Forum:WIGO buttons/banner feedback

< Index | Site-related discussion

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

this is awful

WIGO CP. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WIGO CP? What is WIGO CP? SJ ^Debaser 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I am a big fan of the red as per say, but I do like the new look versus the old text of shit. - π 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And this kind of feedback is completely useless. Why is it awful?

If you don't like the red, or you think it is too bright (we don't, this is too bright, this isn't), copy the code of {{WIGO title}} into your sandbox, and suggest a different color. -- Nx / talk 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An idea I was considering was use blue for WIGO CP and the unused purple for WIGO BLOG. This is good for two reasons, the colours are softer and purple and green are used on the front page, but no WIGO is using purple at the moment. - π 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The current red is #c00000, which was basically just plucked out of nowhere. I didn't think it mattered too much and sort of matched CP's red scheme. #0000c0 is what results from putting the same shade on the blue channel. Closer to what we had before but white text on blue seems more garish to me. ^postate 13:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Shade is not really the issue. Here is a way of looking at it, do you write on paper/white boards with blue and black ink or red? Why? There is also other blue on the page (the links) it blends better. - π 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My feedback is not bound to be useful. I hate the color, the size of the bar, the cheesy rounded corner, etc. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we are not bound to care or act on it in any way. - π 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you, BoN. Everyone knows you don't care. This is much better than what's up, imo. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you a sock of Human's? - π 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We may or may not be acting in consortium. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the "with regards to". - π 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Did we? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you protest in the established manner by forming a group titled "CHANGE IT BAK OR WE WILL QUIT RW!!!!11" ^postate 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you three are so nice to people who have concerns about your work. ħuman 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is because there is a difference between helpful criticism, "I think it is bad because of X, Y, Z, it could be improved if you tried A, B, C", and just saying "it is shit". Given that this has been discussed at two location already, on the WIGO CP talkpage and on the WIGO title talk page (both far more appropriate talkpages) starting yet another discussion in the Saloon bar is pseudotrolling. - π 03:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're calling a good faith editor a troll, now? I tried to discuss/improve this change, but just like neveruse, I got shouted down by you three. I think you, Nx, and Armondikov have been very rude and unwelcoming of any critiques whatsoever of your efforts to make the site better, and it seems to me to be poor form. ħuman 03:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I called it pseudotrolling, I am sure Neveruse has a genuine concern, but it was one cunt away from being a typical MC post. Now that he has specified that he does not like the red (I agree), that it too big and he does not like the rounded corners we can work with that.

But lets cut to the chase so far:

People that said something positive/was supportive of the change

• Me
• Nx
• Armondikov
• rational ghey
• GTac
• Yossarian
• Kels
• Ace
• Trent
• Totnesmartin
• EddyP
• Human - I don't know why you think I hate it, I was only arguing for minor tweaks.

