# Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous
 The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at Bugzilla (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported to securitywikimedia.org or filed under the "Security" product in Bugzilla. Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. « Older discussions, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
• An RfC on the capitalization of bird names.
• An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
• A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
• A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

## Font size and style

What happened to the font? Suddenly, everything's a little bigger, as if I'd accidentally zoomed in with Internet Explorer, but the browser zoom is 100% just like normal. Page titles and section titles, including "Font size and style" here, are suddenly Times New Roman or another serif font, not the old sans serif font. I've looked at lots of pages, and it's all the same. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See the section "Changes to the default site typography coming soon" above. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Came here to complain about the same thing. Why have all article titles been replaced with a serif font? Not only is this inconsistent with the conventional online/Internet practice of all-sans-serif text (which is the convention by which Wikipedia has long adhered), this is also the EXACT OPPOSITE of standard print practice (sans serif for headlines, serif for text), and seems to have been arbitrarily imposed upon the community without any wider consensus (and don't say, "it's been in beta for a while" -- only a very, very small percentage of the wider community participated in the beta). At the least, can someone provide an example line of CSS on how to get the old article title font back? —Lowellian (reply) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Web is not the same as print, so the sans-serif headers/serif text does not necessarily apply to the web. Wikipedia also abandoned serif-only long ago; all remaining skins use sans-serif only. How about giving it 24 hours? Edokter (talk) — 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You said "all remaining skins use sans-serif only". That's not true and EXACTLY what we're complaining about: why have the titles and headings been replaced with serif text when the rest of the site uses sans-serif text? —Lowellian (reply) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Still looks OK for us dinosaurs still stuck in Monobook land...--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Add this to Special:MyPage/vector.css to bring back the old font in headings:
@media screen {
div#content h1, div#content h2, div#content #firstHeading {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
}

Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Successful beta or not, I can assure you that the decidedly unprofessional appearance of the new default skin will simply feed the nabobs who laugh about Wikipedia. Thank goodness for Monobook... - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• See [1] and [2] for more info. Matty.007 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Can't we do this the normal way, with well publicised votes which see if there's consensus? Thanks, Matty.007 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I did see the "changing typeface" notice beforehand, but I didn't think it would look like this...holy crap! this is ugly and cartoonish. Thank goodness for the .css script above.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 19:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually the .css script above didn't quite reverse everything. This script works much better. Thanks, Kephir!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• I intended that to only reverse that one thing, since that's all Lowellian asked for. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Can we get an opt-in gadget for users who want to go back to the old vector style? This would be better than having lots of forks of the proposed CSS... Helder.wiki 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Done, according to #Gadget to opt-out. Helder.wiki 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I just noticed this. It is a bit...strange. Mostly I was just wondering if my eyes were okay. I mean it's not -bad-, but...don't fix what ain't broke :P TangoFett (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
NOT easier to read. Not wide enough, to sharp, to thin, and it takes much more energy to read and concentrate. Makes it more difficult to concentrate on the text and read it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry but this looks bloody awful!, I have to agree with Hafspajen that it does seem harder to read too, I just wish we could've all been asked before the change, And Lastly Jackmcbarn is a lifesaver! :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• you were asked. You mean you didn't notice that you were asked. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is asking me now, it looks like small small thin and very vertical letters that makes your head hurt. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah If we were asked then I haden't noticed, Amended comment :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Long live monobook. For those still using it, see here for what the fuss is about! –xenotalk 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the change is causing bugs, or I have malformatted this: User:Matty.007/sandbox/Frank Gregory-Smith has "[[Dartmouth Naval College]]" in the prose not linked for whatever reason. Matty.007 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still on monobook and thus this doesn't affect me but I've noticed the change as well on other computers. Infoboxes don't look pretty good with this new font style IMO. Connormah (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That's normal. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
your CSS lacks one pair of braces:
@media screen {
div#content h1, div#content h2, div#content #firstHeading {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
}
Without those, it also affects other media such as print but won't touch the level 1 headings. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, thanks, fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can we vote to get an idea of how many want to change back fonts? (Started below.) Thanks, Matty.007 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your sandbox problem was caused by spacing, now fixed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused... everyone's complaining about the font, but the fonts are all fine for me. (Note that I was already using Arimo and Tinos as my default sans and sans-serif fonts.) For me, it's just unbearably huge... ? Cloudchased (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

### Support changing back to original font

I encourage anyone complaining to create a screenshot of what it looks like for you, put that online and report your operating system and browser. That makes it much more likely that problems get dealt with. —TheDJ (talkcontribs)

I second this. I will personally make sure any bugs with the choice of fonts get dealt with. The problem with fonts is they look different depending on your operating system, browser and what fonts are installed on your system. It's possible one of the fonts is simply not rendering how it should on your display. Please include a screenshot, your browser and your operating system and I'm confident we will discover weird edge cases that can easily be resolved. Jdlrobson (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not about 'dealing with problems and bugs', it is about whether we should just change back. Telling us to create a screenshot and report our OS and browser doesn't negate the validity of supporting a revert. And I am saying this as someone who hasn't (yet? only seen the stuff on my linux desktop) seen a single one of the issues mentioned with weird rendering and narrowness, but still disagrees with the changes. Cathfolant (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
1. As was already said, if it ain't broke.... Matty.007
2. Hear hear! Don't fix what isn't broken. Comparing them both (screenshot) I have to say the previous does look alot nicer and cleaner. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Hear hear! Don't fix what isn't broken. This is how it looks for me, see hereHafspajen (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that link doesn't actually show what you see. To show us what you see, you'll need to take a screenshot and upload the image somewhere (that somewhere can even be here). Anomie 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Man, and I hoped you would see it, some do... Well, I will explain then = much MUCH smaller letters then before. Squeezed up, 4 times as high then wide. The lines are thinner, thickness of hair. It kind of vibrates when I trying to read it... Hafspajen (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
4. I agree with the if it ain't broke, don't fix it rationale above. The new font is indeed much harder to read and more straining to the eye than the old appearance. Please reverse this change. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
5. It looks like the bold font is not loaded, and the italic font is not loaded. This causes faux-bold and faux-italics. Especially the faux-bold does not look good, see the bold "e". Also the normal "f". It creates a very busy, jagged and off-looking page. (Chrome + Windows = screenshot) Ahappylittletree (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
6. The old font was legible, simple and clean. The new one is harsh on the eyes and the spacing makes it rather difficult to read. I have had to tinker with my settings to be able to comfortably read more than a few lines at a time. If this font was used in a book (for example), there is no way it could be put on the market at nobody would be able to read it. The same standards of legibility should apply for a major website. This isn't some idiot's personal site from 1996 - this is a significant online resource and it should be presented with as much simplicity as possible. OwnBrand (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
7. Until I saw this thread, I thought someone had been playing with the font settings and screwed something up. Now it turns out this is actually by design? Wow. This needs to be reversed, quickly; it's embarrassing!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 3, 2014; 20:42 (UTC)
8. So, it's not a late April Fools joke? - why do we have to endure these things? - no doubt someone will claim it was "consulted" about - hidden away somewhere where nobody looks. Arjayay (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
9. I also thought something was wrong with my browser. It evokes the bare-HTML style of the early Web, but without the readability. What's next, frames? It looks like Citizendium with less professional titles. It's simply hideous. Not that the Foundation gives a crap what we think.... Lagrange613 21:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
10. Restore. To reiterate points that I made earlier, not only are the new titles/headings inconsistent with the conventional online/Internet practice of all-sans-serif text (which is the convention by which Wikipedia has long adhered), this is also the EXACT OPPOSITE of standard print practice (sans serif for headlines, serif for text), and seems to have been arbitrarily imposed upon the community without any wider consensus. —Lowellian (reply) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian. To address a couple points... you bring up normal standards of sans vs. serif in print or Web. There are differences between the two, as you note, but the reasoning for the serif headers is really clearly articulated in the Signpost and the extensive FAQ about the changes. On the point about wider consensus: this change was beta tested on an opt-in basis by thousands of editors. Over the last five months, we've been collecting feedback (100+ discussion threads, for instance) and substantially changed what's released today based on editor feedback across wikis. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The articulated reasoning (to make titles/headers stand out from the rest of the text) is flawed: using serif headlines over sans-serif text does make titles/headers stand out, but in a bad (clashing/discordant) way, which is why this scheme is not practiced either online (all-sans-serif text) or in print (which uses the opposite, sans-serif headlines over serif text). And the people in the beta are not equivalent to the wider community; to claim they are is to ignore selection bias. —Lowellian (reply) 20:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
11. Absolutely. Simply for consistency. A mix of serif and sans looks horrible. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
12. I had assumed that someone had screwed up the font settings accidentally and it would be fixed within the hour. When I found out it was deliberate, I immediately put Kephir's CSS fixes into my vector.css. The serif headings in particular are absolutely horrendous. (I don't care if other websites have done it before successfully—I don't like it in this specific instance with this specific choice of fonts.) And no, I was not notified of the impending change, because they didn't run one of those top-of-the-page banners like they do for policy changes. "Thousands of editors" is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of Wikipedia users. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 21:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Rotenberg Do you know the percentage of logged in users are? And the number of people who participate in the conversations before you write off 'a few thousand' ? Vibhabamba (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
13. Such changes require community consensus before imposing them.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The change has been available as a beta feature for a few months now. We've done multiple blog posts and informed mailing lists about this. Do you have ideas how else to do this? Vibhabamba (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't use beta features, I don't read the Wikimedia blogs regularly, and I don't subscribe to mailing lists. Like I said, though, I do pay attention to more "push"-style notifications, including talk page notifications and the top banner. I know that getting people notified about changes is a persistent problem; almost every sitewide change (including ones I like personally) draws a stream of "I wasn't informed!" complaints like this. What I'd really like is a less obtrusive form of notification than the top banner that still allows almost every Wikipedia user who might be interested to be notified about and participate in upcoming changes before they occur. Something like a sidebar with community news headlines, on by default but with easy opt-out for people who don't want to read it? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 22:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, just to further clarify: the reason I don't pay attention to any of the things you mentioned is that they are all opt-in. Many more people would get notified if we had a notification system that was opt-out, without being too annoying. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Aaron, thanks for the feedback. Do you think you might have tried the beta if there were notifications about new beta releases? We updated the beta feature several times, and I think many people missed that because there weren't push-style notifications related to each update. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely would have tried the beta if I was notified that a sitewide typography change was being considered, and I would probably have given (much less vitriolic!) feedback. Also, thank you Edokter for adding the opt-out gadget! « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 23:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Err, push notifications for every iteration of every beta feature would be awful, and would lead to most people opting out of or ignoring the flood of notifications that would result (e.g. banner blindness). But a push notification that this was going to be enabled by default, along with updating the beta feature to show what the change would actually look like without extra changes, would have been much more helpful. I recall this advice was given to you before this rollout, too, but was apparently ignored. Anomie 13:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
(oops, correct ping) Anomie 13:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
14. Amateurish feel; poor readability. vzaak 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
vzaak Please objectively explain poor readability. Vibhabamba (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Objectively? That's hard. Though: Arimo was updated less than a year ago with "improved hinting", so it already needed an update to improve legibility before this. Also see the screens posted (not every OS or browser renders this font without legibility problems) Ahappylittletree (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
15. Readability was certainly better with the old design. Now the text often seems somehow blurry to me and lacks the previous clarity. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
16. the wmf has to ask the community (where was ist in german wp? and than wmf writs should a shit https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Vector.css&diff=next&oldid=129188770. where is the user opt-out option? --Wetterwolke (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with that revert. I'm one who has a negative reaction to change in general (and this in particular on those wikis where I haven't been using Monobook), but I don't agree that admins should be overriding it in the site-wide CSS for everyone. Creating a gadget for people to opt out is a much better plan. Anomie 13:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
17. Really poor readability and as stated above Don't fix what isn't broken.--Jockzain (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
18. --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
19. If we want to give people more reasons to point and laugh at Wikipedia, this was a good way to add one more. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny, the only outside coverage I've seen has been positive. the wub "?!" 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
20. I'm somewhat torn... I like the changes to the titles and headers, but the body text is to thin and I am having all I can do to read it. That being said, I support reversion of this change back to what it was. If you want to release a new Vector2 skin with this other font set, that is fine and I'm sure would cause the least headaches. You can even change it to site default for all I care... — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
21. Yes, absolutely awful. On default zoom the letters are too squat and far apart, zoom in one level and the lines are practically on top of each other. Completely pointless and self-indulgent change for change's sake. Apologies for half-copied text from Talk:Main Page, which is where the vast majority of Wikipedia readers - i.e. those that don't edit - will have heard about this. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
22. Whatever the merits (?) of this new font, it is downright rude to just drop it on us without warning. That the "mob" here is angry is entirely attributable to yet another botched rollout. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "without warning"... There has been a watchlist notice for several days before this change happened, I posted on this Village Pump days before it happened, and there were two articles in the Signpost about it. Pretty much the only other things we could have done would be to either use a banner or to message all editors directly. Do you think we should have done that? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that the WMF did a better job with this rollout than with the VE rollout, so there is evidence of learning there. I think that with this project, and much more so with VE, there was a lack of interim notifications that said "Beta 2.0 of the foobar has been released. Please come try it and provide feedback." With VE, and again with the typo refresh, I tried it when it was first announced, saw that it needed a TON of work, and turned it off. As far as I remember, the next Watchlist notification (which is probably the best way to get frequent editors' attention without being obtrusive) was a few days ago. Additional interim notifications may be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
23. Please either change it back, or make this "new" setting another skin that we can choose (in addition to the previous settings), and preferably NOT the default skin. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this. Please add the old Vector as a selectable theme in preferences. I don't mind if this is the new default, but I'd just like to select the previous Vector (as Vector-old?) and not have to come up with a CSS fix that fixes every little change while making sure it doesn't have unintentional side effects (because of using !important to override changes, etc). The Son of Man (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You can switch it back for your account, using Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have the gadget enabled for now, but it doesn't revert everything and it uses Javascript. I have JS enabled most of the time, but sometimes I have it off (when coming from a site with obnoxious scripts, for example) and so I still end up being hit with the new changes. Adding a new skin that's just the same exact Vector as a few days ago shouldn't be that hard and would give everyone who doesn't like the new changes a quick, simple fix. The Son of Man (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
24. I initially liked the article font (not so much the serif font used for the titles), but after seeing how terrible bold/italics look...no. I'm changing my vote. ProtossPylon 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
25. New font sucks. Unreadable on my display. (As a rule, condensed fonts should never be used for general purpose text! If the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, "condensed" would be the "standard", and "standard" would be "expanded", don'tcha think?) Utterly dumbfounded that this could pass any sort of committee review. Not that "you" care, but the site looks amateurish as hell, now. Succinctly: it just looks like someone made a mistake. Hopefully this ridiculous change will be reverted and soon. (And privileges for making changes of this nature should be revoked for whomever is responsible, as they have demonstrated BEYOND-ABYSMAL judgement in this matter.)BlackmailedIntoRegistering (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
26. It looks horrible. (And from other users' screenshots it looks like I had it better than some, as the measures I have already taken to block self-indulgent typographical tomfoolery on the web in general prevented the fancy fonts from being used.) I have applied User:Kephir/vector.css and now it is back to normal. Thanks, Kephir!

As has been said many times above: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There was nothing wrong with the old style. This new style is far too widely spaced and is consequently harder to read. It also looks like a Peter and Jane book. My immediate thought when I first saw it was that the CSS had somehow become corrupted in loading. It does not look like an intentional change; it looks like a bug.

And it does not wash to bang on about "it was tested on thousands of editors, an insignificant percentage of the millions who use wikipedia" or "it was announced months ago in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard." It is plain from previous comments that I am far from the only one who had not the faintest notion it was going to happen. "Did you see the Signpost..." The what? I never even knew that existed until I saw the above link. Same goes for all the other "obvious" places it was announced. As I said, I initially thought it was a bug. I only found out what was going on by googling wikipedia css changes. These announcement platforms may be "obvious" to those who implement the changes but they are entirely obscure to Joe Bloggs users like me. (Some users have mentioned the "top banner"; I vaguely remember that, but only vaguely, because I blocked it a long long time ago for getting in my face and being a pain in the neck.) It is well known that users of complex systems by and large only learn about the bits they need to do whatever it is they want to do, so it should be no surprise that people treat wikipedia in this way too.

Registered users at least would be more effectively notified by sending an email, but there appears to be no option to receive such emails.

