Wikipedia

MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m update template call
 
(979 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{/header}}{{archives|search=yes}}
People may want to examine [http://en.wikipedia.org/style/monobook/main.css main.css].
 
==Tabs atdiff topcode ofstill pageneeded? body==
I have found the tabs to be extremely confusing. It has taken me 2 days to finally figure out that the leftmost tab is more or less randomly labeled (ok, ok, I know there's logic behind it, but it took me 2 days to figure it out--sort of--). Some of the labels used are not consistent with standard conventions. And the behavior isn't always consistent with standard conventions.
 
Is [{{fullurl:MediaWiki:Monobook.css|diff=7766295}} this diff code] still needed? — [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 01:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
#Consistency of text in left-most tab. Right at the moment (for me) it says "message". I don't want to send or leave a message, so I'm never going to click on that tab. I'm not even sure what it does, although I *suspect* that it displays the current version of this page. I don't know why it doesn't say "current". Sometimes it says "about", sometimes "article", sometimes "special", sometimes all kinds of things, none of which mean anything in particular to me. I suggest that, if you're in editing mode, it should always say "current" or "article" to display the current version of the page. Do I or anyone else care whether the article is a special article or some other odd-case kind of article? No. I just want the current version.
:Depends on wether we think it was a successful experiment I guess :D I use my own colorcoding CSS for diff. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
#Word choice for left-most tab. "About" should always display the name of the software and the current version. That's by standard convention under Mac and Windows and I think X interfaces, too. "Message" should always allow you to type an instant message or email message. There's no reason for either of these text choices to be used except with those meanings.
:It is still needed, in fact, parts of it could serve well in vector.css, especially the font-size and vertical-align. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] • </span> 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
#Behavior of tabs: Tabs in standard interfaces switch back and forth among different displays. So, at the moment, the Discussion tab is current for me. If I click one of the other tabs and then click Discussion again, I should return to where I am. But I don't; I am given an *empty* Editing page. I have to use my browser's back button to get back to this edit. This is not standard behavior for tabs and it's more confusing than NOT having the tabs. Secondly, clicking the Watch tab when it appears should bring up a different display (standard tab behavior). It doesn't; it actually *performs a function* and changes the status of something (adds it to my watchlist), which is actually a little scary. It wasn't scary when it was a link that said "Add to my watchlist", but I do not expect tabs to perform functions.
::Look at me, replying to a year old message. :) <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] • </span> 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
#I'm not even sure what all of the tabs do (e.g., the "+") because I have been thoroughly intimidated by the fact that the ones I *have* clicked do not do what I expect them to, and I don't want to be mucking things up by clicking something I don't understand. And I'm a bold, experienced computer user!
#Consistency of labels for same function. Argh, let's see, when I'm displaying the article, there's a tab called View Source but not a tab called Edit. Or--wait--is it only in MediaWiki that it's called view source and everywhere else it's called edit? Huh, hang on, if I go to the discussion page, there's an Edit tab. What the heck is view source, then? I'm confused all over again.
#Pop-up help messages for tabs are inconsistent. At the moment, they are:
#*Article/Message/Special/etc.: "View the content page". Very nice! Very consisent! Tab shld be this consistent and clear.
#*Discussion: "Discussion about the content page." First pop-up was a verb form (view...); this is a noun ("discussion"); make consistent. E.g., "View discussions about the content page".
#*Edit: "You can edit this page." Now it's chatty rather than a verb or a noun. How about "Edit this text" (so that it applies either to content page or discussio page)?
#*Move: "Move this page"; good simple verb form.
#*History: "Past versions of this page". Noun again. And not the most helpful interpretation; I think that for newcomers (and for me) the most important thing is that we can "View edit history of this text".
 
