Forum:Custom workaround for Monobook as default skin for wiki site

Forums: Index → Help desk → Custom workaround for Monobook as default skin for wiki site

Fandom's forums are a place for the community to help other members.
To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5802 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Information in this thread may be out of date. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I have to believe that some fan of the Monobook skin has figured out what to paste into the style sheet at http://WIKINAME.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Monaco.css to faithfully emulate the Monobook skin and so allow that to be specified as the site default skin via:

Admin Options

Set the default theme for this wiki: Custom

For custom themes, select the "custom" option in the menu above and specify custom CSS in MediaWiki:Monaco.css.

---

I have read Help:Customizing_skins and none of the advice or examples at Help:Customizing Monaco or Help:Examples of customized Monobook skins provided this seemingly obvious workaround.

• If you have successfully used this workaround then please share that style sheet inside <pre> .. </pre> tags here.
• If you've tried this workaround and it went SNAFU then please advise.

Najevi 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want monobook as the default skin for a wiki, edit MediaWiki:AdminSkin and change the text of that page to monobook. GHe (Talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That worked like a charm!

Najevi 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative. ;-) Are there more fancy MediaWiki:SomeThing pages that allow to change features and looks? --w-sky 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite a lot of them. See Special:Allmessages for a listing. --Skizzerz 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This workaround is a bug, not a feature, and is likely to be fixed soon. We aren't offering monobook as a default skin for most wikis at the moment. The MediaWiki:AdminSkin workaround relies on the system not recognising the skin name, and so falling back to an internal default. Once that's fixed, it will fall back to Monaco rather than Monobook. -- sannse (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well okay, or not. What do you recommend then to do for changing the default skin of a wiki? If I (as wiki administrator) change the skin in preferences, it will only be effective while I am logged in. Not logged in users will still see Monaco, which I don't like, because the Google ads are too obtrusive on top of the page, and not clearly seperated from the wiki content. --w-sky 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit false. On the old Wikia Monobook, the adds are even more "obstrusives" because they reserve an entire column from the top to the bottom of the page while using only a few inches from the top and the rest of the column is lost space. — TulipVorlax

Well yes and no, that is true also. But I was talking about my impression. ;-) Concerning the first impression I get when opening a Wikia wiki page, the banner at the top is at most flashy - in an annoying way, because it looks a bit like a headline for the whole page. About the lost column: I don't miss the space, even though I still use a 4:3 display. It is easier to read lines that are not so very long, anyway!

But the main question still is, how to set the default skin (any skin) for a wiki, when not using the feature bug? --w-sky 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To set defaut skin, on any wikia wikis where you are sysop, you go to the preference > skin and use the select defaut skin combobox at the bottom.

Oh, THAT! I was quite confused about that. It was not clear to me that all the selections above (with radio buttons) are correctly affecting my personal preferences only.

But at the combobox, I cannot select any other skin than Monaco. The choices are: "Monaco", all 7 color schemes for Monaco & "Custom" (color scheme), and "Default" (which is Monaco Sapphire). --w-sky 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It still does not work as expected. When I select a color scheme at the combobox, my selection with the radio buttons is ineffective even when I am logged in. I always get Monaco with the chosen default color. --w-sky 14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And before you ask, recently created wikis dont have the Monobook option and it's normal. Monobook is like, say, Win98; it's old. We could even say that it should not be used anymore. But, like with old Windows version, if an user want to continue using it, he can. He can select Monobook in his preferences.

By the way, i have an 1440x900 screen but i set browsers windows to be around 1024 wide. I too find too long lines difficult to read. But i know that many users dont have that problem. My friend has a bigger screen than me and he use all software in full screen...

So i understand well that thoses are a matter of preferences. But there's nothing more that can be done. Wikia has develop Quartz, many people complained. So Wikia response was Monaco, people still complain. Complaining is our right, but our right end where the rights of our fellow citizen begin...

I hope i dont shock you... — TulipVorlax 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not shocking yet. I just did not know that Monaco is not just preset, but specification for the public view of a wiki. I would like to have more freedom, like creating a custom skin, not just skin color (if one can (I can't)), use the "original" (boring but serious) Wikipedia skin - or moving the Google ad to the bottom. ;-)

I understand now that there are reasons to put a banner at the top rather than at the side, other than to make it most noticable. How about two versions of the skin, Monaco A with a top banner and Monaco B with a side banner? --w-sky 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is still a young company, so we are still learning and experimenting to find out what works best. Obviously our ideal is a skin and ad arrangement that works well for the community and means that we get enough ad revenue to be successful. Not an easy balance! Probably the biggest and most controversial change we made is to stop new wikis using monobook as a site default (though still allowing it as a personal defaults). Many of the older wikis have also switched to the new skin, and we are in the process of discussing changing with many others. There is still a lot of opportunity to make changes to the skin and get a look that suits your wiki, Monaco is very flexible in that respect. And if you need help with that, just ask! -- sannse (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Najevi comments on Monaco

It was not that many years ago that web page designers were required to ensure that their pages be friendly to 640x480 resolution monitors. I would like to understand what the wikia management team responsible for the Monaco skin specifications think that today's lowest common display resolution is.

Most people I know have 15" or 17" screens and those folk struggle with 1024x768 resolution, especially the optically challenged people. I count myself as fortunate to have an 18" 4:3 display which I routinely use in 1024x768 resolution and very rarely switch to a higher resolution out of consideration for eye strain.

