Icon nowrite
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > New Features: Style Switcher/Visual Editing/Navigation Popups
ForGaroux Some Assembly Required!

Ever since the great Wikia/Curse split, I've been wracking my brain for ways to distinguish our wiki in a unique and appealing way. This time around, I have three new features that I'd like to discuss with the community, as I feel they could really improve the quality of our article pages, as well as the wiki's aesthetics. I would now like to move onto discussions, and I'll be looking forward to community feedback before I throw these features to the vote, which will take place two-weeks from today.

Style SwitcherEdit

A looong time ago, shortly after the events that led up to Nukapedia's creation, I had started up discussions over improving the background. You may find that here. Unfortunately, there weren't many present here at the time that had the tools available to add onto the diversity of options available, and many were concerned with whether or not we should stick with dark text on a light background, or if we should change over to a light text on a dark background.

That really stuck with me, and it got me to thinking on how we could rectify that problem and cater to every editors' needs, when some might have problems reading with light on dark, and others might have problems reading dark on light. With the help of Pecoes, we might finally have a solution, as presented:



Style #2


Discussion Part 1Edit

The two images I provided above are examples as to how the style switcher would work on our wiki. Is this something the community would like to see? If so, are there any additional modifications you'd like to see? And if not, then please explain so we may attempt to create an alternative. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:38, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, you might want to go take a look at the COD wiki. They've been doing some serious modifications to the site. I don't know if there's anything there we'd want to do, but it more to think about. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 19:54, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Anything in particular? I'll head over there after lunch and see if there's any inspiration to be had. Thanks for the heads-up. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:56, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

This is a possible accessability win, as I understand light-on-dark is better for some medical conditions. Agent c (talk) 19:56, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I love it. I have a light text over dark background over at the Fallout RP Wiki and it is easier on my eyes. However, it's harder for me to type if I have the lights off in my room because the screen doesn't provide much light versus the lighter screen from typing when on this Wiki. So an option to go back and forth between both is better in my opinion. PS: I like all of the things pinned to your taskbar. Lol. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 02:37, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I honestly prefer our current look, there has always been something about our background that really works with the theme of the games. However a change may be necessary to attract new users, and this new format doesn't look half bad at the moment. Perhaps we can have a more streamlined preview of what you are thinking of as a final solution? ---bleep196- (talk) 20:22, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussion again, Bleep. :P You're missing what we're actually talking about. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:31, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea, I just hope it stays something that fits the feel of Fallout, namely grays greens and browns. The first example is an example of something I wouldn't like. But the second one is definitely on the right track. I know those two are just examples, but they're a good springboard to explain what I would and would not like personally. VictorFaceMonitor Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! Talk to me! 22:16, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Part 2Edit

As mentioned above, the two images provided above are just examples, and are not necessarily the colour scheme I'm proposing. If we were to implement the style switcher feature, what colours would you like to see, and just how many variations should we offer? The most popular choices will be thrown up in a vote after this discussion period is up. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:38, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I would say keep it simple, Nukapedia Classic, as the default, and "Vegas", orange on black. Agent c (talk) 19:57, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Remember that we can have more than one alternative. :) I think I'd be comfortable with proposing the Nukapedia default, along with three alternatives that can be chosen from. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:00, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

After a long day staring at a bright monitor, having a mostly dark background can be quite refreshing. We vote for having the option. (But not a glaring red or orange.)DarthOrc (talk) 05:40, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

JS alternative background
You're showing an example for a message wall, and not what's more important, namely how it looks on article content page. Not sure if it's coincidence but the 2nd example (dark green) look like it's worth a shot if we would want to offer a darker background, white text as an alternative. The dark green mixes well with the light green infobox coloring. I've created a mock-up example shown below. Still I feel nothing beats white background, black text for readability. You didn't mention the sidebars, but as far as I'm concerned we keep the one we have now. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:28, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Green is my favorite color hunter green to be exact.

SaintPain TinySaintPainHere to help." 21:40, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Visual EditingEdit

When we were still known as 'The Vault', and our founder Ausir had just moved from the Duck and Cover host to Wikia, it was decided by the old Administration that Visual Editing should be removed with only Source Editing given as an option to editors. There was absolutely no community consent towards this decision, and so I would now like to ask our modern community what they think towards having or not having Visual Editing. If Visual Editing is to be brought back through community consensus, Source Editing would still remain as the default choice when editing a page, but this would still offer an alternate choice towards those that do not prefer Source.