==Personalized CSS==
[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to add personalized CSS for some pages?
[[User:Chairsenses|Chairsenses]] ([[User talk:Chairsenses|talk]]) 02:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
:I don't know, would it?? <samp>:P</samp> [[User:Happy-melon|<span style="color:forestgreen">'''Happy'''</span>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<span style="color:darkorange">'''melon'''</span>]] 13:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 
==gap (or chasm) above div.catlinks==
:+ is for posting a comment, view source is for protected pages. I am not sure there is a problem with these. [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]]
This class has {{code|margin-top: 1em;|css}} by default, tracing a half-height alleyway below the last navbox. I think positioning these elements flushly would be an aesthetic improvement. What kind of CSS would collapse these borders most effectively, to make figure 1 (left) resemble figure 2 (right) in the following screen-shot?
*See http://i54.tinypic.com/2a95gd5.png (content from [[Deion Sanders]])
Perhaps we could set {{code|margin-top:0px;|css}} for the catlinks, and {{code|margin-bottom:-1px;|css}} for all navboxes, noting that navboxes should have no free-form content below them, only other navboxes. This might be IE6 friendly, even. ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 16:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:If we set <code>margin-top:0px;</code> for the category boxes, ''everything'' will cling to the box, including what you are reading right now; we defenitely do not want that. The category box is a seperate entity on the page; it should remain that way. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] • </span> 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of this isn't changed in the stylesheet.
::Fully agreed with Edokter. Having text run into the top of the catlinks seems a really bad idea. Not every page has navboxes. (And even then, i'd like to keep seperation between the two elements). —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
#"Message" is what MediaWiki pages are called instead of articles. Suggest changes at [[MediaWiki:Nstab-mediawiki]].
Could we reduce it to a few px so it is not visually mistakable for an empty paragraph tag? ―[[special:contributions/cobaltcigs|cobaltcigs]] 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
#"About" is the current name for the Wikipedia namespace. Suggest changes at [[MediaWiki talk:Nstab-wp]]
:I'm afraid not. 1em is the default spacing between article content and all other elements. <span style="font-family:verdana"> — [[User:Edokter|<b style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</b>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
#Regarding behavior of tabs - they are not really tabs. They are links to separate pages.
#The "+" is a link to "post a comment"
#"View Source" is what you see on protected pages. All pages in the MediaWiki namespace are now protected.
#Pop-up help messages for talk pages can be discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-talk]] and [[MediaWiki talk:Talkpage]]
#The "You can edit this page" can be discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-edit]]
#"Past versions of this page" can be discussed at [[MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-history]]
[[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
== Make selecting coordinate text easier ==
Angela, I think you missed the point on #3. To any user familiar with standard interfaces, it ''looks like'' a tab, and the expectation is that it will ''behave like'' a tab. Elf's observations are on-target. If they are not really tabs, then they should not look like tabs, or else confusion will result. I ''like'' the idea of using tabs to get to the various pages associated with the content page, but this implementation needs some work.
 
{{FPER|ans=yes}}
There is a somewhat complex relationship between the content page, the talk page for the content, the edit page for the content, the history of the content, the edit page for the talk page of the content, and the history of the talk page of the content. The current tabbed presentation only obscures or confuses that relationship.
<syntaxhighlight lang=css>
#coordinates {
/* Increase clicking area for selecting coordinates */
padding-right:30px;
right:0;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
— [[User:Dispenser|Dispenser]] 00:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
: [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EP --> Seems sensible, and shouldn't cause any change in the actual display [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 
== margin-top on bodyContent ==
The Watch option should be an option box -- as it is under the standard skin. I can't think of any way to present Move other than either as a command button (like "Save page" is now), or as a tool in the toolbox box.
 
{{sudo|answered=yes}}
There is, perhaps, a better place to put each of these individual points, but I think we're using this page right now to discuss what the English Wikipedia-specific style sheet should be like. For now, let's keep these all together here. -[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Hi. Can someone please look at updating the following text:
Point #1 is very valid. Some more consistency would be nice, why not use 'article' for articles and 'content page' for everything else? (and 'user page' for userpages) [[User:Sverdrup|&#9999; Sverdrup]] 19:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
<syntaxhighlight lang="css">
:Ok, I wasn't saying they shouldn't not look like tabs, just saying that there isn't a way to make them behave like tabs because they're not tabs. This is beyond the scope of changing the stylesheet. Perhaps a [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=34373&atid=411195&set=custom&_assigned_to=0&_status=1&_category=100&_group=100&order=open_date&sort=DESC&offset=0
/* Don't display some stuff on the main page */
F sourceforge request] would be better. I disagree everything should be done on this page. Changing the interface text is not the same as changing the stylesheet. It will be a lot easier to do if separate discussions are kept on the correct talk pages. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 20:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
body.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
body.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view h1.firstHeading {
display: none !important;
}
/* The above causes the bodyContent div to cover most of the
tabs on the main page, making them unclickable. Shifting
it down a bit fixes the problem. */
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #bodyContent{
margin-top: 1.3em;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
 