People that have expressed criticism

• Human
• Neveruse
• David Gerard
• Gooniepunk2010

So whilst I am concerned about the minority position, I would like helpful criticism. Complain for the sake of complaining is very frustrating. - π 08:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to put David into the top category as his concern was mostly that it was too bright. Although Nx and I are pretty sure it's a problem at his end with monitor calibration, it's worth double-checking that issue with more users. It seems fine to me on all screens that I've looked at it with. The Red vs Blue is of course an interesting issue, depends on what you associate with CP really. But I wanted to avoid discussing the colours because I wanted this to go ahead sometime before the Rio de Janeiro Olympics. ^postate 09:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the new design a lot. On one monitor the colors look fine, on the other, it's too bright so it definitely seems to be a monitor issue. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have always associated both red and blue (and white) with CP, that is why I would be fine with both. I prefer blue, but I will just as happy to stay red. - π 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My complaints were mostly subtle and to do with general graphic design. Last night you three shouted me down and edit warred me into submission. So go fuck yourselves and your idea of how brilliant your change is and whether you are open to constructive criticism or not (you simply aren't). ħuman 09:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You just changed shit without discussion and despite the fact the majority disagreed with you. - π 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I found it to bright too. But that's because I don't like bright, not because of some monitor problem. — Pietrow ☏ 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Real fucking mature ^postate 09:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't draw attention to him. - π 09:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called bulldozing, and you three are doing a nice job of it. Even to the extent, above, of accusing another user of being a sockpuppet and a troll. I gave up on making your work better since you have no concept of how to listen to constructive criticism - PS, Pi, you lie about changing without discussion, discussion went long into the night, but then mass reversion by The Big Three without ever addressing my concerns simply bullied me into giving up. I give up. You are wrong, but you win. Your graphic design sucks. ħuman 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how you have turned this into being about the three of us when there were others that said on the talkpage that they preferred the original. But just like anything on this website, unless it is your suggestion or has your full prior approval you throw a hissy fit and make editing here as difficult as possible for everyone else. You are happy to override consensus if you don't like it (remember the Santa Hat at Christmas you removed early because you didn't like it). You will soon have it anyway you like if you keep driving off editors with your constant mass reverts of everything they do and hounding everyone that trys to help. - π 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He's just never gotten used to the fact that the community has matured to the point that he can't dominate it. Wisest wisest Hoover! 12:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too bright because the colour is too saturated. This is on various (all LCD) monitors at various brightnesses. I also don't like the curve much - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I peed in Armondikov's gravelbox with a header saturated to 75% instead of 100%. Still needs some lightening not to clash with the logo. But doesn't sear my eyes to the detriment of trying to read the damn text - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah the thing we were actually talking about. I like more cool colours personally. I find they display better. What do you have against the curve? Looks awesome on my user page. - π 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DG's revised colors are much, much better. I like the curve too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a better red - at least on my monitor. The curve is quite curvy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs more lens flare. --Kels (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it, it's the same red Coke-Cola and Camel cigarettes use to repackage themselves everyear to sell tooth decay rot and poison to unsuspecting children, and definitely in keeping with Trent's proposal to be less CP-centric. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have never read it, this article might be of interest to you. - π 06:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about marketing unhealthy crap to an unsuspecting public, right? nobs^{don't bother me} 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this general stylistic approach. ħuman 06:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind.

• I cannot guess how your monitor is configured or how your eyes work. That is why I said that, if you don't like the color, suggest something else. That is constructive, and we can start a discussion from there. (in fact this has already resulted in an improvement) I'm sorry if you thought that was not being nice to people who have concerns about our work (well, it's mostly Armondikov's), but the fact is that "I don't like it" doesn't get us forward.
• I don't take Neveruse's comments seriously, and my gut instinct is that he is just trolling. (And I thought he said he liked the curve [1])
• Human: Bullied into giving up? Sorry, what? You are the bully here. And don't expect people to be nice when you decide to piss on their work by calling it "bad page design" and then try to force your "improvements" on them.
• We're not changing it back because so far the majority of those who voiced an opinion likes the new design.
• Finally, if you really can't stand it, the title has a class and an id that is different on each wigo, so you can change the style in your monobook.css. If you need help with that, I can give you more specific instructions. -- Nx / talk 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the "pissing on the work" comment, all I was proposing were some subtle tweaks. In other words, I'm fine with 98% of the change. Having my minor tweaks reverted by the same three people doesn't strike me as me being a bully. Couple more comments: One, why is the CP box explicitly in the top of wigo cp when it should be transcluded, and Two, is there a way to get a vertical red line from the curve down to the top right corner of the CP nav box, and Three, I think the wigo cp box color should match the weird blue box CP uses for all their page titles.

