Forum:Who's messing with the site theme?

What I'm seeing right now.

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Who's messing with the site theme?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2940 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Yesterday, I was seeing and still see changes to colors on Uncyclopedia. Currently the left bar and some buttons are a dull green, which I did not set. Yesterday, there were several color changes including extreme graying of the text (might have been mauve). Are we being hacked, is this the work of a programmer at Fandoom, is this someone else authorized to work on the site? -- (talk) 07:30, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. Trying out different looks via the admin panel --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:03, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to find a way to customise the left hand column where the short cuts used to be. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:03, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

Carry on with carrying on. I should have known from the wallpaper. :-) Anything promising? Evil me was thinking that just as it got to looking as it should, Wikipedia would announce a makeover.

To throw out a couple of thoughts unrelated to the left sidebar: As for overall design, note the Second Page remains pretty intact, so that might offer construction clues. Also comparing that with the Front Page, the latter has a total active width that might just be pushing that right side bazoo off-screen. -- (talk) 08:48, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

I tried the css colors but on MediaWiki:Wikia.css, it seems to don't change nothing. Anyway, I noticed that nonciclopedia and inciclopedia have a whte color for backround, so I think that we should redesing the backround on white color.--Cavv 09:56, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

I can go with that as a 'look'. I want Uncyclopedia to look less like some standard issue FANDOOM site and more its own character. As regards the looks here, perhaps this enforced change will encourage us to 'think outside the box'. Who knows, Wikipedia could end copying us if we make a better job of design than them. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:42, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if we go with a different color scheme, but I'd like to see the old Uncyclopedia style approximated. For one, the current double spacing of text screws up existing article format involving pictures and readability. That's probably just following Oasis and current interwebs practice, where there isn't much text so it's stretched to make like there's more content. The real emphasis is images and video. And Uncyclopedia may have been control button happy before, but those more direct links are needed for everyday editing.

Note that relatively stodgy Wikipedia has gone more graphic-oriented, particularly with popup links. The Brooklyn Bridge article is notable for that. Uncyclopedia is not ready for that yet, I think. Still, Wikipedia and by parody, Uncyclopedia, are sites for the reader, atypical for the Net. So I'd like to see that kept in mind as we progress. Uncyclopedia retained the old typeface, page styles are still pretty much the same, so there's a framework. I still think a lot can be done using CSS since I've seen sites have subsites with markedly different styles; somebody has to know how to write it (well) or do a lot of experimenting. -- (talk) 20:33, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

My immediate concern is how to work out the VFH featuring thingy. All those links have gone we had before. So don't know how we update the front page to carry the latest featured article. Anyone have thoughts on this? --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:52, May 26, 2018 (UTC)

Since the Second Page (UnNews) seems to have survived relatively intact, you might consider going to Template:Lead Article, opening it, and cutting and pasting the article 1 section onto the front page, including its closing parts of course. If that gives something useable, I would look for what template element(s) is missing for a featured article via searches. A manual cut and paste might work as a stopgap for the next featured article and I would try that out also. However, I wonder if the setup/template was purposely ripped out for conflict with global JS or CSS since the Front Page doesn't look corrupted -- the links are just gone. -- (talk) 23:45, May 26, 2018 (UTC)