Forum:New Look

You guys probably know my habit of wanting to change the look of this wiki... that's what you get from a person like me. So... thanks to wikia's easy way of changing the theme, I happened to play around with the color of this site to come with something I thought looked pretty cool. I understand that most of you don't want to accept changes, but hey, didn't we get over complaining the removal of Monaco? (Come on guys, you know you did) I too am nervous to change the wiki's look but I am ready (for those who know me, know this is what I try to do most of the time). Anyways, here's the picture.
 * Kindly state your opinion. Remember to be nice!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:45, January 27, 2013 (UTC)



To be honest, that dark blue color seems to add charm to the wiki. I see no problem in changing the color. 16:53, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I like the look the way it is, and the dark blue might make images with white backgrounds stand out. 17:00, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the blue hue and the other colors was a nice touch, but there was some flaws as well; the transparent background made it harder to read the text due to the figures in the background, it created a sharp and colliding contrast in comparison to the infoboxes, and the texts in said infoboxes became nearly invisibleUltrasonic9000 (talk) 17:01, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sacorguy - Thank you.

Silver - Good point, but I think there's a way to fix that. I'll see... since alot of wikis don't have a white background but the images look just fine.

Ultrasonic - I can reduce the transparency and change the infoboxes to go with the theme (that's what I had in mind in the first place). I was mainly talking about the theme, and then change the details when the consensus is final. I'm basically asking - what if the entire wiki including the templates, all had this similar theme?

-58SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:09, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

I oppose, it would mess up the emotes on the chat, plus I think it looks just fine the way it is. 17:11, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

It's very nice and I would love a site like this. But I agree with Plays. White pictures would stand out, and could ruin the wiki's "cache". And all the pictures would be had to be uploaded in a PNG format. Meaning, that all the backgrounds should be removed before uploading... 17:12, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

SpyroSonic - That's a very good point. I didn't think about the chat. I'll look for a way to fix this.

Tinka - The Assassin's Creed wiki looks absolutely fine despite it's dark theme and I have uploaded a few images on there. I think that can be fixed.

--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:17, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Despite my general preference for white backgrounds, I like that example. I'm not sure about the transparency of the background, though. Obviously we'd need to fix picture thumbnails/frames and templates and things, but I think it would be interesting to try something new. -- Supermorff (talk) 18:38, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Er...no thanks, this would be too much blue for me. Too much strain on the eyes. No offense, but too much of one color can't be good for reader's eyes. 19:43, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with the proposed changes so long as the text remains legible and the issues expressed with the picture thumbnails/frames and other templates is taken care of. I also think that I'd prefer a solid background rather than a slightly transparent one, but that's just a personal preference. If the transparency can be made to work with everything else then I think I can tolerate it. Lloyd the Cat "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  21:45, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Unleashed and Spyro and oppose the propositions. The white pictures would stand out, the eye strain would be horrible, and the text would be hard to read unless color was changed to something better fitting with the changes. --The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 22:36, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the colour, but I personally dislike that shade of blue in Drones' example. It should ideally be a little lighter that that, with no transparency, so that the text is readable, it is easy on the reader's eyes, and there is no clashing contrast between images and templates. 23:17, January 27, 2013 (UTC) You can change the chat's appearance through Chat.css. This would make the blue change to the wiki ineffective on the chat. It's not about how many edits you make, its about how significant the edits you make are 23:33, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, for those who are concerned about the thumbnails and templates - it can be changed. Don't worry about those. I'll fix it when we get the final consensus.
 * For those who prefer little or no transparency - I'll show you a screenshot of your preference.
 * For those who find the blue color strainful to the eye - I don't get how you think the white background causes no strain for your eye... one of my reasons to change the color was to cause less strain because white is too bright apparently. I tried light blue but it looked even worse. I'll show you a screencap of all the shades and styles I can find. For other admins participating, they can share a photo of what they want.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:52, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it seems the thumbnails automatically change: all we have to do is change the templates, I guess.--58SlugDrones  • (Contact) 06:26, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ya know what? Why don't you implement the new look drones and then we can change things to our liking. That's what we do when we do seasonal themes. 11:26, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should try the new look out for several days. If any user dislikes a certain feature of the new look, he/she could just bring it up here and maybe it could be changed to the community's liking. Or if few users like it when it's implemented, we should revert to our "normal" theme and rework the theme or scrap it. 13:36, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll wait till others (like Supermorff, our only bureaucrat) will let me keep the theme for a couple of days. I can't just slap it in.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:15, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