I had also opined that I thought that a fade out would probably look good, what was that called? Oh yeah, gradient, right? ħuman 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, dude. Any web designer who says "my work is beautiful, it must be your monitor sucking" has just epic failed at web design - David Gerard (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My one and only issue with the new WIGO CP template is that, to my eyes anyways, I think that having only one rounded corner looks a little shoddy to me. Personally, however, I think that all the corners should be rounded. Gooniepunk2010 as 75.72.34.131 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you change the gamma levels or set your browser to obscure fonts and it doesn't look right, it is your fault. - π 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. How about if we did neither?? Could it ever be the web designer's fault that something isn't perfect? ħuman 06:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case more people like something than dislike it. I think it look fine, as do most people. You are the one harping on about this despite the clear consensus against you. So I guess you are just plain out of luck here. - π 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Most people are going "meh, I like it I guess". I was trying to tweak it and make it FUCKING BETTER, but all I got was bullheadedness. I'm NOT trying to undo it, just smooth it out a bit (see my edit remarking on Armond's diff to template:Cp above), but all you seem to care about is "winning", or at least not changing one iota of what was done. PS, I agree, blue for the CP header makes so much more sense. ħuman 07:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your changes made it better, I think they made it worse so you could obtain symmetry you think it somehow needs. - π 07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't for symmetry, it was to "guide the eye". Or not. Why do you hate symmetry, exactly? ħuman 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate symmetry, I find it uninteresting and unnecessary. I don't see this eye guide. - π 07:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The "eye guiding" thing is one sees the rectangular edge on the left, then reads, then sees a curve that "says" go down to the right here. Never fucking mind if you guys don't care and no one else does. I'm getting really tired of the constant attacks on me personally on this site when all I am trying to do is help. ħuman 07:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I did neither. The assumption that I must have indicates a failure of a web designer - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell am I supposed to say when you tell me that dark red is "too bright"? I didn't tell you to fuck off, I told you to suggest a better color. What's the problem already? -- Nx / talk 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU FASCISTS ALL RUINING MY FUCKING WIKI?????? On a serious note, I like the change. EddyP (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck it

I've rolled back the patch that allows formatting in displaytitle. You should probably fix the broken stuff, such as Fox news and the wigos. -- Nx / talk 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the way to settle this. tmtoulouse 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That was a really silly thing to do. Are you and Human seeing who can make the biggest POINT or something? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone - EVERYONE - needs to take a step back and stop taking everything so personally. EddyP (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of being reasonable, how about this as a compromise between the two new designs? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. ħuman 09:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks terrible, but that is more the fault of Nx removing the patch. I can't see how it is a major difference than from before but as it is not go yet I'll reserve judgment. - π 10:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's not the same as it would be with the patch but it's close enough. It's not a major difference - the only change is that it rounds both corners at the right instead of just one, so it's symmetrical on one axis, but not both. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked it so that it is a proper heading, but it is probably not the full height. I still can't see how this does not effect Human's eyeliner. - π 12:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How dare you be reasonable?!?!?!?! Actually, this gets rid of my only complaint. Mind you, my complaint wasn't a big deal to begin with. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well this HCM is progressing along the normal path. After Human's normal "I don't care what you all think my way is still better" tantrum we have Nx's "I am just taking the ball away" counter-tantrum. I am always slightly perplexed when he does this, it always seems to happen just after things begin to calm down and Human has run out of breath. - π 01:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perplexing indeed, but understandable. Sometimes it seems like the easiest route out of the situation. With the amount of butthurt going on about a silly formatting change to try give a little more visual interest and utilise the toys we have to make us not look like Wikipedia, I've considered rolling back the entire change. It's also worth noting that whatever has changed, it's only been done to WIGO:CP. We have three other WIGOs on the site, no one noticed when they changed, which makes me think that the entire site is still far too focused on that fuck-nugget blog to get anywhere. ^postate 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about "not looking like wikipedia" and it's not about "using the toys", and it sure as hell isn't about "visual interest" as in "look at us, we're clueless about graphic design". It's about functionality. I like the new buttons. The asymmetrical haircut only lasted about three years in the 80s. Get over it, it's not "cutting edge". ħuman 09:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For fucks sake your a pain in the fucking pancreas when you dont get your way Human. Jesus. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why I have not proposed many changes recently. I got in enough trouble moving a template a few weeks ago. - π 10:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not really understandable, and I think you guys are paying way too much attention to one or two people. The vast majority of this site has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the change and the effort you guys have put in. You shouldn't ignore that and focus on one or two people who are offering criticism (some constructive some not so much). Nor should it stop you from pushing forward with proposing any other ideas you might have to make the site better. I don't understand why you guys feel so dejected/rejected when you have even made this same argument that many more people are supportive than not. We like what you did, we appreciate what you did, small tweaks were/are being proposed and that is what being a wiki is about.

