FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room Adding code to pages with custom backgrounds
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.


Custom backgrounds (seen on the userpages of Sp3ctr3 130 Ki11er and Just a cone, for example) should be banned. They mess with the sidebar and make it harder to navigate their pages and the wiki as a whole. I also want to ban images that scroll with the user, but that's another story. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 22:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Sorry Poketape. I disagree the userpage is the one place a user can do what ever they want. This is there own special creation. I am against both of these proposals. But I understand why you would want to get rid of them there are just not a big enough problem to ban in my opinion. REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite22:19, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's just because you use monobook puh hu, it should just be removed from user talk page where it's not needed and will just create useless lag. -- CakeMixSaturday 22:23, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

i'd say get me to make a remove if not oasis or make them delete it. -- CakeMixSaturday 22:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the latter proposal, but userpage backgrounds are ok. I don't know how is it since it's only lagging Monobook, but I'd let people have their own backgrounds be. However, the images that scroll with the users (like on the talks of Sactage and Cod4) are sometimes really annoying and block the view. At least prevent them being a >300px image in front of the text. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 22:28, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

You have monobook, but when I tried it I squared up with a completely glitched up talk, so it's going to be a problem that increases people's edits and messes up new user's pages if the code isn't done right (or used in the wrong way) which if we promote, we could mess up the wiki in the long run. (but if it messes up Monobook, it may be ill-advised as if one of them vandalises and Poketape's only admin online, forgets to pass on to an admin (due to the backgrounds he can't do everything an admin can, it seems to me) things could get hairy. So I'm not bothered 'cos each has pros and cons. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  17:28, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about...  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:54, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
^ This. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 17:57, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Try reading it bit by bit. It explains how vandalism + monobook can lead to something wrong in the long run...oh well if it doesn't make sense then don't worry, it's no biggie and doesn't matter if you can't read it-just ignore it :P YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  13:33, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, Wikia is the official skin on Wikia and you use monobook. Thus, it is your obligation to deal with it; it is not ours to tiptoe around you. Smuff[citation provided] 17:52, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Per nub smuff. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 17:57, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Wut? I use Monobook and I was able to navigate Sp3c's page just fine. Sgt. S.S. 17:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is what it looks like on my computer. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 22:10, September 6, 2011 (UTC) Just a cone screenshot

If it's only the sidebar, it's not that much of a big step to go to another page and there use things in the sidebar you want. At least not worth taking the backgrounds away. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 22:15, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Smuff9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk22:11, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

We're not voting yet, are we? - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 22:15, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

So, because it screws up with your PC, and a few minority, we should ban them from the wiki? I don't think so.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo22:27, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I Agree With Diego, It would be the same if i say Oh My pc crashed on MY PC Close the Wiki.

Oh and no vodka for you Nikolai, the Vodka Drinker 22:48, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Redskin and Smuff Gic1998 06:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


Poketape,
I truly don't see the point of this proposal. You suggest that we ban custom backgrounds from the wiki, simply because you can't see your sidebar in Monobook when they're used? Why on earth would we do that?
I myself use Monobook, and I find no problem with the custom background images on pages. Allow me to show you what my screen looks like on a page with a custom background image: this is my screen. As you can see, the background does cover up my sidebar, but it shouldn't really cause a problem, because there are still a number of ways I could navigate to a different page:
  • The Search bar is still visible, so I could easily type in a page name and hit "Go" to be brought to that page.
  • The variety of links at the top of the page, which could bring me to Sp3c's talk page, where the search bar is visble.
  • The links to my user and talk pages in the top right hand corner of the page.
Choosing one of the above three shouldn't be too hard to do, and I most certainly don't believe it'd be extremely hard to adjust to, I've done the same myself. In addition, a minority of the users here use the Monobook skin, so why ban something that affects an extremely small number of people? It'd hardly be fair for those that use Oasis, would it not?
Simply put, I oppose the proposal (when it gets to voting, that is.
-- -- sactage (talk) 01:53, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of Custom backgrounds, can someone make me one for my User page? :P Hip-techboy Christmas 02:56, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - You could make the images have <span class="userBGImage"> around them, so that people who dislike those backgrounds can add .userBGImage {display:none !important;} in own css so it doesn't break pages for you, but the users won't be restricted to do stuff on their own userpage. If you see a userpage which does have backgrounds, but not the class, you can just edit it to have that class, so nobody will be bothered by such images. Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
08:35, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's about as simple as "Monobook does not get supported". It's not the skin that readers will see, therefore it will not be supported. If the background images do not work on Monobook, but they do on Oasis, unfortunately we need to disregard Monobook.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:03, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

