MediaWiki talk:Wikia.css

Justified text content
We had some issues with justified text content; apparently the former instruction messed up some stuff in table cells etc. Now, justified text is restricted to just paragraphs in the main content area. I think this is preferable to left-aligned text, because the whole page layout has a clear border for the text both at the left and the right edge - and in addition, we're typically adding more page elements like thumbnail images or sidebars. In general, I think the floating text looks much cleaner if it is justified (meaning that word-spacing might be stretched slightly to give clean borders on both sides). Preferences that allowed (in Monobook and Monaco) to override the text alignment no longer work in the new skin, so we'll have to decide one way or another, and I believe this to be the better-looking one. -- Cid Highwind 11:40, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the following examples, please set your text to justified and your tray tables to their full and upright position. Thank you.
 * The main problem with justified text is we have little to no control over the layout of images in an article. For the most part, having a solid wall of justified text from one side to the other doesn't present any big problems, but with the additions of images and what-have-you, problems start occurring. Two images one either side, bg notes close to images, and galleries all disrupt the spacing of justified text. I don't think that having a clear border of text on the right is worth having spacing issues throughout. - 12:07, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we do have control over that now more than ever. Formerly, the whole page layout totally depended on the screen resolution of the user viewing the page. Now, with a fixed width of the content area, layout should look more or less the same for all users (with the exception of individual changes to the size of thumbnails). That might make it viable to not only scatter images across the page and hope for the best, but actually work on layout in thoses cases that do suck. "Two images on both sides of text" are one such case, although I have to say that the example you gave doesn't look that terrible. The gallery is a bad example, because it uses a hack to present a gallery in a way it never was meant to be displayed (floated and right-aligned) - that one should be changed into two separate images instead, anyway. -- Cid Highwind 12:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Checking the model page further, I see that the horrible misuse of galleries continues, with some galleries floating out of the content area, and others so wide that only single word fit next to it (example subsection). I'm going to work on that now, because it is a problem even without justified text. -- Cid Highwind 12:42, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to lie, I really liked the two image galleries floated to the right, since I think it's kinda stupid to have to break the entire flow of text to just put two images next to each other, but that ties in with my whole hatred of the fixed width in general now. That said, justified text to me always looks unprofessional, since all I see are the inconsistency in the spaces. It very distracting while reading, or even skimming, but I'm willing to admit that might just be me. If the worry is the lack of a defining line at the right border, that can be addressed by actually putting a line there, since I did something similar in the beta. That would actually help with the article type banners as well, since right now they just stop in open space. - 16:35, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think that a vertical right border in combination with left-aligned text would look far worse than just left-aligned text alone, because it would bring more attention to the jagged right edge of the floating text. I prefer justified text for (among others) exactly that reason - it avoids jagged edges, which to me look strange, especially in a columned layout (which Monobook, Monaco and newskin all are). -- Cid Highwind 16:50, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I put a link to this at the forum on the skin change, since switching to justified text is something that will happen when people start using the new skin, and we need a consensus either way. - 22:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The next article of the week has a perfect example of the very poor spacing with justified text, as seen on TV, and the lack of support for a change to justified text I think shows that we shouldn't. Of course, the same could be said for unjustified text as well, since there isn't any resounding support for that either, but we need a consensus to change the standard, not keep it, and the standard has been unjustified text since at least I was here. - 23:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Space below the rail
Well, on a different but not completely unrelated topic, do you think there's a way to have the article use the dead space below the rail modules? I'm pretty sure that doesn't violate the terms of use, and would go a long way to making this skin something more than a complete slap in the face to readers. - 19:51, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is always a way... ;) However, the only way I see for it to work would be to first rearrange the whole document structure via JS and then remove the width restriction from ".WikiaMainContent". As long as the rail is defined after the content, any changes to width or float properties of the latter will lead to displacement of the former. -- Cid Highwind 11:07, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