Human, your criticisms have not been constructive and have turned it into personal insults and attacks. You need to pull back on that a bit as its divisive and harmful. Sometimes you just gotta roll with the direction the community is going, there are many things that I have actively worked on that I haven't exactly been keen on but it had wide spread support.

NX, the problem with rolling back a patch like that is that it makes working with you a liability. You do great work, we all love you, we all appreciate what you have done for this site, but you are in a unique position you can do things and create tools in a way that most other people can't, and you can also remove them in a way that no one has the ability to undo. That means if people take your work and do something with it (like the WIGOs) and you pull something like this, it makes it so, no matter how much better it could be based on a change you could make, it is better to just use the base wiki formatting so it can't be undone randomly and break the wiki.

All in all people need to remember we are all on the same side here, we all want to make this site better. Have confidence in your knowledge and skills and ideas, contribute what you want and can to the site, be open to feedback, and be prepared to accept what a majority want. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes this is hard. I appreciate immensely every single member of this community. We have something here that is really going some place, we have many growing pains left to groan through, but I think everyone does great work, its important to be supportive of each other but also to recognize the support you do get from the community. tmtoulouse 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Well, perhaps the rollback of the entire thing was a bit extreme. But when things start going awry, the temptation to just end it in a decisive manner is immense. While extreme, it's not surprising. ^postate 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't fault the feeling. Here is a little known secret there have been several times where I wanted nothing more than to yank the RJ-45 plug out of the back of the server and pretend this place never existed. But I suck it up solider through whatever the issue is, and things "right" themselves.

I have also at various times in my life felt that way about any major commitment that takes effort. I have spent the tail end of several sleepless nights at the lab seeing how much a flight "home" would cost cause I had given up on my thesis work. These feelings are normal, and understandable...I guess where I differ is letting them actually control your actions. Don't give up! Don't hold back a cool idea! I mean it is a volunteer project so I ask nothing of anyone beyond what they want to do. But if there is something you want to do, and you don't because of this sort of BS....well that is when I say suck it up and do it anyway. tmtoulouse 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely impressed you haven't thrown the server out the window already, actually. ^postate 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I scrolled back up here to where Trent called me a bitch, and, yeah, my early forays into critiquing this thing look ugly. So can I here announce a general apology to anyone I insulted? Is that OK? Is it enough? If it isn't, I'll follow up with an intercom message. Let me know here, or better yet, at my talk page. ħuman 06:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Can somebody please summarise what the main sticking points or criticisms are at this point (without making it personal)? Thanks. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Some consider the one-sided curve looks as graphically appealing as an asymmetrical '80s haircut and is an example of doing things because you can and not because you should. (Human expressed this in frank and forthright terms and finds it the visual equivalent of nails on a blackboard; I find it not quite as horrible but basically agree it's not ideal; others like it.)
• WIGO CP red garish. My somewhat less saturated version seemed OK with people.

- David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• It has been suggested that blue would be a better colour for WIGO CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much the summary of it. ^postate 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I may as well be colored blind as far as my ability to assess such aesthetics but I can provide feedback on geometry. My issue is that people are saying they don't like the current design, what I need, and what I think would help others, is to see what alternative designs might look like. I didn't really like the square/centered text version. But perhaps there are others that I would see and go "yeah that's it!". tmtoulouse 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't a massive fan of the centered one either. In hindsight the colouring might just be a bad idea. ^postate 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case people haven't seen it, there is a third suggestion (which doesn't look quite right because of various technical stuff). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

'Tis an interesting one, but I'm not sure as a header. With the whole curve at the right, it's like it's popping out of the left margin to cut the page up rather than introduce a section. ^postate 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. That was my compromise suggestion but from now on I'll let the HCM ensue without my involvement. Have fun! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry if that seemed harsh at all. I'm just saying that I feel that it's not right for a header. As a subheader - something that came halfway across a page to break up a column, for instance, it would be a pretty good thing. But while we're on compromises, there's also this that I tested on RationalBeta. It sticks a smaller curve in the top left that balances it, but doesn't symmetrise it. Also, it looks so much better on Vector than Monobook - which is something we need to think of as the default skin in the upcoming version of MediaWiki is Vector. ^postate 10:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the small curve on the left a whole lot better. Wish I'd thought of it... Now it looks a bit like the top of a folder, but not too explicitly. ħuman 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Colors/Colours

