ayg wrote:

Please open separate bugs for distinct requests in the future, even if they're
related. This allows us to more effectively monitor the status of bugs by use
of fields like Resolution.

1. I've removed the blue icons for print in r18768.

2. Presently the skin chosen does affect the printable version. This could be

changed easily enough, but should it? I don't see why. I'm repurposing this
bug to that.

3. This is bug 2889. For now, you can change rules for printing by using CSS

media declarations, such as @media print { insert rules here }, in Common.css or
Monobook.css or whatever. These will not presently show up if you click
"printable version", but they'll be used when you actually print.

darklama wrote:

The standard skin doesn't use commonPrint.css, but wikiprintable.css, this is
part of the issue of whichever skin is used effecting the printable version.
These and any other stylesheets added only when printable=yes is passed I think
should be combined to reduce duplications and make custom styling more
predictable between different skins. The blue icons and navigational templates
are/were just two examples of the problem.

The inconsistcy of printable=yes with printing and print preview has become a
problem recently on English Wikibooks, where people trying to make pages
consistent across printing and converting into other formats like PDF, can't
rely on people using different skins to get the same results from printable=yes
which is just confusing people.

A fix to provide consistency would leaviate confusion and allow printable=yes to
be used as people seem to expect. Removing all other skins but one used for
printing would solve this issue and bug 2889 would provide us with the means to
change the print stylesheet.

ayg wrote:

Why do we want more consistency for printing than for screen display? Surely if
I've chosen Monobook I should get Monobook whether for screen or print.

robchur wrote:

I would assume that the printing format would be the same regardless of the skin
used for display...

Ad. 1 - cannot see any difference in Opera and Firefox. Blue icons are still there.

ayg wrote:

Changes to trunk do not take effect immediately. It's fixed on WMF sites now.

ayg wrote:

Or it will be shortly, anyway.

sb_johnny wrote:

I'm not sure I completely understand this bug, but I have altered my monobook css and js specifically to alter the printouts
(primarily in that it renders subpages in a more attractive way. I'd prefer we not standardize printout styles.

gernot.hillier wrote:

Just wanted to drop in my 0.02 cents here. I'm personally in strong favor of having the actual skin influencing the print stylesheet. I see a connection between the way people prefer to see Wiki pages on screen and in print.

We have a use case here, where several teams are using one MediaWiki instance for different projects. One team wants to see a very special printing format (e.g. some page breaks, section numbers, etc), so I'd like to provide them with their own printing format which is only valid for them. The natural way to do that seem to be skins for me.

Indeed, I'm just about to submit a patch which allows overriding of commonPrint.css in own skins based on MonoBook.

I think most of this has been solved due to [[MediaWiki:Print.css]] or would be solved by the centralization of plainlinks #18708. Suggest this is closed in favor of more specific bugs.

darklama wrote:

(In reply to comment #10)

I think most of this has been solved due to [[MediaWiki:Print.css]] or would be
solved by the centralization of plainlinks #18708. Suggest this is closed in
favor of more specific bugs.

If User:Name/print.css also works then I agree this bug should be closed as fixed,
because it could be used by people who have voiced there opinion that skins should
effect the print version.

As we have now bug 10183 fixed, I think it opens a possibility to create a custom print stylesheet for all skins.