MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css

Tanaric, I use   on my user page and it works just fine 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Try table.toc{float:right;margin:2px;} - there isn't any space around the things so the [ edit ] runs into it  15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, the code I used worked. The problem is it acts funny with other infoboxes around here, like on skill pages and such.  Rainith and I discussed it briefly while I was playing with it last night, and for now, it seems like the default behavior is generally best. &mdash;Tanaric 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok =) 15:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Skuld, the info is here if you're interested in joining in. :)  --Rainith 21:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Standard tables
there seems to be a lot of useage of style="border-collapse:collapse" and so on, often requiring a lot of individual cell border code in templates, surely it would be easier to put it as a CSS class? template:STDT is what i started a while ago but that got slicked down too much, i forget why

table.standard{ margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; }

table.standard th, table.standard td, { border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; padding: 0.2em; }

table.standard th, { background: #f2f2f2; text-align: center; }

Thats taken from Wikipedia:MediaWiki:Common.css, could we try that out?

^--- much easier to put in as that little bit of code 19:57, 6 March 2006 (CST)

Can an admin check this please 04:00, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Why not this instead? margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; }
 * 1) content table {

border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; padding: 0.2em; }
 * 1) content table th, #content table td, {

background: #f2f2f2; text-align: center; }
 * 1) content table th {

I'd rather do this right from the designer's point of view. Wiki editors should have to edit the CSS of a table at all, except for on a few special pages. I'd really prefer to have those special pages (like Main Page, Unique items list, etc. have more verbose style information, and have every other table lack it entirely. &mdash;Tanaric 08:31, 7 March 2006 (CST)


 * On a possibly related note, from what I recall the STDT template was stripped down (or whatever you said Skuld) because if you had 2 seperate tables on the same page, it caused problems. IIRC the first table looked fine, the second had no borders at all.  I remember this with Firefox and I think I checked it with IE and the same thing happened.  --Rainith 08:57, 7 March 2006 (CST)


 * Only seven months later... but we could definitely use some helpful CSS. It could reduce fiddling with skill templates by allowing edits to instead be made to the CSS (and so a gazillion jobs aren't thrown into the job queue like with an edit to a high-use template).  For pages like elite skills list (and all the attribute/campaign/profession permutations), the same styling is used for a ton of tables with only color changes.  Each could instead simply be class="warrior" or whatever.  The CSS suggestion has been brought up before for these tables, but I don't remember where.  Also, simply trying to make a table with internal borders is really annoying if you want to do it through the style attribute and not slapping on border="1", but could be done by using something similar to what Skuld suggested above.
 * I don't like Tanaric's idea using the ID "content" because then it becomes a pain to undo the changes instead. So you easily get the borders I complained about a moment ago... but if you don't want them, undoing them is just as troubling as doing them without the CSS class/whatever.  If, either way, one or the other will be annoying, I think it's better to go with the browser default/no specification.  We've already been doing it with this behavior the entire time, essentially.  --Fyren 03:58, 15 October 2006 (CDT)


 * How about a hybrid solution? Use #content, so that the 85-90% of tables that want it get it for free, and provide the classes for profession-specific tables as well, so you can get those with a single specification. &mdash;Tanaric 04:39, 15 October 2006 (CDT)