Do clogs & blogs both need to be blue? I think the effect would be better for the buttons all to be in contrasting colours, whereas these two side by side in fairly similar colours interrupts that effect. Maybe one of them could be purple. . . . Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This purple? ^postate 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be, if the Wigo RW thing isn't going to be used. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think clogs should be a strong brown and the bar lightened up to amber. And yeah, that purple for blogs. ħuman 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

__NOTITLE__ allows you to hide the title completely (i.e. what we do to the main page, but without bogging down common.css). This also hides the subheader (i.e. the "redirected from" notice, the subpage breadcrumbs etc.)

{{titlestyle:}} allows you to give the title some css, like this. -- Nx / talk 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTITLE seems like an interesting tool to use. However, when copying pages to make internal wikilinks (if you copy/paste rather than type them out to make sure their spelled correctly or if they're long titles) the lack of a page title could be a problem. Not insurmountable, as you just take it from the URL instead. But it's a potential problem that could arise meaning we should look at using such things sparingly. ^postate 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm annoyed by the "creative" use of Displaytitle on talk pages. Often I open up a bunch of pages in multiple tabs, and thanks to pages like User talk:RationalGhey I don't know where the hell I am when I get to that page. At least notitle doesn't break the browser titlebar/tab. -- Nx / talk 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So set $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to true. And then watch the HCM. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True. But that is almost entirely restricted to user_talk so isn't a big deal as far as usability or public face is concerned so I'd let it slide. ^postate 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we also use it on a few articles for practical reasons? ħuman 00:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Awful blood red top

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

should be CP blue, #0647AA, but the ability to edit it has been buried, as far as I can tell, in MediaWiki:Common.css to shut out regular editors, or maybe to improve server speed. Discussion please? (On both issues) ħuman 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the red is to red but I also think red is an appropriate colour for a conservative site. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely blue is a more appropriate colour for a conservative site ;) --Damo^Hi 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck it. I am sick of this place ending up like wikipedia where you can't find out how things works because weird coders bury everything and don't write comments - you know, instructions - for how to fix things. The WIGO page is godawful ugly, but those who made it so hid where to fix things. ħuman 07:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am a bitch, and forgot to do the ctrl-F5 thing... all is good. Except for how hard it is now for people to "edit and preview" any changes to the look and feel on pages like this. ħuman 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

the red is too brown. P-Foster (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh! My fucking beer is warm and these chips are fucking stale! GAR! Aceⁱ⁹ 07:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose you are going to fix the red button or work out a new colour scheme for WIGO Clog then? Nice to see you have thought this out. - π 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to. Nice to see it wasn't thought out "before". ħuman 07:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean wasn't thought out? Six pages were created with six colour schemes. You have unilaterally changed one to be a hybrid between its scheme and another. End result we have two blues, one which clashes with its logo. Well fucking done. - π 07:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Six pages? You guys ever hear of the intercom, the saloon bar... I only ever saw one page, with lots of references to sandboxen. What I have done makes sense, now we have to upgrade the rest of the templates to include it. I doubt I can simply edit something to fix it, since again, there are no fucking instructions on how to edit these templates anywhere that I can find. ħuman 07:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I also note that you were pro-blue, as I recall, and also fixed the page to make all the colors/colours match (thank you). So who's "side" are you on? Can Armondikov redo the CP button(s) in blue/BLUE? ħuman 07:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to change it to which ever colour is actually agreed upon, I would like to know in advance. - π 08:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Did it ever occur to you that if you need instruction, you probably are not the best person to be doing it any way? No, you just make up your mind to change something without eve having the first inkling on how it even works. You are truly this wiki's Ed Poor. Why did you not raise the issue of changing it to blue without just going ahead and doing it? That way the WIGO buttons and clogs could be changed too. Do you also have a suggestions for the clogs colour now we have to change that? We had a purple that worked quite well, the saloon bars orange could also be adapted. - π 08:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay is the image the buttons are generated from. Obviously the brighter colours on the right are the fly over images, the dull one on the left the "turned off" images. Recolouring and uploading this image will change the nav. - π 08:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave the insults out and tell me how to help fix this. You present one image that contains ten buttons. Are there individual images I can play with? Also, clogs should be brown. As in a clogged toilet. ħuman 08:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Did it ever occur to you that if you need instruction, you probably are not the best person to be doing it any way?" just to replay my comment. If the editors of a wiki function use the lack of commentary on what they have done to tell other people they aren't qualified to help, I seriously question their general competence and desire to work in a congenial shared space. ħuman 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)'