Bree's Block (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple ways of getting e-mail notifications about changes like this, such as subscribing to a WMF mailing list or the WMF blog via RSS, but I don't know of any that only include upcoming potential changes and not a lot of other noise. I can sympathize with wanting to block the top banner, since it's usually very obtrusive. That's why I was arguing for a more subtle sitewide notification system above. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 23:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
27. Change back as accessibility for those with visual problems has been lowered - the opposite of what we should be doing - also multiple fonts on the same page is not user friendly. I have used Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin) but many others will not be aware of the new option nor will non registered readers. -- Moxy (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
28. The old font was a beautiful pixel font. This makes it very sharp and easy to read. The new font, for me at least, is heavily anti-aliased, making it look out of focus. My eyes hurt when trying to read it. That's an objective criticism for you, and I don't really see how anyone can claim a heavily anti-aliased font is better than a pixel font at small font sizes. --Muzer (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
29. Please put it back to how it was. The new design is noticeably harder to read for me. 109.147.187.61 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
30. I don't like the change. Melonkelon (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
31. Different situations at different PC's. If it ain't broke, don't break it. At one it made the body very difficult to read, a narrow font. For anybody who is on the edge, this makes it unreadable.North8000 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
32. WP:BRD You were bold, we don't like it, so revert and let the discussions commence - then both sides can hold their heads up high and agree that; there was inadequate discussion, a lack of information for us to kn ow this was happening, no consultation with editors who had not taken part (14k out of several million is indeed NOT a large enough sample size), that MediaWiki is not our boss, and that it works for us - this is not an oligarchy yet (as far as I know) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
33. Text readability is diminished with a larger font, and its typeface looks less encyclopedic. Readers who have trouble reading Wikipedia can zoom their browsers in at 110% to produce the same effect instead. CR4ZE (tc) 01:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
34. Another dreadful change. Just dreadful. Is the WMF's agenda now to force people to create accounts in order to get access to legible versions of Wikipedia articles? The new body text looks to me like what happened in a library I volunteered at a few years back, when somebody set a batch of new widescreen monitors to the wrong resolution. A few years back I was lucky enough to sit in on a presentation by Stephen L. Carter about education, who said (roughly) that the typography designers have been coming up with since at least the turn of the millennium may look nice, but in the long term, both in print and on screen, has proved to be less readable and, even worse, leads to weaker long-term memory retention of the content. That's not what we should want here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
35. It's really hard to believe someone seriously thought this might be an improvement. --DAJF (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
36. The new body text font's too wide, and the Georgia used in titles looks unprofessional and is distracting. Tezero (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
37. Seriously. I spent a good five minutes twiddling with browser settings, because it did not even occur to me that someone would do this on purpose. This is the en.wikipedia village pump; can we please change the local default back to the original settings while WMF works their stuff out? VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
38. I personally don't like it, and think the old font was perfectly fine. However, it does not go without saying that I strongly believe the developers are not getting the respect they deserve from our community. I think many of the above comments are failing to assume good faith on the foundation's part. They are not doing anything along the lines of holding projects hostage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
39. Fully agree. I strongly support changing it back. It looks absolutely terrible. I actually spend quite a lot of time on Wikipedia and I had no clue this was even being considered (granted I only work on editing the site, not reading every single technical debate/idea/change/etc). It's very unpleasant to read, like physically unpleasant. And from what I can gather, there was no real endeavor at altering users to the potential change (such as a site wide notice, like when they're asking for donations) which I find a rude - best of intentions I know, but still. Coinmanj (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
40. I don't care about the actual font as much as I care about the font size. Sure, bigger font should be an option for those who want or need it. Forcing it on all of us without an opt-out other than a gadget is reprehensible behavior from any organization. The bigger font causes many problems for me; most importantly, it makes columned displays nearly impossible to read on my screen (1280x800) due to how narrow the columns must be. This is a huge issue for us users with small monitors who use Wikipedia both to read and edit. That being said, although I don't care about the font itself as much, it still seems to be completely arbitrary and now much harder to read and navigate than it was. I echo the above posters who say that this is obviously not an improvement. I see absolutely no possible way that this new font could improve browsing experience for anyone, including the print-disabled; as for the size issue, that should be an option anyways in preferences, even without this typography "refresh". Tl;dr though; change the font back to the original for readability purposes and make an option to change font size. That should please everybody, I think. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested then in the fact that fixed numbers of columns have recently been deprecated in {{reflist}}, in favor of columns based on the font size and screen space available. See that template's talk page for discussion. Anomie 13:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
41. Per my comments on mediawiki. Also I don't know how much this matters but I don't like the look of the new fonts either. Now off to toss my override code up here as well. Cathfolant (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
42. +1 Original, the new font looks like a whale's putrescent manure.--FoureychEightess (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
43. The original font/size was more compact, more attractive, more "encyclopedic" dare I say. Articles now appear larger and I believe will scare off readers. Image captions now bleed into other sections. It's just a terrible idea. Also I echo the comments above that the new font is literally painful to read. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
44. Agree with just about everything here. The new font is much harder to read. Antti29 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
45. Change it back. The letters are squeezed together and don't scan, the serifs on the titles snag; this is a painful and unpleasant reading experience. Screenshot, after installing supposed opt-out code.Neotarf (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Neotarf: What browser and operating system are you using? The body text certainly shouldn't look like that! Also possible bug here? the wub "?!" 07:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@the wub: Windows7/Firefox —Neotarf (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Neotarf: That is bad. Something else that might be helpful, if you can manage it, would be to use the instructions at mw:Typography refresh/Font choice/Test#How to inspect to let us know exactly what font is being used there. Anomie 13:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. —Neotarf (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you're getting "Liberation Sans Narrow" rather than one of the fonts actually specified, which is somewhat strange. Apparently you somehow have that installed but not regular Liberation Sans (it probably came with some other software you installed); you might try finding a full version of Liberation Sans or Arimo to try out. Anomie 11:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to report: Yes, that's exactly what happened to me: "Liberation Sans" was installed in 4 variations (bold, italic,...) , but all of them were "Narrow". 1st aid was to remove them all (did help, system fell back to Arial). 2nd help was to install the correct fonts from the source (linked to from Liberation. I assume that some software installed these narrow fonts. Among my suspects are OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Inkscape and stuff like that. --Pyrometer (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
46. Support changing it back. As a former Web designer, I saw right away why so many users are complaining. The new CSS font stack SHOULD NOT HAVE listed Helvetica ahead of Arial for sans-serif body text. Any seasoned Adobe user or Web designer knows that Adobe apps always attempt to install Adobe fonts, including Helvetica, which render with very poor hinting and kerning at any size below 20px when put through the Windows ClearType rasterizer. This issue has been widely known since the mid-1990s; I remember this was a huge problem in Web design even back in the days of Windows GDI and dial-up modems. There are many blog posts out there on this issue, such as this one. And everyone installs Adobe Reader nowadays because so many corporate, government, and nonprofit sites use Acrobat to publish reports and data. Take a look at screenshots of Adobe Helvetica 10px and 12px as shipped with Reader as rendered by Windows ClearType in Windows Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and it'll become very clear why half the Internet is screaming that Wikipedia went crazy ugly all of a sudden. Interesting how the new CSS stack looks okay in Firefox, probably because they use their own Azure rendering engine with subpixel rendering that has its own interesting way of rendering Helvetica. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1. As noted below, I stand corrected, this is HP's problem (Hewlett-Packard Helvetica version 1.3), not Adobe's. But either way, because HP has such a huge portion of the market share for printers, WP needs to adapt to the fact that HP's widely deployed version of Helvetica isn't hinted correctly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
47. Restore unless it's quickly, very quickly, fixed. ONaNcle (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
48. Restore please. The text is more difficult to read now. ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
49. Support changing it back. The new font is too big for me, so I had to scale down font size on my computer to be able to read comfortably. Hoevever, this causes problem for me when I go into edit mode where I find the text difficult to read. There should be some options about fonts, font size etc. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I have now been helped by the opt-out option though; so thanks for that. Iselilja (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
50. It seems the WMF is not willing to learn anything from all the disasters the produced within the last years (image filter, VE, ATF), they don't ask the community ether a changement is appreciated. While serifes in longer texts might be easier to read in titles they're doing the contrary, they make it harder, and having tw different fonts is ugly. Then the font is much lighter, more gray, it makes it very difficult to read for me. Obviously they forgot on people with glasses. Last but not least, as a partly Wikinewsian, I observe that much more article titles now break (titles of Wikinews articles tend to be much longer then in Wikipedia). Not good. It seems the changement wasn't a thoroughly thought-through decision. Please revert back soon. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
51. Using a serif font for headings is simply a bad idea. mc10 (t/c) 07:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
52. I support the idea to come back to the original font (as I told already on the french WP). --Berdea (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
53. My main issue is that the new font size causes layout disaster to all templates/tables (e.g. WP:RDT) which are susceptible to increased font size. If one wants larger text, they can use their browser's zoom in function which posts smaller problem to the article layout. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Chances are that they were broken for some readers anyway, since the "old font" was just "whatever font your browser is configured to use when asked to use any generic sans-serif font". Anomie 13:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
54. Please change it back. There is too much spacing on the titles/headers and it looks TERRIBLE. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.9.47 (talkcontribs)
55. I support the idea to come back to the original font. Matpib (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
56. Nice typeface (for paper version?) but hurts my eyes after 3 minutes of reading (laptop 15.6, Chrome) Lysosome (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
57. I support changing the font back. The new one looks horrible... 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
58. I support changing the font back. Cymbella (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
59. +1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
60. I support changing back. The new font is not heavy enough and I (subjectively) find it much, much harder to read. It also looks quite unprofessional in my opinion. Moreover, on science page with formulas, there's a heavy clash between the new font and the font used in the formulas. If it ain't broke... Can we just revert and then have the new style as an option? Ollivier (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
61. I guess I could get used to it, and sometimes change is good. But in this case I do find it harder to read and personally prefer the old. Robvanvee 11:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
62. This new font is an absolute eyesore and VERY hard to read, I start squinting as soon as the page loads. I'm seriously done editing on wikipedia if it stays. This is what it looks to me in Windows XP and the newest Firefox version (notice all the fs being randomly fat). --Feuerrabe (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Feuerrabe, this was also reported on mw:Talk:Typography refresh#Fat Fs, Ts and Is. Helder.wiki 14:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
63. I do not see how this change increases legibility or aesthetics of Wikipedia pages. Everything is bold now and it looks like crap (I use the Vector theme). I find this superfluous change highly disturbuing and unprofessional and would go even so far as to demand a ban from Wikipedia for life for whoever made this change. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
64. It looks really wierd for some reason (screenshot Chrome+Windows 7). I myself have bad vision, but I wear glasses so the test that was before for me was easly readable.--DJ EV (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
65. The new font is really hard to read. Anyway, editors can get away with scripts if they wish to, but what about our readers? Was there any feedback (the sort of Article feedback tool or surveys, not the kind of discussions on hidden talk pages) from ip users conducted? How can we know what the readers feel? It will be bad if they have to live with a wikipedia they don't like. If there has not been any feedback I think it is very important to conduct a survey. Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
66. Restore: This new style is worse than the old one. I didn't see any need for a change. Also serifs for headings is a big no-no. Please change it back.Destruktor5000 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Edit: Readability has also deteriorated. The lower bows of lower-case "a" in titles is so thin, it looks like a printer has run out of ink. See here: Win 7 & IE 10.Destruktor5000 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
67. I was in the middle of working on an article and all of a sudden the font changed. I thought "wow, what did I do accidentally to turn everything into such a mess?" It took me a while to realise that it was a site wide change and no accident, somebody actually thought this was a good idea. What was wrong with the way it was before? Look how ridiculous a book title as the title of an article looks now -Martyrs of Palestine - it 's like an olde tyme embroidery sampler done by an old lady in 1840. Why did they just drop this change on everyone all of a sudden without giving anyone a chance to comment?Smeat75 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
68. I haven't many contributions in this wiki but I have more 9 400 in french WP and I have SUL. Because this presentation is in WP-fr too, I can observe problems. Indeed, although the title is good, the body of article is in character who gives an impression of vagueness. --Gratus (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
69. Restore fonts: (edit conflict) (edit conflict) These Frankenfonts are so bizarre, with serif header titles joining the underline hr rule bar, or the reverse with arial headers at "*" bullets, while replies are Times New Roman or such. The peculiar fonts should be kept a user choice in each user's vector.css page. -Wikid77 13:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
70. The new typeface looks horrible and is very hard to read (see screenshot to the right). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Excerpt from the homepage of the German Wikipedia on 2014-04-04 to demonstrate problems with the new typeface (Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7)
71. Restore and have a vote before making this permanent! It looks awful (see my screenshot, Chrome, Windows 7; I have font smoothing switched off to improve performance, which makes it look especially bad, but was fine for the old layout), should have been raised before, and any problems with the old font were a problem with the generic san-serif displayed by web browsers, and should be addressed to them not patched up by us. ‑‑xensyriaT 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
72. Please restore. I'm just a random viewer of wikipedia. I do not edit, nor do I want to register on the site just so I can use gadgets and css changes to restore the font to something readable. The proposed workarounds and opt-outs to fix a blunder in design is missing the point. The body font is too narrow and the vertical lines are too closely spaced. This makes it difficult to scan. It is heavily anti-aliased which leads to a sense that the text is 'blurry'. Those are objective issues. Like many here, I thought that this was an April Fools joke because the changes are so awful that I literally thought it was a joke. That a site such as wikipedia (which I love and easily spend an hour on per day) made such a huge mistake and changed to a font that literally hurts my eyes to read boggles my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.162.220 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
73. Restore. I agree with above, I have no registered username, but please ask the community before making things permanent. I'm not exaggerating: this really hurts my eyes. I'm using Firefox on Windows 7, looks similar to the Chrome screenshot above. Let's hope it will change, I can't just add a script to every computer I use Wikipedia on... I'm not saying change it bad, but firstly ask (poll on front page even), secondly test out different fonts and lastly, better be sure consensus is the change should be done before just making it permanent.93.125.198.182 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
74. Restore. Chrome and Firefox on windows XP both render the normal "f" almost as a bold "f", and the bold "a" and "e" are difficult to read. Mitchan (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
75. Restore or rethink because of accessibility issues that don't seem to have been taken into consideration. I get an instant migraine looking at it and it would be impossible to edit or to read here with the new font. I use monobook skin so not a problem for me, but I think the issues about hurting eyes is serious and even though it's been tested (somehow my eyesight is so poor I missed the announcements!), it's possible that the outlier cases of people who are really affected weren't considered. File:Screen shot font change.jpg. Something odd going on with the letter "i" abutting adjacent letters. Victoria (tk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
76. Restore I also am getting a headache from the font appearing on Wikipedia. I've had to create that css page (didn't really know what I was doing but it seems to have worked minimally) but I am not always logged in. I can barely look at a Wikipedia page now and find myself turning my face away from the screen automatically. I've included my system info on the feedback/font page so won't include it here, just came to vote. StefanijaSili (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
77. Restore I found the older font more readable. REVUpminster (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
78. Restore The new style seems to have all sorts of problems. I use Firefox on Ubuntu 13.10, and the problems I face do not seem to be as bad as those on some operating systems/browsers. Still, while I'm impartial to the serif headings, the new body text is worse. It is now needlessly larger, taking up more space (but the sidebar was weirdly made too tiny!). The forms are elongated and wispier, so that even though the letters are larger and less text can fit onto the screen, they are harder to read! Before: http://i.imgur.com/SRhF19Y.png After: http://i.imgur.com/yr4rj67.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibara (talkcontribs) 17:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
79. Restore The new font is super hard to read. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
80. Restore There was nothing wrong with the old font. Now I find it incredibly hard to read articles following the change. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
81. Restore please. The font is now too big. I don't use a tablet. Dark Attsios (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
82. Restore The new font is barely readable across multiple system and provides a VERY amateurish look. 78.105.243.205 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
83. Restore The old font was better; we should use it. 24.46.198.55 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
84. Restore It looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/zjjDnRs.png to me (firefox, windows 7), and reading it makes my eyes hurt. Seriously, who thought 'Liberation Sans Narrow' was a good font choice? 152.23.165.193 (talk)
No one did... this is something to investigate (though I suspect you have Liberation Sans Narrow, but not the regular Liberation fonts installed). Edokter (talk) — 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
85. Support new style is ugly, and such a change was made without a Wiki-wide request for input despite it affected every single user. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
86. Restore The old font was more readable. 82.124.174.247 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
87. Restore the old font. To me, the font looks like it would be appropriate on the Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. It looks like a dictionary's font; I much prefer the old font when compared to the new one. Seattle (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
88. Support I wanted to give it a couple of days to see if I'd get used to it and to have a chance to read over some of the other arguments. Fundamentally I agree with much of what the oppose says, but I must also adhere to my preference and I am having a difficult time adjusting. Now this seems like the typical old person line, "I don't like change" but I actually find the replacement font inferior in many ways. I think if professional design help is to be sought, a superior design must be the root cause for change. That is totally a matter of opinion, but I am finding the rationale behind why it was changed to not be true at all. I fully realize nothing will come of this poll -- I suppose I wish that if such a sweeping change is to be made that the foundation should have sought overall community input. Maybe I missed the notice but if the beta testers were the only trial and feedback base for this change then it's well known that they represent a very esoteric and small group with in the community. They probably don't even makeup a good sample of the "readership" demographically. Lastly it seems some technical considerations, the strong point of the beta testers, were not investigated hence why a broader base has proven to be more important for inclusion for such an important change. Mkdwtalk 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
89. So the font looks on Windows XP!
Restore I like the font on ubuntu, but have the same problems on windows that Mitchan has mentioned.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
90. Sorry to have missed the original announcement and comment period, but the serif titles and section heads look ugly to me, and I would support changing them back. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
91. Restore the old font. I don't see any benefit to readers. Too wide field of vision required. And accessibility to people with low visual impairment may be more difficult. Franz53sda (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
92. Restore old appearance as default. I don't use Vector but on my monitor the test pages have far too much interline space and the body font is over large, which makes it harder to read articles, especially ones above a short stub. I suspect it's also making problems with image captions, though the test page I've viewed had no images. This seems to have been customised to those with vision difficulties without thoughts to the readability of the majority who don't. Perhaps this, or something similar, could be offered as a style for the visually impaired? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
93. Restore The old font was more readable. --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
94. Restore The mix of sans-serif and serif looks out of place, especially in section headings. (IDC re: page title). Gadgets and CSS hacks to undo this are not suitable, I shouldn't have to login with every browser I may read WP on to correct this item. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 busiest websites in the world, forward facing changes like this should not be buried in a software update discussion at MediaWiki.org. Agree that many other changes were for the better, but this serif font is not one of them. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
95. Restore the old way. People above are talking about how "unreadable" this is. I strongly suspect none of them have done any actual readability studies (i.e. controlled speed vs. comprehension tests). So, I'm not going to say it's unreadable. But, I will say it's ugly. A subjective comment? Sure, but that's the way I see it.
96. Restore The new fonts are way too spiky and sharp and the text in some warning boxes like {{Old IP warnings top}} looks like Comic Sans MS (screenshot). This reduces the amount of time I can edit here before eyestrain sets in. (FF 29 beta, WinXP, btw) -- 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
97. Restore  What kind of design team brings out a complex change without a fully implemented and tested way to disable the change for those of us getting eyestrain from the new style?  I've already tried the new opt-out checkbox in Preferences, but I can't see that it has any effect.  Yes, I know that I can start testing other skins.  Hey, here is an idea, how about a skin called "Vector skin" that works exactly like the old vector skin?  I've been heard to say before, the most dreaded words in the grocery store are "new and improved".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
98. Restore I just can't see what the problem with the old font really is. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
99. Restore The new typography is a disaster that makes Wikipedia look like a ransom note. Definitely need to do away with the unprofessional look of a serif font with text figures for H1 and H2, the decreased contrast (especially bad when reading off of LCDs in daylight) and the incompatibility with non-cleartype systems. For me the larger bread text also reduces readability but if there's a consensus for that aspect of the change I'd say it's tolerable, as long as it's consistently applied also to the UI elements in the left and top margin. The current subtle difference between the two makes it look as if it's a mistake. WinTakeAll💬 05:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
100. Rollback Ugh, main body text looks spindly & wispy..like a document printed in draft mode. This looks like a change that was approved by a self-selected group that all wanted change. As an non-account I've viewed the changes on a home desktop, home laptop, public library (all various windows/IE/ffox) & it looks like shit on all of 'em. 94.195.46.224 (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
101. Support Not that the old vector design was good, but this is worse. For me, and unlike the WMF, I admit that's the only way I can judge. Neither I nor the WMF have tested it on the usual run of unaffiliated readers. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
102. Restore Per Caesar. Besides, it is so ugly I do not even want to go read articles. Why was this done anyway, how about some consensus next time before making such a large change. THIS is consensus. Put it back75.73.114.111 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
103. I commented below that I liked the look of the new headers at least when browsing in Safari but in looking again the text within the articles actually hurts my eyes looking at the default text in vector. The original text though in my opinion was always too small, which is why I usually use firefox with my own font and size settings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
104. The serif heading, an the serif block quotes and huge quotation mark glyphs around blockquotes have to go. The latter violate MOS here, and it's wrong on other levels (not all types of quotations use the same level or style of quotation marks, and some already have them inside as part of the content. WMF can do whatever it wants with MW (hardcoding double-quote glyphs for blockquote is still dirt-stupid, because it wrecks non-English usage), but WP's own implementation of MW needs to undo at least these changes. There are probably other problems I haven't noticed yet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜^)≼  12:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
105. Restore. It ain't broke, don't fix it. The Serif heading font has a visible anti-aliasing issue, which I don't recall the previous Sans Serif heading font having (I've had font smoothing switched on for the entire time). In this instance, I would rather that the technical editors spent more time being less technical and more encyclopedic, particularly with regard to stub articles. I'm using FF28 on Win7HP with cleartype switched on, otherwise all default. EP111 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
106. Restore. The most immediate concern for me is that when less fits on a page at one time, it gives a most unwanted advantage to those who like to say that articles and sections are too long. Broad overview and skimming of large encyclopedic topics takes time. SMcCandlish also makes a great point that you're confusing content and presentation from the point of view of those who see the quotation marks as part of the content. Last but not least there is a process issue: the whole point of having "skins" is to allow personal choice. When you decide to radically change a skin, you should create the new skin with a new name (maybe "Vector2") and give people the chance to try it out. Then you get feedback and see if you want to take the bigger step of making Vector2 the site default. Then, after a long delay, if use of Vector falls below some threshold, you can consider discontinuing the old skin. P.S. Whatever else, please, just don't mess with my MonoBook. Wnt (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
107. Restore, please ... and quickly. A lot of our students had trouble with this on Friday. We don't have the option of going around fucking about with the prefs for hundreds of accounts and computers. You can say this change was "visible" to many users as much as you want, but you're only deluding yourselves. VE Mk2 in all but name. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
108. Restore --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
109. Restore. The font used is important for the entire readership of Wikipedia. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Given that some unregistered users have come here to talk about readability issues with the new font, I think we should change it back. (Personal reaction to the new font: nope.avi + switches to Monobook. Beginning to like it, honestly. Ah, such fond memories of using it some years ago. Don't really wanna change back, unless the old font returns.) Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
110. Restore I see other good reasons, but mine is simply that I find it jarring and not an improvement. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
111. Restore. It looks dreadful. The leading in the new quote boxes expands the text to such an extent, they start to dominate the page. Overall, it did my head in so much, I thought I was losing vision in one eye. JG66 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
112. Changing my vote to restore. I initially opposed the poll, given how I could just customize my personal CSS to restore the old look. Seeing how a rollback CSS was never planned concurrently with such bold changes, however, I have to change my vote. Whisternefet 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
113. Restore - I agree that a typography refresh is warranted, however, this particular 'refresh' was very poorly devised, and looks downright horrid. I think it is time to go back to the drawing board, and come up with something that suits the needs of the project. RGloucester 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
114. Restore - Website is completely unusable with the current font size, it's hideous. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
115. Restore – the motivations escape me (I regularly use Ctrl + + when I want to lean back and read from a distance with a USB mouse.) Supposition that people with vision issues wouldn't have found a way is borderline patronizing. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
1. That is exactly the point. The font can be fixed easily. The attitude that is behind this change cannot. Wikipedia has now become as intrusive as Google. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
116. Restore Speaking as one who has reading glasses positioned at several locations in my home I was able to read the previous font just fine. This new one, though marginally larger, is much more difficult to read. MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
117. Restore I support changing the font back, as not everyone needs to have a big font and such a mix a fonts with so many bugs, and which is more difficult to read. NemesisIII (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
118. Restore. Although I am normally one of the "Wikiluddites" that User:Jayron32 referred to below, I am not against font changes per se. However, this particular change was not done well. My own specific complaints about the new fonts are few. The font is too large and the colo(u)r is a shade too light which strains my eyes. I can solve these by shrinking the text via CTRL + but since the font size of the toolbars is relatively smaller, it then makes them a little difficult to read. My bigger issue was how the changes were tested and implemented. I am a frequent reader and contribute a bit, but because I don't read the newsletters or wherever else this change was posted, I never knew of the change until it after it had happened. Evidently other registered users had the same experience. (This does not even include the vast pool of non-registered readers who it is highly unlikely would have known.) The "you should have known" arguments are just a version of blaming the customer for a bad product. WMF, own up to this fuckup, retract the changes and give them a proper hearing with a flashy banner just like you do when you want my money. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
1. I just had a useless banner add reading "WikiConference USA will be held on May 30 - June 1, 2014." pop up. Why not use those for things that are actually important to the vast majority of readers.  AjaxSmack  03:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
119. Restore - I've stuck with monobook all these years and I'm glad I did. But I have been introduced to the new look and it's so out of sync with common sense so here I am with my comment: serif is hard on the eyes so I avoid it. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
120. Restore - I'm just a user/reader, but I use this wonderful, democratic site at least twenty times a day. My complaint is mainly with the text bodies, rather than the headings. The text is truly difficult to read. The preference code offered here is apparently to change the headings. The text is the biggest problem for me. Also, I am not a programmer and have been able to only make small edits, which is fine, but I don't know how to insert code like that offered on this page. Please, Please, all you who are skilled at editing these pages, and seem to know the politics here, get the old format back. I will ever be in your debt. Smaxam (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
121. Restore sans-serif. I think that serif headings in sans-serif text are difficult to read. — Petr Matas 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
122. Restore --Superbass (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
123. Restore body font to sans-serif (from Liberation) and change back font size to 0.80-0.84em. The new font looks childish and is very hard to read (words are too much spaced out). Piotr Jurkiewicz (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
124. Restore Because it looks dreadful and I hate it and I want the old one back zzz (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
125. Restore - I beg of you. As a former newspaper person; I feel compelled to say that this is an unsettling font. I have never liked serif and I cannot be forced to learn to like it now. This looks as if your pages broke out with prickIy spines. I agree with Rosiestep above. Serif font is hard on the eyes. Make it go away. Fylbecatulous talk 12:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
126. Restore. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Either all serif or all sans-serif, none of this in-between crap. At least give us some choice. IgnorantArmies 13:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
127. Restore. No... just no! Makes the project unbearable. Screenshot (Google Chrome, Mac OS X). — Status (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
128. Restore - The new font is harder to read and lacks visual appeal. It isn't a very polished look. Praemonitus (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
129. Restore Come on, you're better than this. Serifs on the internet? Q (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
130. Restore - The "old" fonts were absolutely perfect. Come on, Serifs in 2014? - DVdm (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
131. Restore - When this change came in I tried changing the zoom on my browser to get the size back to where is was, I personally prefer the old font as well. The biggest problem I have with the size is that it makes reading articles, checking watch lists and general editing more difficult. It means less content per screen and therefor less ability to read as much/edit as much per screen which reduces the readability and edibility of wikipedia. It should be optional how big the font is, but if that is not possible it should be smaller as a rule as users can zoom in or use magnifiers if they so choose, AFAIK there is no ability to get a shrinker for a browser but it is possible to get a magnifier. Sport and politics (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
132. Restore - I find the serif headers combined with sans serif body text very unusual, and therefore very, very distracting. -Well-restedTalk 02:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
133. Restore This new look is ugly, childish and unprofessional. Who in their right mind would use a different font for titles and text (with a good reason)? Jimp 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, maybe? The Times of India, which is one of the biggest daily papers in the world? How about The Economist and The Monitor? This isn't exactly an unusual font choice among publications that want a "serious" look while maintaining legibility. The tabloid papers that I looked at (e.g., Daily Mail), by contrast, are universally 100% sans serif. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
134. Restore - I have perfect eye vision but I can hardly read a article with the current front. Not to mention the watchlist. Frankly it is all a mess right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually think the titles/headers look much better now with a different font although I think they're a little too large it's the text within the articles which is substandard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
135. Restore font size. I don't think Wikipedia should appeal to people with an attention span of barely a paragraph or 140 characters. The larger font size requires way too much scrolling and eye movements. At least be consistent and reduce the font size of the other text on the page as well so I can use the browser's zoom functionality to get a readable appearance. 130.83.33.136 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
136. (Weak) Restore — "weak" because I realize others may have more persuasive reasons than simply aesthetics. Just from a "look and feel" perspective, I don't like it. I tried it for a few days, but it just looks kind of "wrong". I miss the old skin. And when I go to Preferences/Gadgets and select "Classic Typography Vector Skin" I see the new look for a moment before any page loads. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
137. Restore. Another user who finds the larger font sizes harder to read. At first I thought it was a mistake or my browser had zoomed in by accident but then found out it was intentional. I also had no idea of the change before it took place. At least it hasn't been done to the other skins, like MonoBook (yet). —StalwartUK 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
138. Restore the old font, please. As a person who is knowledgeable about the reading process, I can tell you that the shape of the letters in a font affect the speed with which people can read. Except for beginners, readers don't look at the individual letters in the words when reading, but instead learn to perceive whole words and even phrases by their general shape and configuration. There is considerable scientific evidence to back this up. The old font had letters that fit together smoothly in a way that facilitated whole-word recognition, allowing the eye to pass smoothly and swiftly over the text. Serif fonts are best for this on paper, but don't always render as clearly on screens. The more rounded and pleasantly shaped letters of the new font call individual attention, and in some cases the eye dwells instead on the white space between the letters, making the reading slower, and requiring more concentration to progress through the text. The title font, while stylish, is distractingly different from the body text and seems unnecessarily large. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
139. Regretful support for rolling back locally, and encouragement to the WMF to roll the fonts back to plain sans-serif for both body and headings on all wikis. I have given it a week to bed in, but it still seems like no improvement over the old typography; in fact, the mixture of some serif headings and sans-serif body and the other headings still looks ugly, and the old-style figures in headings are very much worse. It isn't broken on my system, but just look at the volume of complaints on any Wikimedia wiki—particularly non-Latin ones, and don't forget the 90-9-1 principle—and it's obvious that a lot of readers saw unacceptable results, and given the complexity of the configuration space I'm not sure there aren't more major bugs lurking. Telling people reporting breakage to uninstall font X is not a sufficient solution. (How do we plan to reach non-technical users? Are people who want the fonts installed, for whatever reason, expected to maintain two configurations and switch back and forth to browse Wikipedia? What about users who don't have administrator access on their machines?) The use of non-free fonts is also troubling: there's a significant difference between requesting a generic font but shrugging our shoulders if the client uses a non-free one, and requesting a named non-free font specificially ahead of free ones. I have difficulty squaring that with Wikipedia's mission to promote free content. I understand there are technical reasons, but this is why I suggest returning to asking for a generic sans-serif and leaving it up to the client to pick an appropriate font that a) works, b) appropriately handles languages which do not use Latin scripts, and c) will not unnecessarily encourage the use of non-free content. (The spacing and size changes I'm not concerned about: again, I can't see them as an improvement, but at least they're not harmful.) Facing the Sky (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
140. Restore - I am a user who is posting here because I cannot find any forum on this site for people like me to post opinions on the font change. First, there are a few here who are adamant that sans serif fonts are better on the Internet than serif. Why? Although the experience of reading on a screen is somewhat different than reading paper print, I don't think it's that different. Serif fonts were invented to make identifying letters easier. They've been around for centuries. The use of sans serif for text bodies is, I think, recent. And is that simply the tyranny of "cool"? Second, there are some here who rail against mobs and personal preferences. And I thought Wikipedia was a bastion of democracy. Well, mobs having personal preferences are people using this site, and what they want should count. To call us "mobs" sounds pretty undemocratic to me. There is an amazing democracy of accuracy here, unlike anything else I have ever seen. The truth will out, sooner or later, and so if we wait long enough, maybe the original font will return. However, in the meantime, I have found a Wiki page where the Idiot font seems appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane. By the way, all you sans freaks, keep in mind that this page in edit mode, and all of your programming code, is all done in Courier, which, ahem, has serifs. Smaxam (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
141. Restore. The body text font, Neue Helvetica or whatever it is, looks fine viewed with Firefox v.28, HOWEVER, it is a disaster viewed with Google Chrome v.34 (my preferred browser), and with IE v.11, all on my Win7 boxes with a Samsung, Dell, and ViewSonic monitors. The kerning (spacing between letters) of the font on Chrome and IE makes text very unpleasant to read. Especially bad is the kerning following lower case "d", "l", "r", and "t" (which appears to be none at all); most characters that follow them literally fuse with them making goofy, hard-to-read ligatures. Two charcters in the font in these two browers are in and of themselves poorly drawn: lower case "k", which is very narrow, and the lower case bold "m", which has uneven spacing between the stems. ---- I don't know the technical issues involved, but why weren't fonts that are universally compatible with all major browsers and operating systems selected? --- I could rant further, but won't because there seems to be plenty of other complaints. PLEASE RESTORE THE OLD FONTS ASAP. Choosing Wikipedia fonts that are only compatible with FireFox was an idiotic decision. Charvex (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
142. Restore. I thought I'd get used to it, but every day I miss the readability and scannability of the old typography. With the larger text I find myself scrolling much more. And with the newly introduced inconsistency between bread text and UI text, UI text becomes unreadable if I zoom out to a reasonable bread text size. And what's with the inconsistent fonts between section headings and subsection headings? Subsection headings now look more prominent than section headings. I understand there are technical ways to work around these new problems for motivated technical users who create accounts and change settings and program CSS, but what about the 99% that just want to read or scan an article? 2602:30A:C0AC:1C70:BC07:DBCD:7F40:27E (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
143. Please Restore. I was not aware of the impending font changes, there was no user notice inviting people to test the beta. The proper thing to do would have been a controlled beta test for all users, and you would have found that most people prefer the old font. Karpouzi (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

