Mark Russell, Rick Stanton, Sam Coleman, Diane Foster, Jackson Barnes, Anthony Martinez, Tim Mancini, Lauren Griffin, San Lin, Glenn Mills, Reg Slivko, Earl Cole, Reles and Steve Woodward. These are the only articles that need to have the biographies, personalities and relationships edited and expanded. Do you agree with that if you can handle these fourteen articles? Why start now?
Okay, I've waited impatiently and now would you like to expand the biographies, relationships and personalities on the fourteen articles please at my request? They are: Mark Russell, Rick Stanton, Sam Coleman, Diane Foster, Jackson Barnes, Anthony Martinez, Tim Mancini, Lauren Griffin, San Lin, Glenn Mills, Reg Slivko, Earl Cole, Reles and Steve Woodward. Why start right now?
Sorry, it's just that I need these fourteen articles to be expanded. I had waited impatiently for them to reply, but I was thinking if you can speak to FFfangirl and NarendraMartosudarmo if they would like to edit them straight away. Do you agree with that? Would you like to speak to them about it under my request?
Hey, been seeing the edits being made to the site's infoboxes. While I'm definitely sure it's good faith editing, I'm not big on the lack of informing me about or talking with me on changing designs for things I'd spent time refining for reasons. Especially when they're site-wide.
Slow down a bit on the editing. I'd rather talk through new designs and fix their potential problems first, or cooperatively refine them before pushing them out. We have sandboxes for this reason. I say this, not being a fan of certain layout choices made here.
Likewise towards certain categories I've seen popping up, that I'd abandoned as a concept, but haven't had time to speak on. I stopped using a certain style for a reason.
Hope you understand, and as I said, I appreciate the drive to do something. But as long as I'm here, I'd rather it go through me, or be approved in part by me. It's part of the team process.
First off, about the infoboxes and navboxes, some find it hard having to enter the color hex codes all the time, so wouldn't it be easier to enter the film era or series as a parameter instead, with the BG and text colors already assigned to them?
Secondly, I think it makes more sense for the pages to use infoboxes that refer to their respectful topic in the singular sense instead of plural, e.g. instead of "Infobox characters", character pages would use "Infobox character" and so on.
I run a weird thought on the first one. Mostly because, and not to crassly generalize, the people who have trouble editing these things will be the same people who won't edit the film names as a single line of text, regardless. Leading to me debating on whether or not it's worth the work, when I'm one of the few who even bothers with this. If people were inputting hex codes more and only getting one in, while having trouble with say, the section BG, I could get simplifying it. But no one does, already. Even when you could just copy or look at a similar page. It'd mostly wind up being a matter of convenience for more veteran editors.
Second, if you want to stop the plural nature of things, just rename the template. Or, if it's locked, ask me to. I made these things in like, 2017/18, lol. So there's bound to be titling "errors". Renaming will redirect the template on pages it's not changed on.
I guess what I need to ask is, do you have problems with the actual layout of things, or were those your only issues? Because I don't follow the full on layout changes.
Likewise, I've seen editing/additions of categories. Specifically stuff like "Godzilla: King of the Monsters: Characters". I know I originally was going with that layout of organization, but I dropped it quickly when it simultaneously became underused, and a mess to navigate. Think about monsters, people, things, etc that only appear in one film. Is it really worth dedicating a category to them when you could generalize the continuity by monster, character, etc. You'd change navigation from:
<Showa era<Showa era - Characters
<Showa era<Showa era - Characters<Godzilla (1954 film): Characters
Not to mention there will be crossover between movies. So you'll have individual film categories on one character, or monster when they're in the same continuity, and another film. OR, only appear in one film. It's just easier to go "continuity<continuity - X", and becomes less of an eyesore and pain to navigate. Simple is the spice of life.
Thanks. About "Infobox Characters", I think the vertical-align:center property on the labels looks strange, mainly when there's more than one entry and they are broken up with . Would changing it to "vertical-align:top" make a difference?
What I mean is, in the default infobox format, the way the labels are vertically aligned looks strange when they have multiple entries. When each entry gets its own line, they make a lot of space and then the labels end up having large empty space above and below them. Can the labels be made to align with the first line?
For example, check out the infobox for Vivienne Graham. As her list of allies is so long, the "Allies" label on the left has empty space above and below it so it looks strange. It would make more sense and easier to read if the label was aligned with the first entry of the list. The same applies to some of the labels in the infobox for Godzilla: King of the Monsters, such as "Foreign Title(s)", "Produced by", and "Starring".
Also, why are some labels on the latter page's infobox taking up two lines when they have enough space to be on just one. E.g. "Directed by", "Produced by", "Composed by", and "Distributed by"?
Can the portable infoboxes be formatted with panels as a way to organize information for things and characters that make multiple appearances and change over time? For instance, for Godzilla, he has different lengths, heights, eye colors, allies, and enemies between films. Wouldn't creating a panel for each film help make infoboxes like his easier to read, instead of making endless columns of text and having to put the film year in parenthesis next to certain entries?
Ahhh, gucci. To elaborate on that, the one time that should differ is if there's a difference in CGI work that is super noticeable. Which is useful to document later on. Don't think that's been the case, but it's useful for the future.
Heyo, I've seen your edits over the past half a year or so, and you're a really good editor. You write well, adhere to proper page guidelines, and you've contributed a lot to this place. To the point where I haven't had to warn you, or anything. First, I must honestly thank you for all the help. It's really appreciated!
Second, as per the title, I'm here to approach you about a staff position, provided you wanted one. While I'm not asking you to undertake any responsibilities you don't want, the offer is there, and I think you'd be good for the role. More specifically with the rollback-admin line of duty.
Well, rollback grants you the ability to quickly rollback undesirable edits. Basically a soft power boost.
Administrator privileges grant you the ability to rollback undesired edits, protect/lock pages depending on the circumstance, and the ability to ban/block users for whatever reason, permitted the reason's right, of course. Yunno, vandalism, etc.