Forum:Theme (September 2014)

Forums: Yew Grove > Theme (September 2014)

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 3 October 2014 by Coelacanth0794.

This thread is to decide whether to keep or change to a different theme for the Oasis skin. It has been a week since the closure of Forum:New Theme and this time around there will be no new submissions. This time the ES logo is not proposed as it is using the non-free Trajan Pro font. As well, Iiii I I I's font is also not free and is outside the scope of his submission.

To support a proposed theme, please use Support Theme # followed by your signature or the reason why you support the theme. I would like for this to go better than the previous thread as all submissions are already present. Thank you, Ryan PM 00:00, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Proposed themes

• The current theme on the wiki
• Theme 1 - Blue and white theme, by Iiii I I I
• Theme 2 - Based on Theme 1. Slightly different colour scheme, background, and logo (Cinzel Decorative), by Cqm.
• Theme 3 - A green on green with Elf City artworks, by User:Urbancowgurl777 (logo not included).
• Theme 4 - A gray theme based on Freneskae artwork, by User:Urbancowgurl777

Discussion

Strong support theme 1, can live with theme 2 - Yay for blue theme, anything's better than this yucky poop theme. --Liquid^Talk 00:19, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

My position is the same as before. --Liquid^Talk 17:44, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

1 - User:TyA/sig 01:46, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

I still like it. If not 1, then I like fergles. User:TyA/sig 01:41, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

1 - It's worth pretty is good. Imperfectness. MolMan 02:31, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

1 - It's the best of the 3 Imo, theme 2 is a close second. King ^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 04:04, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

2 - Of the three themes, I like this one the most. I am also loving number 3 though. - Trail2006 | Message Wall 05:37, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of stating that there would be no new submissions, Urban wants to fix her wiki up so that it can be re-submitted. If you have already voted, please wait for her to resubmit it. Ryan PM 05:53, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

1, with logo from 2. I love the Iiii I I I's theme, but the Cqm's logo is too remarkable. --See ya':
06:48, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

The current theme - Changed opinion; the current theme is OK. --See ya':
18:26, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I've replaced Brandon Grotesque with Avenir Next, which comes with my computer. The license for Avenir Next says that I am allowed to "create and print documents, as well as static images (.jpeg, .tiff, .png), even if the images are used on the web or in a mobile app", which I think covers my usage. --Iiii I I I 06:52, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

And it's $68 should anyone ever need to reproduce it for any reason, such as creating a holiday themed logo or using it for RuneFest t-shirts. It's impractical to use it on a wiki such as this. User:Cqm/Signature

The supplied link to the license for Avenir Next distinguishes between Desktop license and Webfont license. I suspect you have a desktop license, but not a webfont license. The full legalese of the desktop license is here.

3. Embedding Font Software and Representations of Typeface and Typographic Designs and Ornaments....
You may embed static graphic images into an electronic document, including a Commercial Product, (for example, a “gif”) with a representation of a typeface and typographic design or ornament created with the Font Software as long as such images are not used as a replacement for Font Software, i.e. as long as the representations do not correspond to individual glyphs of the Font Software and may not be individually addressed by the document to render such designs and ornaments.

4. Server Use. The Font Software may not be installed or Used on an internal or external (i.e., internet accessed) server unless all Workstations that can access such server are part of a Licensed Unit....

I suspect that when they say "embedding," they mean in artwork in a document, like Word, not on a web site. If we have to ask a lawyer (which I'm not) if the terms apply to the wiki, wouldn't it be safer to avoid the issue? --User:Saftzie/Signature 20:33, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Saftzie. I tried researching it a bit and couldn't find a straight answer (as to be expected). When I got bored, I found a very very similar font, Nunito, which is available on Google Fonts, meaning we're free to use it however we like on these interwebs. From the faq: "All the fonts on Google Fonts are licensed under open source licenses that let you use them on any website, from a private blog to a big commercial site." MolMan 21:18, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand where the quoted material you've provided has come from. It doesn't appear to be on any of the licenses Iiii I I I linked to. Iiii I I I's interpretation of the linked license seems to allow what he has used it for and is consistent with my interpretation of it too. User:Cqm/Signature

Iiii I I I's link isn't the actual license, but it does have a link to the actual license (EULA), which is the link I provided. I quoted from the license. --User:Saftzie/Signature 23:16, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I missed your link. To address point 3, it seems to prohibit uploading images of individual characters of the font so they can be used as a webfont is normally. Point 4 seems to prohibit it being installed as a webfont unless all viewers of the font have the appropriate license. As far as your concerns of what an electronic document is, it appears to be anything that isn't a paper document or something analogous to a paper document. The summary of the license seems to suggest that a mobile app or web page is considered an electronic document too. User:Cqm/Signature