Source Mode


Visual Mode



Keep in mind everyone that Visual Mode is merely preference. I feel that having this option will open up a more friendly environment towards editors with different editing tastes. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:38, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely go with a big NO to Visual Mode. It does more harm than good on other wikis and it's much easier to manipulate pages using Source mode anyway. Great Mara (talk) 04:44, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how it'd be harmful, so those reading can make a factual opinion regarding this feature. I personally don't like Visual Mode. But I have used it, and in my experience, it is merely a preference. No one is forcing anyone to use Visual Mode, and Source Mode would still be the default method here. So I'm a bit confused as to how it'd be harmful. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:50, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to reiterate that the reason I am bringing this up to the community, is so we can cater to the many, and not just to the few. Like I said, I do not like Visual Mode. But why should my personal disliking dictate whether or not other users can use Visual Mode or not, when that might be their preference? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:51, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding, the visual editor leaves a crap ton of html artifacts on pages. This can create some serious problems when using a complicated mix of html and mediawiki markup (like our site does). I don't know the exact situation in regards to that right now, but I do know that Wikia is looking a a few other editor options. You've got Darwin in testing that will probably be enforced wikia wide, and you've got the new wysiwyg virtual editor like Wikipedia has in beta coming along. I'm not sure if now's the time to look at the editor. Perhaps we should wait and see what Wikia has coming in the near future? The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 19:43, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
You know, I didn't even think about the HTML dump that comes with using Visual Mode. Thanks for pointing that out. And you're more than likely right - I was just wanting to give the community a chance since they never had one before. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:46, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's a good idea, since it is easier for newer editors to use, but with the changes coming down the pike from Wikia, it may be better to see what they are doing before we do anything. If the new visual editor goes wikia-wide, and I do like that one, it would render this change moot. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 19:51, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Hate visual editor... and in any case lets table this until more Darwin info is publicly available. Agent c (talk) 19:55, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Consider discussion still open for Visual Editing, but the voting is out until I do my research a bit more into this Darwin. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:58, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I will delve more into the discussion when I get home, but I must too present my dislike for visual mode. On this Wiki, only being able to edit from the source facilitates a greater understanding of the code behind it, which is what I think makes us such great editors. I foresee a lot of problems with users attempting to edit our custom templates with the visual mode. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 20:04, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Another good point. It's nice having a gauntlet of sorts while editing to learn how to properly utilize templates and wiki-code. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:08, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Visual editing is superfluous and burdensome, IMO. Besides arbitrary preference I can see little benefit in adding it. But if there is a want for the option, then I suppose adding it can't do too much harm, provided that source remains the default. --Skire (talk) 20:12, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's simplicity is deceptive in its appearance; editing within editing, previews within a place that already provides such a function. I agree with TwoBears that I think serious editors would be able to grasp the codes behind the pages, and the fact that we pretty much have has made the editors of this Wiki more efficient, so maybe it's better to get people into the habit of using the source mode... In a way its a function that would best suit one-timers or minor editors. If there is a want, it probably wouldn't be too much trouble but I don't see a significant benefit. --Tribal Wisdom (talk) 21:28, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this either way. I think a visual editor is nice, I like to use it when making small text edits on pages with lots of markup because it keeps those things tucked away hidden. I think this could be convenient for newer editors too who are doing the same sort of thing. But as was noted above, since Wikia are coming forth with new visual editing features, it may be best to wait until we see those before implementing this. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 02:33, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

We don't like the visual editing mode and never edit in it. If it is to be an option, let the source mode be the initial presentation because, if one has slow internet, switching takes a while (it is an annoyance on another Wiki we edit that the visual mode is the default and we have to waste time switching).DarthOrc (talk) 05:39, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point, having to switch does become a pain, even without slow internet. And now I'll be repeating other things like html, custom templates, upcoming changes... I don't even find the aesthetics much cop, despite being behind the scenes. It's something for starters, but in the long run I think its better if people get the hang of raw data. This can only be about giving others a choice, which is okay, but we should at least keep source as the default. --Tribal Wisdom (talk) 12:58, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Visual mode has only aesthetical value, while in source mode one can edit without any of rich text (unnecessary <font> tags or html scripts etc.). Energy X 09:50, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Never was a fan of this layout, especially since this was my starting Wiki, and have grown accustomed to the current ways. I'm not going to say that it's not a definite no for me, but I don't think we'll be getting too much good out of it. I just think that new editors, like you claim, may have a hard time with this layout since they aren't used to it.--User ncr A Safe People is a Strong People! 16:59, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