with this text:
==Font==
Issues related to default fonts.
===Font size===
Kudos for using relative font sizes. Default is a small font size, however; too small for comfort. So I can change my browser settings for this site but when I then click on an external link, the fonts there are overwhelmingly large. Sure, an experienced Wiki user can change his/her skin, but most readers will be hit and run, looking for info, not to settle in and customize their interfaces. I *like* the sizes of headings; relative sizes are now much clearer between the different levels of headings and much different from body text, esp. with the hairline for the top-level headers. [[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
<syntaxhighlight lang="css">
So--I guess voting has been suggested:
/* Don't display some stuff on the main page */
body.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
body.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page.action-view h1.firstHeading {
display: none !important;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
 
please?
'''Make body text larger'''
#[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 17:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Angela|Angela]] 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:DarkHorizon|Michael Warren]] 18:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 19:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] [[User talk:Fredrik|(talk)]] 20:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 00:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Popsracer|Popsracer]] 01:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 03:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (what is a small font in MonoBook, is completely unreadable in Standard skin, and what is small in Standard, is ordinary in Mono... I think that's no good)
# [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] about 144% (120% squared) instead of the 123% of x.small or 9px seems like a good test - that should be user interface medium for many people - then maybe people will ask for smaller.
# [[User:Nealmcb|NealMcB]] 16:39, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
margin-top on bodyContent came from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.css&diff=481104960&oldid=479959287 this edit]. I believe this was a misdiagnosis of the underlying issue. The issue is that the "#jump-to-nav" element obscures the tabs in Monobook. Adding margin-top makes the page look silly (though this seems to have become more apparent just recently). --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
'''Body text size is fine'''
 
: Just removing the margin-top might be sufficient here. Does nobody else see the extra space above the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=monobook>? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
# [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 02:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) - mine is perfect
# [[User:Chopchopwhitey|Chopchopwhitey]] 03:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) Default size is good on Linux Firefox 0.8.
#[[User:Ezhiki|Ezhiki]] 20:51, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) - looks great to me.
 
:: Okay, I tested in Chrome, Safari, and Firefox and the margin-top definitely seems to be to blame here. If I remove it, the extra space goes away and the tabs are still clickable. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
===Font typeface===
''See also'': [[Wikipedia talk:Serif or sans-serif]]
 
:::[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EP -->. Thanks for the fix! It's been a long time since I've used the good old Monobook skin. Ah, the nostalgia... I'll be watching when the update kicks in, but please don't hesitate to let me know if any issues crop up, in case I miss anything. Best — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 09:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
'''Don't specify a font. Leave as browser default'''
:::{{ec}} My Firefox recently "upgraded" from v19 to v20: they have significantly changed the "inspect element" feature, and I'm still finding my way around it. It's definitely the <code>margin-top:</code> property of the {{tag|div|o|params=id=bodyContent}} although reading the display one way (the new "box model" feature), it's 16px; another way ("Computed"), shows <samp>margin-top 16.5167px</samp>; a third ("Rules") shows
#[[User:Angela|Angela]] 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight lang=css>
#[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 18:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
body.page-Main_Page.action-view #bodyContent {
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
margin-top: 1.3em;
#[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
}
#[[User:TreyHarris|TreyHarris]] 00:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
</syntaxhighlight>
#[[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:::i.e. as shown above - but apparently it comes from load.php:1 not Monobook.css --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
#[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 03:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::::I'll defer to both of you on the css, but I just wanted to say that I am also currently running Firefox 20, and I noticed a distinct reduction of whitespace at the top of the main page in Monobook after I made the edit. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 13:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
#[[User:Chopchopwhitey|Chopchopwhitey]] 03:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) but if one has to be there, sans-serif of some sort.
# [[User:Nealmcb|NealMcB]] 16:39, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
# [[User:Quota|quota]] Anything so long as it is a standard serif font. Serif fonts have been shown to be more readable; it&#8217;s as simple as that (check out any professional manual, or any major reference work and see what they use)
# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
== Protected edit request on 3 March 2014 ==
'''Combine serif texts with sans-serif menus'''
#[[User:Tillwe|''till we'' <small>&#9788;</small>&#9789;]] | [[User_talk:tillwe|Talk]] 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
{{FPER|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
====Comments on Font Typeface====
<!-- Begin request -->
:I think I agree with Angela, though I'm not entirely sure what she means by "browser default". In IE6, if you specify sans-serif, you are forced to use Arial. That, to me, is not any better than forcing me to use any other font. IE does have a font preference, but it makes no distinction between Serif or Sans-serif. If no font (or font style?) is specified, then the user's choice is used. That's how the standard skin works. That allows me to use Arial Unicode MS, which eliminates all those little boxes, and which I now use as my "default" font for all browsing. -[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 18:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Per [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109#Move Pending Changes dropdown in header 20 pixels to the left]] and [[Template talk:Pp-meta#Overlapping icons]], please change line 164 from <code>right: 55px;</code> to <code>right: 75px;</code>.
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 21:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Done}}. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Edokter}} There is a problem here. At [[Carl Linnaeus]], in Monobook, the white padlock obscures the closing parenthesis of the "Accepted (latest)" dropdown, and part of the arrow-down image to the right of that. Although I have both of the gadgets "{{int:Gadget-edittop}}" and "{{int:Gadget-righteditlinks}}" enabled, disabling either one or both of these makes no difference to the position of the whitelock relative to the dropdown. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:::I could move it further to the left (110px). But this is an inherent problem with topicons; all the elements need to have their own position specified. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Looks much better now, {{ty}} --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 
== External links icons removed ==
:I think I mean just don't specify anything. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 20:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:Yes. Wikipedia should not be forcing '''any''' common font or '''any''' common font size on users who employ different browsers on different sizes of terminals and set their screen at various different resolutions. Some users may have visual problems and '''need''' larger fonts. The user should come first. [[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello! If this CSS adds or modifies icons shown after external links, you'll be interested in knowing that such icons have been [[gerrit:123817|removed from MediaWiki core]], a change which will reach this wiki in [[wikitech:Deployment|few days]]. You may want to consider whether you still need them. If you have questions, please ask at [[bugzilla:63725]]. Regards, [[m:User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Nemo bis@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Sandbox&oldid=8118966 -->
 