### Oppose changing back to original font

1. Oppose poll Because polls of angry mobs don't give useful statistics, and only those unhappy tend to show up on locations like this in situations like this. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - It is not angry mobs, but it is people's opinions. Shouldn't we listen to what people want to say? It is something that affects each and everyone of us, actually. Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Conditional oppose. I like the new font, but the new title font needs to go. I almost threw up in my mouth when I saw that big ugly serif font juxtaposed against everything else. ProtossPylon 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose poll per TheDJ YuviPanda (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose poll this feature went through a huge discussion process. If people weren't involved they should make sure they get more involved in future. I worry reverting this change will result in nothing ever changing in Wikipedia and a loss of faith in the beta features process, no innovation and will ruin morale of all those involved in the discussion process. Also the change from my perspective is beautiful. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I missed the discussion on our non-English Wikipedia. As of right now this font is causing me accessibility issues (I have enough trouble reading the text to stop reading and to stop editing). I love redesigns, and beauty is often a matter of taste, but this typography is causing me problems and is not too usable. Ahappylittletree (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, the beta process should try to involve more people for such a wide change. Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I work on putting content into articles and creating new articles on WP, nobody got my attention to tell me or ask my opinion of this impending change, you did not do a good job of getting that news to everybody, you should have put one of those banners that comes up across everybody's watchlist, that's the only way I see such things. I worry reverting this change will result in nothing ever changing in Wikipedia - why should things change for change's sake? a loss of faith in the beta features process I don't even know what that is, but whoever put this change through ought to have faith lost in them no innovation and will ruin morale of all those involved in the discussion process - there is nothing good about "innovation", ie messing around with things that don't need messing around with, just for itself. Apparently you are saying there is a project on WP which is devoted to thinking up "innovations" for stuff that is just fine the way it is and they will have their feelings hurt if this change is rejected. Tough. Also the change from my perspective is beautiful. the change from my perspective sucks.Smeat75 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
4. I strongly oppose reverting the changes. I'm not saying I am blindly supportive of all the changes, but the overall effect is to have a consistent font scheme, especially across different systems. This is a much better situation than the one preceding it. If people take issue with the particulars, they are free to adjust them personally via their personal vector.css pages. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose poll Too much impassioned prattle here because the questions users are addressing in this forum are too arcane for them to fully grasp. The really interesting feedback lies not in opinions users express on launch day, but in their behavior over time. Deploy, measure, improve, repeat. Agile, y'know? 76.109.141.132 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose I really think it's much nicer to read, and my non-Wikipedian friends agree with me. — Andrew Garrett • talk 22:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose It was a little weird at first (I had my font set to the quite small Calibri before) but having used the beta for a week or so it has grown on me. I do think the slightly increased size and leading is more readable once you get used to it. the wub "?!" 22:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose Beta was extensive. Lots of notice was given to roll-out. The new default does what it advertises in the way of readability. Win for the developers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose We need the site to look better and we need to start accepting more creative answers and get professional design help doing so. And in doing so, perhaps we gain more diversity in editors the process. Jooojay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose: Honestly, I prefer the new layout, and with the gadget to turn it back to the old font if you want, I see no reason to switch away from here. I know, I know, WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument, but I don't know how else to put it. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
11. I think the deployment of the new typography changes was well handled and for the better. But what I really want to say is that this poll has a problem with selection bias. Anyone who likes this change, or is indifferent, is far less likely to head to VPT and comment than anyone who dislikes the change. (That's what TheDJ is saying, I think.) — This, that and the other (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, the beta had an even more severe problem with selection bias, since the consensus it supposedly established was only informed by the small minority of users who entered the beta. By contrast, the people complaining now are from the entire community, since this change was forced onto everybody. —Lowellian (reply) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
12. I think it looks good. A minor, but attractive change. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
13. The same Wikiluddites show up anytime any change is ever made. The more I read the comments of the people who want to change this back, the more convinced I am WMF made the right decision in the first place. --Jayron32 01:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
14. Per TheDJ. This is silly. Although I hate serif fonts and think the change should be reverted, I loathe making software decisions by mob rule. ^demon[omg plz] 01:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
15. Per others. Not a good reason for mob rule. Also, I still use Monobrook because most of Vector sucks. This change isn't one of them, and I sort of which I had it by default on Monobrook. Resolute 02:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
16. I have been trying out the new fonts in beta since the Signpost article came out and discovered I am able to reduce my zoom from 125 % to 110 % so there's an obvious improvement in readability for the weak of eye. Less zoom means that more of the article fits on the page, which is good. On my set-up (Toshiba laptop running Vista) it works better in Firefox than in Chrome. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I had just the opposite experience: my font is smaller and narrower and thereby less readable. I was using Verdana, a screen font specifically designed for screen readability, and it worked great on my Firefox/Mac combination. The new font (I have been unable to identify it; I copied a section of text into Word and changed it to Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, and Arial without finding a match) is smaller, much narrower, and aliased. I suspect that some of the different results that people are reporting are due to font interactions such as mine. I have enabled the "opt-out" gadget for now, and everything is fine again. I look forward to a more refined version of this typography refresh that addresses problems such as the one I experienced. (I do like the new spacing between lines; the old mix-and-match spacing always bothered me.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That was my experience too when using Chrome. At 125% zoom the letters are clunky and horrible, and at 110% they are too small - illegible. But I got it to work in Firefox. Chrome is a better browser though for several reasons (handles scripts better, does searches better), so now that there's a gadget available for "classic Vector" I will be opting out of this change, at least for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The instructions at mw:Typography refresh/Font choice/Test#How to inspect may help you determine which font is being used. Anomie 14:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It will probably help others diagnose their font issues. I am using Liberation Sans, which I didn't know I had installed. It's pretty, but Verdana is much more suitable for screen reading, at least with my OS and browser combination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose These changes are tested on millions of users and based on sound, common typographic principles. Well-tested changes shouldn't be reversed because of a vocal minority's taste, or a knee-jerk opposition to WMF making changes. MAssaf (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose poll Nothing good ever comes from immediate polling based on knee-jerk reactions and I Don't Like It So You Shouldn't Have It. This is a good read. Spoken as a volunteer. Keegan (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose This work has been trialed for 6 months, creates consistency between desktop and mobile. The size change is very critical for non latin scripts. Vibhabamba (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose Your getting an amazing service. If you are editor there are bigger things to worry about. Let designer's do their job. Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.196.229 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 3 April 2014‎
21. Thanks for the new look. Nice for reading ! Pretty esthetic. GabrieL (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
22. Looks good and very readable! Plus: it improves the overall look and feel, since it reuses the same font as used in the Wikipedia Logotype! Good job!--86.103.213.5 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
23. Finally Wikipedia succeeded to use a font size big enough to be perfectly readable without zooming. --132.230.1.28 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
24. The call for vote on wp:fr : [[3]], it's for me unfair. Wp:fr don't have to decide for wp:en, and vice versa. --Nouill (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
25. Wy not changing sometimes if they manage to fix the last bugs ? (Nouill, French users can vote the other way too). --Salix (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
26. oppose A gadget has been created for those who do not like it to opt out. Move on , leave this issue alone and get back to building an encyclopedia. Personally, I find the new font looks better than the old font... --Mdann52talk to me! 10:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
27. This does not look horrible on my system.
Oppose changing back, typography refresh is as easy to turn off as any other feature. It has a feedback channel.
1. If you would like new features (visual editor, typography refresh) to be easier to turn off, design and propose your thing for them all.
2. If you don't like current font, please use the typography refresh beta channel, not a village pump. Do proper multi-project outreach to gather comprehensive view on your subject put constructively.
Admittedly I don't appreciate you abusing the bulk of people who don't like new features through mailing lists @DGarry (WMF): for example. Okay, many won't like. They shouldn't complain here, they can give feedback at the feature's feedback channel.
3. Admittedly I don't appreciate it being removed from the beta tab. It provides easy access to disable and share feedback.
--Gryllida (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
28. I like the new font for body text. The headings still look a little weird to me, but that will pass and I understand the rationale for using serif font there. olderwiser 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
29. Per TheDJ. Personally, I find I have to give myself some time to overcome the "Oh no, change!" reaction. For example, I recently uninstalled some fonts and installed others on my system which resulted in Gmail using a different font for me (Arimo rather than Arial). It took a while, but I've stopped being distracted by the "different" look. For the same reason, I haven't gone and changed my fonts or skin on mediawiki.org or other wikis where I've been using Vector to see how it goes after a few weeks before forming an opinion. Anomie 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
30. Oppose, both because polls like this are not the way to make software decisions and because I actually like the typography refresh. My initial reaction was "Ugh, this looks awful". But now that I've tested it for a few days, I'm actually thinking of permanently switching my skin from Monobook to Vector for the sole reason of using the updated typography. It really does make the site look a lot more readable. Note: I am WMF staff, but in my staff role I was not involved in the development of the typography refresh in any way, shape or form. Comment made solely as a volunteer. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose poll, but please get an accurate CSS revert working, as it personally looks really bad. Whisternefet 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
31. Nah leave it. Let the WMF design team fix what is broken, if anything. This project is just one project, and the WMF needs to be able to prod along design development on all projects. Otherwise, as we've seen, individual projects like en.wp have a tendency to get stuck in the ugly past because many users are change-averse. Nathan T 20:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
32. Oppose; the new changes have reasoning behind them and it seems to be sensible stuff. Personally, I don't much like it now, but I am very, very sure that I simply won't notice by next week and by May I'll look at a screenshot of the old style and wince. (This is exactly the same reaction I had to Vector over Monobook). Overly-fast negative response to change is one of our weakest points, and this seems a great example of it. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
33. Good to know that the local flash mob showed up with their pitchforks and torches. In a month, no one will notice that the fonts have changed. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Good to know that the impending change was widely circulated, with a lengthy preview period before it was made default. Oh, wait, it wasn't! Ergo we're not an angry mob, but rather people who were totally blindsided by a change. Thanks. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1. I'm confused.. is https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Typography_refresh not exactly that Robert.Labrie ? It's been available for preview and has seen much iteration over the last 6 months. I'm not sure what more could have been done. Jdlrobson (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
1. How do you even expect that one of our 30,000 visitors a minute somehow comes to know that a (possibly disastrous) font change is on way, and then at the same time knows a certain "Mediawiki" exists, and at the the same knows that there is such and such (talk) page and the same time knows some guys over there are willing to welcome their opinion? We editors can get away with scripts or preferences if we wish to, but what about our readers? Was there any feedback (the sort of Article feedback tool or surveys, not the kind of discussions on hidden talk pages) from ip users conducted? How can we know what the readers feel? How many of our readers use HD monitors, have installed opensource fonts, love Helvetica, to derive some benifit out of all this? Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 08:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree with Fauzan. A talk page at MediaWiki.org is hardly widely circulated. There are banners for donations, for wikimania, and for the wiki picnic, but you couldn't do a "Preview our new look and feel" banner? Come on. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
3. I've probably visited the mediawiki only a handful of times at best... Would I go there pre-emptively to read about an upcoming project wide change so I can get my feedback in time? The font roll out was largely first time the vast majority of editors that it affected found out about it. The feedback and testing should have been equally as broad. Mkdwtalk 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Another ridiculous over-dramatic response. I don't like the new font. I find it harder to read. I expressed my opinion. OK? I do not appreciate being labelled as part of a "mob". 86.176.213.239 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Flash mobs are organized. Every dissenter on this page, from admins to casual users, came here as individuals. I think it's disrespectful to cast off their thought-out concerns as a "mob" mentality. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
34. Per Guerillero. --Rschen7754 23:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
35. Oppose; There was a bug for Windows 7 Professional 63512 where ClearType was an issue, it looks like it's fixed now so I'd say keep on the good work. - Martín
36. The Typography Refresh is good. Don't revert. The larger font is more readable, and that's the direction of the web in general. Larger screens—larger fonts. The wider line spacing makes the text more readable as well, and it's particularly good for Wikipedia, because we have a lot of footnote references and a lot of text in non-Latin scripts which need wider lines. Headings in serif make quite a lot of sense to me as well. There are always more things to improve, but this is a step in the right direction. It's not just a matter of taste, because this was successfully tested with thousands of people as well. (Disclaimer: I also happen to be a paid developer in the WMF, and the people who implemented this change are my colleagues and friends.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
37. I Oppose changing rolling back the design changes. Design decisions are better left to designers. No committee vote in the world will ever lead to a usable design, since there is always some reluctance to get used to the new and the different. I'm sure all those uncomfortable with the new design will start liking it soon. There are a lot of things that the designers must have taken into account after a long period of testing, and an inconsiderate knee-jerk reaction could deprive us of those benefits that would soon become apparent. Give it some time. thegodofbigthings (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment I hadn't noticed any changes on firefox as I have it set with my own font but I often browse wiki on safari as I like the reader and my opinion is that the new article headers at least are an improvement and look more stylish, although I agree that the text in the articles itself looks a bit strange and blurry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
38. oppose poll We had a a test with over 10,000 participants, and who knows how many more reading and deciding not to participate. A beta link on top of every page that every editor should have noticed. A writeup in Signpost. A straw poll with only 1% the number of active participants, never mind the much larger number aware of the update, cannot and should not be allowed to roll back this exceptionally well tested and advertised update. As already noted if you don't like the update there are many things you can do depending on exactly what you dislike about it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they said it was a trial and 10,000 people would have seen the changes. Not participants or that they gave feedback. And if the statistic is true that 1% of those people "participated" in some sort of feedback you're talking about an insanely small number of people. According to Wikipedia:Statistics, in a given month there are approximately 116,835,000 visitors. I don't even know how low of a percentile that represents against the readership. The changes should have been as widely posted as the donation banner and a rapid feedback multiple choice poll with a side by side comparison been done. Mkdwtalk 19:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The trial was on an opt-in basis only, via Beta Features. 800 editors here, and more than 14,000 total, opted-in to the changes, and the number grew over the five months of the beta. As for who gave feedback: you can see for yourself at the Talk page and it's two archives that there were more than 100 threads of feedback which we've responded to, before we launched. There were also extensive discussions on the public community mailing lists for design and technical issues. We released three major different versions of the beta based on community feedback, and continue to make bug fixes since we released. As for a banner and poll: we release new software every single week on Wikimedia projects. This is one of the changes that is a default across all wikis. Running a poll beforehand is simply not feasible for every new feature or change. Wikimedia projects have hundreds of millions of readers every month, and there are more than 70,000 active editors. Asking a majority of people their opinion is not only not possible, but even if we didn't we would not get a major representative sample of readers. That doesn't mean we didn't take this change seriously, slowly, and didn't actually get any feedback from people who use the site every day. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Steven when breaking your figures down to percentage wise against daily readers, active or and semi active editors your figures represent nowhere near a consensus, of the people who opted in how many removed it after opting it, how many gave you active feedback that they liked the change, how many told the WMF that they felt it should be permanent, Did the WMF actively try to engage the 14.000 editors to get the full information on this, as you say not everyone unless directly asked posts to a talk page. The figures when broken down aren't impressive at all.Blethering Scot (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
What exactly was the purpose of forcing this change on every Wikipedia visitor on the planet? This change came as a bad surprise to almost everyone. Why was it necessary in the first place?
I do not understand how such a major change could be made without regard for how it will look on different browsers and operating systems. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Cush have you taken a look at the summary of changes and FAQ for this? It goes in a lot of detail about the problems to be solved, and why new element was selected and tested. We most certainly did not do this "without regard for how it will look on different browsers and operating systems". Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
steven (WMF) yes I have read the summary of changes and FAQ. So what about the "legible and beautiful" part? Wikipedia now looks like the very first website attempt of an amateur in the 1990s. What tests have you conducted yourself? How could you have missed the all-bold look? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
steven (WMF) the user has posted their concerns on the talk page the day before your suggestion. perhaps you should review that page yourself. :) 184.8.105.175 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
39. Oppose Everything should be switched by default to serif fonts. Sans-serif fonts fail to distinguish between "l", "1", "|", "I" properly. If we can't determine what page we're on by reading the title, what's the point? -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be a horrible idea. Serif fonts don't have a reputation for being slick/readable: I find it much harder to read them, to be honest. Cloudchased (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Use Trebuchet MS or Ubuntu font. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
40. I preferred the Arimo font at a smaller size (I was already using as my browser's default font), but I guess I'm still fine with this. Cloudchased (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

### Discussion

I have been using this typography since it started being tested in beta and I have come to like it. My eyesight is not so good and I find it helps. Of course, it should not be aimed specifically for people like me but it is an aspect worth considering. I personally did not favour removing numbers from the sections in the table of contents (and I fed back on this) but I am still seeing numbers here so maybe that change was reverted. So, for me, I appreciate the change. Thincat (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, "people like you" (and soon me too, maybe) were part of the reason, apparently, so that's a very valid comment. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are obviously significant differences in perception or in the rendering between different systems because my eyesight is also not great and I find the new font harder to read, not easier. 109.147.187.61 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The new font is MUCH HARDER TO READ and causes eyestrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.56.198 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Matty.007... I just wanted to address two things:

1. Regarding bugs, it is not possible for the font change to cause links to break. The code changes do not touch link behavior or styles at all. The link you mention in your draft seems to be working for me?
2. Have you checked out the Signpost piece about this? This change happened not just on English Wikipedia, but all versions of Wikipedia and other projects. It's been tested for five months, by more than 10,000 people here on this wiki alone. We had more than 100 discussion threads gathering feedback from the community across all wikis.

