I don't understand; what is this and where can I see an example? --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:09, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- The most basic define is: Cascading Style Sheets. Language used to describe how an HTML document should be formatted. So all you would have to do is:
{| class="infobox"
|-
| This is an info box...
|}
and the "CSS File" has an "infobox" define with different style parameters. So you don't have to know CSS, all you have to do is the "class". Also the CSS "package" includes a design update of some of the elemsnts of the "layout". Like the Left navagation area, default colors, etc, etc. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:17, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- Well okay, but what I see on the Hangar Bay thing doesn't look like a massive redesign: am I looking at the right thing?--The Merovingian (C - E) 18:43, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- Look at the footer, the left navagation (the icons will not show because it's not on the main "root" yet. The Yellow links where "My Talk" is. The Yellow Tabs. The Editing and New Article Creation look different. The Prefences look different. Red no longer exists, unless it's a non created page. Stuff like that. There are very few artiles that have been created, but there are no images on that wiki.
- Well okay, but what I see on the Hangar Bay thing doesn't look like a massive redesign: am I looking at the right thing?--The Merovingian (C - E) 18:43, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- http://www.battlestarwiki.org/hangarbay/index.php/33
- http://www.battlestarwiki.org/hangarbay/index.php/Miniseries
- http://www.battlestarwiki.org/hangarbay/index.php/Anastasia_Dualla
- http://www.battlestarwiki.org/hangarbay/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&returnto=Special:Recentchanges
Alot of the changes you can not see unless you create a dummy account on the Hangerbay. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:53, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
I have two major problems here.
- I'm personally quite fond of monobook, and I don't care for the redesign featured at the hangar bay; and although an intense design critique could improve it, I don't think it's worth our energy. The leads to my second point:
- Monobook, and other projects which we inherit from the MediaWiki project, are worked on and approved by large groups with more design sense, creativity, and enthusiasm than we can ever hope to muster on our small corner of the internet. To think otherwise strikes me as hubris. This is one of those situations where I vastly prefer deferring to other experts rather than trying to do something ourselves.
--Peter Farago 19:56, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- I agree. I like what we already have, and it would be a lot of energy for a comparatively minor change. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:59, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
I think that the reason this proposal looks weak, is because Shane is not displaying the power of CSS. Switching to CSS is an investment in the future. It would make lay-out design changes MUCH easier after adopting it. If all info-boxes look as they do because they're labeled "infobox" in the HTML (as generated by MediaWiki), then should we want to change how they look, we can change it in one place and they all get updated. So, that's, maybe, not so spiffy. Here's the catch; to me, the selling point. We also have an "infobox" description in the monobook css file that tells infoboxes how to look. A user picks which CSS file they want to use in preferences (this is, actually, already how the different "skins" work, it's just a matter of personalizing the CSS files referenced in prefs).
I don't agree with Peter (GASP!) that we should let the experts handle this one. Our needs are different from those of Wikipedia at times and so it would behoove us to decide for ourselves on some things. I, personally, think this is one of those things. There are a lot of common lay-out elements we user over and over that could be standardized and centralized into the CSS files.
Also, it is my understanding that the CSS files are editable via the Wiki interface. I'll have to do some more research, but I think, if we know the name of the file, we can edit a page of that same name and that information gets appended to the page (so there'd be one page like this for each skin). I may be misunderstanding this, however.
What would make me feel better about this proposal is:
- No change in aesthetics being tied to moving to CSS. That's a separate argument.
- Equal treatment of CSS for other skins (I.e. we should personalize all the css files).
- More research into whether or not the css files can be edited via wiki interface. This is, I think, very important.
Also, Shane, would you provide a link here (for quick reference) to the css file you're working with so that those of us that can read css can scan through it? Thanks. --Day (Talk - Admin) 14:58, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
- The use of CSS isn't at issue - MediaWiki already produces very clean markup which can be styled practically at will. --Peter Farago 15:37, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
- This is the "CSS" file being used right now on the Hangerbay: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/hangarbay/skins/bsgbook/main.css Now all the elements Above the line:
/** * Custom Elements for Battlestar Wiki "Design"; These do not appear with MediaWiki Default **/
are the MediaWiki "tags" with the BSG Colors. Everything below are customs tags to "objects" and styles we have created from the "main page" redesign and other misc. custom elements already created on this wiki. Shane (T - C - E) 15:42, 11 July 2006 (CDT)