how would it hurt to add that class so that at least monobook can see the sidebar again. I know the Wikia skin is the main skin and it should not be less functional, just because of a secondary skin, monobook, but adding the class would not hurt the wikia skin in any way, so if monobook users would do all the work, I don't see how that could affect anyone badly ;) Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
19:40, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Joey's code works for me. Can we at least have users add that code to their backgrounds? I'll add it to the ones I know about. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 20:26, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Vote to Add the Code, not to Remove the BackgroundEdit

As backgrounds no longer have to be removed due to Joey's code, I say we vote now on whether or not his code gets to be used. (As it seems just adding it is wrong due to the discussion not being over.)

SupportEdit

Pictogram voting support Support — as nominator Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 21:01, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — I'm sure it affects more users than just Poketape. That may be why we don't see many Monobook users-because the wiki messes up for them! If we can find out who uses Monobook on the wiki we can decide what we need to do, just because of what I know and for Poketape's sake, I have to support for this. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  16:51, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've said this to you so many times now - what in the hell are you talking about?  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:05, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
I use Monobook. I don't care about the backgrounds. The wiki doesn't "mess up" for me at all. -- sactage (talk) 18:30, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
Well we need to support all users. No more needs to be said. I'm going off what Poketape said, btw. Sorry if it doesn't look right :P YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  10:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Because I'm blind and can't read the title. Adding the code isn't too much to add to css. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 14:15, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — No downsides, and not supporting a skin does not mean you'd have to fight the skin... Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
19:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per all. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:38, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Ok--Per MLG. I guess I should of payed more attention to the conversation. Hip-techboy Christmas --19:43, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — There are like 5 pages with it, it takes about 2 minutes to do, why are we not allowing it? _Sp3cTalk_ 03:01, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — I use monobook myself. Although the backgrounds are not a huge problem for me, if it's a little chunk of code that hurts nobody, why not add it?. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 04:59, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Joey does some of the fixing of that over on the RSW, anyway people do use monobook and that does mess the sidebar. Vulpes Twigy talk 08:14, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

OpposeEdit

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — We don't support Monobook; if a user wishes to fix it they can copy paste the code into their own monobook.css page. Considering the user already has to copy paste code in theirs to see the changes, this proposal sadly doesn't make much sense. Smuff[citation provided] 21:07, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really get what you're saying. You say they have to copy and paste the code into their own monobook.css page, and then you say they have to copy and paste the code into their page to see the changes. You said the same thing twice. Adding code to one's own monobook.css page isn't the issue, it's adding code to somebody else's userpage that's the issue, because apparently some users don't want other users to have a choice in the matter. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 21:11, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out, pasting the .css into ones own skin file would do nothing, the background image code would need to be wrapped with <span style="userBG"></span>. I don't see why all users should need to wrap their background images in that, just the few of us who use Monobook, an unsupported skin, can see a sidebar on a few pages. (I even use Monobook myself) -- sactage (talk) 21:12, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I will add the code when necessary. Nobody but me has to do anything. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 23:58, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, "we don't support Monobook" comes across as slightly disturbing. We should be supporting Monobook on essential pages (main page, portal pages, etc.) so long as it exists as an option for editors. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 17:47, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
I think what Smuff is saying is that we can't go into /every/ page and make it 'Monobook friendly.' _Sp3cTalk_ 13:38, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per my above statements -- sactage (talk) 21:12, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