I think that when you take the great deal of discussion and iteration in to account, it feels a little hasty and contradicting WP:POLL to hold a straight-up vote when there was a long process based around consensus-building and testing by editors. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• But did you specifically test the most common scenario of all that I hinted at above? Specifically, a standard Windows system without any of the open-source craziness, but with Microsoft Office, Adobe Reader, and Internet Explorer installed. The vast majority of billions of barely computer-literate users out there still won't touch OpenOffice or LibreOffice with a ten-foot pole, and in the corporate world, most systems are rigorously locked down with Access Control Policies by understaffed, overworked IT departments who can barely keep MS Office running as is. Which means, if you specify Arimo, Liberation Sans, and Helvetica Neue, there is no way that more than a few percent of the WP user base is actually going to see those fonts. And then if you specify Helvetica before Arial on a Windows system running Adobe Reader (and keep in mind 75% of the computers out there run Windows), then Adobe Helvetica is what the vast majority of the WP user base is going to see by default, which looks absolutely hideous on Windows systems at less than 20 point, with or without ClearType turned on. That's a classic error and something most experienced Web designers learned to avoid back in the late 1990s, back when Acrobat was first taking off. There are screenshots all over the Web demonstrating how horrible Helvetica renders on most Windows systems at 10 or 12 point. I've added a screen capture to the right to illustrate the problem; if you had stress-tested the new CSS font stack from any FedEx Office or low-end public library system, the error should have been obvious. This whole debacle reminds me of my third favorite Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies. Specifically, James Bond's words to Elliot Carver at the climax: "You forgot the first rule of mass media, Elliot! Give the people what they want!" --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• There are some mistaken assumptions I need to correct. 1) Adobe Reader hasn't come with a Helvetica (or substitute) for over 15 years now. If you see Helvetica on a stock Windows system, then something/someone else installed a bad Helvetica copy. It is safe to asume Windows does not have Helvetica, and is mapped to Arial. Helvetica is in the font stack to target Apple systems. 2) Default Windows installation since Vista have font smoothing enabled by default, just like ohter OSes, so i think we may asume that has become the default. Asuming there are no 'funky' fonts installed, the new font stack should show Arial. Those that do have Arimo/Liberation fonts (usually by way of OpenOffice), should see those fonts nicely rendered which font smoothing. Only with font smoothing disabled will you see problems, as non-Microsoft fonts are not optimized for display without smoothing. It is hardly worth the trouble optimizing fonts for pixel displays because they are rarely used anymore. Only the older MS fonts are optimized for that; their ClearType collection fonts (Calibri etc.) do not render well on pixel displays either. Edokter (talk) — 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Hi Edokter. Turning off font smoothing is an accessibility feature. Some people have trouble reading smoothed fonts, some people get headaches. People don't use this feature so they can have ugly fonts and something to complain about. It's there to disable for a reason.
2. If you want to target Mac, you can use Helvetica Neue. Computers with Helvetica Neue will generally have Helvetica. PC's with Helvetica (for use in Photoshop print) will usually not have Helvetica Neue. Windows support for rendering Helvetica is atrocious. Helvetica does NOT make any sense to keep in the font stack.
3. I have font smoothing turned ON. OpenOffice installed a version of Arimo. I see really crappy fonts.
4. Those with Libertine installed see really really crappy fonts, and unreadable fonts with smoothing turned off.
5. On the matter of: It takes some getting used to... If you read Wikipedia now for a long time and then read an Arial site, your eyes almost go cross-eyed: It's contagious! (Which leads me to believe there is a cognitive issue here too: I trained some neurons to scan Arial text for 15 years reading the web, these neurons are now crying faul) Ahappylittletree (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Well, I stand corrected. Turns out it's not Adobe's fault, it's Hewlett-Packard's fault. I just manually traced this and it turns out the copy of Helvetica that's rendering locally is from the Hewlett-Packard screen font version of Helvetica, which is automatically installed by many (but not all) Hewlett-Packard printer drivers. (That would explain why this issue has been recurring for almost 20 years on a variety of Windows systems of all shapes and sizes, since Hewlett-Packard has the dominant market share for printers on the West Coast of the U.S., as in most areas of the world.) It's Hewlett-Packard Helvetica version 1.3, copyright 1992-1997. That version dates back to the dawn of the modern subpixel rendering age, which explains why the font hinting is so terrible. But the fact is that the Wikimedia Foundation has to adjust to what the majority of users have, which is HP printers and HP drivers, not the other way around. Telling people to change printers is not going to cut it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• And I almost forgot to add the most important point of all; WP is a nonprofit site competing for users' limited funds and attention, which means you need to always keep in mind what keeps readers happy on the largest percentage of systems. If WP stays with a stylesheet that is unreadable on about 65% of the systems out there (and most users are passive users who are too damn busy to figure out how to set up a WP account and customize WP's appearance), the Wikimedia Foundation can kiss its audience and donations goodbye. Which means EVERY major design change should be deliberately stress-tested on the most common plain vanilla, last-generation computer configurations out there (which I acknowledge is a pain in the neck). Beta testers aren't much help because most of them by definition live on the bleeding edge of technology. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not one to complain about what goes on in changing the appearance of the site, and doing so most undoubtedly makes developers' jobs more stressful. But, I feel I must say I dislike the new font. It simply doesn't appear as clean. Now, I won't ask for it to be reverted simply because I don't like it. It would be nice, however, to have a gadget in "Preferences" to go back to the old font. That's just my two cents. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How many editors had opted into the "Typography Refresh"? Presumably they were happy with the new font. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

According to StevenW, 14000 editors total across the wikis. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. More than 14,000 last I checked, most of which (~8,000) were here on English Wikipedia. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Would a preference not be a possibility, not everyone has the same eyes and some text fonts impair/hurt more than others. For instance i find the new font to be worse for my eyesight than the original. Forcing one over an other isn't the best idea or practice in reality.Blethering Scot 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have an issue - I added the vector code to get the old font, but in the edit interface, I have some alternate font; is there a way to get the old editing window font too? Go Phightins! 21:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. The preferences related to the editing interface should not be changed at all. Can you hard refresh to clear your cache, and maybe share a screenshot with me? I will try to help debug. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it - it had something to do with the override also reverting the interface font. Thanks. Go Phightins! 00:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• So Steven, about 8,000 editors on this wiki opted-in to try it, out of 21,211,490. That's roughly what, 0.038% of this wiki's users? Since you said it's been being tested for almost five months, I'm less inclined to base those stats on users active in the last month, but even if we do, 8,000 out of 130,378 (6.136%) isn't really that spectacular of a number either... — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
From what i can tell, those 14k and 8k numbers are actually counting the people who tried beta. But the way i read the question, it asked about how many of the users who were exposed to the change (being in the beta) gave specific feedback that they like it (or at least kept the new fonts enabled, in case no such feedback was collected)? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not only about webdesign, it is also about how the WMF treats Wikipedia users. We were not asked beforehand whether we would approve a different typography at all. It was tested in Beta status which means that the vast majority of users did not even learn about the changes coming up. I tried it out and switched beta typography off immediately because the TOC was completely unusable. The WMF will not succeed in imposing changes of this magnitude without a prior community consensus. We've been here when you tried to force users to work with the visual editor only, and failed. I suggest you switch back the serif headings to sans, and leave the rest as is now. Please think again. Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the redesign rationale, and the screenshots there (coupled with the use of Helvetica as a fallback, which renders horribly on Windows) lead me to believe this redesign was done on a Mac or Linux. Chrome + Windows show all sorts of typography errors like faux bolding, different spacing, poor hinting, poor anti-aliasing and references hugging image-borders above them. See: Screenshot. Where can I contribute to get this fixed? The old situation on Linux + Firefox looks poor indeed, but could easily be handled by putting "nimbus sans l" in front of "arial". The same with "helvetica neue" for Mac. Ahappylittletree (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ahappylittletree. The FAQ lists all the browsers and operating system combinations we tested this on. We did test the change on laptops with Windows and Chrome. Our developers do tend to either use Linux or OS X, but we always test on Windows since they're obviously very predominant among all Wikipedia users. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Steven Walling. I found the problem that is causing the font weirdness. To reproduce: Install Arimo 400. Do not install Arimo 700 (bold) or Arimo italics. This will cause the body text to render in Arimo and uses faux-bold or faux-italics for the rest. I don't see a cheap fix for this. My use case may be rare, but it is what it is, and really hampers legibility. Thanks, Ahappylittletree (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Steven Walling (WMF) Another unforeseen problem is users who installed Arimo before the "improved hinting"-update from May 2013. Windows 7 (standard no font-smoothing) may show these users something like this: Arimo beta on Windows 7 with smoothing off (BTW: Segoe may be a far better fallback than Helvetica, one being optimized for web, the other a print font that fares really badly on Windows) Ahappylittletree (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Two condions must be met for that to happen: 1) user must have turned off font-smoothing/ClearType, which is enabled by default since Vista, and 2) user must explicitly install Arimo, which is an exceptional situation in itself. Usually, people that do install fonts like Arimo know what they are doing and know how to make it display properly. Edokter (talk) — 00:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
1) Yes, I once turned it off (it is a valid configuration option, though I don't know exact stats). I also still use the classic accessibility theme. Should I change my settings so I can read Wikipedia again? 2) Arimo is not loaded from Google Webfonts right? So if installing Arimo is an exceptional situation, why even include it? To install all variants of Arimo or to install only a single variant shouldn't be so different (the latter causing problems). Installing a font is easy. Figuring out why Wikipedia won't display readable text almost a year later is a bit more difficult. Forcing me to install all variants, uninstall Arimo 400, or add a stylesheet to my user preferences, so I will see legible text only when I am logged in, is... not user-friendly. Once again, appreciate all the work, but also once again: I am not creating edge cases just to be a pain. This happened to be my use case. Ahappylittletree (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I never explicitly installed Arimo 400. Arimo 400 (and only Arimo 400, no other variant) is installed by OpenOffice. So this may not be a rare use case at all. Ahappylittletree (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have OpenOffice, you also have all variants of Liberation Sans, which are actually another version of Arimo. So if you have Liberation Sans, you can safely disable or remove Arimo. It may still render not so well, but free fonts were never designed with no-font-smoothing in mind. Only MS fonts (to their credit) have decent display quality without font-smooting, because they were specifically designed and hinted for grid-pixel displays. Edokter (talk) — 01:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
We can perhaps continue this convo at my talk page? Wikipedia says: After 3.4 the GPL-licensed Liberation fonts were removed and replaced by the Apache-licensed ChromeOS fonts Arimo (sans serif), Tinos (serif) and Cousine (monospace). OpenOffice will also use the default fonts of the running operating system.. I really think that a fresh Windows 7 install with the latest OpenOffice will cause the exact problems I show in my screenshots. No manual installing fonts. No turning of Cleartype/font smoothing. [4] [5] Ahappylittletree (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ahappylittletree Thanks for more info, sorry for the delay in response. You're not the only user reporting this issue. I think we're going to remove Arimo and Liberation Sans from the stack. If you get a chance, can you visit our test wiki at en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org and tell me if you also get the same issue? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Steven (WMF)! Thank you for listening. The test wiki did show me Arimo still, but if I remove it from the stack with developer tools, the problem indeed goes away entirely. Thank you. Another screenshot to help you fix issues (it shows different zoom levels 90%, 100% and 110% in Chrome, Win7 Arimo installed all variants, font smoothing on.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahappylittletree (talkcontribs) 02:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not even going to vote on this, because polling is not a substitute for discussion. Believing a simple vote outweighs the months of research, testing, and discussion, is simply absurd and not helpful in any way. ♠ SG →Talk 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please update the override CSS to take into account the margin and padding values that were changed? It looks really... unpleasant on my end. Whisternefet 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Many people are automatically resistant to change in all its forms. I don't have a particular problem with this change, except that only page header and section header fonts seem to have been changed. Sub-sections still use the sans-serif font, which looks more than a little odd. I would have thought it would not be at all beyond the technical capabilities of the coders to have enabled a simple toggle in user preferences for serif/sans-serif in headings and/or indeed body text. Perhaps that could be considered as a future enhancement? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That would probably have to be me (or a mediawiki admin) - could you point me to where these margin and padding values are? I'm sorry it's looking unpleasant but I don't know anything about the values or where to find them so I can't fix them, especially since I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing - things look ok to me. Maybe it got changed back? Cathfolant (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's mostly the header margins and paddings that are looking off for me. h2 used to have 1.6 margin-bottom, now its 1.3, making it too tight with the body text and references when I import your CSS. #bodyContent should be 0.8em, not 0.875em. Also, making sans-serif universal overrides the user setting for edit areas. It's all nitpicks from there on out, though. Hopefully you can restore everything by looking at the variables here, as suggested. Otherwise, I'm switching to Monobook. Whisternefet 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am a Opera user and it seems that the new appearance is not the same in Opera than with other browsers. Whereas in Firefox letters are tight, with Opera they are as round as the former fonts, but a bit bigger it seems. Moreover, whereas some headlines in Firefox tend to overlap (Main Page of French Wikipedia for instance), everything is fine in Opera. I don't know if this is worthy of note but anyway... Regards, Oie blanche (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are using Windows and happen to have fonts from the Liberation family installed, the pages are going to look awful. I suggest you remove the Liberation fonts and you'll be left with the usual Arial text, just a tad larger than before. I think it looks good enough. Took me a while to figure that out! The CSS style sheets are a bit hard to read. 151.24.96.16 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Valerio, user.

Given that the above vote is unlikely to bring the WMF to change anything, I still think it useful to see what the people this affects think about the change. Thanks, Matty.007 09:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already registered my discontent with this but in the constructive spirit of Wikipedia, I thought it was best for you to see for yourselves what my problem is. I am using Firefox and Windows 7. http://s22.postimg.org/u15674mz5/Hideous_Font1.png Incidentally, the screenshot looks smaller than actual size and actually looks a bit more balanced than the 'real' view on my screen but I still think it's very ugly and difficult to read. OwnBrand (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the developers all amnesiacs that they cannot remember the wars that break out every single time they change the default way that established users see and use WP? Give the noobs the "new improved better faster cooler" stuff and stop pissing off the hard core of established editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I use the Cologne Blue skin. It looks far better than either the "before" or "after" version of things that everybody is all huffy about. If you don't like the look, just turn it off! Carrite (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• As noted by Hafspajen, the Catalan wikipedia reverted to the old font. Thanks, Matty.007 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• People with technical knowledge: is this feasable to implement? Thanks, Matty.007 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• So they didn't entirely revert to the old version, they simply removed Liberation Sans. That font in particular seems to be causing bugs. Matty.007 when you visit Catalan Wikipedia, does it look okay to you? I'm concerned that that font in particular may be causing problems for Windows XP and Windows 7 users. We may remove it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk
• Looks fine to me. Thanks, Matty.007 14:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I am not sure about the typeface change, maybe bad, maybe good, only giving it a try will tell. But I am almost sure that turning the font colour into grey is a very bad idea. I have not checked the CSS, but it is #252525 (RGB) on a screen-shot I did just now. It is notoriously harder to read to me (Opera 12.16, Linux some.thing). - Nabla (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If my non-opted out screen was as the image in this 'discussion' section, I would not have a problem and would not vote for a reversion. But it is not. It is not nearly that readable. It is obvious from the feedback page that there are several technical issues. If it were possible for me to read the font, there would be no issue - the change was made for a inclusive technical reason. The implementation of that change, however, seems to be wreaking havoc on the various systems. At the very least can someone responsible for the changes create a page where users can be directed to try different things to make their font readable again? The worst thing that could be done would be to ignore the fact that there are technical issues. It isn't just a 'preference' in many cases that I can see, it is a browser(or whatever)/wikipedia script glitch that is creating several different problems across the various browsers. I would even be happy if my font appeared as the Hideous_Font picture above. It just isn't that good. Hoping someone will help the various, mystified users (including readers). StefanijaSili (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like change."

There is a good and bad change. I am okay with the good, but this new font, Arimo, is good or bad for some people. Freedom of fonts are the core of Wiki, a bad font may hurt the reader.

Wikipedia is global, not only English but for all languages. People (anon and registered users) must have the right to choose the fonts of their choice -- Arimo, sans-serif, serif, or etc. Please respect their choice.

Freedom is righteousness.

Poll:
91 original
33 new--FoureychEightess (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This change was hardly “small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements”! I don’t mind the change to a serif font for the level 1 and 2 headings, but I don't care for the increased body text size (and has the leading been increased as well?), and the lighter overall “colour” (weight) of the text reduces overall contrast that makes it just that much more of a strain to read. Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
(For what it's worth, I did review the “proposed” changes and tried to comment on 10 January,‎ but Edokter deleted my edit.)

Useddenim - Diff please. I do not appriciate being confronted with baseless acusations. Edokter (talk) — 15:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Restore, please ... and quickly. A lot of our students had trouble with this on Friday. We don't have the option of going around fucking about with the prefs for hundreds of accounts and computers. You can say this change was "visible" to many users as much as you want, but you're only deluding yourselves. VE Mk2 in all but name. Black Kite (talk) "

Totally true, they are delusional and not respect the freedom of other humans.

Please add an option for all people, anon and registered, to change the font to their favorite. Not just 1 font, but for headers and etc.

Poll: 109 original / 39 new.--FoureychEightess (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, many IPs are commenting at Wikipedia:User experience feedback/font size. Thanks, Matty.007 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And plenty more are writing in to OTRS as well  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The best thing would be to revert the change, let the community discuss the change and make meaningful technical suggestions that do not force the new obtrusive style on readers. And give an extensive ban to whoever made such an unnecessary change that has so much unwanted impact in all Wikipedias on the planet. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion"

Polling and discussion are substitutions for only polling or only discussion... alone. Keep both and for every vote you do, discuss right next near the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoureychEightess (talkcontribs) 20:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Was there any feedback and intimation (the sort of Article feedback tool or surveys, not the kind of discussions on hidden talk pages on media wiki) from ip users conducted? How can we know what the majority of readers feel?
2. What was done, knowing that logged out readers don't have a Beta or Preferences tab?
3. What was done to ensure that users don't get headaches or eye strains as reported by many above?
4. Most readers use Win XP, with standard Arial font. What was done to ensure these users who dont have high definition displays, don't know about opensource fonts, whose computers don't support Helvetica or opensource (madness?) don't feel the problems of (old?) technology?
5. Here, it is stated that Wikipedia states: "This haphazard set of defaults created a lot of readability issues that have not been consistently addressed, until now." I think the situation is completely reverse. Also, "It starts to point to [the question], why aren't there open-source typefaces with ubiquitous language support?" What do our readers care about opensource? All they wan't is a wikipedia they can legibly read.
6. What action and when will be taken on this issue?
Thanks -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
7.  Considering that 80% of above are in favour of reverting, don't you think that the beta processes need to involve more people, and logged out readers, specially for such wide changes? -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

#### Break

Victoriaearle, do you mean a notification like this (see talk)? Helder.wiki 11:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would have been helpful. I see it was added on April 2, but says it will display until 9 February? Adding on April 2 didn't really give much time for discussion for a change that went live the next day. Unless I'm completely missing something. Regardless, the accessibility issues imo should be looked into. Thanks btw for the link. Victoria (tk) 12:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

### Future

¿Is this the future Wikipedia's screenshot —page 3—? If it is so, maybe the change of the typography is not a big deal... I mean, in comparation. Greetings from esWiki. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And commons:Commons talk:Multimedia Features/Vision 2016 is the place to talk about multimedia. Nthep (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Pissing crikey! "Meet Kim"? I would rather meet the sharp edge of a giant machete than corrode my eyeballs on that muck. Seriously, I thought Wikipedia was one of the last bastions of sanity, reason and information in a digital world that is becoming increasingly narcissistic and obsessed with the illusion of interactivity (i.e. to conceal the creeping anti-democratic impulses in western culture) but if that is the future of the internet, I will be returning to pen and paper. OwnBrand (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I only looked through part of that pdf but the very clear impression I get from it is that it is describing some form of social networking/easy-file-sharing etc type website. Not wikipedia. I already dislike the thanks feature and have hidden the thanks links in my common.css, as I believe that if you really want to thank someone for something, you should just go to their talk page and post a message maybe even saying why you're thanking them rather than just a vague 'thank you for your edit'. (In fact, there is a rather unflattering article on illogicopedia with that very title, though it's talking about a different extension.) Having nice little buttons to click and do things easily is a convenience and can be useful, and I realise that many of us dislike change simply because it is change, but I think there is a point when conveniences become so convenient they are rendered mindless. Cathfolant (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