== #coordinates ==
::Note that the user font size is taken into account already, somebody who increased the IE default size gets a larger wikipedia. The question is if the IE default (equals 16px) is better than our own default (122% of 9pt minimum currently). -- [[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 11:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Can someone make the coordinates either appear on top or bottom of the centralnotice banners, instead of overlapping with them? See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Kent_Aerodrome&banner=MediaViewerConsultation_A&uselang=en&force=1&useskin=monobook]
:::The problem is, in order to see Wikipedia clearly, I need to set the text size larger than I normally have it. When I then go to almost any other website, the letters are HUGE and I have to switch back. In other words, I have to make a specific exception for viewing Wikipedia (yes, and for a handful of other sites that I don't visit very often). Do we really want to force this behavior on ourselves, let alone on people who are just using Wikipedia as a reference? OK. Maybe IE is messed up in their font size. But IE is what IE is. You can't fix it. LOTS of people still use it, and will probably continue to use it for a long time. Many people at work, or in libraries have no choice at all.
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Kent_Aerodrome&banner=wlm_2014&uselang=en&force=1&useskin=monobook]. This problem is not present in dewiki [//de.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick?useskin=monobook&banner=wlm_2014&uselang=en&force=1] but at dewiki the coordinates are on top of h1 while here at enwiki they're at the bottom of h1. If the local css here cannot be modified to fix this, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could provide the css to fix it through css of cnbanners. But if the latter option is preferred, it would mean that the styling have to be applied to all cnbanners to fix the issue. Thanks, --[[User:Glaisher|Glaisher]] ([[User talk:Glaisher|talk]]) 17:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:I also have this problem, and have raised the issue at [[WP:VPT]]. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 15:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 
== Protected edit request on 9 November 2015 ==
:::Maybe there are good reasons for Monobook to use fonts the way it does. I'm not a web developer. But if that's true, then we need to use some other skin as the default. -[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 05:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
{{edit fully-protected|MediaWiki:Monobook.css|answered=y}}
For background on the font issues, please see [http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html] and [http://www.w3.org/2003/07/30-font-size]. The short version is that browsers do not behave consistently today and gwicke is using one possible workaround. But it's not a perfect workaround because it depends on how well the assumptions of the workaround match the specific display you're using. It's to be expected that different people will see different sizes - it's partly a browser/platform/dispaly difference. that is, it's not only people liking different sizes - people may be seeing different sizes for the same settings. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 07:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<!-- Begin request -->
Please add the following fragment to improve the display of coordinates while the visual editor is open using monobook. The visual editor is basically using the new 'Vector' style of positioning elements inside the canvas.
<syntaxhighlight lang="css">
.ve-ce-surface #coordinates {
top: 0;
padding: 0;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
<!-- End request -->
—[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Welcome back? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 
== OOUI destructive type buttons ==
That&#8217;s true&mdash;but it does not excuse overwriting the users&#8217; settings... [[User:Quota|quota]]
 
