MediaWiki talk:Common.css

• MediaWiki
• Meta
• Commons
• Wikibooks
• Wikiquote
• Wikisource
• Wiktionary
• de
• fr
• pl
• ja
• jbo
• it
• nl
• es

Wrapping on UserLogin

I propose to add

page-Special_UserLogin .mw-label { white-space : nowrap; }

This avoids that the labels of the input fields on Special:UserLogin are spread over two lines ("retype password" and "E-mail (optional)". This is especially notable on the Signup page, when you are not logged into Wikipedia. I think it makes it a lot more readable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem unreasonable, as it will only widen the form a bit and it's not very wide as it is. I'm thinking you may want to tweak the selector used to:

page-Special_UserLogin .mw-label label { white-space : nowrap; }

to directly _target the label-element instead of the td containing it. I've not looked closely at just what's inheriting what from where, so this might not actually work if there is other code intent on other levels of the markup structure. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It's not working for me in Firefox. I think the code is missing a dot, so the correct code should be:

.page-Special_UserLogin .mw-label label { white-space : nowrap; }

Svick (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. ―AoV² 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; someone should add the dot; it was missing from the initial example and I didn't notice when I added the 'label' suggestion. I've tested this via Firebug and it's fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn copy paste. Had it right in my own monobook, so never even noticed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Not to be a nudge, but where did the "_signup" come from?

body.page-Special_UserLogin_signup .mw-label label { white-space : nowrap; }

it should be:

body.page-Special_UserLogin .mw-label label { white-space : nowrap; }

(or both, if the _signup form is used somewhere). Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are required. Seems there are two variants of the signup page. (Man that thing is a mess). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would also leave less width for the <div class="prefsectiontip"> which follows. I think we′d address this best by putting it in its own cell on a separate row with colspan="2", either directly below the wpEmail row or below the mw-submit buttons. Also the asterisk in that message invokes an unordered list rather than matching the literal asterisk in “E-mail (optional)*”. ―AoV² 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the asterisk —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That could work; I'd be inclined to keep it just below and not all the way down below the buttons. fyi, while looking further at this, I notice that the text "Already have an account? Log in." is invalidly wrapped in two levels of p-elements, so if someone edits this wherever it is in the MediaWiki namespace, it should be looked into. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That would require a software change though, wouldn't it ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It might, I'm not sure where that text/markup originates. I was thinking that it's just UI wikitext that could be edited with a mop. The generated markup I'm referring to is:

<p id="userloginlink"><p>Already have an account? <a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&amp;type=login">Log in</a>. </p></p>

(there's a newline where the space is before the pair of /p-elements)

I'll nose-about and see if I can find it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This was fast, but unsatisfying; MediaWiki:Gotaccount appears to be the text itself, but there's no markup, so the issue may well be in MediaWiki itself :( Jack Merridew 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We could file a bugreport on this, because in my opinion that entire special page needs some work, but I don't think we can do anything about it here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not seeing a local fix, so the MW-folks should be poked about this, and whatever else you have in mind. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The differing body-class appears only when you use url with a slash after the title of a special page, not in the default link which uses a separate parameter, viz. title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup. See also bugzilla:23315. ―AoV² 12:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RecentChanges color certain users?

Hi there, I have my own MediaWiki set up, and I saw another has this code.

.page-Special_RecentChanges [title="User:<USERNAME>"]
{
    font-weight: bold;
    color:#70B04A;
}

I'm wondering why this isn't working for me. I placed it near the end of my Common.css. If someone could get back to me I'd be much obliged. Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I've replaced <USERNAME> with the user's username. Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 10:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This should do the trick. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

body.page-Special_RecentChanges a[title="User:<USERNAME>"]

If your browser supports attribute selectors. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the above's working now. Very odd. Thanks for the prompt response. Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 10:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikitable

Wikitable is now defined in shared.css.[9] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So what will we do with prettytable ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The style that MediaWiki is using is simpler, I think. I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp, personally. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You sure ? They look identical to me.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh, guess you're right. Looks like it was just copied and pasted directly from en.wiki (diff). Must've been the lack of prettytable that threw me. I've searched the database in the past for instances of "prettytable." It probably needs another pass-through before this code can safely be removed. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I did a search from the February dump: User:Gadget850/dbsearch/prettytable 2010-Feb-03. Looks like 495 uses. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just tackled all the uses that were not in article or Wikipedia namespace. Still many uses remaining of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the wikitable definitions and left the prettytable ones until we get the above list sorted out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we do something like using CSS's content property or just break it like with .hiddenStruct? Its been on the /to do list for the last ten months. I fear the stalemate will continue. — Dispenser 04:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You might have added the opening phrase above ("Wikitable is now defined in shared.cs") in your edit comment at the removal from common.css. You gave me quite a scare. Wikitable is used all over the place. −Woodstone (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, reading back the history page, I see your concern :D. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have updated uses of prettytable in all articles, all templates (except for some TfDs) and Wikipedia pages (except for archives). Also fixed a number of uses of {{prettytable}} that were still hanging around and other odd uses, such as those stuffed into ref tags. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we only have uses in some archives and in userpages left now right ? How much do we care about those ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much. I still have the February dump, so I might have missed some new uses. There were no userpage uses. That leaves a handful of archives that I am not going to worry about and a number of discussions about prettytable that should not be updated. That leaves common.css and the catalogue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment ? I'm in the remove the prettytable rules camp. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll pitch my tent there, too. Long overdue. Happy‑melon 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Me, too. This has been years in the making. Salt template:prettytable, too? Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I pulled the trigger on this one. It was about time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change because of Template:Portal box

I proposed a change to {{portal box}} that requires also a change of this page. See the discussion at Template talk:Portal box#Better syntax. Svick (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing wikitable styles for print

I just noticed that since the wikitable move, there is no longer wikitable css for print. See this. We need to follow that up. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Added to MediaWiki:Print.css for now. Should be added to core software. See bugzilla:23507. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple line, major proposal

From the indications at the VP and many other related pages, it is clear that the new logo is much despised. I therefore suggest the unusual, but possibly warranted inclusion of the following line:

#p-logo a {background-image: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Wiki.PNG) !important;}

--Ipatrol (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Much despised" is a highly subjective term. Let's do this by the mathematical numbers: we have roughly 371 million unique visitors per month. Can you point to a proportion of them that you believe "despise" it, and the validation for that argument? Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPT#New logo AON. Also, lack of complaints from readers does not mean approval. It usually means that they don't know how to or want to get involved with us. Consensus of the interested should decide this.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Add class="rellink" to MediaWiki:Print.css

{{editprotected}} Since the talk page of MediaWiki:Print.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirects here, I'm putting my request here. Please add .ns-0 .rellink, to the first CSS item there. {{Rellink}}, which uses this class, is a meta template for showing links to related articles. The template and its derivatives are currently in the category "Exclude in print", but this only prevents the templates from being shown in the book tool. To make it work with the usual printing, skinning it here would be needed. An alternative would be to add class="noprint" to the template itself, but there might be situations in which one might want to print it, possibly in other namespaces. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled the request because this page is watched by many, and all changes need to be discussed anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we really want to exclude this from print however ? Unlike navboxes etc, rellinks can be quite bound to the following content. Without them, some sections can be really sparse, and I have even seen cases (especially in developing content) where it was the only element to follow a sectionheader. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's often not desirable to hide these in print; so I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Happy‑melon 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just yeesterday thought of this problem. Probably, simply using CSS doesn't suffice to fix this problem. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)