### FYI: Edit-war between German community and WMF on Typography refresh

Regardless or whether or not this is a good, bad, or ugly change, this is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI: Font refresh has been deactivated on German Wikipedia. Most users had complained about it and said they didn't like it.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI2: WMF seeks a conflict with the German community. Steven Walling has reverted the deactivation of typography refresh. This is outrageous. I ask you to refrain from such action and to apologise to the German community. WMF has no right to change the typography of our project without seeking prior consensus.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Aschmidt, not sure why'd you bring up German Wikipedia stuff on English Wikipedia? Anyway, I left DaB. (the admin involved) a note about it and said I was not interested in edit warring. Reverting someone's bold change once is not an edit war. It's a part of the normal BRD cycle. I asked DaB. to talk about it more and give people (including readers) a chance to try the changes for at least a few days. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually its fairly enlightening that the WMF has to edit war to keep their poorly thought out product back in production. This reminds me of the VE disaster all over again. The WMF rolls out something that the local communities dont want, they ask for a reversal, the WMF says screw you, your having it if you want it or not, and eventually the community decides to make an end run and disable it via local css or js. Werieth (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really view them as the same. Local Vector CSS was made just for the purpose we're discussing: local overrides. I fully expect that some communities will tweak or change the styles over time. All I asked DaB. was to give it a chance, since we spent a lot of time trying to gather feedback and test it first. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
im sorry but you are lying, you revertet DaB, a revert is not a question.--Wetterwolke (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Steven, I bring this up here because this is where it belongs. I again ask you to refrain from such action. It is impolite, and you are not eligible to act like this on German Wikipedia. So would you please self-revert and apologise to German users?--Aschmidt (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Steven - Ermmm, not sure bringing up BRD helps your argument - the WMF made a bold change to the type face, DaB. reverted and so then it should have been discussed. What you've done is effectively BRRD. Now I think your argument of letting it run a few days probably has merit but relying on BRD to make your argument does not seem a good idea. Dpmuk (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I appreciate that the WMF really does seem to have made a proper attempt to get community input on this. I seem to have missed the notice about the testing so communication can possibly still get better (or I may have just been blind) but it does seem like you got comments from a good number of people. Hence while, from what I can see (I normally use monobook), I consider it a bad idea I think implementing it was quite reasonable. Dpmuk (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I think the recent update was not really very bold. We took five months to test it, providing it on an opt-in basis to gather feedback from the ~14,000 people who opted to try the change. The change was made very after a lot of input from users across wikis and has changed a lot over time. We also have tried this out first with mobile readers, who represent about 20% of our pageviews every month. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI: This is in the middle of the night European time, so you won't get much of a reaction until tomorrow. I'd like to add, however, that the WMF is about to lose its face. Again. And this makes me sad because we have already wasted our time and our energy on many conflicts like these over the past few years instead of working together on our common goals. Very sad to see that happen again. So, good night to San Francisco. We have a problem.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This is reprehensible! It is bad enough that this has happened on the English Wikipedia but abusing the power of the English language website to make enormous changes on other languages' sites is truly disgusting. Although I am only a very small part of this website, I would like to apologise on the behalf of all English speaking people for our arrogance. This disgusts me too and I am sure you have the solidarity of many of our Anglophone editors. Additionally, as you can see from this page, there is far from a consensus on the use of this typeface on the English language Wikipedia and I very much doubt we have heard the end of this. If democracy has any value any more, I expect these changes to be quietly forgotten by those who run the website. Regards, OwnBrand (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi OwnBrand. The "power of the English language website" doesn't really factor in. I can edit site CSS/JS globally as a member of Wikimedia Foundation technical staff. It is not related to local English Wikipedia elected admins. Local admin rights here do not extend to any other wikis, and permissions like that are separate for much the same reasons you talk about. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Steven Walling (or any other WMF activist), please refrain from making any changes to the look of the German Wikipedia in advance of having got a consenus of the German Wikipedia community. The way of seeking a consensus is described in de:WP:Meinungsbilder, I am sure there are people in the WMF capable to translate it. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Stop it! All of you! I'm from German Wikipedia, I dislike most of Typography refreshs features but I totally agree with what Steven Walling did. DaB' changes to vector.css were a stupid solo action without any consent. Modifying global vector.css to "fix" things to one's personal likings is a no-go!
There was plenty of discussion going on regarding typography refresh and everybody who cares had the possibility to at least voice his/her opinion. Most people that are complaining now didn't care. So for now accept the changes, look at them neutrally, decide what you might learn to like and what you will never be able to live with and discuss in a friendly manner. Anyway this is about the German Wikipedia, so it has no place here on English Wikipedia. Go home, calm down, and figure it out together there when you're ready! --Patrick87 (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey all. Thanks to Edokter, there is now a gadget under the Appearance section of gadget preferences. This will change back to the old sans-serif style in Vector, if you like. This should making opting out easier for anyone who wants to. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin) -- 23:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not advertising this, but I was qurious to see how badly people wanted such an option to go look for it (and I didn't want to seem unappriciative). This gadget reset some core changes like font family, size and color. Other changes such as line height and margins etc. are not reverted, becuase I think they are in fact beneficial. Edokter (talk) — 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
May I get those line height and margins for my own personal CSS? I just enabled the gadget, but the spacing still looks hideous for me. Whisternefet 23:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not bother to reserach and reset every little detail; I thought that was undue. You can check the exact code changes at mw:Typography refresh#Code links. Edokter (talk) — 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
All the links in that section are inaccessible as of now; it also seems that page rendering is messed up for MediaWiki. Whisternefet 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how it's supposed to work, so i can't pinpoint what's wrong with it, but it is absolutely useless for me: it messes up the font size in my Monobook (while the description did say "in Vector skin", apparently there's no "only" before that, so it might affect other skins too...), and if i switch to Vector it doesn't actually change anything. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't use this gadget under Monobook. The typography refresh does not apply to Monobook (only Vector, as does the gadget), so nothing should have changed for you. Edokter (talk) — 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, i know the monobook skin didn't change, but i want to have the gadget already turned-on if i will ever want to change from monobook to vector. Plus, the current name is misleading, IMO. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict] It seems you can mark the gadget as "vector-only" in its definition, Edokter. See mw:Extension:Gadgets#Options. Helder.wiki 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Edokter (talk) — 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the opt-out :) Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sorry guys, this shouldn't be an opt-out via gadget thing. As I said above, and I see others have said the same, feel free to create a new skin with this new look and set it as the wiki default (although some opposed that), but classic vector should stay classic vector and should not be changed like this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Fully agreed - especially as the gadget creates its own problems:- the new fonts load and are visible before the gadget converts the fonts back, causing a delay and then a "jump" on the screen, which quickly brings on a headache and would give a migraine if I carried on using it. Arjayay (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
* Agreeing with Technical 13. You shouldn't ask users to go through hoops just to make the site readable. WinTakeAll💬 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
For some reason I see still the new font for H1 and H2 titles when I activated the gadget. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am having the same problem with the gadget as Arjayay - a delay causing it to flick on the 'new' typography before flicking to the 'old version' - and it has very quickly given me a headache! Couldn't something along the lines of Technical 13's suggestion of setting up different skins be utilised? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• The problem with a large segment of the community immediately opting out of changes pushed down from WMF is that our experienced editors will always be seeing something different than new users. Over time, as the established editor base continues to opt-out of this, or that, helping new users with their experience becomes difficult because the helper and the helpee will see different things. –xenotalk 13:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• No use whatsoever to those of us who don't edit and don't have accounts. (As it happens, I do have an account, but I no longer login into it.) A typical example of Wikicrats forgetting that Wikipedia editors are a tiny minority of Wikipedia users, and Wikipedia policy should have them in mind, not us. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm amazed that this was implemented without an opt-out feature to restore Wikipedia to how it looked before already in place. But, however bad it looks to me, I don't want to change my display to be any more different than necessary to how the readers will see pages. Please make this feature opt-in, rather than force it on your users until they no longer complain. ‑‑xensyriaT 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if the foundation can pull the statistics about how many people opt out. It seems problematic if the people who do a considerable amount of the maintenance and editing (the top 3000 editors) fundamentally see the site differently than the readership. They'll essentially be optimizing everything for the old style (if it turns out a large portion of people opt out). Mkdwtalk 05:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• what we perhaps really need to suit editor preferences is a easy way to alter some of the key elements individually, without finding the specific css lines that we need to modify: essentially a selection box for different settings, such as all word processing programs have used for the past 30 years or so, (I know which ones I would pick to change--the first is to use the highest available contrast, black, not grey; the second is to use a font for text that distinguishes letters and numbers, the third is to use text=serif and headings=sansserif, with a smaller distinctive size for the main headings than either the old or the new vector. I can't claim everyone would agree, but why should they? My own priority is seeing as much text as I can at a time with clarity, and what I need isn't the same on different monitors. At the least, perhaps a simplifed guide to the basic css setting for the common elements?
As for reader preferences, there's no way to find out without properly studying the readers: I note A/B testing was rejected because of the impossibility of testing all combinations, but that's not a reason to abandon completely the idea that other people might actually know what they want. Skill is figuring out what to test, not using what looks good to oneself. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• This opt-out doesn't work!  I've tried the Monobook skin.  I don't care if you revert all the new changes, or add a new "Vector skin" skin that is really the old skin, or upgrade this opt-out to fully restore the old skin, or give us some elaborate css code to implement.  But please stop tinkering around with fontstacks for Windows 7 until there is a real solution for what is now causing physical symptoms for some of us.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• The information below is that the CSS requires re-rendering the display, thus adding a flicker.  Not everyone can tolerate flicker, and I'm one who cannot.  I have turned off the opt-out, and put strike-out through the suggestions above to upgrade the opt-out or provide a CSS code solution.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You could try: User:Begoon/override-typography-refresh (instructions are there). It was really just for my personal use, so it's not real sophisticated, but it works for me, for now, with no "flicker". It's not a gadget, and it's not my code (thank Cathfolant), it requires adding a couple of lines to the start of your Special:MyPage/vector.css, and I can't guarantee it will work when WMF update the code, or I break the thing, but there it is, if you want to try it you're welcome. 19:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• The @import didn't seem to work, but after I copied your code into my vector.css I finally got some relief.  Not sure that everything is back to normal, but this is a big improvement.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome - as I said the CSS is mainly Cathfolant's code - I only made a couple of tweaks. I'm using the @import to avoid having to paste the thing on Commons, Meta etc in its entirety, and keep them all updated. It works well for me, not sure why not for you - for a second I thought that might be because you're not logged in as me - but that shouldn't make a difference - I can see it logged out at [6] - if you see the css as text there too it should have worked, I think. Glad it helps a bit, anyway - just copy-pasted. 15:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• The opt-out gadget makes things worse! On every page load I see a flash of the new typography disaster first, then it re-renders with the original sane typography. This scary animation slows down page loads and gives me a headache. WinTakeAll💬 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the FOUC could be fixed by setting |top for this gadget. What do you think, Edokter? Helder.wiki 18:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this affects CSS-only gadgets; CSS is always loaded from the top. Pinging TheDJ. Edokter (talk) — 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've tested the opt-out and I only saw a FOUC on the very first page load. Just a matter of updating local browser cache perhaps? --Nemo 13:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Looking more closely at the comment above, Edokter states that the so-called opt-out doesn't even try to restore line height and margins.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• It does actually, since April 5th. Edokter (talk) — 13:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Why has the opt-out gadget been removed again? At least it does not appear in my Preferences/Gadgets section.--SiriusB (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
SiriusB, have you tried using the vector skin? Helder.wiki 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course I had switched it on. I had already looked for it before switching to Monobook after the circulating reverting CSS scripts have shown error messages in the editor. However, I noticed not that the gadget option seems top appear irregularly. Are there any relevant cache contents which are not always cleared when I click the "reload page" button (even with the additional cache-clearing tricks mentioned at the Gadgets page!) in the browser? I had similar problems even outside Wikipedia, but only at very selected pages (e.g. the Fink project page, which continues to show different content on different computers...).--SiriusB (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Addition: The gadget doesn't work anyway. Switching back to Monobook now.--SiriusB (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this is kind of radical — I'm certainly not expecting everyone to jump up and say "sure, let's do that!" but I'd just like to point out another option.

The reason I would personally like it is that there is an awkward conflict right now in technical articles with equations. Variable names are not so nice in sans fonts (hard to distinguish I from l, for example), and for that reason, things like the {{math}} template use serif. When these are mixed with sans fonts in running text, they look frankly appallingly bad, just vomitous (see e (mathematical constant) for an absolutely egregious example). For that reason, I oppose {{math}} in any article where it's not already established, but if we went to all serif, my objection would go away.

Now, as I say, I know it's kind of a radical suggestion, and I don't really expect everyone to say we should do this big change just for the benefit of articles with equations. However, if there were a constituency for it for other reasons, this is why I would join it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you put aesthetics over legibility? You acknowledge that math in sans-serif is, by any definition, unreadable. Yet you will oppose the only method available (to editors) to remedy that illegibility. I just don't understand. Edokter (talk) — 01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that's reading way too much into what I "acknowledge". Sans-serif for math is perfectly usable, with a restricted character set. Note that the de-facto standard for slide presentations in mathematics, the Beamer class, uses sans by default.
If you absolutely have to have "I" as a variable name (standard for a few things) then yeah, in that article, you might have to go with serif. But I see no reason at all to prefer e over e in running text, not if there isn't some other aspect of that article that requires one of the problematic characters. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw, I'm not sure why {{math}} exists - we already have [itex] tags which do basically the same thing. Also fwiw wikipedia did originally use sans-serif at least if the so-called Nostalgia skin is an accurate reflection of the original appearance. (also I didn't realise you got an edit conflict when it was in another section...) Cathfolant (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Except [itex] is totally unsuitable for inline math, and will be so until MathJax is served as the default to all users. Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh. It is? I didn't know that. Cathfolant (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's true, [itex] inline is butt-ugly, possibly even worse than {{math}}. My hierarchy goes something like this: (i) if possible, don't use mathematics inline, because there's no good solution as long as the rest of the text is in sans, but (ii) if you really have to, then use HTML, with italics for variable names, unless (iii) you really need a variable that's unclear in sans, in which case as a last resort {{math}} and {{mvar}} may be the least bad option. --Trovatore (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Technical reasons favor sans-serif fonts: To show capital "i" we have template {{ibeam}}: I, as an option. For the overall legibility, the serif fonts (such as Times New Roman) have been shown to work in monotype spacing to help join letters as words; however, for proportional spacing a sans-serif font (such as Arial) can be easier to read, with less eyestrain. Also, I think it has been shown that Arial font is less likely to cause rivers in print, but perhaps the proportional spacing is the greater factor to avoid print-rivers. Another advantage of sans-serif fonts is the legibility of small-font display, where the serif fonts tend to reduce as muddled "flyspecks" in pixel-based rendering (small Times New Roman: "more mere mass" versus Arial: "more mere mass") but perhaps not if the display were a zoom of non-pixel technology. A sans-serif font should have a special capital "I" to contrast with lowercase ell "l". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Apart from the fact that mixing Courier with sans-serif is even 'worse' the mxing Times in sans-serif, these separate template do not contribute to consistency and ease of editing. Math needs to have a consistent look across Wikipedia, and all these templates are mostly ad-hoc reactions of bad typography to begin with; they only propagate bad typography further. Math needs to look like math across the board, and legibility must be the key factor, no matter aesthetically displeasing it may be to some. Edokter (talk) — 15:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• As for consistency, that is important within an article, much less important on an inter-article basis. That's a general principle at Wikipedia. Legibility is certainly key, but sans-serif math is quite legible with the exception of a few bad characters. There is no way that mixing sans and serif inline can ever be good typography. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

### Cleartype?

Resolved. We've updated the settings to avoid body fonts that render poorly without ClearType. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm putting this in the right place – without cleartype turned on (and using W7, FF28, 1680*1050 res), the new design is very difficult to read. I don't mean a simple "I don't like it" (which I admittedly don't, as the previous font was much easier to read without the cleartype feature), but most letters have a 'line width' of one pixel, while some are 'two pixels wide' and they almost look bold, e.g. vertical lines of both upper- and lowercase F, making for a messy text with seemingly randomly highlighted characters. Whatever happens to the new design, perhaps consider this issue as well. 89.176.87.169 (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. See my screenshot for just how awful it is in Chrome, Windows 7 (I had no problems when san-serif was used). Please consider the effect this will have for all users. ‑‑xensyriaT 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I do have to say this, don't be offended please. But why do you have ClearType disabled? Only older MS fonts look somewhat decent without smoothing. Cleartype has been the standard for Windows for ten years now, and disabling it is like having a new color TV set to black-and-white. Edokter (talk) — 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This configuration was already like that when I started using the lab where I noticed these bold fs... It is not something I or other students can change, because it requires administrative rights. Helder.wiki 16:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Cleartype is not, repeat not an unalloyed improvement. On many (probably most) systems, it produces significant blurring, and a large number of users dislike it. To users who work with colour and/or are sensitive to colour, Cleartype is simply a shortcut to eyestrain. Many users turn it off immediately on getting a new system because sharp, clear text is essential to them, and this is exactly what the misnamed technology called "Cleartype" fails to deliver. Mandating Cleartype to use Wikipedia is a very user-hostile act and not in keeping with the Wikipedia mandate. Tannin (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This has basically made Wikipedia unreadable. I've increased my font size because reading tiny, tiny text at 9,000,000 ppi is hard. This is the result. Cleartype is off because reading rainbow-colored, blurry text is also hard. Personally, I'll just use the override, but I felt the need to comment since the point of this update was to INCREASE accessibility and readability, not decrease it. Travis Daily (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this must be fixed. Right now, the solution I'm going to propose is that we consider removing Arimo and Liberation Sans from the stack. These fonts seem to not be rendering well for Windows users on 7 and XP. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd have a second look at "Helvetica" too. Also may be good to note that ZoomText has this in their documentation: "Windows Vista preferences allow you to enable ZoomText's logon support and disable Windows ClearType font smoothing for improved quality of ZoomText's magnified text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahappylittletree (talkcontribs) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Edokter:. Asking why people are disabling font smoother is quite rude in my book. Many readers turn it off for the sake of performance. You really sounded like "people should get a good enough device to enable this function otherwise accept the gritty font or leave". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Cleartype is not supported via RDP in Windows XP/Server 2003 [7], and needs to be explicitly enabled client side for newer versions of windows [8]. Also, I don't use RDS but it looks like enabling it is a bit of a pain for RDS [9]. I browse inside RDP sessions all the time. --Robert.Labrie (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

### Update

Hi everyone. Since users on Windows 7 and XP were reporting significant issues with Liberation Sans and Arimo for body text, we've put in place a temporary fix for English Wikipedia. Please do refresh and see if this improves things, particularly if you're on Windows. We will replace this local fix with a default update on Monday, when software deployments can resume. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can report, at least on my Firefox/Mac OS setup, that my display is using Helvetica Neue now instead of Liberation Sans. The font itself looks better — I'm not sure if it's as good as Verdana was; I'll have to live with it for a while — but only if I go to "View->Zoom In" two or three times to enlarge the very small default text size.
The noticeably gray text is harder to read than the black text was before. I feel like it's causing more eyestrain, which is the opposite of the intended effect.
I can also report that the "opt-out" gadget in my Preferences is no longer working for me. I unchecked it, saved, and checked it again, and I still have Helvetica Neue. I would like an option to use my former sans serif font, which worked great, while these very basic bugs are being worked out in the "production beta" testing period. Please let me/us know how to opt out again, and feel free to drop a Watchlist notification on us when these basic bugs have been fixed. Thanks for the hard work. I feel confident that the end product will be good, but right now, I would like my old body font and font color back so that I can get back to the work I do, which is editing Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The gadget has partly stopped working because of the edit to our Vector.css. As that measure is temporary, I have added a temporary measure of my own, so the gadget should work again. Edokter (talk) — 01:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for testing/fixing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI Steven Walling: I actually tried "Arial", "Liberation Sans", "Helvetica Neue" and even "Helvetica LT Pro" side by side during my testing of Typography refresh. I'm afraid to say that on my machine (Windows 7, Firefox 28, ClearType turned on, 100% font size) actually "Arial" and "Liberation Sans" were the only acceptable fonts with regards to hinting. While the Helvetica variants might look good on high resolution displays / when zoomed, their hinting is inferior. Therefore they are hardly readable on normal displays with standard text size. So if you want to remove "Liberation Sans" for Windows users, continue with also removing Helvetica variants since those are even worse than Liberation. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You want to be carefull not to remove too much. I don't know how widespread Helvetica Neue is on Windows, but I suspect it is virtually nil. So if we leave that in while dropping Helvetica, Windows should revert to Arial and Mac will happily use Helvetica Neue. On the other hand, Helvetica is often mapped to other helv-like fonts on Linux. I wish we could build on a system where we can target fontstacks per platform. Edokter (talk) — 02:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I just tested, and removing just Helvetica from the new "fixed" stack works for me (XP - Chrome 33 - ClearType on), leaving in Helvetica Neue is no issue, since, as suggested, I don't have that. Patrick is correct that leaving Helvetica in the stack is suboptimal - with it the font is very poorly rendered, with many of the previously described issues. So poor I wouldn't use it (looks like Ahappylittletree's screenshot below). I would need to override that - so you can take this as another "vote" from me, at least, to lose "Helvetica" from the "new" stack. I would imagine Patrick's and my experience is probably very common for Windows users - especially, of course, the many, many "not logged in" readers and editors, who don't have the luxury of gadgets or vector.css, and will just see the poorly rendered site. 09:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI: there is a request to allow gadgets for anonymous users (WONTFIXed). Helder.wiki 18:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Heh. WONTFIX. Thanks, I smiled. That would help some, granted - but the average Joe Bloggs reader, clicking Google result no. 1, isn't going to install a gadget even if he can, or even knows one exists (how?). He'll just see a badly rendered font/page, and that will be his wikipedia experience for today. The default needs to work out of the box. Right now it doesn't. But it did, prior to this. 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick fix and the update! I can report the problems have gone away for me. Mac: Will use helvetica neue (no problem). pc: Will use helvetica when it is installed (problem. Caused by certain programs, drivers, or manual font installs), will use helvetica neue when it is installed (no problem. Optimized for web). Will use arial when no helvetica installed (no problem, at least, not for me). Linux: If Helvetica is often mappen to other helv-like fonts I don't know, you may try "Nimbus Sans L" if you want to specify a font for Linux. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahappylittletree (talkcontribs) 04:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
What about if you want to restore the new type changes. Is it possible at the moment? I see no option in Preferences. I was very happy with the type update and had not a single readability issue. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How "convenient", that the Windows users' issues forced you to do exactly what you wanted to do all along. IMO the right thing to do would be to revert back to plain "sans-serif" while you prepare a new iteration, not this crap that's already been well opposed on wikitech-l. Anomie 11:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anomie: This comment smacks deeply of bad-faith assumption. I'd ask that you retract it, because you know that it's not true.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't disagree with your assessment, Anomie, of the "right" thing to do. "sans-serif" worked, and was legible. Given the quite evident issues, the obviously sane thing to do is to revert to that for the sake of just plain usability, while all these lovely "post-mortems" go on. Foremost in my mind are the "readers" who use Windows and don't log in. Many of them now see horridly rendered fonts. Unless they care enough, and are technical enough, to use site-specific css (and that would be far from easy, or simply impossible, for many) they now just have a sub-par experience. They'll just shrug and think - "oh, wikipedia looks like a bag of crap now - I wonder why?" This is our "front window". That's poor. Luckily for me, and thanks to Cathfolant and others, I can retain the old look while this rumbles along, with User:Begoon/vector.css. They can't, and our "front window" display is a mess. We should be better than this. 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• To me the problem seems to be only the text colour. The font face work for me, the font size varies so much across sites I am already use to change zoom without even thinking about it (Ctrl-+ or Ctrl--, done). But dark grey (#252525) is too light. How is decreased contrast better for readability / usability than high contrast. I am really asking. I did a few sites (completely amateur) and I am working on one right now (or I should be :-) so I am curious on where can I access studies saying dark grey on white is more, or as much, readable than black on white (actually very, very, light grey, but that choice seems fine, to reduce 'glow'). Can anyone help with a WP-CSS incantation for custom vector.css that turns the text black? A simple p {color: #000000} doesn't seem to work. - Nabla (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Hey Nabla. See Why did we change the body text color? from the FAQ. TL;DR: this still has the best possible rating on objective measures of contrast and accessibility, and it balances the need for high contrast with the fact that pure black on white (or vice-versa) produces greater eye strain than very dark grey on pure white. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you, Steven (WMF). A few notes... My bookmarks still pointed to WCAG 1.0, updated! :-) A detail: the background is not #FFFFFF as the FAQ says, but #F6F6F6, accordingly the contrast would be 14.2:1, not 15.3:1, if my calculation is correct, nevertheless well within the 7:1 level for a AAA level of contrast in WCAG 2.0. A reply playing the WCAG card is a strong reply, in sharp contrast with some poor replies I've seen before, so maybe I my judgement was too harsh too. I have defended (loudly :) the implementation of WCAG on other places (not WP) so I like to see that WP looks at it, and thus I'll accept a "within WCAG AAA limits" as a good enough standard. I also agree - though that is one man's view - that too much contrast, pure black on white, is not ideal. For myself, I use black on almond(??), #000000 on #EEEEDD (on the emacs text editor) and #000000 on #FFEECC (on terminal windows), but I wouldn't recommend that, probably wouldn't be very popular :-) Just pointing that though having good contrast, maybe the overall lightness of the almost white background is what is making it (a little) harder for me to read. And I bet we could chose some pairs of colours well within the 7:1 ratio that would not be that good (WCAG's page itself uses black on white). Anyway, thanks. - Nabla (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• PS: at first glance I would lose my bet. After all it is not that easy to find a pair (dark font, white background) that looks extremely bad within the 7:1 ratio. - Nabla (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• PPS: inspired by the FAQ's CSS suggestion, div#content.mw-body {color:#000000}, seems to be enough to make the font go back to black. And that _is_ a relief - Nabla (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure but it seems related: characters after a "ș" become larger (bold?), e.g. ACS Poli Timișoara (to me the "șoara" bit is darker than the rest. Opera 12.16, Linux, and adding font-family: sans-serif; to my custom.css makes it back normal, apparently. - Nabla (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In my case it results in Arial on Windows 7 (instead Liberation Sans - I have got LibreOffice installed, see bug 63591) and Nimbus Sans L on Ubuntu 12.04 (instead Liberation Sans too). In my opinion it looks much better now, especially on Windows (on Linux too, but the difference is less noticeable). Good job. I am looking forward to this change being introduced in global Mediawiki. However, I still think that the new font size is too big, but I can understand that choice having in mind growing screen resolutions. Piotr Jurkiewicz (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for listening. At least now I know for me personally the font type is not the issue, I'm still getting headaches reading Wikipedia (and only Wikipedia). I guess I'll have to live with that, as nothing seems off or different in the text. In the editor it's fine though, somehow that doesn't cause any problems (even with the different font). Edit; found the problem, somehow my browser doesn't display black text as black. Even with ClearType turned off, it seems it has a problem with Wikipedia. Though enabling ClearType definitely makes it worse. Another debugging session then, at least the WMF isn't to blame in this regard. 93.125.198.182 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Excerpt from de:Subtraktion on 2014-04-10 to demonstrate problems with the new typeface (Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7)
I don't see any difference. Text ist still barely readable on IE9/Win7. Furthermore, I've just remarked that the minus sign isn't displayed at all (see screenshot on the right; there should be a minus sign between the quotation marks „“). I hope this typeface problem gets fixed/reverted soon. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I currently have Windows 7 / IE 11. Moreover, I have Google Chrome. I keep both open and edit from each for various reasons that are not related to this thread. Both pages are burning my eyes. The glare is horrendous. I need sunglasses to read it. I have set the brightness on my monitor down to 15%. Even so, when I leave home my eyesight is degraded and remains so. Everything looks hazy and unclear. I have now changed my skin to Modern for at least the time being. I would have liked the larger font...Someone up page asked why wasn't this just developed and served up as a new and different skin. I echo that thought. Fylbecatulous talk 15:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