With a community consensus (and agreement of another admin, I guess) you can. XP 16:17, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I can. But... well the wordmark's background layer isn't transparent. I made a transparent version however it keeps looking choppy and it looks blurry and seems 'stretched' on the chat window. Who made this wordmark? Can he make a transparent version?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:29, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he's inactive. And do you mean a transparent background? 16:31, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * The wordmark's background is white. In order to make it go with the new theme, it should be transparent so that their isn't any box behind it (the wordmark). The reason why it looks choppy when I do it is because I have to crop it out using the selection tool in Photoshop since the background and the text aren't on separate layers. I'm also used to painting, and rarely every use the lasso or selection tool, perhaps I'm not using the tool correctly... but I can't find a better way to do it.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:04, January 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Even though I'm fine with the wordark, if you have something better than the one we have now, you can share it here. I don't think we need to change the background. Its absolutely fine to me.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:21, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * Per SlugDrones (Is that what I'm supposed to call you?) The wordmark and background are fine, but I like Splash's idea for different themes on chat. I'm experimenting with chat themes on my sandbox wiki. 15:08, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Pertaining to the new look of the wiki, I'm very fond of Drones' choice with or without the transparency in the background. It has a true Sonic feel to it. I wouldn't mind if these changes are implemented now in purpose of obtaining a feedback. 16:42, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think I would prefer the background as it is, I like black on white, white text on dark brackgrounds tend to strain my eyes.  Myself  123  02:40, January 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Drones, I'm not the site's only bureaucrat anymore. Genesjs and Myself 123 are both bureaucrats too, and both of them have commented.
 * As for the Wordmark, it used to be transparent and then we did a switch for Halloween or Christmas and it never went back to being transparent. I tried to fix it and couldn't. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:17, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I missed out on alot didn't I?
 * I don't get how changing the theme of the wiki would make it lose it's transparency. Did someone change it? What color was the halloweeen theme?
 * I can cut out the wordmark and place it on a transparent layer (see the screenshot, I've done it before) but it keeps looking choppy and thus looks stretched and blurry on the chat. I can try again however.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 03:47, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Drones, that's exactly what I tried to do with the wordmark and it didn't work. I don't know why. If you can figure it out, please fix it. Also, if you've got a decent image editing program you could just use the magic wand function to select all the white areas to remove, instead of cutting it by hand.
 * Splash, it's only bright/blinding if you use a CRT. These days I'd think most people were using flat screens, so it shouldn't matter. It should only strain the eyes if the colours don't work well together, and it looked to me as though they worked really well from Drones' screenshot. -- Supermorff (talk) 09:21, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, yes I have Photoshop after all.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 06:06, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

So where are we at about a new look? 00:44, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think most people are willing to at least give it a try and see what it's like. How about a trial run? Drones? -- Supermorff (talk) 19:59, February 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * The infobox templates are barely readable with the new theme. I've been trying to change the color but I keep messing it up. I can't find the html coding for the light gray part of the infobox (I want to make it transparent) can someone help out? I can't find the time to change the templates (which takes me a while). Morff, you've made some templates in the past, perhaps you can help?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 04:38, February 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably. The infoboxes pretty much need to be remade from scratch anyway. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the coding is on one of our MediaWiki pages. -- Supermorff (talk) 15:26, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't like the new look.I think it's hard to understand plain text on the page.However,It does seem Dislexia friendly as they find it hard to understand on blank pages.My opinion is mixed! 18:21, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree on this. Because of the images, and of course, I can't understand the text well... So my opinion is both yes, and no. 00:30, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Supermorff - You're probably right but on which MediaWiki page? If you think we need to make these from scratch then I'd like to see what you can come up with (if you can make one). I'll probably make one too whenever I find a good amount of free time, for now, I'm pretty busy.

