Wikipedia:Historical archive/Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia

This is the petition page for the return of the Old Wikipedia. Recently, during a server upgrade, Wikipedia obtained a new look, in which it was seemingly redesigned with style more in mind than usefulness and accessability. Please note: It is possible to change back to something resembling the 'old' look by editing your 'preferences' bar. This page is for those who would like to make the old look standard. Our requests:

1. Font-size and font-family (at least for the main text) determined by the browser of the reader.
2. No distracting background.
3. A solid "printable page" option that removes navigation and possibly colliding floating things etc.
4. No features that slow down loading the page unless really necessary.
5. The wikilinks should have a permanent bar under them, so we can tell what they are. They're simply harder to see than before.
6. The tabs should all be put back where they go. Whose idea was it to put them all at the top of the page, in type too small to see?
7. The Wikipedia won two (prominent!) Internet awards looking just the way it did. What people look for in an encyclopedia are ease of reference and content. The content is, as always, good, but the ease of reference, it seems to me, has lessened somewhat with all this flashy nonsense they've added.
8. Make the preferences editor easier to use.

(Original list thought up by Kornelis, and has since been modified by Litefantastic.)

Any more requests should be posted on Wikipedia: General complaints.

Any specific questions or comments should be directed to Litefantastic

Our banner:

{{Goodolddays}}

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

Support

1. Litefantastic 18:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2. Monedula 21:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Rissa of the saiya-jin 23:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) New layout is horrible. And if the font sizes are messed up then we're violating the W3 accessibility standards.
5. -- ALargeElk | Talk 11:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) With reservations, which is why I won't be using the banner on my user page. I don't endorse points 6 (I like the tabs) or 8 (I've had no trouble with the preferences page). I'd also like to thank the designers for the work they've put in - I just think that, on this occasion, they largely got it wrong.
6. --Kornelis 17:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I think the new style is flawed, but I'm sure some peoply will like it's glossy look anyway. Could at least easy access to the standard style on the page itself be added? (more in Wikipedia talk:Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia)
7. Patcat88 23:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) I cant figure out how to use the new skin, the old one u instantly kno how to use, even on first sight, the new one takes too much time and experimentaion to learn, most newbees will give up and leave when they cant do something
8. Trilobite 09:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. Tomwalden 19:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10. --AndreyF 05:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Is there any way to get a printable version of pages under the new skin? Yes (see comment from Lexor below).
11. miernik
12. ☞spencer195 05:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. Taku. This is just my preference. I have nothing against the new look.
14. --Henrygb 00:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think the monobook default will discourage casual visitors. I tried it for four weeks and then tried to adjust it to meet my need. I failed and am happily back on Standard, except when I visit other languages. In particular the monobook font is too small and difficult to read, and the links are less obvious.
15. Chuck SMITH 00:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'm using the old computer at my parents house and I have to wait a long time for the pages to load. Also, I tend to work in six Wikipedia languages (although I work in a lot less due to the slow loading of the pages), so when I log in to each individual language, I have to wait a long time. This is really unnecessary.
16. Frazzydee 00:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC): I realize that I can change my prefs, and I have done so. However, I believe the old look definately had everything in the right place, and was much more accessible. Also, the background for the new look isn't viewable, since there is always something covering it.
17. Valmi 21:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) – the only advantage of the "new look" is it was the final argument that convinced me into signing up (to get rid of it)
18. Rafał Pocztarski 04:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
19. --Yath 16:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) -- Some below say, change your preferences. This ignores the main reason to change back to the old look: the new look gives the wrong impression to visitors. It shows that we have no regard for their preferences, and that we prefer a flashy appearance to usability. It resembles many high-profile websites, such as news sites, and replicates their sins. The sans-serif fonts and the swooshy background serve to create an initial pleasing visual effect that has nothing to do with actually reading articles, and in fact detracts from it. I realize after the voting results came out overwhelmingly in favor of leaving the default font typeface and not having little icon doohickies on links, and these things did not change, that editor opinion counts for little in these decisions, but I can at least make it clear that I'm not the cause of these flawed design elements.
20. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 06:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
21. -- Scott Burley 03:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
22. Vanderesch 23:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) When not logged in, and thus preferences not functioning, it is just unmanageable. Horrible fonts and my system just doesn't want to know about it. Colours too aren't rendered (how's that???). Please give the old wikipedia back.
23. Oliver Keenan July 2, 2005 15:23 (UTC)
24. Wereon July 7, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
25. Эйрон Кинни 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC). Printable, and clean pages are the best way to go. I think the old version would be much better than the current per the aforementioned rationale.
26. Tyler Nelson Feburary 5, 2007 08:13 CST (no dst)