### Technical experiment

I want to conduct a technical experiment, using a gadget, that will target each OS separately, and give them the OS best option. Windows would get plain Arial, Mac would stick with Helvetica Neue. I don't know what font would serve Linux best: Liberation Sans or Nimbus Sans L? If the 'Helvetica look' is the goal, then Nimbus is the obvious choice, but Liberation may have better Unicode/glyph support. So, need input on that. If this works, I want to investigate a server-side solution. Edokter (talk) — 13:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

While I understand your intentions for such a feature I think it's not an appropriate approach to solve the current dispute. It's again a fix for a problem that could have been avoided in the first place (e.g. by a more appropriate / better tested font stack or by accepting that there is no "universal"font stack for all systems and dropping it completely). Requiring any JavaScript for such a fundamental design property as font family is ridiculous. If you start there, we'll quickly end up with the same fiasco than with ULS's "autonym font". Breaking things that always worked acceptable in the first place and "fixing" them with tons of JavaScript is just not worth the effort. In the end you would waste your time on something rather unnecessary! --Patrick87 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The long term solution would not require javascript; it would simply serve the font stack based on OS. The gadget is merely for testing. But I am also beginning to see that this update has misfired. The font stack has absolutely no concern for non-latin scripts, where I suspect most non-latin projects have local font stacks in place anyway (though some are complaining about the Georgia/Times headers). If you want to serve the 'perfect' font stack, you would ultimately have to maintain a matrix of platforms and scripts around the world. Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest: How would a font stack per platform without JavaScript work? Can one do it with pure CSS? Actually that was what I proposed in the very beginning of the Typography refresh beta phase, because already back then I was of the opinion there was no "one for all" solution. Back then I was laughed at though for being too pessimistic... --Patrick87 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It would work something like this, but then server side, by analyzing the user agent header like jQuery.client does, and then appending the appropriate class to the HTML element. Then all you need to do is compose the various font stacks using the proper platform selectors like this:
html, body {
font-family: sans-serif;  // Default
}
html.platform-win,
html.platform-win body {
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
}
html.platform-mac,
html.platform-mac body {
font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;
}
html.platform-linux,
html.platform-linux body {
font-family: "Liberation Sans", "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif;
}

.
(edit) Come to think of it, it could even be done without the platform class and simply have ResourceLoader/LESS serve you the right stack. Edokter (talk) — 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Edokter:, that would instantly triple our caching requirements. Doesn't seem very likely to me that we will vary based on user agent. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Originally yes, but without the class, the page remains the same and only the CSS is changed. (I don't know how that is cahced though.) Edokter (talk) — 18:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

### Proposal

Given that, as editors, we have the option (although inconvenient) of choosing which font we want, through gadgets, skins, and the like. Readers don't and I feel that is unfair. I propose a survey of readers with the choice (and an example) of both current and the past font; the one with the most votes becomes standard, the other an opt in gadget/skin for editors. I don't know if this is feasible, but at the Picture of the Year competition voting on Commons, the voting was done with a pop up box, similar to requests for feedback on sites such as the BBC or the Telegraph. It probably wouldn't be too hard to enable it for all readers to be able to vote. Thanks, Matty.007 11:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I second this suggestion, it should be something that reaches all users of Wikipedia. I guess, had this been done before or simultaneously with the rollout, quite a bit of the discussion drama may also have been prevented.--Destruktor5000 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Good idea; perhaps this should be a policy of giving all readers a poll of "Better"/"Worse"/"Didn't notice" and a link to give more feedback whenever there's a design/typography change, to get a sense of how well received it is. This would also be a PR coup for WMF. ‑‑xensyriaT 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Voting is not really the most efficient, representative, and practical way of making software changes on a site this big. There are 400 million people reading Wikimedia sites a month, 70,000 or more of which edit at least five times. Our sites are in dozens of different languages (hundreds actually, if you consider small minority languages). The vast majority of these people do not have the expertise or interest to learn wikimarkup, register accounts, or frankly even take the time to respond to surveys like this. We have never successfully surveyed a majority of Wikimedia readers or editors, even when we do it without using a wiki page. Even if we could, it's not likely to produce an objective measure of whether something is really better or not. People tend to answer surveys based on personal preference, rather than what might balance the needs of many different kinds of users across languages, projects, as well as for both editors and readers. Balancing those needs, gathering feedback, and making decisions that do the most good for the widest possible swath of users is why the Wikimedia Foundation employees software engineers, designers, and product managers like myself. We've spent the last five months doing that, and we're continuing to listen to that feedback after we've launched. That includes readers, even if they couldn't have access to the Beta Features that logged-in users do. (Also: we've actually had this exact same font style on our mobile site for more than a year, which represents 20% of all our pageviews). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Steven Walling unfortunately the way the WMF tend to do things never represents strong community consensus, you tend to just go with it and take the considerable flac later. The WMF haven't despite saying they had learnt from projects such as The AFT one, in which it utterly failed to listen to the community effectively and listen to the mass amount of feedback that it was given and then shutting down engineering time on it with out doing any of the work suggested, which ultimately meant you had wasted the whole communities time and energy. Your way of attempting to generate a consensus does not work as this does not represent an overall consensus, now you either get a consensus through an enwiki RFC with a site notice or you ask for reader feedback, or both. Doing nothing unfortunately leaves us with the lame duck guide to site improvements that the WMF are at the moment, and balking at the idea of people trying to do that when you failed isn't helpful.Blethering Scot 00:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Scot, I feel like you're referring only to English Wikipedia here. Remember that this change is a default across all wikis. I do agree that it's much easier to poll or otherwise ask users about releasing software when it's one project we're talking about. We released this typography update as a part of the software that runs hundreds of wikis, including all language editions of Wikipedia. That's why I was talking about the problem of surveys applied at scale. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue just replicates across the sites though, we know this isn't the only wiki thats not happy about this.Blethering Scot 12:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Umm... Why would answering a simple question require someone to "learn wikimarkup" and/or "register accounts"?! Personal preference is all that should matter. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: As for the font being in-place on mobile devices, i think noone will contest that this could be okay for that platform. Just don't force it on desktops without getting feedback from outside the beta... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't require learning wikimarkup or registering an account. That is a red herring. You are right: it's about opinions. A real test of the new typography could be as simple as just setting up a table in a mall with two computers set to the same article — one with the current typography and another with the proposed new typography — and just asking folks to look at the article on each computer and saying which they prefer. In just a day or two, you'd have many hundreds of real-world opinions (data) for the price of just some lollipops to give to people who complete the survey. And if we wanted to be real scientific, we'd isolate and test individuals aspects of the topography change. The discussion isn't about markup or registering accounts, it's about people's opinion on what looks good. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Steven Walling (WMF): I'm sure this wasn't what you meant, but your response reads to me as: "Yes, if it were just for one project we could do proper consultation and user research, but since this was for "hundreds of wikis" we decided that wasn't feasible, or too hard, so we'd have to just be the judge ourselves". The fact that the number of users is huge doesn't reduce your obligation for research and consultation - it increases it. You guys were a bad judge when it came to implement VE, and you've been a bad judge on this occasion too. Introducing a change that, by default, gave Windows users worldwide a poor experience, was misjudged. You've backpedalled and fixed it a bit (Helvetica is still awful), and that's to your credit.
I guess my question is this: Given the demonstrated failure of WMF, repeatedly, to make these large scale changes successfully, what is your ongoing plan to reform WMF decision making from "little village" to "global", and how will you integrate that with the communities? It's relevant here because this is a recurring theme, used again to justify an unpopular change, although I guess, in the long term, the discussion might need to be taken elsewhere. 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion as a volunteer, the only technical valid answer that would satisfy the criteria of the community on this front is one of: Spent millions to develop software, or just stop developing software. I think neither is acceptable, and the community just needs to learn that true development is trough iteration, giving taking etc. I mean, it's not like all our articles are FA quality in one go. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
They're not, I agree. We can edit and improve them, though, they're not imposed by fiat. I think you're comparing apples and oranges.
I do sympathise with the developers. I've been in that role. The problem is not that it isn't "right first time", it's the stubborn insistence that it was, despite all evidence, the insistence that the user must be wrong, and, despite what Jimmy says on his talkpage, we can't "just roll it back and try again". It's only a co-operative "iterative" change if we're allowed to iterate too.
We don't have that power. Jimmy thinks we're not being fair to the developers, and making their lives hard. Maybe. Senior jobs on one of the top 10 websites in the world will perhaps not be easy. Sorry. It's a warm kitchen.
We can't fix it ourselves. We have to fight tooth and nail for sanity. Look at the VE discussions. Look at the length of this discussion. It could have all been over in one reply - "oops, sorry, that doesn't work properly, does it? We'll fix that and try again in a week or so." That's the disconnect. There's an attitude thing, and that needs to change, probably on both "sides".
But it does need to change. They're paid (by us, indirectly) to understand that, we are not. That may seem like a cheap shot, but I think it's food for thought. The "community managers", "community liaisons" etc need to lead this change, with us, and with their colleagues at WMF - or what is it they do on our behalf? We'll be here again. 14:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Real problems will always be dealt with, if need be by the volunteer developers (trust me, there is precedent). Let us however not forget that at any moment we have a few thousands of burg reports open and despite that the website functions reasonably well.
Personally I'm happy that the foundation developers don't just roll over willy nilly but actually look into problems and determine why they exist and what needs to be done to counter them. I think that is very sane and proper leadership. Also, as much as you guys climb the barricades, remember that to some degree, StevenW has to fulfill the same kind of advocacy/defensive role for his development team as the community members here serve their community. In my experience a lot of the problems have to do with eloquence. People have a lot of trouble describing what and why they consider something a problem. That also makes it very difficult for people to distill the noise from the real problems. The second problem is that a large group of people just don't want to be bothered, making it very difficult to gather their feedback with anything but a full deploy (i mean 29000 ppl..._). This is nothing new, the whole internet has that problem. Improve sure, but let us stop being so extremely defensive and sometimes outright offensive (a better dialog might also start with ourselves). Weekend is over, let them get to work. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
a lot of the problems have to do with eloquence. That could so easily be misinterpreted... ;-) Otherwise I agree. — HHHIPPO 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but manning the defensive side regardless of what the community wants is a dangerous position to be in. Matty.007 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
a lot of the problems have to do with eloquence. Rotflmao. 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
rofl. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What is this stuff about leadership? The WMF (let alone its programmers) are not in charge of us. They work for us and for the encyclopedia. If they do something that makes a large portion of the community upset, they have made a mistake. And I argue that the reason for such mistakes because they are not following established Wikipedia policies.
A core concept of Wikipedia is that, while you can be WP:BOLD in making changes, you roll them back if there is controversy. This change has more controversy than the most controversial articles on Wikipedia, and yet the change was not rolled back. The community blowback is entirely the WMF's fault for not following the community-determined best practices. We figured out long ago that sticking to your guns will flare up any controversy. That's why WP:BRD exists.
The WMF has stated a desire to ignore editor consensus (claiming that it doesn't represent what the readers want). And we can't influence who is actually part of the WMF. So our only choice as editors is to be the fly in the ointment--to provide immediate negative consequences to changes we think are detrimental to the encyclopedia. If we were engaged as equals, the tenor of the conversation could be much less confrontational. The reason people get so upset is that they feel they have to in order to get their voices to be heard.
The change in the tone of the conversation starts not with us but with them. If we tone it down before then, we are in effect agreeing with how things currently work. Until we are working together, we will always feel like we have to stand up or be rolled over. We shouldn't feel like we're having to beg our WMF (progamming) superiors to listen to us. — trlkly 22:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

### Proposal (2)

I think a lot of the conversation around the choice of font misses the point. We can have a vote about which font is best, and we will never get an agreement. One of the key differences between print media and the web is the latter's philosophy (from the days of Mosaic) that the reader chooses the layout, not the author (or publisher). In the corporate world, branding requirements often demand the use of specific fonts. But a community-based reference site like Wikipedia should not impose any such restrictions. I propose that the CSS be changed to specify a font-family of sans-serif only, i.e., no specific font name. Also, the font-size should not be specified, i.e., the browser will display body text in the default (medium) size. This way, each user will see Wikipedia in the font of their choice and the size of their choice, i.e., whatever font and size settings they have set in the browser. The only choice made by Wikipedia is to display everything in a san-serif font (which is more readable on screens, as opposed to print).

P.S. It is OK (even advisable) to specify a line-height to add some leading, since this enhances readability, especially when there is a lot of text. This should be done in relative units, not absoloute units, so it respects the reader's size settings.

Kuncherto (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

### Bug new font style

Screenshot of the English Wikipedia mainpage.

Hello, since few days ago a curious bug appears to me and only in the English Wikipedia!? I use Win7 and FF 28. I know I can change the font but I would report this issue (as you can see right, this bug appears also logged out). What can this be??? (I'm from the German Wiki) -- πϵρήλιο 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I tested this on Win7 and FF28 as well and can't replicate this (screenshot). Could this be a browser extension, gadget, or personal CSS style you have enabled? Checking in incognito/private browsing mode might help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Steven:, I found the reason fortuitously!! Because this bug appears now also in the German Wiki and also in Chrome/IE and I saw that the standard font group (Arimo,"Liberation Sans" was removed) was changed today. It is the incompatibility of the font Helvetica Neue (/Helvetica) with Windows 7! Here are the bug-reports:Chrome,Firefox,Firefox, maybe IE9 on generally Helveticamicrosoft and you can google all. I think this is a bad bug for Wikipedia!? But the good thing is "Helvetica Neue" is not a standard font from Windows7. The additional difference to Chrome / IE and Firefox is that in FF the whole text is bold (zoom 100%). Can you/someone now reproduce that (I've also read there are could be also different "Helvetica Neue")? -- πϵρήλιο 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

### Two days on

OK. The weekend is over. Wikipedia still looks like crap on every browser on Win7/8. Will now someone revert this ridiculous change? ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd of thought they'd revert the day we all disagreed with it but as usual no one gives a toss about what the community thinks! ... As clearly proven with this and VE. Anyway I wouldn't hold your breath!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the concept of time zones?… Matma Rex talk 21:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops nope forgotten, Sorry!, Striked. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Cush, if you really can't personally stand it, this is why personal CSS and Edokter's gadget exist. You have options if you don't like site defaults. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Polish Wikipedia entry page with no font correction
Sorry, that is an unacceptable attitude from a product manager. Of course I can change my vector.css and I have, but this is not about me. You obviously do not give a crap about the millions of visitors that are not registered and have no option to change the appearance of their Wikipedia. Besides being all in bold font now, in all eastern European Wikipedias (and I suppose in many others) non-latin1 and special characters are not displayed by your new font and are substituted from a different font. That is technical incompetence. Even after over a week it is still messed up. I am a web developer and in the company I work for you would be in serious trouble for messing up trivial technical issues like this and then being undiscerning about it. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of Polish Wikipedia main page, Firefox and Windows 7
@Cush: When users report issues, we have to be able to replicate them to make sure that they in fact do impact a large number of users. In this case, the excessive bolding that you see in the screenshot is not something I am seeing when testing on Windows, Mac, or Linux. (See the screenshot I just provided.) Can you tell me what Firefox version you're using? There is also no reason why special characters in Latin languages would display in a separate font. You should be getting Arial, unless you disable it or have a version of Helvetica installed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hush fool. 76.178.144.49 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Hi everyone. I just wanted to let you know that we've updated the body text font settings. Liberation Sans and Arimo are now removed, and the font stack is "Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif". Most users should not see any change due to this, with the exception of users who had those two previous fonts installed. We removed them due to bug 63512, where Windows users (especially those without font smoothing turned on) had significant problems with readability with Liberation Sans or Arimo. Thanks for your understanding and patience so far, as we've worked to address any issues after the new release. Please do let me know if you find the experience improved now, or if you encounter any new issues. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful for someone from WMF to start a new section on this page listing the most frequently-reported issues, how they have been addressed, what issues are still left to address (Are old Helvetica fonts still a problem? Cleartype? ), and what information people should provide if they still have problems. If you're feeling bold, you could even explain some of the WONTFIX issues that people are complaining about as well. Encourage people to stick to technical issues, since this is a technical forum. Mixing the technical issues with the (obvious, at least in hindsight) process issues muddies the waters and may interfere with resolving the remaining technical problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Steven, what is going to be done regarding nontechnical issues that others have posted here? See here -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 11:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to iterating on this, we are focusing on functional issues, especially accessibility, browser-specific issues, and non-Latin languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. If anyone has purely aesthetic complaints still, they are of course free to log in and personalize their experience via the opt-out gadget for Vector, personalizing their skin CSS, or choosing one of the other skins available. The default typography on Wikipedias has to serve everyone. That doesn't mean we actually can please everyone individually, especially if even by now you're not used to the new look. This is why we allow you to customize your experience on the site. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Though aesthetic issues are not technical, most of our readers don't have the choice, unlike us who are logged in. Why don't you guys do a sort of survey, and put up a banner on top or a tool like article feedback on bottom so readers can directly state their opinion? Yes we can't please everyone, but I don't think we know what is the opinion of the majority of our logged out readers. Any way, you guys have more expertise in this area. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Stephen: this is exactly what I am talking about. You aren't engaging us as fellow users but as someone who is in charge, telling us the way things have to be. A founding principle of Wikipedia is that we are all equal. You just have some privileges we don't. You do not get to determine what is best for everyone. You claim that you have to consider everyone's opinions, but every time we suggest any way to figure out what that is, you have an excuse for why that wouldn't work. What you wind up doing is asserting that the opinions of the WMF programmers are what the majority wants.
It may not give you perfect information, but voting would actually give you some information and thus you could actually assert factually that you are doing things for everyone. You may actually believe that you are doing what is best for Wikipedia, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Deciding for readers or editors what they want is a perilous road to go down. Wikipedia is as large as it is because we work with consensus. The last thing you want is for people to leave because they don't feel they have a voice. — trlkly 22:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

### Help - my old font gadget disappeared

It's still in the gadget section, but it doesn't work. Anyone else experiencing this? It's working in edit mode though, but not it reading mode. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific in what 'doesn't work'? Edokter (talk) — 12:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

### Fonts are rendered way to boldly

I've noticed here on my machine, that The font nave become really bold, and strains my eyes alot. Is it meant to look like this?