Let's not debate licenses and just use Nunito. Yay Mol! He has good ideas! MolMan 23:41, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Changed to the free and open source League Spartan --Iiii I I I 20:09, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Comment/Question - I have my preferences set to use MonoBook instead of Wikia (so I can see the content, not a bunch of ads...). With MonoBook, the second and third themes look like a generic default theme. Are they going to be changed to look similar in MonoBook to how they are in the Wikia layout? User:MarkGyver/Signature/Real 18:15, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Monobook will be unaffected up to the point that the mainpage will have similar colors. Ryan PM 18:52, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

There are various other templates that we'd need to adjust too such as file licenses, although I don't think they're too prevalent User:Cqm/Signature

i think the one unbran cowgirl submitted can be used for a certain amount of time until the elf city hype is died down otherwise the one cqm submitted looks cool  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.104.189.46 (talk) on 18:57, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC).

1 MolMan 13:09, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

1 or 4 - Whichever style (bright or darker) we go for. Fswe1 14:21, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

1 or 2 - I prefer 1 though, yet both are still nice. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 12:04, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Support theme 1 - 5-x ^Talk 13:45, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Support theme 3 - Or 2, but not 1. -- Cycloneblaze ^{(user - talk - contribs)} 14:45, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Support theme 4 / 2 - I like dark themes, but I know they aren't for everyone, so 2 is my backup. My order of interest is 4 > 2 > 3 > 1 (I don't care for blue & white themes)

1. REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css

Support theme 1 - --Iiii I I I 20:32, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

1 Oil4 ^Talk 21:24, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Wait? So not 4? (H) MolMan 22:35, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

3 or 2 - Temujin 06:50, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Support Theme 1 or 2 -- Even if 2 is not chosen, I hope its transparency can still be used somehow. Jasband (talk) 15:17, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I don't have a preference for the colour scheme or the background used, but if 2 is chosen, please make the article background fully opaque. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 07:02, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why you prefer the opacity of the other themes? Previous threads have shown support for the opacity in 2 and asked for it in other themes as well. User:Cqm/Signature

Imo, it is much easier on the eyes to read or skim text on a flat coloured background than on top of an image. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 08:52, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my support for the opacity in theme 2. imo, it is not harder to read at all. Temujin 00:25, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Logged in users can put "#WikiaPageBackground {opacity: 1;}" (without the quotes) in their personal wikia.css, which doesn't help anonymous users. I agree that a uniform background makes text easier to read. I'd bet there are quantitative cognitive psychological studies on the topic somewhere, making it not just a matter of preference. --User:Saftzie/Signature 15:35, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the choice should be reversed then... those who like the translucency can add it in their personal CSS; the default should be opaque. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 15:55, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

So I've just spent a little time looking, but I haven't found anything exactly on point. All the journal articles I've found refer to a non-uniform background as "visual noise" and appear to assume implicitly it degrades the ability to read ("decreased operator performance"), probably based on prior work that I didn't find. One review article did talk about patterned backgrounds disrupting the recognition of visual features essential for reading. Current research appears to be more interested in studying dyslexia. Older research probably isn't online. --User:Saftzie/Signature 16:51, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading about something in wikimedia's skin redesign about not using serif fonts because it made them harder to read for those who suffer from dyslexia, so they were forced to use sans serif fonts. I wouldn't be surprised if a translucent background did cause it to be harder to read for those people, so with that in mind I've altered it to be opaque.

Should it be chosen and people really liked the opacity, they can easily alter the opacity by using the CSS Saftzie posted just above and tweaking the opacity value to what they like in their personal CSS. For reference, it used to have opacity:0.8; User:Cqm/Signature

1 or 2 - I very slightly prefer 1 over 2 but I would be very happy with either of them.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:52, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Two - I like 2 best, but I would actually prefer the logo 3i+1 made, because it still has the swords. I especially like the translucent background on the 2nd design. Design 1 would be close second. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 11:55, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

1 - Ronan ^Talk 19:11, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Theme 1 with some of 2 - I like theme 1 best, but would like to see the logo and colour scheme of Theme 2. TonyBest100 19:30, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be theme 2 then? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 18:50, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

2 - User:ChaoticShadow/SigReal

2 with 3 being a very close second. MAGE-KIL-R 23:31, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

3

Ickynis

20:59, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

2, with 1 being a good one too.  ThePsionic  10:33, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Support 1 - IsobelJ 15:37, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

2  Walk here Cryptarch (skill: )  03:45, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - Option 1 seems to have gathered the majority of the support, including a preference for when people have selected 2 themes. Option 1 will be implemented onto the wiki. Coelacanth0794 Talk 11:22, October 3, 2014 (UTC)