27. I miss you old wiki! Ian159 (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hydroksyde 06:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Wapcaplet 19:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) I think the new look is a definite improvement over the old one. Much more professional and attractive, and far more customizable. I vote to keep monobook as the default skin.
3. RickK 04:42, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC). Set your Preferences to Standard.
4. My name is J Alexander D Atkins and I live in London, UK, but I don't have a user account yet. I like the new look. 13:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. I have reasonably often visited Wikipedia in the past. When I noticed the new layout, I became a contributor (since then I've made ~800 edits in less than 3 weeks). Coincidence? I think not. David Remahl 13:17, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Not only am I enjoying it (after initially balking, like this petition's supporters) but friends of mine hte web design field say they like it so well, they're patterning sites they're currently building on this style. I call that a success. Jwrosenzweig 19:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. You can always set your preferences to use the Standard skin if you don't like it, it only affects the default view when not logged in and in general (immediately after it was introduced, most of the comments on Talk:Main Page were pretty positive, as I recall). Also there was considerable discussion on meta and Talk:Main Page before the switch. Last comment to AndreyF: yes you can get printable pages, simply select the "Print" function in your browser, you can "print" to a file or "Print Preview" which should give you an idea about how it looks. --Lexor|Talk 12:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Changing my vote. It took me ages to get used to it but now I prefer it. Before I saw it as style over substance, but I have come to realise that a lot of effort has gone into making the XHTML and CSS validate and making sure there is a good prinatable version etc. "Set your preferences to standard" is just no good however, as this is all very well for us signed in users who can change our preferences, but what I opposed was what I saw as a poor layout which the vast majority of visitors who can't do such a thing would see. Anyway, I have changed my mind about most of this layout. I still hate the horrible box symbol that accompanies external links. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Again, preferences. WhisperToMe 05:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. I actually disliked the new look when I first saw it, but now I got kind of used to it. What's done is done. Think of all the new users that never saw the old look - for them the good old look would be the new look. --romanm (talk) 09:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
11. I like the new layout. Fuelbottle | Talk 11:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
12. The new layout is very nice, actually, although I do believe the current default style should have a way to access a printable version of the page. Vanieter 04:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
13. I think the new look is far more professional and should be used by default. Those that prefer the old can set it as a preference. –Andre (talk) 00:22, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
14. Preferences. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:32, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
15. Set your preferences to use the Standard. The new look is so much better. --mav 23:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. Most of the listed complaints are suggestions to improve the skin. The current skin isn't so broken that we need to "revert" it, to use the Wikipedia parlance. And I agree with many of the above users; the new look is a great improvement. --Slowking Man 05:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
17. I prefer professionalism than living in a shop full of brown second hand furniture and net curtains. CheeseDreams 01:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
18. While I would prefer a non-fixed font, in all other points monobook is a great improvement. -- AlexR 02:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
19. Just change your preference setting! jni 11:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20. I'm going to have to agree with these folks; I think until viewing the old page is no longer an option, you don't have much of an argument to make. --BDD
21. New mistakes that have been made with the new default look are par for the course, and an important part of the learning process. The Wikipedia is built upon the idea that changes occasionally have flaws but that we'll iterate toward correctness by changing things often. I agree with Slowking Man's comment above that the change isn't terrible enough to warrant reversion. Overall, I think the change is a positive one—whatever flaws are remaining can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I certainly think the new look gives a much better impression to new users. --Milkmandan
22. 67.167.90.83 02:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC). Change it if you want don't impose upon others.
23. B-101 19:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) - You guys have to accept change. Going back to old Wikipedia would mean trying to curve the evolution of this wonderful, wonderful website. Maybe we could combine the new/old wikis and find a compromise.
24. Jobe6 July 8, 2005 23:24 (UTC) This new look is 10 times better than the old and much easier to use.
25. Pyrosim 06:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
26. Safay 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
27. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 09:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Just feels better
28. Presentation to new visitors is important. The old look may seem a bit bland and a bit overwhelming. The new look is more userfriendly while the old look is like a black and white textbook and may make people feel uncomfortable. Also, if you do not like it, you can change it at any time using the preferences section. SandBoxer 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
29. IMHO, the old wikipedia looks, not so nice. If this skin bothers anyone then change it! Banes 08:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong oppose this looks absolutely ugly. I think we should get an even newer look to commerate the creation of the 1,000,000 article (when it happens). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Joe I 03:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)