The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
Additional skins won't be added at this time as they would significantly increase our cache sizes.
Right now, the only available skins are Vector 2010 (for desktop) and MinervaNeue (for mobile devices). During the forking discussion, we've decided that we will talk about enabling more skins after the fork, but it seems like people have either forgotten or haven't cared about it anymore, maybe because our current skin is already good enough and we don't necessarily need more looks. However, given some people may be interested in different styles, I think this thread makes sense.
I would propose these 4 skins being added as an option for logged-in users.
- Monobook
The old version of Vector. Most of 2000s wikis started with this theme, including Minecraft Wiki. The biggest benefit of this skin is that it works on literary most of the browsers, including those from late 1990s and early 2000s. It's simple and functional, though aesthetically kinda sucks. Used on Bulbapedia and Yokai Watch Wiki for example.
- Timeless
A very popular skin, used on wikis such as Inkipedia. This skin resembles Vector skin, while making stuff such as search more visible. It's very responsive and can be used both as a mobile and desktop skin.
- Citizen
A functional yet stable wiki skin, developed by people who maintain the Star Citizen Wiki. It's generally considered to be one of the most beautiful skins and nowadays more and more wikis offer it as option or ship with it by default.
- Cosmos
This skin is an open-source implementation of the "Oasis" skin, used on Fandom from 2010 until 2021. It's directed towards people, who prefer a fixed-width skin over what Vector-like full-width skins offer. Used by Polandball Wiki
- 👁 Image
Support all skins --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose all skins. They would only be available for logged in users which is a small minority of readers or expand our amount of caching enormously when available for logged out users. I think neither option is worth the amount of extra work required to support and maintain those skins. Specially considering we still don't have a working mobile dark skin. 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Comment - Ideally, having all these skin options would be great, but I just have no idea how we'd realistically implement them, nobody is motivated to work on mobile dark mode, let alone four extra skins. Maybe if we had someone come in from another wiki community to help us with them it could happen, but otherwise probably not. And if they were implemented, I'd very strongly argue for them being available to logged out users otherwise it feels like that major effort we'd go through would only be seen by the minority of logged in users. And it seems like there'd be issues with letting logged out users use them as brought up by Markus, though I'm not knowledgeable on that front. I think it would have been a better idea to suggest one more skin, not four, in my opinion that skin should've been Timeless. One more skin is a lot more realistic to implement, and I feel like this post is going to get a lot of opposition because of it suggesting four skins, when it would have been better received if it were just one. I'm only "commenting" not opposing, because I very much so support the idea of implementing additional skins if we could realistically do it. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
14:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Comment Harri sums it up well. It would be great to have and I would support, but we need to fix mobile (not just dark mode, it looks awful in light mode) first. Consumed (Talk│Contributions) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose all skins. Too much extra work. We don't have a complete desktop and mobile skin yet and should focus on that instead. – Magic (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose all skins. 👁 Image
Software512 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