No, those are the buttons in the one image. How about I roll back WIGO CP and you sandbox up a new WIGO CP and Clogs to show us what you are thinking? If you need any help leave a message on my upside down talk page (and I will find it really quickly because I won't have to scroll down to see it). - π 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So are the buttons also available as separate images? ħuman 09:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A red-red little logo, a browny-red big logo and a blue banner? P-Foster (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you/we/someone make a thin blue line from the curve at the end of the title box down to the CP template thing? Because that would be awesome. ħuman 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Andy's face for the button? Aceⁱ⁹ 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In shades of blue? Yes. Or just the starry part of the flag logo? ħuman 07:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's face? We have enough crude matter with the Clogsphere logo, we don't need to go even more obscene... Ravenhull (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's face in Obama-poster-style? (Sorry, I've forgotten the name of the artist.) With "No hope. No change. Ever." below? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should do any more to inflate the personality cult of Schlafly any more. Some people on RW are far too obsessed with the guy, and this doesn't need further endorsement. ^postate 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh JEsus! fucdking hell

This debate has been going on for a week now. Jesus god, I am almost ready to drink this bottle of Balsamic Vinegar and see where the night takes me. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you're not gonna drink that... --Kels (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Drink something that contains alcohol, not vinegar. It's much more defensible. ħuman 08:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone like me to just upload the original .docx file so people can more easily do whatever they like with them? ^postate 13:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't upload .docx files to RW. You'll have to convert the images to .svg or upload the .docx somewhere else. -- Nx / talk 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I can't really export .svg. I shouldn't have given in to laziness and damn-well reinstalled Illustrator. Maybe another time. I'll wait for this to die down and then redo them all again from scratch in Illustrator. ^postate 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Awful bright blue top

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

It's horrible. Also you need to fix the icons. And it clashes with clog, you have to fix that too. -- Nx / talk 09:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just show me where and how. On my talk page is best, since this page scrolls so fast. The point of the blue was to make the transition to following wigos to cp less jarring. ħuman 09:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I MUST CHANGE EVERYTHING AND THEN YOU MUST TELL ME HOW TO FIX IT. Professor Moriarty 10:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It still looks awful. And CP has a gradient in the heading, not that it helps much.

As for the images, the file is composed of 50x50px buttons (hence the 600x50px size), the inactive ones are slightly desaturated and tweaked from Armondikov's images, the highlight effect on the hover ones is achieved by duplicating the button, blurring it a bit and blending it with the soft light blend mode. -- Nx / talk 10:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed the gradient on the CP page header, yeah. Thanks for the instructions I appreciate it. ħuman 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I rather liked the red. Then again, I wasn't particularly jarred when following WIGO links, but if the consensus is against it, I'm sure I'll get used to the blue. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 10:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea where consensus, Human has just decided to change it. If we could have a sandboxes showing both so we could compare what we are trying to choose between would help a lot. - π 10:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought consensus was red. Currently, I think it looks a bit odd. Broccoli (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll put it back for now and start a sandbox here. - π 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the blue, it contrasts nicely with the red CP logo, and is much easier on the eye. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you'd have let me know before hand, I could have messed around with the original file and uploaded a brand new set of blue ones. The main problem is adapting the hover things, as they need to be aligned perfectly to work, so are a bit of a bigger job - but I'm prepared to do it because the whole colouring thing was only supposed to be "an illustration" until we decided on the final colours or even if they were worth it. Now, if you'd like my IMHO, I drifting to preferring this intense blue for CP, I certainly wasn't a massive fan of the desaturated and darker red that was put in afterwards but that is just me, I must have really tollerant eyes. ^postate 13:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I really dislike the current blue. Something like clog's blue is better, but the cp logo/button looks wrong if it's not red. -- Nx / talk 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm with Ace. This is just embarrassing. --Kels (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Human. It's fugly. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, why don't we just have a fucking vote already? Human, come up with a design you like, we can display it somehow side-by-side with the current one, and we can have another if someone wants to design another alternative. People can defend/explain why their design is the best. Then we can vote. Seems more complicated than it need be, but it's better than this "this design sucks" "No, your design sucks!" back and forth. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be sensible. ^postate 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because knowing what you don't like is a completely different skill than being able to make something that you do like. So take the criticism and shut the fuck up you butthurt losers.. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I want a line of dancing fruit. tmtoulouse 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Those who can, do, those who can't... ^postate 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...vote for something someone else did. Shall we do that? DickTurpis (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This argument sucks! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No! Your argument sucks!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gripe