It seems that no one else remembers this but the decision to move away from visual was in fact a wiki consensus. It's one of the many reasons why the vault moved, because Wikia was trying to push it upon all the wikis, and there was a protest against it. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:28, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I remember when it was removed, and it was Administrative consensus, not community. If you can find some sort of forum where its removal was discussed, I'd be happy to add it in here as a referral points for positives/negatives. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:33, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
I occasionally edit at the Elder Scrolls wiki and I can tell you that Visual editing is a pain. Plus with all the (potential) upcoming modifications to wikia's editing system I don't think it should be re-implemented until more information is available. FollowersApocalypseLogoōrdō āb chao 20:56, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Navigation PopupsEdit

The navigation popup tool is a very interesting feature, in that it will provide a short summary of any link that you mouse over. Along with the short summary of each respective page, the popups will also provide links to quick-edit a page, the page history, and will even provide Administrator actions such as the protect/delete/move tools. These popups can also be customized to fit better with the wiki aesthetics, as not to become too cumbersome when reading or editing an article-page.




Want to try this out for yourself because the example wasn't enough to base an opinion over? Please copy the follow information into your Special:Mypage/common.js and then refresh your browser's private cache:

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + '' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
function siteArticlePath(){ return 'wiki'; }
function siteBotInterfacePath(){ return ''; }


As a quick note, even if this feature doesn't pass as a wiki-wide feature, the javascript I have listed can still work for individuals that find it a useful tool. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 07:56, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

The style with yellow text looks much better imo. Nice work Leon. Enclavesymbol 19:44, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Happy that you approve. :) Don't give me your thanks, though. Send your regards to Lupin over at Wikipedia for the amazing work he does. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:54, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I like this, I can see its uses for/as an editor, but I don't see it wiki-wide simply because I think most people find it more satisfying/reassuring going to and from actual pages. But a good feature all the same. --Tribal Wisdom (talk) 22:40, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I think this is great! I wish I knew about this sooner. I think it should be implemented wiki wide, I can see a lot of convenience for both regular browsers and editors. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 02:29, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes having things pop up can be irritating. We would like to be able to toggle the feature on or off.DarthOrc (talk) 05:44, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to my common.js and see how I experience it. It's a good find but I'm sharing DarthOrc concerns that popups can become irritating. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:36, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I've been using it for a while now, and while there's enough time to avoid the pop-up when following a link, it is a tad irritating, chasing links down the page because they don't leave a trail. I know they can be toggled on/off from page to page but that's only temporary, if there was a simpler way, or ways to toggle, for example just weapons or characters on et cetera that would be neat. --Tribal Wisdom (talk) 17:26, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused towards the concern. One has to purposefully place their cursor over a link for the pop-up to appear, making it the reader's prerogative for whether or not they come up at all. Nevertheless, I'll see what can be done for a toggle option. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:37, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much a concern, it can be useful, I think peoples irritations come from, yes it comes in handy, it's just having every link pop-up at you (even ones like the "edit" button) without having a toggle to keep it off every now and then or having a way of being a bit choosy (which I accept may not necessarily practical). But then again you're right, the reason you're on that link is to find/learn more, I think people like it but are just finding the little things which are potentially fixable/changeable. --Tribal Wisdom (talk) 22:37, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
I havent tried this, but think I understand the concern. The number of times I've scrolled down on a page such that a keyword ad on a site rolls through where my mouse cursor is has put me off certain sites. Agent c (talk) 20:37, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm really neutral on the whole thing, but if you need help implementing the templates (if it passes, and I think it's a neat idea), I could join the project or whatever we decide to do. It's a cool idea, but there are some things that could get annoying, like DarthOrc said, pop-ups can get irritating. If there's an on/off feature, that'd be stellar. Dead Gunner&#039;s SMG JPG1 "Semper Invictus" 10:44, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

There would be no templates. This is JavaScript that would be instantly applied to every link on our wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:57, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

I have no complaints. Pop-ups is something I won't worry about, and it would help out for those who don't wish to navigate from page to page for quick info.--User ncr A Safe People is a Strong People! 17:03, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