On even such a generously sized display the first line of page content appears 17cm down from the top of a 29cm tall display (before scrolling). I am measuring right here in this forum as viewed using the default Monaco skin.

Now for left to right wasted space I will refer again to this forum. The boxy LH nav bar pushes the leftmost character of page content a whopping 22% of the way across a 1024x768 display! (about 230 pixels)

• In terms of display surface area wiki page content occupies only 26% of a 1024x768 display when viewed in the Monaco skin. Compare that to 37% for the Monobook skin.

By any standard the Monaco skin is bad web page design. (My firefox browser does not use large icons, I do not have extraneous browser toolbars and of course I am running the browser maximized to full screen.)

My concern is that people with 1152x864 displays (and upward) might be making decisions on Monaco skin design and not giving any sincere regard to the readers of these wiki sites viewing content at 1024x768 (let alone 800x600) monitors.

• I do not have any objection to ad-supported free wiki hosting services.
  Advertising consuming 9-11% of display area is a fair price to pay for free hosting.

Wikia management needs to just bite the bullet and resolve to either support Monobook (with ads in RH margin) or design a Monaco variant that:

• narrows the LH nav bar to 115 pixels
• locates advertising along the RH 115 pixel margin
• eliminates the top banner
• shrinks the boxy navigation links, logout and user talk buttons and edit tabs to something more closely resembling the Monobook style of unobtrusive navigation controls.

Remember that it is wiki content that attracts a reader (a.k.a. consumer) to your advertising portal ... not wiki editing features, boxy navigation and tool widgets or logout buttons and talk page links.

Najevi 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to see if Christian (our designer) can help with answering some of this, but one thing I want to clarify: you talk of the left margin being too wide for the content at 230px, but then suggest two columns with a total of 330px... Can you clarify? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem: Most displays are 4:3 aspect ratio. Therefore horizontal space (1024 or 800 pixels) is not as scarce a resource as vertical space (768 or 600 pixels). In Monaco skin the LH nav bar is combined with a top of page banner. So both a scarce resource (vertical space) and a more abundant resource (horizontal space) are lost to these "necessary evils". By contrast, the current Monobook skin uses a LH nav bar and a RH advertising margin - both of which take from the slightly more abundant horizontal resource, leaving the vertical resource for the all-important content.

Comparing virgin Monaco and virgin Monobook skins and focusing on the actual content and not the frame border, page titles, padding and so on:

• The Monaco result is a 770x265 pixel (~9:3 aspect ratio) window for content.
  • That is 26% of display area.
• The Monobook result is a 710x410 pixel (~5:3 aspect ratio) window for content.
  • That is 37% of display area.

Just as important as the difference in screen area is the difference in aspect ratio. No reasonable person would deny that the short and wide 9:3 aspect ratio is less pleasing to the eye than 5:3 aspect ratio.

Flanking both sides of that 5:3 content area with the necessary evils of navbar and advertising margin is just as unavoidable as the loss of vertical space to:

1. browser status bar,
2. browser navigation,
3. browser tool bar,
4. windows header and
5. windows task bar.

The difference is the scarcity of the vertical resource versus the relatively abundant horizontal resource.

Fully supporting two skins (Monaco and Monobook) to allow site creators to have a choice in the matter seems like the customer-oriented thing to do. It is not practical to push the responsibility for making skin choice to wiki site visitors. Regular visitors and even savvy first time visitors might change their preference to Monobook. Infrequent or first time visitors probably will not. So first impression matters a lot.

• A self respecting first time visitor browsing a wiki site and discovering that the content is squished into a 1:3 aspect ratio (before scrolling) is going to start with a poor first impression of the wiki site. Some of these visitors will not return because the content is too difficult to take in at first glance.

So before Wikia management worry about how gaudy to make navigation and page editing features or where to place ads I suggest that they first ask what can be done to help site creators present their content in a way that will attract and keep visitors to their wiki site.

Sincerely,

Najevi 05:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I design web sites too. Not professionally. But, i always had the feeling it was horizonal space that was scarce. Vertically, we can scroll. It's so easy, every mouse has a wheel nowadays. And i really prefer only one "wasted" column. The old 3 columns Monobook layout is really not the best for pages that show a sort of infobox like this [1] or this [2] or this [3]. Even the main page feel squished [4].

But, the GuildWars community is more acustomed to Monobook skin so even though i sometimes set it to Monaco, i always switch it back a few days later. — TulipVorlax 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vive la difference! I am quite sure there will be wiki's that have been beautifully optimized for Monaco and I am not intending to trash Monaco. My point is simply to allow the architects of a new wiki to have the choice of setting the default skin to either Monaco or Monobook.

As a brief aside I happen to not be a fan of scrolling. Many infoboxes that I have seen are not worth the space they take up on a page. Different strokes for different folks.

Just as you have found with one community, so have I found with another - my colleagues know and understand the look and feel of Monobook thanks to the ubiquity of wikipedia. So for our readers, navigating a Monobook style game wiki is more productive, credibility is immediate (lol ... even if content does not always warrant that all-important first impression!).

Finally, for our active contributors, it takes fewer words to describe a vision for the site when you simply say: our goal is a wikipedia-like encyclopedia of knowledge about the game "whatever".

Najevi 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)