Just moved the threads above over from WIGO:CP talk. Can we please keep discussion of this issue in as few locations as possible (preferably here) so that anybody interested can keep an eye on it, and keep WIGO:CP talk for talking about what is going on Conservapedia?

And thanks for difflinking to the different versions so that we can all see what the discussion above is about after the changes have been reverted. Oh wait, you didn't. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's your difflink. Oh wait, that's not what you wanted? -- Nx / talk 18:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this. I think the link you want is the sandbox Pi set up here. ħuman 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

awful blue and red logo

I put an idea for the logo on the sandbox. (Made the stripes red) ħuman 00:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about a duel colour logo, but I like this one better than this one even though it is "incorrect". - π 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the second one came out poorly, partly because the stars had pixellated a bit so didn't color swap cleanly, and partly because the colors don't balance well. I only uploaded it as an example of a possibility. ħuman 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the first of those, though I guess it might stand out a bit too much in the row of buttons when all the others are mono-colour. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We could always make them all bi-cultural. As I understand it, this is broadly speaking a beta version. ħuman 09:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"drop shadow"

I know why it was bothering me. A drop shadow of a circle has the same radius as the "top" image. The "drop shadows" on these buttons are concentric, ie, larger radii and not proper drop shadows. I notice Nx, who can do whatever he wants, replaced the big CP logo with a complete but faded circle around it.

I suggest we simply drop the delightfully 1997 drop shadow entirely and just have 50px round buttons? ħuman 02:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, what? Do you know what concentric means? Because these are not concentric. And since when does the shadow have to be the same size as the casting object?

For some reason the wiki isn't rendering the shadow on this one, so you got your wish. It looks bland IMHO -- Nx / talk 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

{EC}I was about to say that I am strongly in favour of it now that I have seen one without a shadow, but Nx has provided the link. - π 10:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for the drop shadow, but a concentric circle is not a drop shadow. Granted, it might have a "slightly bigger" radius, but starting from 50px there's not much room for that. And, yeah, I know what concentric means. And those "drop shadows" are concentric circles. ħuman 10:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. -- Nx / talk 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Prove me wrong. ħuman 10:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Concentric" circles means two (or more) circles sharing the same centre. Those don't. QED. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do. ħuman 11:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. -- Nx / talk 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do. Are you blind? ħuman 11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. No I'm not. I made the shadow. I know I moved it down and right Therefore it is not concentric. QED. -- Nx / talk 11:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorry, the result was not as you claim. I saved the image. Opened it. made circle in center of image. made circle bigger. It matched the "drop shadow". It ain't a drop shadow. Why are you so wedded to this when it can just be fixed? ħuman 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't fix what's not broken.