I've added bolding to new OOUI style buttons that appear in a new light red, making them harder to see, currently this is only done for buttons that you may want to avoid, or may need to find better such as CANCEL/RESET/etc. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
==Color of links==
 
== ca-edit ==
The main problem I've seen here is that visited edit links are the same colour as visited articles. Which means if you have clicked on an edit link it is no longer possible to tell whether the article exists or not. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 17:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Hi, I plan on removing this section absent any objection:
I would suggest the colour scheme presented at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump#Link_colours]] as best, which also seems to address [[User:Sannse|sannse]]'s problem. -- [[User:DarkHorizon|Michael Warren]] 18:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight lang="css">
/* Bold 'edit this page' link to encourage newcomers */
#ca-edit a {
font-weight: bold !important;
}
</syntaxhighlight>
:"Newcomers" don't get monobook anymore, and it goes against the rest of the UI to add weight to the current tab. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}} let me know if any issues. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 
== pt-login ==
:That doesn't change the problem with visited edit links I'm afraid (I have it on [[User:Sannse/monobook.css]] and still see the same problem). -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 20:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Barring objects, will be removing this class as useless. Logged out users get vector now, you would have to do a url "&useskin=monobook" while logged out to make the "log in" button change with this now. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
::Yeah, it looked like it did, but it must have been a temporary thing (if you hit Back, it does seem to stay red on the page you return to, but if you reload, it goes to the visited link colour). Can the CSS be that finely tuned? -- [[User:DarkHorizon|Michael]] [[User talk:DarkHorizon|'''Warren''']] 20:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:{{done}} — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 01:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 
== Undo "Temporary workaround for [[phab:T226594]]" ==
:::The active link colour is set the same as the edit link - that's why it looks OK when you hit Back (I intend to change this on mine, and think it shouldn't be done this way on the default) -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 21:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
{{re|Xaosflux}} The temporary workaround added in the last edit should no longer be needed, can you undo it? [[User:Matma Rex|Matma Rex]] <small>[[User talk:Matma Rex|talk]]</small> 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
:Even worse, links to stubs below the user-defined threshold and to unwritten articles have the same red color. At least that one needs to be changed. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 07:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:{{undone}} {{ping|Matma Rex}} let me know if you see any issues. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 
== Remove all overly-specified, element dependencies on ids ==
::This now seems to have been fixed. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 18:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Coming from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T248137, all mentions of <code>div</code> together with an id selector <code>#</code> can be safely and should be removed. [[User:Volker E. (WMF)|Volker E. (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Volker E. (WMF)|talk]]) 23:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about stubs, but the other default colours were: a { color: #0000FF; } a:active, a:visited { color: #800080; } a.new { color: #CC2200; } a.interwiki, a.external { color: #3366BB; } - which is slightly different from the example mentioned above. This doesn't solve the visited edit link problem though -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 16:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:It's one way of increasing the specificity without resorting to the cop-out of the <code>!important</code> annotation. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Redrose64}} We can just replace them with .mw-body. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 10:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 
== Margin ==
'''Return to MediaWiki 1.2 defaults'''
#[[User:Angela|Angela]] 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] [[User talk:Fredrik|(talk)]] 20:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 20:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Tillwe|''till we'' <small>&#9788;</small>&#9789;]] | [[User_talk:tillwe|Talk]] 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (please, please, please!)
#[[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 03:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I suppose MediaWiki 1.2 is like the "standard" skin, is it?)
#[[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 07:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) though some change for stub color is probably worth voting on later - just not the same as "completely missing article".
# [[User:Nealmcb|NealMcB]] 16:39, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Ezhiki|Ezhiki]] 20:54, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 21:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
Can a small margin be added at the top so that the username/watchlist/etc. aren't pressed so close to the top edge? I tested this out in my common.css and it looks pretty good. <syntaxhighlight lang=css>
'''Don't return to MediaWiki 1.2 defaults'''
body {
# [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 02:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I just got things how I like them!
margin-top:5px;
 