But we're not forcing the background users to do anything. Bots add things to pages, so how come we can't simply add the code? To me it's not affecting anybody negatively. I am simply asking if we are allowed to add the code to userpages, not if we must force people to add it. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 21:15, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I think the userpage is a place you should be aloud to do anything/appropiate. This is the one place a user can do anything they want and make the userpage there space. I think that taking away backround images and ponys that follow around the page is unessecary. REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite13:40, September 10, 2011 (UTC) Vote is to add code, not to remove anything. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 00:03, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Redskin. My computer sucks, and won't view stuff correctly some times (like CoD4's sig), but the backrounds look good on my computer. The only page that the backround that doesn't look right is Sp3c's backround. Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 16:29, September 10, 2011 (UTC) Thank you pointed that out for me Poketape. Personal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flagCoaZTalkPersonal Conqueror of all Zombies Ireland flag 03:45, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

y u single me out :'( _Sp3cTalk_ 17:06, September 10, 2011 (UTC) ;)
lmao Sp3c.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo17:15, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Per my reasoning above.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo16:46, September 10, 2011 (UTC)</s> Your reasoning is about removing backgrounds, but it is to add code. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 19:02, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

<s>Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Per Diego's reasoning above.-Hip-techboy Christmas --16:50, September 10, 2011 (UTC)</s> Diego's reasoning doesn't apply. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 19:02, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Redskin. VwuEI.pngSXe Fiend · talkVwuEI.png 17:08, September 10, 2011 (UTC) Invalid due to Redskin's vote being invalid. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 00:07, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

<s>Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per all. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 17:25, September 10, 2011 (UTC)</s> Changing vote.

Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Per Sactage and DiegoxPersonal Drkdragonz66 Admincrown DrkDragonz66 Personal Drkdragonz66 Garintina  Talk  Contribs  Combat Arms   18:35, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let me well, elaborate on my oppose. As far as i see, you want to do this based on the fact that you cant see the sidebar due to these user backgrounds, right?
Correct, but I also can't read what some of the userpage says, as it goes onto the background instead of being stopped correctly. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 02:57, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
In addition, you yourself edited the Zombies template and added breaks to it just because you didn't like seeing multi-word titles separated between lines. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 03:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

<s>Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per Diego and Sactage Gic1998 06:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC)</s> User lacks mainspace edits. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 07:01, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Why were most of the opposing votes struck through? And why is this one too? Do we have to reply to your message first or what? Hip-techboy Christmas --00:09, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It was due to Redskin's misinterpretation of the vote. He thinks this is to remove backgrounds, but it isn't. SXe Fiend said "Per Redskin", so he's basing his vote off of an invalid vote. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 00:16, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
For some reason strikethrough is acting all screwy. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 00:20, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so then why is everything we type crossed out? Hip-techboy Christmas --00:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
It looks fixed now. I'm not sure what happened. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 02:55, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, Redskin's sig had a problem in its code, so I fixed it. Now strikethrough works fine. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 02:23, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Vote CommentEdit

It seems like people have misinterpreted the vote. Code will be added, nothing will be removed from anybody's pages. Anybody that either still wants to see backgrounds or doesn't care either way will see backgrounds. Users that don't want to see backgrounds will have to add code to their own css. It seems like users still think this is to remove backgrounds. Users with backgrounds won't have to do anything if they don't want to. I will cover any necessary code changes. Black Ops Official logoPoketape Talk 00:10, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

But you're using it just for you. There's no reason to add the code if only you will use it. -- sactage (talk) 00:37, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, it's more of a personal deal that you want to put on the whole wiki. I don't see the point.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo02:09, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
To Sactage: who's to say I'm the only one that will use it? Also, what is the harm of using it even if I'm the only one that does? To Diegox: It's not the whole wiki, just a few people's userpages. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 02:55, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

So far three of the oppose votes have been struck through for misinterpreting the vote. This isn't a good sign. Maybe a new thread should be made that is titled "Adding code to userpages with custom backgrounds". Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 06:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

2*. _Sp3cTalk_ 13:37, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Now the count's at 5. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 18:41, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Vote passes, code will be added. Black Ops Official logoPoketapeTalk 03:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.