MediaWiki talk:Vector.css

Difference between Vector.css and Common.css
Vector.css should contain elements directly pertaining to the Vector skin. All extras, style classes, the Curse footer, etc. needs to be in Common.css. Please do NOT make changes to the Vector.css that have not been discussed here. -- Wynthyst  talk  16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in the Community Portal, styles for the wiki's current appearance (which is a modified Vector skin) were disbursed between both css files. If you Curse folks want to set things up competently, please do so. —Vinifera7 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, was does it actually mean to say that "Vector.css should only contain elements directly pertaining to the Vector skin," when no other skin is available to be selected? If someone wanted to add or modify some styles, how can they determine which css file it goes in? —Vinifera7 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, if it's simply to apply a style to say a template... like infoboxes and nav boxes, or to determine text color based on rarity/quality, those are all NON-skin element things. If it's to add style to something that is required by a specific MediaWiki extension, it's a NON-skin item. If it's to create alternate table styles to be used for different purposes than the basic wikitable, it's a NON-skin item. And lastly, if it's related to Curse branding, it's a NON-skin item. If someone is looking to make changes to actual skin elements, they can use Firebug or other css readers to inspect the element. If they have the know how to change the css, they should have the know-how to identify what is a skin element and what isn't. Good rule of thumb, if you aren't sure, ASK. Global skin changes should not be made by admins without discussion/consensus anyway. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  17:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not trying to be an ass, I just needed some extra clarification on that. —Vinifera7 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be an ass either :D My concern comes from understanding how MediaWiki handles css. It looks first at the internal css files (server side) then it comes to the skin specific files here, and lastly it looks at the common.css file. It reads each element in the order they appear on the style sheet. So... by putting things like the style codes for the new tooltip hover template at the top of the Vector.css file, MediaWiki is going to load that style before say... the background. If someone makes even the slightest mistake in syntax (replaces a curly brace with a parenthesis, etc.) in that hoverbox style code, it would then break the entire site, rather than just breaking the rest of the "extra" styles. The order that elements appear on the style sheet also controls things like the z-index of various layers within the skin. So while it may just look willy nilly, there is a method to the madness! -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the 'cascading' nature of css and levels of specificity and all that. What I assumed incorrectly was that Vector.css was loaded before Common.css. It's not very intuitive that the styles would be layered that way. —Vinifera7 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Visited Link Colour
I'm not a big fan of the visited link colour, I think keeping it the same as default links might be better. Anyone agree? Iamacyborg (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing as I'm the one who put in the new link colors, I don't mind it, but it's easy enough to change if people think it would be better to have no distinction between visited and not-visited links. However, I would like to keep the colors of the links more consistent throughout the wiki. Specifically, external links and "plain" links are that blue color. I think it would be better if all links were the same color as the wiki links (gold-ish color). The distinction between plain links and wiki links is irrelevant and external links are still distinguished by that little icon. —Vinifera7 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

New Changes
Changes look great. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete?
If I'm not mistaken, this file is obsolete now, correct? —Vinifera7 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)