} </syntaxhighlight> should do the trick. It's fairly minor, but I figured I should ask regardless. [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 20:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
==External link icon==
:One of the reasons that MonoBook is preferred by myself and others is that it doesn't waste nearly as much space as Vector (either Legacy or 2022). Forcing that margin upon all of us would waste space when we don't want it wasted. You are free to modify your own monobook.css if you so desire. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
'''No icons by default'''
::Alright, I guess that makes sense. Thanks, [[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 22:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC) (only if color changes between ext and int lks obviously)
#[[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 23:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 00:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (only if MediaWiki 1.2 link color defaults are restored)
#[[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#03:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (only if color changes between ext and int lks obviously)
#[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) if link colors are changed to make the distinction
#[[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (even more important than adding more link colours)
# [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 21:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (assuming color change)
# [[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 21:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (assuming ext links have different color)
# Mos def. Or at least a css fix to not display them. They're annoying. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
'''Icons by default'''
#[[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 23:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 12:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'''Other'''
#[[User:Angela|Angela]] 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) (It depends whether the external link colour is changed.)
#[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 02:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I like the idea of distinguishing external links. I think icon is OK. But it's confusing when everything not in the article namespace has this icon--e.g., "Edit summary" and "public ___domain" text on each edit page display this link, and to most people these are not external links, they're maybe help pages, so using the same icon is confusing. )
#[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 11:02, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) (I have already suggested&mdash;to [[User:Gwicke]] who originated the idea&mdash;the possibility of having a different icon for an '''Interwiki''' link as opposed to a link which is truly external to the wikipedia project. I wonder if it would be possible to present us with a selection that we can choose in our CSS file?)
::Changed the default to no styling for interwiki now apart from the 1.2 colour (that's the same for external). That should eliminate most of those icons on meta. -- [[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 12:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
==Underlining links==
 
I was among those who voted for underlined by default (I have since changed my mind), but now there is a bug and removing the check from the "Underline links" option does not change the behavior. Should we force it on users this way (this also seems to negate browser settings)? [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 03:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 
Yes this awful. If I want underlines on links I can set my browser to put them there. Why on earth does Wiki force the ungly things on users? Shall we change italic emphasis to all-capitals, next? And, as a next step, monospace fonts everywhere (green, on a black background, of course). [[User:Quota|quota]]
 
I wish I had known of a vote. This is disastrous! Little horizontal lines everywhere cutting through the text! AHHHHHHHH! My browser's no-underlining of links is even superceded by this! Ackbar! --[[User:AquaRichy|AquaRichy]] 07:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:Me too. This also removes the hover indicator. The link colour is changed already, so the main reason (links look too similar to text) should be mostly gone since yesterday. -- [[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 12:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
::I find hover underlining even more annoying than not having underlines at all. The skin should either respect browser defaults or the checkbox in user preferences. I think that's the only way to make people happy. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 19:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:You can override it in your user CSS. The rest of us like our underlines. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]]
# I don't know the css - syntax and don't ''really'' have time nor interest to learn it.
# And ''why why why'' is there a preference, if it is neglected??? I don't demand you to see links whithout underbars, but since I don't like them, please let me use the possibility to get rid of them, OK?
:[[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* well, regardless of the bug in the userprefs, you can fix it without learning css coz I'll tell you how. Just insert the code below at this page: [[User:Mikez/monobook.css]].
<pre>
/* remove the ugly, recently-reinstated link underlines */
a { text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
</pre>
:[[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
My vote is that link underlining in the default skin should respect the user's
browser settings. Ditto for link colors (except of course for the external and missing-article link colors, which are not defined by the browser and so must be chosen Wikipedia.) [[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 13:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:I did not know of a vote either, and can find no way to get rid of the awful things. Noone in their right mind would want them, still fewer would want not to be able to turn them off... Help! [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 21:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:You can get rid of them by adding "a { text-decoration: none; }" to [[User:Mark Richards/monobook.css]]. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 21:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
::I'm doing something wrong, I'm sure, can you help me out? Thanks! [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 21:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
==Color of non-main namespace pages==
===Should non-article pages have a different background color than articles?===
(Non-article = talk:, as well as user:, wikipedia:, special:, MediaWiki:, template:, category:, and their talk pages)<br>
 