That might be worth trying. I don't have any skill with javascript, so I'll try a few ideas I have on the CSS front with what little js I think I can mange. - 22:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Terms of use
Hi, please can you return the Wikia banner to the default. We have been testing a variation, but that's not (yet?) the official version. I'm actually a bit concerned that the change may have affected that testing, although as only a percentage of visitors were shown the variation or used as the control group, hopefully it won't have done. I didn't look closely at the other changes, but the main intention for the ToU restrictions is to keep the "frame" around the content and the features consistent. I know that's not defined as well as it needs to be, but hopefully you can review your code with that in mind. Many thanks -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 07:54, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted previously (numerous times) – Many of those features you have added are not exactly in keeping with the encyclopedic nature of Memory Alpha (or a number of other wikis). Memory Alpha ia not a blog.  It is an encyclopedia.  I know that this is (as usual) talking to a wall, but it must be stated before Wikia turns into a poor clone of LiveJournal or BlogSpot. -- sulfur 11:00, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Sannse - whether accidentally or on purpose, the Terms of Use are written in a way that could either disallow everything or not disallow anything, depending on interpretation. Now you're asking us to apply the "one true interpretation" in some quasi-theistic way where some of us have long lost whatever faith they had. Also, those mixed signals where one of you tells us that something is OK while the other states the opposite doesn't exactly help, either. Perhaps you or someone else @Wikia could have another look at the ToU and rewrite them to actually mean something? Many thanks.
 * Regarding the layout of the Wikia banner - for what it's worth, you can add a note to your A/B-testing results, stating that at least this user (and apparently enough others) was annoyed enough by the banner and its screen-filling mega-menu popup to completely remove the banner from his personal view. -- Cid Highwind 11:16, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The ToU as written clearly indicate that it's up to Wikia to decide what is proper and what is not (e.g. it is by trial and error global block that PvXwiki bureaucrat Karate Jesus found out that an animated .gif as background is not "proper"). Since Wikia reserves these kinds of decisions now, some people are pondering whether wikis hosted by Wikia can still employ the Creatice Commons atrribution-noncommercial-share alike (CC BY-NC-SA) license, because whereas Wikia previously was the wikihosting service and the volunteer editor community the publisher, that distinction has been muddled. -- ◄mendel► 18:22, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

"back to page" bug removed from talk pages
Something int he recent Wikia.css updates removed the "back to page" link on talk pages. See the top of this one for a good example.

We also need to look at adding in some sort of notice that a "Forum" page is in that namespace and "Mediawiki" in that namespace (etc), as those notifications have also vanished recently. -- sulfur 10:21, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * The javascript already used for the other namespaces should work for any new ones, though we should remember to add the talk pages as well. As for the talk page link, that was the breadcrumb removal, which would work if it wasn't for this problem. Other "back to page" links remained though, so it might just be certain namespaces. What tipped me off to the whole thing was that redirect notices were doubled, see Em. That is certainly a bug, and it now shows with the breadcrumb removal off. - 11:37, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Are we adding the second redirect notice, or do they both come from Wikia? If the latter, then it's a bug that should be reported. -- sulfur 11:53, August 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The second notice is from wikia, it came with the admin dashboard update. That said, can we get the breadcrumb removal stuff to only work in the main article namespace and not the talk pages, cause if we can then it would work since we can just add the namespace to the article title, where it should be. - 11:57, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that the database seems to be a bit screwy, as after may last edit this page appears blank, though everything is still on it when editing. - 12:00, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the other namespaces to the the js file, and except for the bold "Talk" on the talk pages, it seems to be working fine. - 12:29, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Removed stuff
/*** Drawer to reduce dashboard rail ***/ .AdminDashboardDrawer { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #AAA; border-left: 1px solid #666; top: 0; }

.AdminDashboardDrawer .arrow { border-color: transparent transparent transparent #222; background-image: none; }

.AdminDashboardDrawer .arrow.expanded { border-left: 1px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid #222; }

/** Quick stats box total background color - doesn't change the color of the "arrow" part **/ .WikiaDataTable .totals td:first-child .pointer { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #666 !important; color: #AAA !important; } Storing this here in case it's needed again. - 22:12, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

/**** Wiki Navigation (deprecated) ****/ .WikiaPageHeader details { background-color: #222; background-image: none; border:1px solid #666; }

.WikiaPageHeader .history.hover { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #222; border-color: #666; }

.WikiHeader li a { color: #B7B1B1; border-left: 1px solid #7B7B7B; }

.WikiHeader li:hover { background-color: #222; background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(center bottom, #222 10%, #2E2E33 90%); }

.WikiHeader .subnav { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #222; border-color: #404040; padding: 0px !important; }

.WikiHeader .subnav li { border-top: 1px solid #404040; }

.WikiHeader .subnav li a { background-color: #222222; background-image: none; }

.WikiHeader .subnav li a:hover { background-color: #2E2E33; background-image: none; }

.WikiHeader .chevron { border-top-color: #D5D4D4 !important; }

.WikiHeader .shadow-mask { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #666; } Same as above. - 10:23, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

/* Remove image attribution as per new Wikia regulations */ /* Now turned off on MA as a whole * .WikiaArticle .picture-attribution { *  display: none; * } */ Ditto. - ~

Site nav bar gradient
Is not working for all browsers yet. Other browser gradients can be added using the code already located in the Common.css for the "Forum:Color_change_and_gradients" tests as an example. - 23:33, June 17, 2013 (UTC)