AzaToth 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically the intended effect. Your 'current' version is using Nimbus Sans L (which is Linux' substitute for Helvetica). I don't know what the right side font is (which is your default sans-serif font), but it looks like Rockwell, which is actually a slab serif. I should have spotted DejaVu Serif. Edokter (talk) — 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
AzaToth The font you're seeing probably feels bolder because the letterforms are more compact. We compensate for the large, dense blocks text though by changing the font color (from pure black to very dark grey) and by increasing the size by one size. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 08:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
AzaToth Nimbus Sans L has no hinting hence the blurry boldness, your default font is DejaVu Serif or Bitstream Vera Serif which have hinting (for CRT) hence the ultra sharpness. Steven (WMF) Yes, Nimbus Sans L has more compact glyphs but a compact design could be hinted, be sharp and crisp, compact glyphs it’s not the cause. --Moyogo/ (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Nimbus Sans does have hinting. DejaVu Serif has slightly better hinting on Linux (for which it is optimized), but not so good on Windows. Azatoths DejaVu Serif example uses sub-pixel rendering by the way; there is no such think as "CRT" hinting. Edokter (talk) — 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

### How can readers figure out what's going on?

How can a reader (or editor) command his/her browser to tell him/her what font is in use at any particular spot in a Wikipedia window? Really an issue for all environments, but I'll settle for Windows 8.1 and Firefox 28.0 Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Right-click on the text in question, and select "Inspect Element". This opens two panes at the bottom of the screen. In the right-hand pane, click the "Fonts" tab. The middle row here might say "Arial Bold system", "Microsoft Sans Serif system", "Courier New system" etc. Ignore the word "system" - that tells you that it's a font that exists on your system. The rest is the font name - Arial Bold, Microsoft Sans Serif, Courier New. Press F12 to close those panes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
When I do this in Safari, I only get one pane. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The question mentioned Firefox 28, so that's what I used to prepare my reply. For current versions of Safari (presumably on an Apple), I can't say: I have Safari 5, which was the last version released for Windows - but that has no feature equivalent to "inspect element". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah unfortunately not all browsers have the same support for easily showing what fonts are rendered. Updated versions of Firefox is the easiest across all operating systems, per what Redrose64 said. Others require an extension to view this easily, like WhatFont in Chrome. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Safari 6 has the "inspect element" item, but I can't find an easy way to locate the font. In Firefox, it says I'm seeing Helvetica Neue, and presumably it's the same on both (since it's the same computer). But what's I'd been hoping to find was the font size, because they're not the same in the two browsers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In Firefox, get to "Inspect Element" as above, but instead of selecting the "Fonts" tab, select the "Computed" tab to its left. That gives an alphabetical list of CSS properties: in there you should find font-size:. If it's not there, you need to get to the next HTML level outwards - I know exactly how to do this but it's difficult to explain. On my browser, to the left of the "Computed" tab there's a "Rules" tab; to the left of that is a magnifying glass icon; to the left of that is a > button; to the left of that is a row of chevron-shaped buttons. Most have pale grey text on a mid grey background, but one will be mid blue on a dark grey background. That represents the HTML element that you right-clicked on. If you click the chevron to its left, it will change to mid-blue on dark grey and the content of the "Computed" tab will change to show the properties of the immediately-enclosing HTML element. Keep going to the left until you find one where font-size: is listed; don't go any further out. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
, fwiw, Safari can inspect elements, but you need to enable the "Develop menu" first. See the section i mention below. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jokes Free4Me Right, in Safari 5 (having enabled "Show Develop menu in menu bar" at Cogwheel → Preferences → Advanced), you would right-click on the text, select "Inspect Element" which opens two panes. In the right-hand pane, uncollapse the "Computed Style" heading. You then have an alphabetical list of properties; you're looking for font-family: and font-size:. If you don't see these, enable "Show inherited" to the right of the heading.
You might see font-family: 'Linux Libertine', Georgia, Times, serif; - unfortunately, that doesn't tell you which font is being displayed, because it's the list of fonts (in descending order of preference) that the webpage would like to be used. Which one is actually used depends upon the installed fonts on your system. For example, if you don't have Linux Libertine installed on your system, but do have both Georgia and Times, the text will be displayed using Georgia, but you'll still see Linux Libertine listed first. It won't use Times, because that's listed after Georgia. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a section for this at mw:Typography refresh/Font choice/Test -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

### No one expects the black (greater) bold

In Windows 7 where Arial Black is bundled, I don't know if it's the typography Refresh enabled the black bold font weight when bold wiki markup of three apostrophes and the CSS styling of font-weight:bold (not other weight value) are affecting the text like this "<span style="font-weight:bold">'''extra bold'''</span>". This creates an unexpected effect identical to 900 font weight (<span style="font-weight:900">900 font weight</span>). This happens an awful lot in table header where the text is generated from text template which already changed the font weight with 3-apostrophe markup. IMO, if someone wants "black" bold, it should be achieved only via CSS styling rather than this unusual combination of CSS and wiki markup. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not an "unusual combination of CSS and wiki markup" that causes this: the HTML emitted by <span style="font-weight:bold">'''extra bold'''</span> is <span style="font-weight:bold"><b>extra bold</b></span> where the visible effect is just the same. The CSS spec allows for more than one level of boldness above (and below) "normal" weight (see the font-weight property in CSS 3), and the <b>...</b> element doesn't mean "use boldface" or "use a specific weight" - it means "draw attention to this text", which most browser vendors interpret as "use a font weight that is bolder than the current font weight". Some fonts have only two weights - normal and bold; others have three or more. If a two-weight font is in use, then text marked up in the manner described will appear similar to text marked up as <span style="font-weight:bold">bold</span> and also similar to text marked up as '''bold'''. But if the font family is changed to one which supports two or more weights that are bolder than "normal", you will see a difference.
Typography refresh changed the font families; it didn't change the way that bold markup is processed. There should be no need to use explicit boldface markup in a table header: see #Old look elsewhere on this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The real issue is that many editors ignored this behavior while designing text template with bold font (c.f. the infobox header and Transfers section of Kalininskaya Line) and only noticed the actual effect until TR compulsively define the font family which provides higher font weight (Arial family with "Black" variant) than the usual boldface. I don't know if there's any good reason to allow bolder than bold font for "drawing attention" in Wikip(m)edia. I think it has little to no harm to cap the emphasis level at conventional bold in the font-weight:bold+<b> structure without ruling out font-weight:900 for "drawing maximum attention". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

### FYI:Collection of most frequently reported issues, solutions, and proposals

See: here

OK, so no one from WMF did it, I have collected most issues, solutions and proposals I came across in tabular format. Please update it if you think something should be added or removed. It will then be easier to review what needs to be done. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 18:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For actual technical issues (rather than just complaints based on personal preference) these are tracked like all issues in Bugzilla (bugzilla.wikimedia.org), which tracks issues across Wikimedia projects. The master tracking bug for the typography update is here. There is also the cross-wiki Talk page for the feature. Remember that this is not specific to English Wikipedia, it's the default across all language editions of Wikipedia, as well as other projects like Commons. Discussions like this one on VPT or on another more specific Talk page are very helpful, but we don't just track issues here because site defaults like this impact all wikis. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

## (Why) is Wikipedia slow?

In recent times, I have been pondering the possibility of leaving Wikipedia. Not because I'm losing interest in it, but because I'm spending too much time here, mainly because diffs take a lot of time to load on my computer. To give an example, the page [10] took about 26 seconds to load. Fortunately, most load faster, but not that much. Since my watchlist includes several thousands of pages, I need a lot of time to keep up with everything that's happening to the pages that I'm interested in. What is to blame? My Internet connection? My Internet browser? My computer? Should I switch to AWB? Or is Wikipedia slow by default? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Took 4 seconds for me to open that diff.Blethering Scot 17:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Four seconds for me also. Do you have WP:POPUPS enabled? Then you can peek at the diffs without leaving the watchlist screen. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a few seconds here as well. Toccata quarta, what part of the world are you connecting from? This might be a problem that can be dealt with by the Wikimedia technical staff, and such problems often depend on geographic location. For my part, things were very slow on Wikipedia for about an hour last night, I'd say about 8pm Japan Standard Time, but they have returned to normal now. And also, is this a one-off problem, does it happen all the time, or does it recur at certain times each day? This kind of information will help us and the tech staff to troubleshoot the problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This does not solve the underlying issue (which is hard to pinpoint with the information you've given), but you could try enabling the "Do not show page content below diffs" setting in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. (e.g. for the diff you gave) πr2 (tc) 18:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not use popups and live in Central Europe. I clicked on the diff a few minutes ago and it took about 23 seconds to load. thank you for the suggestion. The page loaded in about seven seconds. I will try out that setting. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, is Wikipedia slow all of the time, or just some of the time? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
All the time. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, one more question - is it just Wikipedia, or is it other sites as well? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Browsers like Firefox or Google Chrome have a "Developer Tools" area which can display which parts of a webpage take how many (milli)seconds to load. Might be helpful to track down the problem. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be "Display source", "Display page source", or something similar, for those who don't know. At the very bottom of the source you'll see something like what I saw: Served by mw1018 in 7.077 secs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, DoRD: that information will be available in JavaScript very soon: gerrit:118810. You'll be able to use mw.config.get( 'wgBackendResponseTime' ) to get it. Helder.wiki 13:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@DoRD: That gives you how long the Wikimedia servers take to prepare and serve the whole page - it bears little relation to how long your browser takes to load the page and all of its components (images, CSS files, javascript etc.), which is what AKlapper (WMF) is referring to. In Firefox 28, bring down the "Tools" menu, where you will find a "Web developer" item, which leads to a submenu with a dozen or more options. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that menu, obviously, but I don't know which (if any) of the tools I have will show the total load time for a page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Try Tools → Web Developer → Network. With that enabled, clicking "" for this section has informed me that its 13 requests took 4.09 seconds to complete. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It took 9s for me (Firefox 28) with no scripts and with some cruft adblocked. I remember having the impression there was a bug in Wikipedia's diff rendering code that could make it run slower than it should. I haven't had the time to investigate carefully though. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Diffs are computationally difficult, especially if programmed naively. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

## Help for a template and category (greek wikipedia)

Hello. I am asking for your help, because in local wiki couldn't find the answer. Its hard to explain but I will try.

el:Πρότυπο:Football teams. Some months ago I put a category after last } to find articles where the templates has a team is not on the list. Every works fine. Now, I put the template calling football teams inside the template Template:Infobox football biography. But now, almost all the articles are in that category el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο and I can't find why. Let me give you an example:

1. I have made this change [11]
2. Then I remove {{ }} from the article [12]
• And now the article is in the category. But it shouldn't since all the teams are correct written.

A very small amount of articles are not it the category [13]

Any ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333: This edit should fix it. You may need to wait for the job queue; but I did a null edit to el:Κέβιν Νόλαν and it no longer appears in el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο. There are some inconsistencies within el:Πρότυπο:Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή that I have not fixed - these include the parameters |club= and |clubs1=, which are aliased in three different ways:
• {{{σύλλογοι1|{{{clubs1|{{{σύλλογοι|{{{clubs|}}}}}}}}}}}} - three times
• {{{ομάδες1|{{{clubs1|{{{ομάδες|{{{clubs|}}}}}}}}}}}} - seven times
• {{{ομάδες|{{{clubs|}}}}}} - four times
Other parameters may be similarly affected. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Xaris333 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

1. The problem is not solved. Only few articles left the caterory.
2. What should I do with alias?
3. If you see the template el:Πρότυπο:Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή there is a rectacle. Why?

Xaris333 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

When I first checked the category, there were well over 10,000 articles. I forget the exact figure; it may have been between 12,000 and 14,000. Now, there are 1,147 - an improvement of more than 90%.
I don't know what to do about the aliased parameters, other than make them consistent. I don't speak Greek: the main thing to decide is whether "clubs" means "σύλλογοι" or if it means "ομάδες".
By "rectacle", I assume that you mean "rectangle". It's the empty template; see el:Βικιπαίδεια:Πρόχειρο. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I made this edit which should clear up some more. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thx! Now are only 843 articles. I will wait untill tomorrow and I will tell you. There must be less than 100. Xaris333 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! May I ask you one more thing? If you don't have time, its ok... Look inside of this el:Πρότυπο:Football teams (Κατάλογος ομάδων means team list). The list it el:Πρότυπο:Football teams/Κατάλογος ομάδων. Is there a way:

• if I put the symbol → in front of the team to have →TEAM NAME ? The easy way was to write all the teams for the least again with the symbol in front of them [14]. But this is not good.
• to do the same thing with a specific word in the end of the team name (after a single space)?

Xaris333 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're using the template directly, you could just use →{{ft|team}} to prepend an arrow. Within the template you could also add an "arrow" parameter and put {{#if:{{{arrow|}}}|→}} before the {{#switch}} function, so an arrow can be added using {{ft|team|arrow=yes}}. This is handy if you want to use the template indirectly, such as in the infobox you linked to. A more general {{{prefix}}} parameter is also possible.
Looking at the template code, I think you want the team name with suffix to be piped to the team article. That could again be done as an additional parameter, but that will break the template on pages using the name with suffix as first parameter, putting them in the new tracking category. If that's not a problem, the syntax for the pipe link would be something like {{#if:{{{suffix|}}} | [[Team name|Team name {{{suffix}}}]] | [[Team name]]}}. SiBr4 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SiBr4 I have tried the second case {{#if:{{{arrow|}}}|→}}, but it is not working. May be I wrοte it wrong. Can you edit the template or tell me how to write it? el:Πρότυπο:Football teams Xaris333 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333: The way you first added it, it should work, but it still relies on the duplicated #switch cases with arrows. With the #if part before the sub-template invocation, like you did here, the duplicate team names are not necessary (unless you expect people to still use {{ft|→team}} instead of the new {{ft|team|arrow=yes}}). Could you please be more specific about what it is doing wrong? SiBr4 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: You are right! It's working if I am using the template directly. But can it work with the template el:Πρότυπο:Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή? [15] Xaris333 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want the infobox to always show the arrow in front of the flagicon, the parameter |arrow=yes should be added to the {{ft}} template in the infobox. If the arrow shouldn't be there by default but one should be able to add it, you should use |arrow={{{arrow|}}} in order for {{Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή|arrow=yes}} to work. I don't know what the use of these arrows is in the first place, so you should decide in which cases it should be added. SiBr4 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: It's for the teams where the player was loaned. I want if in the template el:Πρότυπο:Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή
1. I write |club1=Arsenal to have Arsenal
2. I write |club1=Arsenal|arrow=yes to have → Arsenal (|club1=Arsenal|arrow=yes or something like this)
Is that possible? Xaris333 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I just added a LOT of arrow parameters to the infobox template. Now you can add an arrow to each individual team template using |currentclub=Team|currentclubarrow=yes, |club1=Team|club1arrow=yes, |youthclubs1=Team|youthclubs1arrow=yes, etc., etc. SiBr4 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: Many thanks for your time but I think in not working. [16] I think the problem is on el:Πρότυπο:Football teams. See el:Χρήστης333/Test. Xaris333 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: Ok, I fixed it [17], but, unfortunately, with this, the articles withs the arrow, are on the category el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο. I don't want that... Xaris333 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: Thx for everything. I need one more thing to ask, if you have time and patient :) Xaris333 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Xaris333: The Τραϊανός Δέλλας article doesn't show the arrow because you translated all arrow parameters into Greek. I've fixed it in that specific article by changing "clubs2arrow=yes" to "ομάδες2δανεικός=yes". SiBr4 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of pages in the tracking category because they still include the arrow in the first parameter. Such pages need to be updated to use the new parameters instead. AWB should be able to do that. SiBr4 (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@SiBr4: I have corrected a lot by hand. I don't know how to do it with AWB, so I will continue by hand. May I ask you something similar? I want, if I write |managerclubs1=Arsenal |managerclubs1assistantcoach=yes to show Arsenal (assistant coach). Pls explain to me how to do it, or just edit the template for managerclubs1 and I will do the rest. Xaris333 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

That doesn't require any change to the Ft template, since you can just append text to the team with flag within the infobox. The coding depends on which parameter values you want the template to accept:

• {{#ifeq:{{{managerclubs1assistantcoach|}}}|yes|(assistant coach)}} to accept only "yes";
• {{#switch:{{{managerclubs1assistantcoach|}}}|yes|ναι|1=(assistant coach)}} to accept multiple values, such as the English and Greek words for "yes" or a logical "1";
• {{#if:{{{managerclubs1assistantcoach|}}}|(assistant coach)}} to accept any non-empty text, including words like "no". SiBr4 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@SiBr4: I prefer the first one. But I am not sure if I understand. Should I edit the el:Πρότυπο:Πληροφορίες ποδοσφαιριστή and how? And what am I going to write one the article? And I don't want the articles with (assistant coach) to be on the category el:Κατηγορία:Πρότυπο:Football teams για ομάδα που δεν υπάρχει στον κατάλογο. Xaris333 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333: I've made the change myself. The code adds the text "(assistant coach)" if the parameter value is equal to "yes", so to add the text to the infobox in an article, add the parameter |managerclubs1assistantcoach=yes, |managerclubs2assistantcoach=yes, etc. Because the text is added outside the Ft template, it should not result in articles ending up in the tracking category. SiBr4 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@SiBr4: Thanx for everything!!! Xaris333 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## Special:Search not working in Dolphin/Android/Samsung

It works in Samsung's default browser on their Note 10.1 but not in the Dolphin browser. Can this be fixed or is there another url? I'm trying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search . Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What does not working mean.... —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not possible to type into the search box - no flashing cursor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
On en.wikipedia.org or on en.m.wikipedia.org ? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## Random Article Is Not Working For Me

It keeps taking me to Mihail Maculeţchi most of the time. It will take me to some other page, then back to Mihail Maculeţchi, then Mihail Maculeţchi again, then some other page, then back to Mihail Maculeţchi. About 2/3 of the time it takes me to that one page. I had never even visited that page before now. I tried closing the browser and reopening it but it's still doing it. Only on this computer though. Has this ever happened to anyone else? 93.209.55.56 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's working for me, both when I am logged in and logged out. Does the same thing happen for you now? It may have been a temporary glitch. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Since I posted that yesterday, it stopped doing that and started working again BUT THEN this morning it started doing it AGAIN, this time on a different page New Age Vaudeville!! It goes to new age vaudeville more than half the time I click random article! Again, not doing it on my other computer.

## Burmese script

Until fairly recently (I don't know exactly when), I could see the Burmese script at Burmese alphabet and similar articles. Nothing has changed at my end that I'm aware of, but the letters are all now a bunch of boxes with their Unicode values. If I clip & paste into Word, they display properly, so there's nothing wrong with my fonts. Has something changed in the WP CSS that would affect Burmese? I'm on MS 7 with up-to-date FF. Burmese doesn't display on IE either, but then it never did. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi kwami,
To the best of your knowledge, is "fairly recently" most likely to be a couple of months, weeks, or days? What happens if you go to my:?
Burmese alphabet looks right for me until the table at the end, around "U+105x", in both Safari and Firefox on a Mac. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably a couple months. I created the Burmese Braille article back in November.
WP-my looks fine in text, links, and tabs, but I get boxes for section headings (those areas with a darkened background on the main page, titles and section headings in the articles). But I also get boxes in my url window, so maybe something happened to my browser? — kwami (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Couple of months is a little vague, but last year we had some trouble with webfonts for the Universal Language Selector, which were then disabled. You can enabled webfonts again in language settings; under fonts, enable "Download fonts when needed". Edokter (talk) — 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Where is that?
Problem is, I have the fonts. If I copy the boxes and past them in Word, they're fine, and they display on WP-my. When I go to Burmese web sites, I get the boxes, and again they display fine when copied. FF does not have a Burmese setting, and I can't unchoose my settings for 'other language'. How do you get it to display? — kwami (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Left, next to 'Languages' is a cog. That will open the settings. Edokter (talk) — 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
And where is 'Languages'? (I assume this is under my user prefs somewhere. I don't see anything.) — kwami (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• On the sidebar, under the Wikipedia logo, at the very bottom (assuming you don't have any scripts which change the order). Should be about 600 pixels south of the Wikipedia logo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that 'Languages'! I had no idea that cog was there. Yes, it works now. I'm still puzzled as to why FF doesn't know to use my installed fonts, but at least I can read the articles again. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OT, but I get the boxes in Facebook as well; in Burma they don't seem to have any trouble with FB. —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can see WP-my article text but not section headings. Maybe they force the font? — kwami (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In Burma they typically access the web by cellphone--if you already have a USB modem device, it's not possible to buy a SIM card for it--so maybe it's in the apps somewhere, or the mobile comes already configured for the country's language?
I checked the Languages cog box for "automatically download fonts" and can now see the Burmese Braille article with the Burmese text rendered correctly--but don't see any Burmese text in any headings. If this font is no longer enabled by default, is there some way to put the instructions for enabling the font in the article somewhere, maybe in the infobox? —Neotarf (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just weird that browsers would not support a major language like Burmese, assuming you have the fonts. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, with the language option enabled, other languages are lost, including many that use the basic Latin alphabet. (I assume this is why it's not enabled by default.) — kwami (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Google translate doesn't do Burmese, not to mention the Karen languages. I'm assuming it's because Burma/Myanmar has been so isolated for so many decades. It is really only in the last year that it has opened up to limited tourism, due to ceasefires in some areas.
I'm not sure how to tell if I have the fonts, I once tried to download them, but I think unsuccessfully. —Neotarf (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have Word, copy and paste some Burmese text into it, and see if it displays. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## Range contributions tool down?

http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php appears not to be working. Is this being worked on? It makes checking before rangeblocking a pain since the API has to be used... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not being worked on: nothing on Toolserver is (see archives). If there is no equivalent on Labs, the tool's owner should be informed. Unfortunately, we don't have a chm (talk · contribs) on English Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
And the owner in question is: de:User:C-M. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
D'oh. THAT one worked. The one I meant to say wasn't working was https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? , which is now working today. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Font too big

Is it possible to change back to the old font? Can you do it manually? The new font is too big, I have to zoom out all the time.. 62.50.178.88 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're using a plugin like Stylish, you can install this CSS. If you have an account, you can add add it to/import it from your vector.css. πr2 (tc) 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## "Naming"

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#UEFA U17/U19 qualifying titles. Discussion of article naming doesn't belong here. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## When do dates automatically update?

When working on Semi-protected edit requests, as listed at User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable, I often encounter requests to update peoples ages, which are set to automatically update, based upon the date of birth.
The most recent request was at Talk:Chance The Rapper which was requested today, although the person's birthday was 2 days ago.
Whenever I look at the article, following one of these requests, it always shows the correct age, but I cannot imagine so many semi-protected edit requests unless other people see the wrong age,
When, in UTC, do these ages update? Or do they need some other trigger, such as a visit to the page, to "force" an update? Arjayay (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

They update whenever the page's cache is invalidated. There's no regular interval for this, but it can be forced with a WP:PURGE. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not clear "whenever the page's cache is invalidated" occurs. Are we saying that the reader visits the page, finds the date is wrong, and files an update request, but visiting the page forces the update? Arjayay (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Caches are updated when pages (or templates included in it) are edited, are no longer in the cache (roughly not visited for 30 days or more) or when they are purged. That is as rough a description as possible. Alternatively you could say, the time or frequency with which calculated information is up to date is not guaranteed and should not be depended upon being up to date when authoring such information in the page. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

## Can a template generate potential references, that aren't realized unless cross-referenced?

I'm wondering if we can code info boxes to generate references that are only realized if they're called somewhere in the text.

An example is at Shinji language. The language info box generate reference footnotes for some of the language codes added at the bottom, such as Guthrie (Maho 2009). This can be cross-referenced in the article (as it is: fn 2). Others are only generated if they are cross-referenced in the population reference field. For example, if the ISO 639-3 code is supplied, it creates a direct link, but no footnote, since it's not being used as a reference for anything in particular. However, if "e17" (for Ethnologue, 17th ed.) is written in the ref field, a footnote is generated to Ethnologue, based on that ISO code.

