CSS is a formerfeatured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check thearchive.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theInternet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofComputer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
CSS appears to be getting a new logo - seehere andhere. I'm not 100% sure if it's actually official, though, so I'm still hesitant on adding it to the article - I'd like for someone else to doublecheck and ensure that I'm not being an idiot here.Rabbithawk256 (talk)16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my reason for removing it so far. What I would like to see is some secondary source announce or run with it at least once before we as a tertiary source publish it.Remsense ‥ 论16:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New logo was decided by theCSS4 Community Group under the W3C created on 24 February 2020. According to the W3C, Community Groups are:
A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web developers and other stakeholders develop reports, hold discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C’s international community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Reports; these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the standards process. For instance, a Community Group might gather to work on a new technical specification, or convene to have discussions about a tutorial for an existing specification.
So this is not an official standard, however the committee's existence is so far sanctioned by the W3C. It is important to note also that the CSS4 Community Group is unaffiliated with theCSS Working Group which is the official committee responsible for developing the CSS language.
The blue CSS badge logo that's currently in the article isn't official either; it just comes from aDeviantArt artist. It's just the most commonly used logo for CSS, but perhaps that's because ofits inclusion in Wikipedia: the top results on Google for "css official logo" are from Wikipedia and other stock image sites.
Seems like the logo may be adopted by the W3C CSSWG:[1]. I imagine if they issue an official endorsement of some form then there may be some secondary coverage. novovtalkedits10:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rebeccapurple CSS logo created by The CSS-Next Community Group has already has a planned endorsement by the CSSWG. Please seegithub/w3c/csswg-drafts#11193 for more info. At this point where the W3C CSSWG is going to endorse it, continuing to have the current CSS3 logo will certainly confuse new web developers.Ring2gaun2GRUS (talk)05:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Blueprint CSS framework is outdated. (14 years old). It should be replaced by a current framework. Maybe it is maintained in a fork. Then a link should be fiven to that.102.176.94.17 (talk)15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one individual is reverting all changes by anyone regarding the new css logo, despite them getting down votes and every other addition getting a flood of up votes. I'm going to try one more timeITZ NAO (talk)17:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you can abide by the basic directions I already laid out months ago. "Down votes" can't override site policy—what do you even mean when you say that?Remsense ‥ 论17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few new users who aren't aware of or are confused about our content policies, but not the situation you describe.Consensus based on site policy is what actually matters, as opposed to"vote" count, and you can't form a consensus about whether something is in line with our policies if you don't pay any mind to what those policies say to begin with.Remsense ‥ 论17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I mainly have a problem with is the irrelevant trivia only cited to a primary source that you insist on adding and readding. We're a tertiary source that balances secondary coverage of topics, not a fan wiki that indiscriminately regurgitates our favorite press releases.Remsense ‥ 论17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually checked the source, they talk about the colour being added as a tribute to his daughter. Maybe you should actually try coding for once and learn a thing or two. There was nothing wrong with it.ITZ NAO (talk)17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from editing the encyclopedia if you don't care about following our content policies. This is a volunteer project, and you've done nothing but waste the time of others.Remsense ‥ 论17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to remove this because it's "irrelevant trivia"? Or because you see the sourcing as inadequate for such a vital aspect?
Yes, we have aWP:SECONDARY policy. But you would also do well to readWP:PRIMARY. For aproject logo, that you anyway see as "trivial", from a reputable publisher such as the W3C, then it isentirely acceptable to use this primary sourcing.Andy Dingley (talk)18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statements are equivalent here—if the material here is covered in secondary sources, it ceases to be irrelevant or trivial. Primary sources are for citing that a new logo exists; there's no justification in treating their narratives etc. as if they areWP:DUE if they are the only source. All I am asking for is a blurb in Ars Technica or wherever—if material can't meet that level of provenance, then we shouldn't be wasting readers' time with it.Remsense ‥ 论18:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an annoying habit in much computing documentation of naming everything in sight eitherfoo orbar, regardless of what it is, as a kind of in-joke. Besides being annoying and creating an instant sense of exclusion, I believe it hinders comprehension enough to matter, in several ways:
The name conveys no hint of what role the variable/object/property/function plays. A name thatdid convey such a hint would be much more helpful (as long as the reader isn't confused into thinking it's a keyword used in the syntax). The reader has to work to remember that information, instead of seeing it in front of them.
Multiple things are all given the same label.
The annoyance, once noticed, is a distraction from focusing on and understanding the text.
Since the name has no content, it's essentially entirely abstract, like a mathematical symbol (maybe more so). But what a reader needs for straightforward comprehensibility is a specific concept or concrete image to hold on to.
Oppose For two reasons. Firstly the use of placeholder namesfoo,bar etc. has been widespread within the discipline for decades because there's an ongoing need for suchmetasyntactic variables. They are widely recognised by the audience reading this.
Secondly there are no names that are 'vaguely descriptive': a better term would be 'somewhat misleading'. The point of usingfoo etc. is thatthere is no meaning implied by their use. To replaceE[foo="bar"] and use insteadButton[rendering="rounded"] would begin to imply particular uses for the CSS code, would imply some limitation to what it was capable of, and (far worse) begins to imply that the attribute has to be namedrendering in order to work.Andy Dingley (talk)20:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley Obviously you wouldn't use something specific like that. But you're giving aproperty or avariable avalue for example, all of which are meaningful words. There are ways of accurately suggesting the usage. But I take the point about inadvertently making things look as though they might be keywords.
But I don't think one should assume that the only audience for an article on a technical subject is people who are already immersed in the subject.Anyone who wants to know more about CSS is going to come here—for instance I visited today hoping to check what length units it recognises, and what its definition of a pixel is (both of which entailed clicking through to a reference to be sure of the answer). These are the kinds of thing someone struggling to get a table in an article to display properly might want to know, say.They most likely both need detailed information and aren't experts. If they want to know about CSS, they'll visit an article calledCSS; the audience includes anyone who sees a wikilink that saysCSS and clicks it.Musiconeologist (talk)21:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I visited that article a while ago. I still remain unconvinced that they're essential jargon as opposed to insider tradition. Though I'll admit that they're used more sensibly here than in some programming book I read years ago. (I can't remember which one, maybe a Javascript one around 2000.) Pretty well every variable or function was called Foo even if something likeclever.trick orDoThisThing would have been just as good. It was like trying to follow a piece of 3D geometry where the three axes are labelledx,x andx, and just seemed like laziness on the part of the author.Musiconeologist (talk)23:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Musiconeologist: I've looked deeper into this, and the answer is really very simple: it's precisely what the cited source uses. Our articleCSS only uses the term "foo", etc. in one place - the table atCSS#Summary of selector syntax. This is sourced to what is claimed to beSelectors Level 3, but it's actually Selectors Level 4. Theactual document titledSelectors Level 3 has a section named2. Selectors, which matches the table in our article very closely - our article lacks the "Description" column, and there are slight variations in the second column. Our article also has four rows not in that source -.c,#myid,.c#myid, andE:has(s). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)21:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Interesting. Thanks! So changing it would amount to slight paraphrasing, really, if anyone were to feel the same way as me about it. (For what it's worth, I have a similar aversion to Alice and Bob in physics/mathematical explanations. But I read recently that they were originally named after specific people, which helps keep the tradition going.)Musiconeologist (talk)22:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
