MediaWiki talk:Common.css

Templates vs. Classes

Seems I can't add my own CSS classes here. However, I was going to try defining Template:Prettytable as a class, and, after doing some investigation, I guess here is where you'd do it. Though, I've no real clue, to be honest. ANYWAY, I hear that using a template within a template, while possible, is highly resource intensive for the server, and given the extremely common use of the prettytable template, I thought we could define it as a class, like they did in Wikipedia. I looked at the Wikipedia Monobook.css, which our KP does define, and there's no link to Common.css from there, etc. Given my relative inexperience with classes, wikis, and all that, I'm still trying to learn this stuff. -Belathus 21:13, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I don't think we have to be too worried about the server load here. Wikipedia is worried about it because they get hundreds of millions of hits a day, but so far we don't have that problem. So, I think it might be easier to leave it as a template rather than putting it in the CSS, since I think that's a bit more accessible to the general public. - Ildran 21:44, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, this is true, but prior to me adding the "{{{1| }}}" line, one couldn't define the style of a prettytable'd table further without breaking the thing. That was more or less why I suggested it. However, with the template the way it is, I suppose it doesn't harm anyone not to mess with this particular file. -Andy ^talk 13:14, 6 April 2006 (PDT)