Forum:How do I change the background color of a namespace article

I want pages in the namespace of the name of my wiki with the back area (where is the article) stay with another color. I use the monobook skin. 01:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * This ordinarily requires the use of css in your Monaco.css. The css selectors used for this in Monaco differ from that in Monobook, so you would need two separate selectors, one for each skin. Add  to Monaco.css, and   to Monobook.css. I do recommend though that you don't use the Monobook skin if you want to customise a wiki's design, as no-one will see it except for the select few who use it, which doesn't help in drawing readers and editors (which is 90% of the point of having a custom skin). Basically, if you prefer custom looks for your wiki, switch to Monaco. ;)  The 888th Avatar   (talk)  08:29, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And what is the command to the other pages like help and MediaWiki? Amd if people in your preferences will mark the option See custom wikis (Recommended) they will not see monobook in my wiki and monaco in other wikis? 18:39, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * A list of the namespace codes is on this Help:Namespace page.


 * (Note to wiki 'experts') - there appears to be a slight display problem with this page at the top - As you (experts) know help pages can in some cases be actually 2 pages with a custom help page and the std wiki help page transcluded in. Is this a skin issue / bug ? - BulldozerD11 19:38, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mateus: when people check the option to "let the admins override my skin choice", it means the choice the admins have made on "Admin skin options" in the preferences. Notice that in the admin skin options, there isn't a choice for Monobook. In other words, there is no possible way to make anonymous users and most users see Monobook by default.
 * Dozer: All help pages on individual wikis that have an equivalent (page of same name) on Help will have the individual wiki's content and advice, as well as the stuff from help. There's no way around it. The 888th Avatar   (talk)  23:34, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * But I prefer the monobook because I (and many others users) got used with Wikipedia skin. And Monaco, no conditions read, the sidebar takes up nearly half of the page. 23:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * @Avatar thats what i was saying - I know that its two pages I was obviously not specific enough about the fault (I mentioned it as anybody not familiar with the help would think the 2 bits was odd) - What i was saying is there appears to be an issue with the page HEADER / MENU BAR/TABS at the very top, as the coloured bar was very slim and the edit, history, move and Unwatch virtualy missing (just part of icons visible) which was why i was pointing it to skin experts to have a look. - BulldozerD11 00:44, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Mateus, the functional differences between Monobook and Monaco are not that big; the page controls and navigation are situated in essentially the same areas - what significant differences are there? The sidebar is really not that much wider than that in Monobook, and in Monobook, the page is not any wider than in Monaco because of the empty banner that is still on the right of the page.

Dozer, sorry for misunderstanding. I looked at the link - I can't find anything displaying wrong for me... :( The 888th Avatar   (talk)  04:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in monaco, parts are in English and has a lot of propaganda of Wikia, I mean the category of the wiki is up whit the name Wikia, has request a new wiki on the top and not to mention that the ads are many, I not seen in my wiki, but I looked at some wikis that use monaco and has ads everywhere, in the middle of the article, in the beginning, end, side, etc.. And monobook is simple and has no ads. 04:48, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mateus95860, from what I know, Wikia forced the default to Monaco to make the wikis look more appealing to advertisers so that they could maintain the inflow of money so that they can also maintain the server costs for running Wikia. Unfortunately, since Wikia is employing the strategy, "the more, the better," they also encourage people to create new Wikia communities to increase the ad click-thru rates.
 * @The 888th Avatar; Functionality isn't the issue here. Eyes are naturally drawn to the left of the screen when reading text left-to-right. The sidebar is almost twice as large in Monaco. if you happen to toss a large sidebar like Wikia did to the left of the screen, it makes the page look cluttered to our eyes, even though a computer wouldn't tell the difference. That was the reasoning for making such a slim sidebar when designing the Monobook skin for Wikipedia. Even Wikimedia's Usability Initiative project, who's trying to get more editors to contribute with the new Vector skin, is keeping the sidebar small. You can see for yourself here. As such, Wikia's aesthetics could use a redesign at this point. Sorry if this seems wall-of-text-ish, but I'd like you to see my point-of-view on the matter. R A N 1  (talk • contributions) 06:33, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about the usability project, I have the beta enabled on my Wikipedia account. Quite to the contrary, many readers of Wikipedia don't find that slim sidebar useful at all. In attempting not to be obstructive, it fades in the background and is scarcely noticed. Seasoned contributors and new users alike just type into the search bar for navigation. Monaco, while hardly flawless, has features that do genuinely make it easier to contribute to wikis.
 * Mateus, the only reason Monobook has "no ads" is because you can only use Monobook when you are logged in. When you are logged in for Monaco, the situation regarding ads is identical compared to Monobook. The 888th Avatar   (talk)  08:06, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the same goes for Monaco's sidebar in terms of usablity. If you think that most would find the Wikipedia sidebar unhelpful, people would undoubtedly find Monaco's as unhelpful as well. I don't think many people will "scarcely notice" the sidebar when they see the search bar; to the contrary, most readers will be drawn to the sidebar thanks to the search box. They'll often scan the sidebar before dismissing it entirely, which is the point of having the sidebar. That's really what most people will do, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
 * Not true. At all. Compare this Wikitroid page with this one. These URLs are set to showads=1 to disable the effects of being a user on ads. I don't see any ads on the second page, which uses the Monobook version of Wikitroid. In fact, ads are completely disabled for Wikitroid's Monobook skin, as well as SmashWiki, Community Central, Help Wikia, and just about every other Wikia in existence. This looks like more of a reason to keep Monobook as a default; the ads situation is not at all the same. As far as I can tell, you're trying to promote disinformation, which doesn't really sit with me well, and shouldn't with anyone either. R A N 1  (talk • contributions) 18:58, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the things I mentioned above, I would give up the Wikia. The problem is I do not know to install MediaWiki. I tried other wikis farms like Wikia. The YourWiki perfect is, but are not accepting wikis for a while, I tried the Editthis.info, but it is very bad. I saw it had no choice and now I'm using Wikia. 19:17, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * The showads url example is very selective - Wikia has disabled ads on Monobook because it's only usable by people who are logged in, whereas you can still enable them on Monaco as a logged in user. (Originally, you couldn't do this in Monaco either, but this was created after users requested this feature). By default behaviour (i.e. not using showads), there is no difference between Monobook and Monaco in terms of ads. If you prefer Monobook, you're entitled to your opinion, but please at least aim for some accuracy when giving examples. The 888th Avatar   (talk)  01:47, April 16, 2010 (UTC)