Now, in this case (Shinji), there is no ISO code. Linguist List has an ad-hoc code, and they are discussed in the text. I can call this if I enter "linglist" in the ref field, which I've done (fn 1). However, that means I'm using it in the info box as a reference that no speaker data is available, which isn't true. I could create a footnote manually. However, it would be nice to have a footnote appear if I cross-referenced it, but not otherwise. That is, if I put a value in the linglist field in the box, there would be that direct link but no visible footnote, but if I call "ref name=linglist" in the text, a footnote would appear, based on the code entered in the info box. We don't want footnotes all the time, because Linguist List is a very poor source, and we don't want to suggest it's reliable.

kwami (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There's currently not a way to do this, but once bugzilla:61248 is fixed, there will be. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — kwami (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

## Arrow characters don't show up well in new font

Compare the appearance of e.g. "2.5 Equatorial ←→ galactic" in the TOC vs. in the body of Celestial coordinate system. For me, at least, the characters in between "Equatorial" and "galactic" look like arrows in the TOC, and like < and > signs in the body of the article. It Is Me Here t / c 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Combination of four Google Chrome screenshots at different zoom levels on Windows Vista
I have the same problem in all five tested browsers in Windows Vista. At certain sizes the horizontal lines in ← → in level 3 headers disappear, including the default zoom. If I zoom either in or out then it reappears but disappears again at further zooming out. It's visible for level 4 headers at default zoom but not at some other zoom levels. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks fine on my Mac, but I'm sure that User:Steven (WMF) would appreciate some screenshots (on wiki or by email), if someone has a few minutes.
On an unrelated point, what's wrong with the not-exactly-an-infobox in that article? I get "A <picture> <rest of caption>". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That was due to the 'thumb' parameter, resulting in a floating box inside the infobox, where only the 'A' would fit beside the image. Edokter (talk) — 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made four screenshots of the below headers at different zoom levels and placed them together. At 100% the level 3 header is missing the horizontal arrow lines. At 90% both headers have them. At 75% the level 3 is missing again. At 67% the level 4 is missing but level 3 is visible. These are the zoom levels Chrome gives when you hit ^ Ctrl+- three times. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm slightly baffled. That is plain old Arial and should not exhibit this behaviour. I'm tempted to throw this on a video driver issue. How long have you had this problem? (Noting that the typography has reverted back to 'sans-serif', but the font-size has remained at 0.875em.) Edokter (talk) — 01:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't noticed this problem before. I investigated it after seeing the report here. If I enable the "Vector classic typography" gadget then the horizontal lines in the arrows in both below headers are visible in Firefox (my normal browser) at default zoom (my normal zoom), but disappear at some other zoom levels. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

## Wilson's theorem

The mathematical stuff which should display

$(n-1)!\ \equiv\ -1 \pmod n$

$(n-1)!\ \equiv\ -1 \pmod n$.

I have no clue why, except maybe some css is borked. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

The equation appears to be showing properly at this time. It's possible that it was queued to be generated and wasn't done at the time you viewed the page. Nakon 06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
See WT:WPM#TeX not rendered. — HHHIPPO 09:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

## Citation template in RefToolbar sometimes disappears

Ever so often the cite dropdown vanishes. I know I'm not the only one. Any idea why this happens? It could be another Chrome issue but not related to the ones yesterday which were more general. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you using any kind of no-script or adblock plugin? If not, please paste the output of your Chrome Javascript Console Nakon 06:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not, but I can't figure out how to view the output. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled up the Console, through the process that this suggests, but I literally get an empty box. (I'm also having the references issue.) -- Zanimum (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Which of these versions do you have enabled? Helder.wiki 18:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) PS: There are some deprecated code at User:Dougweller/vector.js (addOnloadHook, getElementsByClassName, "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');").
I was seeing RefToolbar 2.0a. I'm just realizing that a few weeks ago, I had added some sort of .js to my account. Might one set of code knocked out the other? (I've told my account to reset, in preferences, which has restored the Cite feature, so I might not be able to trace what plugin was causing the issue.) -- Zanimum (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I want to replace the script with User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js but I can't edit my js page. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are unable to edit .js pages in general then do you have wikEd and if so, have you tried disabling it on the icon to the top right? If code in vector.js is preventing you from editing .js pages then try changing skin to remove the code, or use this MonoBook link. You already import User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js in User:Dougweller/common.js which is loaded in all skins, so there is no reason to add it to your vector.js. If you want specific edits to your js files and cannot edit them then an admin can do it, but say precisely what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But I am an Admin so thus should be able to edit my js files. Disabling wikEd didn't help. However, the link you gave me, this, worked. Much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## Keep me logged in (for up to 30 days)

Keep me logged in (for up to 30 days) says the en.wikipedia.org login page, but it never happens for me anymore, regardless of browser. It does not happen on Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, or Safari. Making sure cookies are turned on does not seem to help. In 2013 it worked fine. I am using Windows 7.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you done all the usual things at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache?
Are you logging into different computers or browsers? I understand that if you login to Browser A, then login to Browser B (or computer B), that it automagically logs you out of Browser A. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I generally stay logged in on 3 computers and about 8 browsers, I have noticed a slight tendency to get logged off recently, one might think this is to do with token invalidation,but it doesn't seem consistent enough for that. All the best, Rich Farmbrough00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
• Auto-logout every few hours when active: I have also noticed the "30-day login" dropping the username several times a day (on IE or Firefox separately), regardless of how many pages viewed or edited (at least 40 pages edited before auto-logout). I left a computer running for 2 days, inactive, and it held the username those 2 days plus several hours upon returning. At first I thought it an April Fools joke, to pretend the MediaWiki software was a pile of convoluted crap, but it really is that twisted; fortunately, it can also drop the username in 2 Frankenfonts. -Wikid77 16:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

## Multiple map pins from a single article?

I was doing some long-overdue cleanup in Duga-3 when I noticed that several new articles had been spun off that consisted of nothing other than bits cut from the main article. I was going to simply REDIR them back to main when I noticed some hints in the source text. See Duga-3_(eastern)_receiver for instance.

The apparent problem is that the Wikimaps layer will only create one pin per article. Is this actually true? If so, is there a way to fix this without resorting to a new article?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem a good reason to create a separate article - if it's the only justification it should be merged back. To show multiple locations on Google maps there's {{GeoGroup}}. If the sub-location is sufficiently interesting then surely there's an image of it, or one in e.g. Geograph we can add to Commons, then tag that and add it to the article. That will enable the article to be found. But I don't think we should create forks just to generate links from Google Maps.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at GeoGroup now… but where does one use a GeoGroup? It seems like it's trying to link multiple articles into one? I want to do the opposite, so to speak. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You can see GeoGroup here. It generates points for maps from the page. But it doesn't put them on the global map. I don't think there's any way to do that. I doubt Google would want it, single articles generating multiple points on their map. It would greatly clutter their map; the page I linked to earlier for example has over 100 locations, a lot bunched together on top of each other.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, so am I interpreting this correctly, simply placing the tag somewhere on the page is all I really need to do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For GeoGroup yes. Try it and have a look at the URL it generates: it basically passes a list of points to Google Maps by calling a tool on toolserver that extracts them from the article on the fly. So quick (quicker than it takes many WP pages to load) that you don't notice all the work it's doing. Apart from that you probably only need to use proper coords, i.e. {{coord}}, to make sure they're detected.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a map showing multiple points at List of National Trust properties in Somerset. I don't know if it would be suitable for your needs, but it may be an option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

## Request for article statistics list on WP:Physiology

Another user, CFCF, has created this very useful wikiproject, for a group of articles that are currently underattended. This complements the two existing projects (WP:MED and WP:ANATOMY), and I'm a participant. It's hard to get the project going without an idea of what articles are under our scope. I was wondering how we could get the list of articles and the stats on them up for WP:Physiology? I'd be very grateful for any assistance. --LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently there are about 12 articles in the project - see this special page. The simplest way to move on is
• Find which categories interest the project (Category:Physiology and sub cats, Category:Physiologists and sub cats, for example).
• Ask at "Bot requests" to have these articles tagged.
• Be sure to request that the "class" parameter is copied from any existing banners.
• Create the categories (I had a script to do this automatically which I am not allowed to use, but it shouldn't take long manually.)
• There is a template, somewhere, which will give you the full stats, automatically.
• Rate the articles fro importance, and then start improving them!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

## Tech News: 2014-17

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## Can't make Old AfD multi link correctly

See the Old AfD multi template at the head of User talk:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton. Why does the middle link take one to the AfD and not to the DRV page whose address I gave? JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Fixed Special:Diff/605135493. See Template:Old_AfD_multi#Parameters. --Glaisher [talk] 11:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I did read those instructions, but I missed the vital words 'instead of "page"'. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## Tracking direct use of templates

Is it possible to track here a template is used directly in an article, rather than via inclusion in another template? Background is at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes#Bare use of infobox base template; please help or advise if you can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked the same question three months ago, with the reply that it isn't. You could use AWB to search for articles using a template directly (see my user subpage for examples), but I don't think it's possible to track direct transclusions with parser functions and tracking categories only. SiBr4 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the very high number of indirect transclusions, your best best would be to use a dump analyser. You could do this yourself or get someone else to do it, but it would almost certainly be more of a "one off" kind of a thing than a tracking category. I see there is a prototype tool to assist with this, but it doesn't seem to be production ready yet. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
A one-off dump would suffice, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In progress. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. I'm going to be offline for a week, but will look forward to dealing with that on my return. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Found 2398, listed at User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

## Search info

If I put a quote in a search, such as "and and" I get lots of "and"s. I thought that if you enclosed a string in quotes that would be all you would get.  Jodosma  (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is with the old search backend, but with the new one it works so that when there is no match, it will start showing things that match within a certain degree of fuzziness. So locations where "and" is close to another "and", but not directly next to it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
With the new search backend, which you can enable on the "Beta" tab at Special:Preferences, you can append "tilde zero" to insist that there are zero words between the two "ands", thus: "and and"~0. This search gives 2426 results. You can read about this new feature here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## From talk page to the article

Hello. With many templates, articles and articles talk pages are included to a category. Is there a way by insering a template to talk page, to have the article categorized and not the talk page itself? Xaris333 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## Floating Issue

I have discovered a floating issue that prevents certain multimedia objects from floating above others. It occurs only if:

• there are multiple multimedia objects on one side of the page
• the multimedia object on the other side comes after the other ones in the source code

The first multimedia object on the latter side of the page won't float above the last multimedia object on the former. See here for an example. Can it be fixed? If not, I can just add to help pages about images guidelines on how to get around it. Esszet (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added {{stack}} to your example so the issue goes away.[48] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Can it be fixed anyway so that you don't have to use {{stack}}? I'd never heard of it before yesterday, and I imagine there are a lot of editors who are likewise unfamiliar with it.
Also note that the issue does not apply to multimedia objects positioned in the center of the page. Esszet (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is normal behavior of floats, as specified by the HTML/CSS standards. If you want them to be on both sides, you have to alternate them, like I did in this exampleTheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll add something about it to WIkipedia:Extended Image Syntax. Esszet (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## {{flagicon|Morocco}} not displaying properly

{{flagicon|Morocco}} () is not displaying properly for me using IE11 on Windows 7 - what I see looks like a striped hyphen in the middle of the flagicon frame. Does it appear correct on other browsers/OS? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

How about now? The 23px of the flag image version seemed to be corrupt. I managed to purge it. Edokter (talk) — 10:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks right now. Thanks, Edokter. DH85868993 (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Er... that's probably not meant to have happened. — Scott talk 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What was there before? Links such as Special:PermanentLink/12345678 seem to be working. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean you don't have "Permanent link" under Tools in the left pane? I still have it, but shortly ago I didn't have the "Print/export" menu or any of "Create a book", "Download as PDF", "Printable version". They have all come back. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Now I get it. Just go to Special:PermanentLink on its own and you'll see what I mean. I was expecting it to produce a simple interface, much like Special:Thanks. Sorry, could have been a better description of the "problem", I genuinely thought that was some kind of 404 error. — Scott talk 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: There's a bug for that! πr2 (tc) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! CC'ed myself. — Scott talk 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## Possible change in Lua mw.html library

For those interested in such things, there is a discussion open at bugzilla:62982 about a possible change to the way the mw.html Scribunto library works. For those more comfortable with commenting on-wiki, there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Lua#mw.html library nil behaviour. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## CSS/JS request

Im looking for a way to highlight URLS to specific domains with a colored background, and I dont know enough about CSS/JS to do it. Werieth (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be something like:
a[href*="<url>"] { background-color: <color>; }

In this context '*=' means 'contains substring'; '^=' (i.e. 'starts with') might also be helpful. Writ Keeper  17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, however it doesnt do what Im looking for. I was hoping to highlight references and such that contain said a given domain. It works for internal links that contain the text, but external links on wiki are not affected. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werieth (talkcontribs) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth: Ah, it's just getting overridden by other things. Try slapping in an "!important", like a[href*="news.yahoo"] { background-color: Red !important; }. Writ Keeper  17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## مساعدة

انا مستخدم من ويكيبيديا العربية اريد أن اعرف كيف جعلتم الاسماء المخالفة مثلاً(التي تحتوي على البريد الالكتروني)لا تستطيع ان تسجل في ويكيبيديا الانكليزية هل هو مرشحح أساءة اما ماذا (اريد ان انقله الى ويكيبيديا العربية)ارجوا الاجابة بالغة العربية--Zen alramahi (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Machine translation for Arabic leaves something to be desired, so I think we could use the services of a translator. Novusuna talk 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Translation: "I am a user from Arabic Wikipedia. I want to know how did you make the inappropriate usernames, for example, (that contain email address) not able to register in English Wikipedia. Is it an abuse filter or what? (I want to move it to Arabic Wikipedia.) Please answer in Arabic." --Meno25 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you my friendUser:Jackmcbarn --Zen alramahi (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

## Template:Location map~ issue

Has anyone noticed that at least one instance of the maps with coordinates is broken? I noticed it on this template and am wondering if it is occurring on other pages besides this template. Did something change somewhere, or is this part of a larger problem? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to write 'broken how?' but then I purged it and suddenly all the icons are flush with the left edge, with labels some visible some not so still thinking the icons are placed in the middle. Strange.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Module preview shows it was was broken by this edit to Module:Location map by Jackmcbarn. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot to account for the edge case of a 360-degree wide map. All fixed now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a continuation of #Burmese script.

With font-downloading enabled, I could see Burmese script, but not a lot of things in Latin script. Latin transliterations in language templates, for example, as at Wiktionary (e.g. entries 3 & 5 at wikt:er#Mandarin, also the Manx etymology below it, and the Low German entry above it, which are all replaced by black spaces; also mamni taká and Baam at the top of my watch page today, in the 'words wanted' section, which I couldn't see there but could copy & paste here). So a couple days ago I disabled the fonts. Now I can no longer see Burmese, but I still can't see the Latin stuff. How do I fix that? — kwami (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

## Diacritic not displaying correctly in Helvetica

Screenshot of the ExtIPA diacritic for "nareal consonant" in several fonts.
A tilde plus trema diacritic is used for this in the Extensions to the IPA: [n͋] is an alveolar nareal fricative, with no airflow out of the mouth, while [v͋] is an oral fricative (a [v]) with simultaneous nareal frication. No known natural language makes use of nareal consonants.

This combination of phonetic diacritics, described as tilde plus trema, displays incorrectly in Helvetica, as two tildes stacked vertically.

I'm using Firefox 28.0 under Mac OS X 10.7.5.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like it's a font problem, and I can pretty much tell you exactly what happened. The  ͋ diacritic has a unicode code point of U+034B, while the  ͌ diacritic is U+034C. I bet they got conflated when the font was created, and they are both so rarely used that nobody noticed. VanIsaacWScont 04:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so in Helvetica, the glyph for U+034B displays as the glyph of U+034C ? If someone can hand me as much background info as possible on that (specifications by the unicode group preferred), I'll file a developer bugreport with Apple on that problem. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that Thnidu's font seems to have it wrong. But I wouldn't file any sort of bug report until I knew where his/her copy of Helvetica came from, which version it is, etc. VanIsaacWScont 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tilde w/ dots: ͋v Double tilde: ͌v

Firefox 28.0 and Safari 7.0.3 under MacOSX 10.9.2: both display as double-tildes, but the "tilde with dots" glyph is slightly larger than the "double tilde" glyph. --Carnildo (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It look rights in Windows Vista and I don't have a Mac but a test at http://www.browserstack.com/screenshots selecting Mac OS X Lion and Firefox 25 gave a screenshot with the described error: http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/maclion_firefox_25.0.png. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have filed this with Apple and it has the id 16710194 in their bugreport database. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Lower case category sort key

I was trying to sort an article under (lower case) "e" but on the category page it was sorted under (capital) "E". Does anyone have any suggestion as to how to get around this? Here's the category: Category:English lexical sets. I'd wanted to sort DRESS lexical set under "e" since that's the IPA symbol (not "E"). Jimp 12:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We make use of a collation where A and a are grouped under the same sort key. In the majority of cases this is extremely useful. Unfortunately for your specific case, that means that there it is not possible to list E and e under a different sortkey. They will be ordered separately inside the sortkey group, but they will all share the same group, which is in this case starts with E and is thus called E. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
We used to have case-sensitive cat sorting, with "a" sorting after "Z"; but it was altered to case-insensitive just over three years ago, in early March 2011 with MediaWiki 1.17. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This was an unfortunate consequence of the community not being able to make integrated sensible decisions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

## Old, unclosed AfDs

I'm wondering what we can do about old, unclosed AfDs. Occasionally I come across pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demomotus, which was deleted in 2004, yet technically was never closed. Is it okay to add the usual closing templates?-- 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Angr (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.-- 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy means that there's no need to put closing templates on decade old discussions where the primary link has gone red. In my opinion, it muddies the historic record by introducing a template that didn't exist at the time of the discussion, so I recommend not doing that. If you really feel that it needs clarifying, you can add a hatnote. — Scott talk 10:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## how do i delete a sandbox subpage?

For example I'm done with User:BoogaLouie/sandbox/Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's easy, just tag it with {{db-u1}}. Novusuna talk 22:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

## A beta option without option to start a response

Resolved

I have chosen beta option "Nearby Pages" (the coord drop thing). When I tried to respond, there was no button to "start new section on talk page" [49]. (Only half cynically: is that part of the beta too?) -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC) To be clear: I am not asking what the new route is. I am asking: why is it not there? -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That is one of only two talk pages where Flow is enabled (the anticipated successor to Liquid Threads). Edokter (talk) — 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi DePiep,
On that page, you should see a box that says "Start a new topic" in light gray (or New topic if you're not using English on that site). It appears after the small note that says "Note: this page is using Flow; to give feedback on Flow, please use the Flow talk page" and before the big headline "What can we do to make the next version even more awesome?" If you're not seeing it (whether that's because there's nothing there or because the light gray text is impossible to read), then please let User:Quiddity (WMF) know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Now I see that box. It is very light indeed (in my current screen setting). Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: There's a bug filed about the text being unreadable, bug 59933. Matma Rex talk 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## User talk histmerge

Could some kind (and brave) admin histmerge User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 to User talk:Rich Farmbrough, please? The contents of User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 should be kept there, by cut and paste as needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Due to the number of revisions, this would have to be handled by a steward. –xenotalk 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
No it wouldn't; I've just done it like so. Graham87 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Lowercase Sigma Bot

Does this bot understand the old style date stamps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Assuming that you mean the timestamps in the style of this thread, then the MiszaBots could certainly handle it, but I don't know Python so I can't tell from Lowercase sigmabot III's source code how it would react to them. Σ, could you answer this question one way or another? Graham87 07:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Wikipedia email not working when I send but works when others send to me

I changed my email in preferences to a new one a few weeks ago and AFAICT it's not working, but only when I send messages to another user; it works when people send messages to me. It's a rather standard Yahoo email address, - no strange characters; in fact it's seven roman alphabet characters, all lowercase, followed by two numbers AT yahoo.com, like johndoe99@yahoo.com. About a week ago I emailed another user who said they never got it. They then emailed me using the Wikipedia facility and I did get it, so I know Wikipedia actually recognizes the correct email I have set. As a test, I sent myself two emails using the Wikipedia interface over an hour ago and got neither.

Also I have my preferences set to "Send me copies of emails I send to other users" and when I send emails, the similar box on the email page that says "Email me a copy of my message" is also ticked. I have never gotten a single copy of an email I have sent in the past few weeks and I've sent a few, including one earlier today (that I now expect, won't reach its intended recipient). Yes, I am checking both spam and trash folders. I am simply not receiving. Could it be something in my various interface tweaks, scripts, my use of Monobook? Any ideas?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just guessing: Maybe related to Yahoo's recent DMARC policy? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Crap. Thanks for the info. Looks like I'm opening a new gmail account today.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. just as confirmation, I set up a Gmail account, sent out the email I had sent earlier, got the copy as I'm supposed to, and got a reply which indicated that the prior email sent through Yahoo! was never received.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is serious. Is the Foundation considering a workaround like some sort of cooperation with Yahoo, or writing Yahoo "sender" addresses in the mail body and not the sender field which could be something like "noreply@wikimedia.org"? And how about warning users with Yahoo addresses? At a minimum, we should add info about this to email help pages like Help:Email confirmation and Wikipedia:Emailing users, but most users will not see that, and the issue affects all wikis. MediaWiki:Prefs-help-email is displayed at Email options at Special:Preferences, but a warning to all users without knowing whether they have Yahoo would probably be too much. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## LaTex to UTF-8 best practice?

I'm contemplating creating a series of mathematical bibliography articles. The bibliography entries tend to exist in BibTeX (a very good thing). These should be converted to UTF-8 in the article (this is for author and journal names, not the occasional mathematical notation). This is straightforward in vim+python, but I'm wondering if there's a better way. Here's an example of a partially-fixed BibTeX entry:

1937.01 0018.00606 @Article{zbMATH03028358,Author = {Pál {Erdős} and Vojt\v{e}ch {Jarn\'{\i}k}},Title = {{Eine Bemerkung über lineare Kongruenzen.}},FJournal = {{Acta Arithmetica}},Journal = {{Acta Arith.}},ISSN = {0065-10 36; 1730-6264/e},Volume = {2},Pages = {214--220},Year = {1937},Publisher = {Instytut Matematyczny PAN,Warszawa} ,Language = {German},MSC2010 = {11D79 11A07},Zbl = {0018.00606}}

Note that I've already done the code to get the "á" in "Pál" and the "ő" in "Erdős", but I've not yet done the work to convert "Vojt\v{e}ch {Jarn\'{\i}k}}" to "Vojtěch {Jarník}".

I'm guessing I'm not the first person to need a LaTeX->UTF8 source translator. Any ideas other than writing my own?

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Issue with a Preference Gadget

For some reason the gadget (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets) under "Appearance" titled "Add a "Sandbox" link to the personal toolbar area" isn't working for me anymore. This seems to have changed sometime in the last couple of hours because the "Sandbox" link in my toolbar is no longer there. Anyone know what might have happened? Thanks, — 08:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I lost the Twinkle gadget just now, but a Ctrl-F5 browser refresh restored it. Any joy? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Whelp, that fixed it. I certainly feel silly now. Case closed. Thank ya, — 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## Minor edits

Is there any specific reason that this checkbox is disabled for IP editors? No opinion on whether it should be or not, I'm just curious because I'm so used to seeing it there. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)

Help:Minor edit says: "Users who are not logged in to Wikipedia are not permitted to mark changes as minor because of the potential for vandalism. The ability to mark changes as minor is one of many reasons to register." It has been there since the page creation in 2004. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, then I'm just blind. Many thanks. 206.117.88.5 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

## How do I create a search box

How do I create a search box in my user space to search for articles within my user space? Valoem talk contrib 16:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How about {{search box}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, how do I search for everything on Wiki including all user spaces and Wiki back pages? Valoem talk contrib 16:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There is only one User space; but if you mean "all user pages", you would use {{search box|root=User:|noslash=yes}}. What do you mean by "Wiki back pages"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You might want to change your defaults in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions. It's one of the first preference changes I make, whenever I restore-to-default, or create an account on a new wiki. –Quiddity (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks I've been looking for that. Valoem talk contrib 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)