MediaWiki talk:Vector.css/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Previous skin discussion and ideas.

Default Skin

Since most of the MediaWiki sites have switched to the vector skin D&D Wiki may as well. We want your input.

What do you like about the current skin?

What things from the Sledged skin would you like to see in the new skin?

What do you want to see in the new skin?

Which improvements would you like to see from the default vector?

Have you encountered any problems with the Sledged skin? If so, please explain them in detail or link to them.

All comments are appreciated. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (MDT)

I don't really know what most of those questions mean (are we currently using the Sledge skin? Are we using the default vector?), but I'm a huge fan of changing as few things as possible. If what we have works (and we know how to support it), then I don't see a reason to change to what everyone else is using (especially if we can't support it...). Are the category changes (vertical and inefficient instead of side-by-side and taking up a lot smaller screen space) and broken templates (seems the #foreach function does not work) part of the new skin/vector/whatever? JazzMan 09:11, 14 May 2012 (MDT)

The two issues you brought up (a few more exist I'm sure) are the reason that this question is being asked. We are currently using a skin created by the user Sledged based off of the MonoBook theme. This skin was built for a very old version of MediaWiki, and some of the problems which are now occurring are doing so because it is challenging to upgrade themes. I guess the question should be, is it worth our time to keep fixing these small error for each new version of MediaWiki that comes out, or should we just rebase off of the new MediaWiki skin system, using something like Vector? This will take more time up front, but may save a lot of hassle during MediaWiki upgrade versions. Does this make any sense? Thanks, — Blue Dragon (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2012 (MDT)

I'm afraid I'll have to trust your judgement on these matters. As long as we keep the sepia tones, and nothing horrible happens to our dpl tables, starting afresh with the latest skin system might be a good idea. Marasmusine (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2012 (MDT)

It's hard to come up with a good answer without knowing what the difference is between the current and new versions. Obviously the less maintenance the better, but what do we give up by changing? The other issue is: does anyone have the time and skill it would take to put together a brand new skin vs. fix the new one each time? JazzMan 16:36, 14 May 2012 (MDT)

The questions above are the questions that matter. Fortunately, in this situation, the question "who can make this skin?" is not being asked.

How it currently stands the Sledged skin will be used as the base for the vector skin. This means that the color choices and the background will come from the Sledged skin (reason: default to default). This does not have to be the case.

The change from vector I propose is that we move all the tabs to the left side like they are now. I think this is a good idea because the vector tabs are difficult to navigate across one's screen, and I feel that they lose their importance in the vector skin being separated by such a large space. --Green Dragon (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2012 (MDT)

My confusion is coming from "vector skin". I don't know what that is. Is that what Wikipedia uses now? If so, I agree, I like having the tabs where they are now. I also like having the search box off to the side instead of at the top (where you can't differentiate between "search" and "go"). I'm having a hard time suggesting improvements, because I don't know what the vector skin is capable of. I really don't have any complaints about the current skin we use, except maybe it would be nice if the left toolbar floated so that it moves down the page with you. JazzMan 09:41, 15 May 2012 (MDT)

Completely agree with floating left toolbar. I get fed up of scrolling back up to get to the search box after editing a long page. I also want to keep the discussion/edit/history/delete tabs at the top. Marasmusine (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2012 (MDT)

I also feel that floating left panels would be nice. A good example of what is possible with the skins can be seen here (the current D&D Wiki vector has some problems so don't trust that one). --Green Dragon (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (MDT)

Although not actually done (the tabs and side bar, etc), this is what I prefer. The background has been changed to File:Northrendentryconc.jpg (with gradient modifications). The border comes from File:Baculus.jpg.

Thoughts? --Green Dragon (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (MDT)

I guess that background is actually from World of Warcraft... I changed it to one in the public domain.

Thoughts? --Green Dragon (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2012 (MDT)

Nice. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2012 (MDT)

I thought I should have checked this before. At 800x600 screen resolution one cannot see the entire sidebar. If we make it follow one down the page, they will never be able to see the toolbox. Moving the search up to the corner will help (and help with its small width), but maybe we can add a scrollbar in the sidebar. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2012 (MDT)

This is a late response, but I'd rather keep the search box where it is and keep the whole bar static than move the search box or have a scroll bar. JazzMan 07:58, 9 June 2012 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

The scrollbar will only show up if your resolution does not support the entire sidebar being in a single screen. The search field, for me, currently is too small to see some of my entries. I would prefer a larger one (one in the corner). And the only people that use the search field are those who know where they are going, so the search field should not be a problem in any location for them. --Green Dragon (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2012 (MDT)

