they detest Vector 2022 for whatever reason and can't easily or practically change it back to Vector Vanilla otherwise. That they're finding this isn't a coincidence; they're likely coming across this while finding ways to allow unregistered users to change back. What you see as an "obvious improvement" others see as a pointless and more-difficult-to-navigate UI. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You're correct, it's bizarre. May be worth looking into. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

All I'm saying is: look no further than https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=250&offset=&target=IWantTheOldInterfaceBack&title=Special:Contributions/IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (bizzare it is, indeed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:ca00:16c:40c0::1061:198a (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Commendable whataboutery. Why are you acting as if your own user contributions are some sort of holy grail of diversity? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to the large number of new and occasional editors coming to this page I do not think that tagging individual comments / !votes with the note about few edits outside this area is helpful. I would suggest adding a notice along the following lines to the top of the page instead so that people reading the page (and obviously those closing the RfC) can see it.

People reading this RfC should be aware that there will be contributions from:

• IP address users who have not previously edited who either like or dislike Vector 2022
• People who created accounts so that they can change to Vector 2010 or customise Vector 2022
• People who have not recently been active on Wikipedia
• People who have read about the discussion elsewhere and come here to comment

Please be patient with those who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies and processes and remember to WP:Assume Good Faith.

Gusfriend (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem is all these !votes follow patterns. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There will be a natural correlation between having a new account and disliking Vector 2022, because the easiest way to suppress the change involves creating an account, whereas those who like Vector 2022 can enjoy it without logging in. Certes (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Some people in this RFC have spoken about the vast majority of unregistered readers whose opinions were allegedly not considered before rollout, those who have no platform to propely express their views. Little do IPs or new users know that they are commenting in an ivory tower insiders only RFC where they get slapped with trailer text displaying their second class status, nevermind the fact that a large chunck of IPs nowadays get reassigned within a few days. If we want this to be an insiders only RFC, put this page under semi protection instead of inviting everyone to comment and sneering at them afterwards. If this RFC has any legitimate claim about representing a broad spectrum of users, all such trailer text after comments should be removed. Otherwise why would any IPs and new users be encouraged to participate in such a toxic environment? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: No, that's not what we are doing here, and Wikipedia has specific policies against mistreating anons. We aren't indiscriminately sneering at all the IPs. What we were worrying about was an incident of WP:CANVASSING since these IPs and new accounts all talked about working as a designer and commented in a very short span of time. There was also an incident of sockpuppetry since both signed themselves as James M/JDM and an incident of attempted votestacking here is the removal of this obvious votestacking. No, we are not and will not discriminate against anon opinions. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  A ctrl+F for "has made few or no other edits" in this page gives 58 results, some for comments on 20th. Seems like someone has tagged every new user instead of doing so only to suspected socks. Socks should have their comments removed or stricken, tagging every new user and treating them as a likely sock gives the impression that they are not welcome to comment. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  The template is not for socks but for suspected canvassing, coi, votestacking, etc. I do agree that at least a quarter of these uses are unneeded. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: before I get cracking on the changes, which ones here do you think should have the tag removed? --Kizor 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Off the top of my head I can think of the tag on Ocdtrekkie and the tag on IWantTheOldInterfaceBack Aaron Liu (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed the tags for IPs and editors not associated, or suspected to be associated, with yesterday's incident. AIUI, the "has made few or no other edits" tag is a way to say "Uh, dude? WTF are you doing?", not something to apply as a matter of course to newcomers not suspected of misconduct. The page that tag links to says as much: "If [...] some editors directed you to this page [...] they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy." We have no reason to suspect most of the newcomers here of anything, and tugging them on the sleeve and questioning their motives and goals is pointless and uncivil. Not to mention WP:BITEy, when a lot of people are encouraging outside perspectives or even saying those are the only perspectives that matter.
  However, someone who's not me should review the ones I left in place, in particular the ones for opposes 141.156.130.5, 23.31.229.50, 2600:1700:2f70:ed50:cc6f:e67:289b:1968, 170.149.100.107 (though I think that tag should stay), 170.64.77.163, and Dchlr23. I'm a bit wound up, may be jumping at shadows, and I distrust my own motives since I'm in favor of support and might stand to advance my cause by leaving warnings in place. @Aaron Liu:, could I ask you to do that, please? I hate to impose further, but I don't know another editor who's as well suited for the task. You're up to speed on the issue, plus you favor oppose and we need to take particular care to be fair. --Kizor 19:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I’ll get to it today. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Removed from 141.156. I'm also unsure about 170.149, and 170.64 seems to be already removed(which was what I was about to do). Additionally I'm also unsure about Dchlr23, their comment lines up with the other SPAs but they also corrected an error in another page about an hour after the comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Kizor, @Aaron Liu: You should also check User:Fon E. Noel NFEBE who has not made any other edits except deleting some tags. Æo (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  How are we going to tag them? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: That's a fair point. The tagging was only on the suspect comments last I looked, I'll return it to that. D'you think it'd be appropriate to delete very-likely-socks' contributions outright or move them to the talk page? @Aaron Liu:, what about you? --Kizor 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for removing the WP:BITEy tags. I'm fine with outright removal of confirmed or very-likely sock comments. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Don't forget breaking the formatting of 75% of this page for seventeen minutes by mishandling a </small>, and completely forgetting about question #2 until just now! :D --Kizor 17:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If the SPA tags are now being used as direct accusations of socking, what's the procedure for deciding which accounts are socks? Is this an evidence-based process, or just guesswork? Can only CheckUsers apply the tags now, or can anyone play this game? And is it just a coincidence that the 18 remaining SPA tags are all in the Oppose section? On what grounds was it decided, for example, that User:Dchlr23 is a "very-likely-sock" but User:Delphin64 (whose contribution consists of "Strong Support per all of the above") isn't? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Tools to the right

I note differences of opinion about the changes - there always will be. However, I see no advantage in having the Tools on the right margin, but I do see a loss of presentation style in some articles (eg those wth side info panels). Wikipedia is now more difficult to read. Shipsview (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am continuing to experiment with V2022 (when I am logged out), but I continue to prefer the organisation of menus in V2010. The hidden toolbar, now partially moved to the right, and the general reorganisation of menus in V2022 (which include the ToC, transformed into a sticky menu) is quite simply a big mess. And no, I am not an old man, so the argument put forward by many opposers of the rollback that supporters are mostly oldies clinging to the past and loath to change are completely wrong and misleading.--Æo (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)