Edsta and Tinka - What is in the plain text that is so hard to read? I greatly reduced the transparency in the second screenshot and I made the blue alot dimmer. I think the look I made is more soothing to the eyes than the look we have now (I'll change the yellow links however, they look annoying) I also feel that the wiki looks more 'complete' with the color change, but that's just me. I also tend to take dark colored wikis more seriously which is why I would like the look. (once again, that's just me) (Just my opinion guys, I'm not stating facts) (Don't worry, I respect your opinion I don't mean to attack it)--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 04:33, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I hadn't noticed the second screenshot. I like it. Even the yellow links. -- Supermorff (talk) 10:46, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox coding is in MediaWiki:Common.css, in the section /* Infobox template style */ -- Supermorff (talk) 10:52, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh that's nice of you to say.
 * Thanks! I'm trying to set the color but, once again, it isn't working. I simply replaced the color of the background with transparent but no change, then I replaced it with the same shade of blue and still no change. I refreshed the pages several times too. I don't see what's wrong--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:57, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I found a better tone of blue (perhaps I'll make it darker). The wiki looks handsome in it.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 11:57, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I like this shade of blue. This new appearance makes the wiki look rather attractive! Of course there are still a few things to rectify, mainly templates such as the forumheader at the top of this page. 12:41, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

For a minute there we were in the new skin and now we're back to the old one. Why? -- Supermorff (talk) 12:49, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Since you implemented the new look i will state my pros & cons:

Pros
 * 1) The color contrast is great! A gold-ish color for links and this epic blue background looks awesome.
 * 2) The sig templates people have look even better with the new look. It almost looks like they are coming right off the page!
 * 3) I do like almost every photo has a gold border. For example, my collection of user boxes looks sweet with their gold borders.

Cons
 * 1) Templates, Templates, Templates. The navboxes, infoboxes, and manny more need to be re-done. That will take time, but we can do it.
 * 2) Our wordmark needs to be png file.
 * 3) The admin blog bubble needs a different color. I suggest Red.

Overall i like the new look. Support. 12:49, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Supermorff - Uhh, well it's not perfect and I still didn't get to change those templates (it's not working somehow). And can you send a less zoomed in version of the background please?
 * Solace and Silver - Thank you. I still need to make the color a bit dimmer. Too saturated!--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 12:56, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I've finally fixed the wordmark so it has a transparent background. Had to dig out the original version of the image to do so. Drones, I don't know what you mean by a less zoomed in version of the background. If you want to change the size of the Sonic heads, just resize the image. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:04, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I was just working on the wordmark. Thanks a bunch!
 * Actually the one on your page is a bit 'zoomed in' the Sonic heads are much larger and I think the one on the Design page is a bit too small (when I want to save it, it gives me a much smaller version). I want the size we have right now.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:10, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just resize it to 180x180. You were the one that resized it to this size in the first place. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:17, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * ...I did? Can't remember. Anyways I got it done before I read your message.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:21, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks dingier than the larger version you had up earlier. Can you fix it? -- Supermorff (talk) 13:29, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