What are you searching that doesn't fit in the box? I've never had a problem with it. I use it all the time, because if I know where I'm going it's usually quicker than trying to click to the page. If the scroll bar only shows up for people with low resolution then I guess it wouldn't affect me, but I personally think it looks tacky. JazzMan 22:22, 11 June 2012 (MDT)

Somethings do fit in the box, but not everything does (try the current FA for example). I wonder what the Vector's designers intended by moving the search box up to the top, because then we would have another opinion. My reasoning for the search box being moved to where Vecotor's designers put it is because 1) it is a larger box by not being constrained by the sidebar, and 2) the Vector users elsewhere (the main skin now used on wikis) would feel more comfortable with it at the top and 3) the Vector designers intended it to be there (for some reason or another).

A scrollbar that moves with users is 1) more useful but 2) may remind users of spam sites. Since there are no ads on it, though, I don't think that #2 will be considered by most users. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (MDT)

I see what you are saying about the search box, but I'm more of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset. But Wikipedia changed, so this is not a fight I'm ever going to win anyway...

As for the scrollbar, the only worry would be if it disables functionality in some way. The biggest worry would be if there's some new user that it doesn't work right for, but instead of telling us about it he just leaves the site. I wonder if there would be a way to do a floating bar that didn't integrate a scrollbar? I'm just musing here, but what if it aligned the bottom with the bottom of the screen? This way if your screen is too small you can just scroll back to the top to see the top part? I dunno, just musing. JazzMan 21:22, 12 June 2012 (MDT)

I guess the current skin can actually be considered "broken". "This skin was built for a very old version of MediaWiki, and some of the problems which are now occurring are doing so because it is challenging to upgrade themes."

You will not see a scrollbar– don't worry.

The code that will be used to move the sidebar with the page is <div style="position: fixed;">. Try it out, and if your questions above are still pertinent then please re-ask them. --Green Dragon (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

I don't know how to use that code. I guess my problem here is with terminology. When I hear "skin" I think of the visuals: button size, background color, font size, stuff like that. None of that seems to be broken to me (though correct me if I'm wrong). What's broken are templates (though I think all those bugs are currently worked out), and column formatting. When you say "skin", are you including things like the background programming? If so, is it not possible to change to the vector "programming" skin but leave the sledged "visual" skin, or are these mutually exclusive? JazzMan 07:13, 14 June 2012 (MDT)

I don't do that upgrades, but I know that Blue Dragon has been having trouble upgrading with this old skin. Ergo, it's broken.

You can use the above code anywhere on D&D Wiki to see what I am talking about (just put some text inside it). --Green Dragon (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (MDT)

Hi JazzMan. The problems with the upgrade past MediaWiki 1.18 is that the actual HTML structure behind the system changed. In particular, many elements which were previously table elements have been moved to the (better) ul/li items. This means that a good chunk of the previous CSS is outdated, ineffective or wrong. This is what needs to be changed. Also, this discussion is about moving the current MonoBook look into the more modern Vector look. Does this help clear anything up? Thanks, — Blue Dragon (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (MDT)

Ironically, now that it is in more technical language, I think I finally understand the question. The term "skin" here is somewhat misleading, at least according to what I'm expecting.

I asked this question before, but did not receive an answer (we got sidetracked with floating sidebars): what does the vector skin actually look like? Obviously we need to fix all the behind-the-scene things that we can, but if we changed to vector skin tomorrow, what would be different? It's hard to answer the original question of whether we should switch, if I don't know what we are switching to. This is the question I've had the whole time. Regardless of the answer to this question, my answer remains the same as it did the first time I answered it: I think we should switch over to the vector skin, changing as much as is needed to make everything on the site work properly, while at the same time changing the look of the site as little as possible. I still don't know what options we have to work with (i.e. what we are stuck with and what we could use but aren't), but I don't have any issues with the current site, and I support a policy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Hopefully this answers GD's original question. JazzMan 21:53, 14 June 2012 (MDT)

Take a look at Wikipedia for an example of Vector. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (MDT)

That's what I was asking before. I mean, I don't like that they moved all the buttons around (why do software designers insist on moving things around? You are slowing me down, people!), but it's a small price to pay for functionality. JazzMan 07:07, 16 June 2012 (MDT)

It has come to my attention that Blue Dragon feels that he will not be able to make this skin and the necessary aesthetic considerations. Thus, if anyone would like to make a skin please do make the skin and we can vote on the skin to be the default skin, and put it on D&D Wiki's skin options. Sorry to let everyone know so late. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2014 (MST)