Meta:Requests for comment/Return to old Vector as default

An editor has requested comments on the issue described below. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

Statement of the issue[edit]

On October 31st, 2023 new Vector became the default setting for meta-wiki, despite the de-facto lack of any discussion. The only announcement of such a major change was this post on Meta:Babel, which everyone missed. After it became apparent, calls to rollback the action were made but the situation was swept under the carpet as was shown in this task to implement the change phab:T349544. As nothing has been done in the last couple of months, I propose to switch back to old design based on the following reasoning.

Firstly, no formal discussion or consultation with the community of Meta was done.

Secondly, the reasoning, expressed in the announcement seems to be ill-advised and totally misses the point of meta-wiki. It focuses on "needs of the readers" to make "interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers" and refers to research done on Wikipedia. But meta-wiki is not a content project and therefore does not have any "readers" in the sense of the post. It is an internal and technical space for already established and experienced Wikimedians, who will do just fine with old design.

Thirdly, it breaks already existing content and does not allow for new ones to appear. For example, considering the role of meta-wiki as a place for the coordination of international campaigns, it includes a vast number of tables. Just look at this page in the new Vector. Ugh. It is shockingly bad. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as I am sure many more pages have this kind of look. --reNVoy (user talk) 12:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cc users who participated previous discussion and WMF staff @Base, Novem Linguae, Frostly, Billinghurst, 温厚知新, OVasileva (WMF), and SGrabarczuk (WMF): SCP-2000 02:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Support to return to old Vector--reNVoy (user talk) 12:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose vector 2022 has become the default skin on most wikis. There is no reason to deny users a globally consistent user experience. If you don't like the new skin, you can always choose another one for yourself. --Johannnes89 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monobook is the best skin and should become the default again. --MF-W 13:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the Vector 2022 has been deployed for nearly 4 months, a rollback may cause confusion for users who have already gotten used to Vector 2022. On the other hand, I agree that there are some technical issues in Vector 2022 (e.g. long table issue as mentioned above, although it is an old issue.) and it is recommended to list these issues to let WMF developers know.
Furthermore, as Renvoy mentioned "But meta-wiki is not a content project and therefore does not have any "readers" in the sense of the post.", I believe that most users in meta-wiki are logged in users who can change their skin preference. So if someone does not like the current skin, they can simply choose another one. Thanks. SCP-2000 03:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Adding on to SCP-2000 above, But meta-wiki is not a content project and therefore does not have any "readers" in the sense of the post I'd argue that all of the Wikimedians who browse and edit Meta-Wiki are also "readers"; site appearance affects everyone, including contributors and community members. Regarding It is an internal and technical space for already established and experienced Wikimedians, who will do just fine with old design, I think that (a) Meta must be welcoming to newcomer Wikimedians as well, who are just starting to contribute, but perhaps more importantly, (b), I believe that Vector 2022 provides a multitude of benefits over the old design that are applicable to both experienced and emerging community members. Best, Frostly (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johannes89 and Frostly. dwadieff ✉ 11:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly going to fail, but Support because I find the nominator's procedural arguments convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. WMF underhandedly made the "improved" Vector default on many wikis. For example on Ukrainian Wikinews and Wikiquote they have repeatedly posted the notice which they used as "discussion" to enabled the new skin after the previous one was opposed. Furthermore the notice was in English, which most of the community does not speak. On Russian Wikinews they went even further — while Russian Wikinews is one of the biggest Wikinews with vibrant community, they have purposely chosen the Embassy page, which is watched by just a couple of people and is no place for interface change discussions. Similarly it was also done here on Meta, they have used Babel to notify the community, but Babel is no place for such discussions. RfCs like this one is. We see that the engagement in this RfC is already much bigger than it is in that Babel discussion and that is for a reason. While I haven't checked, basing on this I am sure that this is also how they have managed to make it the default skin in the majority of the wikis where it now is one. Let us also not forget that the team behind the "improved" Vector is the very team that was proactively forbidding wikis to switch to Timeless as the default skin when they had community consensus to do so. While I respect individual people in the team, I am afraid that collectively what the team does goes counter Wikimedia principles of how the decisions are to be made and it reminds me the same old bad stuff with MediaViewer or how VE was enabled while it was still not production ready.
This all aside the "improved" Vector is really ill-suited when it comes to Meta. Some pages such as Special:CentralNotice are hard to deal with even with normal Vector skin (I had to make some of the top labels vertical via CSS so that it fits). In "improved" Vector it is a disaster. Having to look for administrative buttons in random locations spread across two sidebars is also not fun when you have to stop an LTA ASAP. While I keep using the "imroved" Vector on many wikis where it was enabled because while I hate it I feel an obligation to know what it looks like so that I can still be helpful during trainings for new editors, on Meta I had to switch back to the normal view almost right away as my ability to act as a CN admin, TA, Meta admin and a Steward was compromised with the "improved" skin. I see a proposal to list the issues for the WMF developers to solve, but there are already such tickets from other wikis, and WMF has demonstrated that the communities are on their own to try to solve such issues, so it does not seem like a good idea to spend time on this rather than just go back to what clearly works. --Base (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It was mainly more comfirtable. --Fenikals (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenikals: Would you like to explain why you think "It was mainly more comfortable" and are there any problems with Vector 2022? Thanks. SCP-2000 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Skin should be consistent through WM projects. Pages should not depend on skin: please point any issue, we will solve them. I don’t see any issue in the only linked page. --Pols12 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the WMF should be free to update the skin as needed to match current design norms. I loved the old Monobook, I currently use the old Vector... but they are relics of a past age. Editors should be free to continue to use them; viewers should be treated to a modern, nice looking website. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meta should be about helping users coordinate cross-wiki. Do we have metrics to judge whether the skin change made things better? If not, the status quo should prevail. Nemo 17:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF used these metrics in 2023 post deployment on English Wikipedia: Pageviews, Edit rates, Account creation, Opt-out rates etc. Perhaps we can use the same metrics (if technically available)? Also, we can judge based on arguments in this discussion. Thanks. SCP-2000 06:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support until there is formal consultation with the Meta community with its issues fixed. Sure, consistency is good with other wikis but the issues with the 2022 skin need to be resolved first. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(slight disclaimer that this may be slightly influenced by the fact that my home wiki uses the 2010 skin given how horrendous the listing editor is with the 2022 skin) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comments at japanese,sorry.
個人的には old Vector を好んでいますが、賛否は投じません。ただ、機械翻訳で読む限りになりますが、WMF としては混乱を招くから戻すつもりはないという論旨には首をかしげています。個人設定で Vector 2022 にすることも考え、いったん戻したうえで、意見などを求める選択肢もあるかと思います。--温厚知新 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English translation by DeepL:

"Personally, I prefer the old Vector, but I will not pitch in for or against it. However, as far as I read in the machine translation, I am shaking my head at the argument that WMF has no intention of reverting because it would be confusing. I think there is an option to change it back to Vector 2022 for personalization, and then ask for opinions, etc." SCP-2000 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]