'''''yes'''''
#[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 00:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (this is needed to establish more differentiation between content and metadata and help ensure our article count is not inflated/polluted by pseudo-namespace pages like [[Sandbox:maveric149]]).
#[[User:TreyHarris|TreyHarris]] 02:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 02:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I don't know that I care what color--except that gray with current scheme for rest of page would be wayyyy tedious.)
#[[User:Jallan|jallan]] 02:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 03:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) (making me vote again :)
#[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] 03:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Chopchopwhitey|Chopchopwhitey]] 03:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 13:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:KRS|KRS]] 13:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 20:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 21:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) Please!
 
'''''no'''''
#Yellow color is ugly. If you have any color, please make it something more tasteful. [[User:Latitudinarian|Latitudinarian]] 02:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#* This vote is not a vote for any particular color (see below for that) - it is a vote to have non-articles be different color than white. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 04:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 12:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#I much prefer the new style. MUCH! If a colour change is made, users should have the option to keep it how it is now. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
===If they did have a different color:===
'''Color everything that is not an article yellowish, again'''
#[[User:Tillwe|''till we'' <small>&#9788;</small>&#9789;]] | [[User_talk:tillwe|Talk]] 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC) (not that I care that much about yellowish, but anything different from articles)
 
'''Color everything that is not an article pastel orange'''
#Yay! Pastel orange! [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 01:17, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
 
'''Color everything that is not an article light blue'''
#[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (BTW, see [[m:Gallery of user styles#Lupo's minor tweaks]] for something quite akin to what I voted for here.)
# [[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) Probably better then light yellow together with the surrounding colours of MonoBook. (Changed my vote) --\Mikez
# [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 13:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:KRS|KRS]] 13:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
'''Color everything that is not an article light gray'''
:Comment only: if light gray is chosen, the color for the autogenerated edit summaries on RC will have to be changed (it's a light gray currently, and thus won't be readable anymore.) [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 10:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:KRS|KRS]] 13:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
'''Different pale background colors for each type of non-article page'''
# [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) (but pale yellow if not this)
 
'''Other'''
:In 1.2 I never saw a difference in color between the namespaces. It may be my monitor settings. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 02:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:I eventually did, but didn't realize it had a meaning until somebody explained it to me. -- [[User:Gwicke|Gabriel Wicke]] 12:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:Me too. Never really noticed it, and even after I knew it was there it was too subtle for me to take advantage of. I guess that means I don't really care. What I ''would'' like (though it not a big thing) is for the Edit page preview to be somehow very clearly marked as a preview 'throughout the page'. Too many times I've forgotten to save when I follow a link in the preview page somewhere. -[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 05:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
===Category page color===
 
'''Should be the same color as other non-article pages'''
 
'''Should be the same color as article pages'''
#[[User:TreyHarris|TreyHarris]] 02:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) Categories ''are'' part of the content, not an ancillary. I'd also be okay with a third color.
#[[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:38, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) same colour.
 
'''Yet a third color (suggest one if you like; not part of poll)'''
 
== The fact that MediaWiki:Monobook.css only does a difference for logged in users ==
 
Try it yourself. Log in, and links are underlined, log out, and they are not. This is useless, I think we should give up changing the default skin if we are not changing it for everybody, it's just silly to log in and discover 20 small tweaks that make the overall UI much better. [[User:Sverdrup|&#9999; Sverdrup]] 07:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
: Hey, I didn't know that! If that's what it takes to get rid of the underlines, I will ''not'' log in on en: ! [[User:Mikez|Mikez]] 09:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Rather, there is another option for me, I'll keep the standard skin from now on. [[User:Mikez|\Mikez]]
 
== Reduce the white space in tables and the side bar ==
 
Monobook's line heights are just too big in tables and in the side bar. Reducing them to 1em or 1.2em gives a much better layout. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:[[Image:ScreenCaptureThumbCaptionSpacing.jpg|right|]]
:They look OK to me. But there is a spacing problem in thumbnail captions; here's an example (a screen capture so you can see what I see). Huge space between 1st and 2nd line but there is no break in the actual text, it's wrapping. <BR clear="all">
<nowiki>[[Image:MiniDachshund1 wb.jpg|thumb|right|Black and tan Miniature smooth-haired dachshund]]</nowiki>
 