I must confess, I did think it might become a nuisance but after using it even longer I find it doesn't particularly get in the way, in fact I hardly notice it until I want to, so despite any mixed messages, I conclude on a like :-) --Tribal WisdomVulturPapa-Hoatzin 17:46, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think this looks great, but we should be conscience of where we put it. Popups can cause loading issues, as well as become a nuance to the regular users. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:30, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

  • The JavaScript would apply to every single link on the wiki.
  • I have tested this on an old computer of mine that I used back in 1998, and it didn't cause any loading issues. Feedback would be nice if it does actually cause issues for some.
  • Through the browser preferences, JavaScript allowance can be turned on/off. I'll still see about getting us a toggler, though, as that'd be more convenient. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:37, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Last DayEdit

Alright, it looks like the discussion period has just about wrapped up now. Here are the three main points I'd like to direct everyone's attention to before I throw up the vote tomorrow:

  • The Visual Editing topic is put on hold for now. Discussion can still take place, but it won't be needed at the same time.
  • If the navigational pop-up feature is added, I will be putting it in as a gadget. What this means is that editors have to go into their preferences, and under gadgets, they will have the choice to turn it on/off, with the default being off.
  • It seems there is a majority supporting the style switcher feature. However, we can't do anything until we get community feedback on the colour palette. Example 2 has some positive feedback. But we're going to need more input before this is thrown to the vote. Please suggest ideas, and support the ideas you think would look best here. Thank you. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 15:41, October 12, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, since there has been little to no community feedback, I will be talking with the Bureaucrats to decide on the colour palette that will be used. Expect the vote to be up late tomorrow. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:31, October 13, 2013 (UTC)


I'm ok with the navigational pop-up as a gadget, but not as a standard. After trying it for a week or so, I've turned it off again. It began to bother me to be honest popping up everytime. What do you have in mind for a style-switcher vote, Leon? The only one that possibly qualifies in my opinion is the second one, we have take into account how the color looks on normal pages, with infoboxes. They grey one wouldn't be good, doesn't go well with the the beige of the infobox. What other pallette you have in mind? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:33, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

And I presume your vote would be with the banner staying as we have it now, I presume? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:35, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • With very little community feed-back, I have asked for the Bureaucrats to decide upon the three colour blends that will be put up for the community vote. I sent you a message a moment ago regarding that, and forwarded that message to the other two Bureaucrats.
  • Banner? I'm not proposing anything except for a style switcher that would change out colours between the side-bars. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 15:42, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
I only see 2 pallettes in this forum. What's the third? Or do us bc's have to come up with 1 more ourselves? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:56, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
The two I put up here were merely examples. In this forum, I was asking the community to put forth colour blend options. Since this has not happened, I am asking the Bureaucrats to come up with 3 different colour blends. Once they've been decided, I will create further examples using those colours which I'll use in the community vote. To be honest, I don't think it's asking much for the Bureaucrats to talk over colours they'd like to see for this feature. I'll do the rest. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:09, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, one will be the default that we currently use. You mean for us to come up with two others, correct? Possibly including your example #2, or do you want a total of 4? The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 20:15, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
Default is default. The way I'm thinking it should be, is we have default, which is white on black, and we can add in another light variation, as well as two dark to even everything out and add some variation for our readers/editors. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:17, October 14, 2013 (UTC)


  • Style Switcher - We are currently getting everything polished up and shiny before we release this concept in a community vote. We're hoping to have this finished once Darwin is out and everything is back to normal. I'll let everyone know as soon as this happens so we can get the ball rolling.
  • Navigational Pop-ups - We've gotten a lot of feedback over this idea, and I've taken all of the positives and negatives together. I will be putting up a vote for this tomorrow, and as of now, the idea is to add this feature as a gadget that can be turned on/off through everyone's account preferences. Default will be off. Thank you for your patience everyone. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:43, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Update 2Edit

Navigational pop-ups have now been added in as a gadget. This means that everyone can now go into their preferences and turn it on at their discretion. Enjoy! ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:29, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Update 3Edit

  • The Visual Editor has been put on hiatus for a bit, after the new variation introduced with Project Darwin proved to conflict with personal changes our wiki has made in the past. This discussion has now been split off, and discussion will resume independently once we receive further news.
  • As for the Style Switcher, I'm afraid this is a project I'm being forced to drop for now. The project is mostly complete, but unfortunately, there are still a few issues that haven't been accounted for yet which is keeping it from being officially implemented here. If anyone would like to pick up this project while I have it on hold, feel free to shoot me a message, and I'll send the rough product your way. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:42, January 23, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.