One of these has a centered shadow, the other doesn't. Can you spot which is which? -- Nx / talk 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they both suck at being drop shadows. ħuman 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage will soon surpass the Talk:Christian Science as the funniest talkpage on the wiki. - π 12:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's gonna take a lot more to beat that one. That one is epic. ħuman 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone should wigo it. -- Nx / talk 12:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's what a real shadow looks like (well, as real as you can get with a 3d rendering) -- Nx / talk 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's close, at least. ħuman 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] Real drop shadows. So long ago. ħuman 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of transparency? Those look like they were made for white backgrounds. They look more like glows than shadows. -- Nx / talk 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, those are gifs? My bad. But it still looks horrible. -- Nx / talk 13:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They look awful because some parts of the page (background image(s) probably) are missing. ħuman 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The only shadows I see are under the statues boobies. - π 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Drop shadows from 1996. Damn I was proud of that site at the time.... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments below this point are utterly disconnected from what they refer to. ħuman 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I see them. That's how they should be, basically. My crappy Paint Shop Pro 6.0 has a drop shadow function, if a drop shadow was intended, why was not the computer used to simply do it? ħuman 11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I originally made the shadow using inkscape's drop shadow effect, which creates an svg filter, but that didn't scale well to 50px, so I replaced it with a gradient circle. -- Nx / talk 11:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm all fine with drop shadows, or even that cool shadowy echo that Pi? put on some sandbox. But drop shadows of a circle should have the same radius. At least on this small scale. ħuman 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? -- Nx / talk 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought they had the same radius as the disk, just a different centre? - π 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they are larger so that they envelop the entire button. Armondikov's version looked weird on a white background because the top left had no border. -- Nx / talk 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's paste one in here so we can see it while we discuss it. ħuman 11:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, concentric circles. Not a drop shadow. ħuman 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this is green. Deny this and lose all credibility. -- Nx / talk 12:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the non-concentric version (on the right). When the shadow is concentric, it stops looking like a shadow & just looks like an extra border/outline in grey. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Drop shadow Mk II

I think I see what has been throwing me off here. I tend to see the outer, thick colored circle as the "edge" of the button, with the shadow floating concentrically a few pixels away from it. However, the light circle around that colored one is also supposed to be "part" of the button. Amiright? It still looks a bit odd to me. ħuman 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A brown clogo

As per Human's suggestion, actually doesn't look too bad. - π 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, steaming turds, awesome. Look, I think you folks did a great job, it only needs to be tweaked. That sandbox... I can smell it from here... ħuman 06:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually like this brown more than the blue now. Only problem is its logo will clash with the Saloon bars. I suggest purple for the Saloon bar logo. My think is that WIGO world is green and it replaced the old green according to box and the community box is purple and the Saloon bar has become the community page. - π 06:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking "amber" for the bar. But that might be a tough colour to make. Purple is fine by me. ħuman 06:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Automobile amber or the technical colour or do you want me to spend the night comparing beer colour to hex colours? - π 07:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Amber beverage"... I recommend you spend several nights matching beers and whiskies to hex. I will pursue the same course. Meet you in the middle. ħuman 08:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the brown even more now I am back on Windows. - π 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd been thinking that the clogs picture should be brown, if it wasn't bad taste, but then it's a picture of shit anyway, so why not? I don't think it clashes too much with the orange SB logo, as they're at opposite sides of the row of buttons, unlike when clogs & blogs were both blue & next to each other. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Options

So what are people thinking? No vote just a measure of who supports which proposal, create and vote on as many as you like:

Blue WIGO CP/Brown WIGO Clogs/Purple Saloon bar

• - π 10:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree, but might prefer the blue/red CP version. ħuman 10:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WIGO CP should be red because the CP logo is red

• This voting is going to be confusing if people start mix'n'matching options. -- Nx / talk 10:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the idea, so we could get a full range of ideas, discussion rather than a vote. We can eliminate unpopular ideas and start narrowing the list of ideas. - π 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also like the way it is now, but that brown clogo is winning me over to a change. - π 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The CP logo is red, white and blue. Also, their page title header is blue. ħuman 11:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bump

We've still got two blue icons side by side. Can't we replace the blue Clogosphere with the brown version? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest go for it - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we would have a red next to a brown and that would not look much better. - π 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thnk it looks fine as is, one's dark blue the other is much lighter. Whats the prob? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why they're in the order they're in? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. How about a mustardy baby poop color for clogs? Right now it looks like whipped cream, or maybe fresh piping hot mashed potatoes. ħuman 01:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)