:Also--how did we end up with those rectangle thingies as magnifying icons? I thought that the vote a month or so back preferred the magnifying glass? [[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 17:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
::Amen, I didn't even work out what the rectangle thingies DID for a week or so! Magnifying glass much more intuitive for new users
::[[User:Rissa of the saiya-jin|Rissa]] 18:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
::Would much prefer a magnifying glass as well, for reasons stated above - [[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] 03:27, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 
::I think the new icon look SO MUCH BETTER. the magnifying glass was SO ugly. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:32, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
== Interlanguage links back at the top ==
 
I find having the interlanguage links at the bottom of the sidebar a nuisance. Part of Wikipedia's strengths is the fact that many articles exist in several languages, and we should emphasize on that, not hide it! (I usually have to scroll&mdash;and I have a big screen!&mdash; to see them.) It would be relatively easy to have them back at the top of the article, either above the top "tabs" or just below them, but above the first header. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:Also: how many different language wikis do we have? 100? 150? We need a system for langlinks that scales well. I don't think the current sidebar solution works well at all with more than 10 langlinks [[User:Sverdrup|&#9999; Sverdrup]] 10:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:At the bottom, below any categories or other article content and metadata, would be good. The left column spot is too prominent. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:I like them vertical, when they're horizontal they're a mess. [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 18:06, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
::Agreed, but perhaps the developers should develop a way for users to select which method they like better. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:32, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
== No printable pages ==
 
It appears to me that the option of printable pages has disappeared. They also appeared to be the most saveable pages (if I wanted to save the article). Not popular enough? - [[User:Nilmerg|Nilmerg]] 11:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
: WHen printing it switches to print automatically. What do you think of the option of offering "simple layout" and "high contrast/accessible" versions? [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
==Better now==
 
Now that the blue is darker, it is much better. However, the contrast between unvisited and visited links is almost nonexistent, the violet has to be made darker or a different hue altogether can be tried.
 
By the way, what's with the underlines for links suddenly appearing and as suddenly disappearing? [[User:KRS|KRS]] 13:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:You can change the colour of all links with User css, which I think is the right idea. I think that rather than make a bunch of unilateral changes to the code, we should stay with what we have now, and develop tutorials on User css customisation. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
::Yes, using User css to change colors is the right idea. But that is inconsistent with leaving things as they are, which changes colors, underlines, etc. without using User css. The default skin -- the one that non-logged-in users and new users will have -- should override as few as possible of the user's pre-existing settings. Why mess with underlines at all in the default skin? ''Let the user's settings prevail''. Maybe we shouldn't even mess with link colors by default, or at least keep normal links (visited and unvisited) in their browser-setting colors
 
== Section editing should only be available for users ==
 
While section editing is really convenient for serious contributors, they are distracting for people trying to read the encyclopedia. Not only do these people have keep reading "edit," attempts to copy/past the text will also copy in the edit link. A serious contributor is most likely a user and and serious reader is most likely not logged in. Please do not make section editing available for anons. --[[User:Jiang|Jiang]] 21:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*A valid point, but I'd worry then that casual users would be less likely to add to a section or make a small correction. The section edit feature makes it more likely that they'll contribute knowledge to the encyclopedia, since its so convenient to click on when reading a section. Maybe there is a better way to implement this while still allowing copy/pasting of multiple sections without retaining the "edit", but I think its a good feature. [[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] 03:25, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
::What would really be cool is if the default behavior for double-clicking on the article would open the clicked-on section for editing. Editing the entire article could only be done by using the Edit button/tab. -[[User:Rholton|Rholton]] 06:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
== Edit/history/watch etc. on bottom ==
 
I am REALLY, REALLY happy with the new Monobook skin and MediaWiki 1.3, especially after instituting several User css changes. I like the skin, I like the font changes, and like the new features.
 
However, there is one nagging problem that I have.
In the old software, there was edit/history/watch/whatlinkshere links at the bottom and side of the page. Now they're at the top only. I would really like to see these links at the top, bottom, and side, or AT LEAST at the top and bottom.
 
I've found often that when reading an article, especially long ones, I find myself looking intuitively for the link at the bottom. This is a small problem, but a nag nonetheless.
 
Anyone else have feeling on this? [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•­•]] 05:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 
:One of the most common things I've seen pop up in user CSS and JS is the [[m:User styles/bottom tabs|bottom tabs]] available on meta. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 06:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css"