MediaWiki talk:Vector.css

Proposal: Removing the absolute positioning of topicons

{{Edit request}}

Hi,

I think it would be possible to remove the rule for absolute positioning of topicons with some minor effort.

Most topicons are already using the <indicator> tag (documented here). As far as I can see, class="topicon" is only used in the following places:

• MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here (with subpages)
• Template:Admin deletion stats/topicon
• User talk:Moe Epsilon/header (overriding the definitions with inline CSS and therefore irrelevant)
• User:Jason6494/Userboxes (invisible construct and therefore irrelevant)

The latter two things can IMHO be left as they are. Switching the former two things and removing the associated CSS rule has the following advantages:

• Consistent usage of an officially supported software feature instead of a local hack (which has been copied from en:MediaWiki:Vector.css in 2012, where it is already deprecated and has been removed in 2015).
• No overlapping/superpositions with other elements, such as the page title.
• Works in all skins and not just Vector.

Best regards --Entlinkt (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is technically an as well, so I add the template here in this section. Since there are apparently some more templates meanwhile which use the old topicon class, it is not that easy of a fix as indicated above five years ago. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Icons format

{{edit request}} Please add the fix by @CamelCaseNick: at Property_talk:P8972#stylesheet_for_actual_small_icons. --- Jura 11:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think we should do this:

• It is a highly specific use case; we could probably add a plethora of similar hacks for other situations; the CSS would quickly become unmaintainable.
• Occasional users of the property page might wonder why this one in particular behaves differently than all others.
• It would apply to Vector users only.
• The CSS snippet can be advertised on the corresponding property talk page (as it is already the case) and used by the regular users/maintainers of this property.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Without this change, we have seen the property get used with images that have a lot of details and thus are not well rendered at 16x16. I think this makes clear what the property is about. I don't think we have many cases where we need hacks like this.

"Occasional users of the property page might wonder why this one in particular behaves differently than all others."

This would be really great because it helps the user to understand what the property is about. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)