A little better this time, but still, if you are going to use this look, please do something about the infoboxes first. Their contents becomes really hard to read.Ultrasonic9000 (talk) 13:26, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wow it actually looks fine, fine. But there are still the issues reported about infoboxes. The current look is fabulous, and the wiki is starting to look attractive. 13:32, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Now everything is dingy, including the grey background. I have no idea what's going on.
 * Drones, if you'd like help with the infoboxes and other templates, can you please post the exact hex codes of the background, text, link text, and thumbnail frames that you are intending to use. -- Supermorff (talk) 13:34, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've missed something again. When you posted your third image (the dashboard one), were you suggesting making the background darker. I prefered the shade from the second image (the thumbnails one). -- Supermorff (talk) 13:41, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I definitely missed a discussion...anyway, what I'm here to say is that I think the current Character infoboxes look ugly, to put it bluntly. They need a little more work; besides, I miss the name of the character being above the image. 21:23, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes can be changed, but the main point is to get them all consistent by transcluding from the same core template and stop using the rubbish infobox css class. That'll help with the switchover to the new skin. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:29, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: How come the new look isn't still being tested? I completely missed it. 21:35, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I love this new look! Some templates might need fixing for hyperlinks, etc though. Only problem is that the current background doesn't fit well with the theme, I'm suggest this that I found at the forum that changed SNN's logo last year 13:02, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, time for my two cents (Well, three cents, knowing me); I honestly don't like the current blue-on-blue look. It's too dark, and having the dark blue and dark red clash without borders makes the wiki look less. . . well, professional. The current look reminds me too much of wikis where two complimentary colours are put together to create "Interest" (Or in this case, just turn out to be an eyesore). The most prevelant issue I see about the new skin regards certain images like my signature *Ahem* which don't have clear elements (That rely on white). These images look popped out on the page, and out-of-place. For some reason I'm also finding it much harder to read some text on certain pages, and overall I think some tweaking needs to be done before it's perfect. I honestly think the background should be white with black text, and improvements made besides changing the colour of the background. Well, this is just my opinion, and I'm not expecting anyone to change anything because of it. -- 14:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the red to blue. The wiki looked pretty 'heavy' with those deep colors it looked like a horror of color combos. I'm still experimenting with the colors, I really wanted lime and blue but it looks less Sonic-y and unfortunately I found out that the Zelda wiki is using the same color scheme. The example picture you uploaded looks too funky and generic so I'm not going for that.
 * I'm not being a hypocrite but I might be going for black text on white. But if we do, I don't see what improvements can be made out of it.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 16:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I personally like this dark blue. Makes it feel fresh --Kenny9277 (talk) 16:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)Kenny9277

I, quite honestly, don't like the wiki's new look. For one, just like Admiral, the dark blue makes the text hard to read, and it also sort of hurts my eyes. Another thing is that I view the dark blue background mixing with the light blue Sonic background to be sort of ugly and unattractive. The dark blue background also makes the wiki look dark (obviously), whereas the white background made the wiki look bright and happy (at least in my opinion). One more problem I have with the background is that, for much of the chat's emotes, their white backgrounds are still visible, and for some reason, it makes it harder for me to tell what the emote is. Overall, I personally find the white background superior. It had a SNN-feel to it, and it never had any sort of issues that I know of.


 * I totally agree with you that the site looks rather dull and the white made it look happier. I think I made a suffocation of colors! We need more white and bright colors, right?--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:02, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like this new theme. Some text (The dark grey) is really hard to read. Especially on chat. And why are the links orange? And for everything else, per Metal. 17:16, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest a color besides yellow.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it can be like this, as long as the link color is changed at least. 18:09, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

What the cereal!? To be perfectly honest, I prefer the white instead of this new dark blue, can it change back? Pacmansonic138 (talk) 20:29, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * It'll change in a few days. Drones said that this is just a trial.


 * Good. My eyes hurt on this wiki now because of this new look. BlueSpeeder (talk) 23:23, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Tinka - Then please suggest a color besides yellow.
 * Blue - I think what you said is certainly biased. Yes, I understand that you don't like it but you saying it "hurts your eyes"? I'm not buying it. No matter what mode I put this theme on my computer and laptop this is nowhere stressful to my eyes. And I'm very sensitive to colors.--58SlugDrones • (Contact) 05:01, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Drones, I think Blue meant the templates, not the actual blue. Templates with blue and green backgrounds and gray headers are legitimately hurting my eyes, and I think this goes for the rest of the wiki. 17:26, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've had enough time to observe the wiki in its new skin, I'm starting to notice what's good and what's bad more clearly. I don't mind this blue tone overall, and I'm also fine with the link color (I can't think of anything more suitable than yellow). I'm currently more accustomed to the white background, but I'm confident that I'd get used to the blueness. Obviously, the biggest issue is the standing out of many of our templates, including Community Messages. They scream out at the viewer with brightness, and what with the yellow links, one can hardly see them over lighter colors. If we are able to modify the template colors, I wouldn't mind keeping the blue skin. If not, then I'd prefer the old look any day. 17:49, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is fine. We know the templates need to be fixed. Why not help fix them? -- Supermorff (talk) 18:32, February 12, 2013 (UTC)