Final Fantasy Wiki
Register
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 169: Line 169:
 
By all means, make it link to the names via anchor. That's fine. But if they don't link to something more meaningful and useful than the file page, it doesn't matter what they link to. Simple as that.
 
By all means, make it link to the names via anchor. That's fine. But if they don't link to something more meaningful and useful than the file page, it doesn't matter what they link to. Simple as that.
 
}}
 
}}
  +
{{TA|03:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)|Size aside, which I assume is for obvious demonstrative purposes, I do like that table. It is effective and simple. I would tend to think that being able to do what we want to do without uploading additional files. Though we don't service the wiki servers, as a matter of respect to them and because it makes the wikignomes not happy when we have silly files that don't belong in the mainspace, I would tend to support the opacity option.
  +
  +
Just an opinion.}}

Revision as of 03:45, 27 August 2012

FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Staff Clean-Up


TA2-notVaan-spr
Yuna-DissidiaRender
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
BlueHighwind TA

2(1?) months of inactivity, move them to the staff section. 2 weeks of frequent activity when in the inactive section, move them back with the actives. Sound good?

What we don't need to do is remove them from the Moderator list entirely. But inactive staff should be clearly labelled as inactive- best done in its own h3.

There is a part of me that feels we should strip SysOps of SysOp powers if they are inactive... but I'm sure no one would agree with that part of me. 79.69.202.156 19:05, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Galbana-ffxiirw

If a staff is only seen editing their userspace, or responding to messages on their talkpage, they should be considered inactive. If they do not regularly contribute to another namespace, they are inactive.

If a staff announces they are officially inactive, they are also inactive. By stating they are active they would also have to prove the above (not just contributing to their userspace and responding in their usertalk space) before they can actually be considered active.

Of course, then we get down to Diablo, who only comes round to handle the FA, and TA who only rarely does things. Bluestar adds to his userpage and occasionally involves himself in a talkpage. I rarely see Fae. I see 8bit and Yuan more but not really as much as I'd expect to see someone who I would consider an "active SysOp".

But we're not going to time staffers. Or at least I'm not. We're just going to get people who occasionally think "where has this person gone", then someone will make an edit and say "I think we can consider X member inactive now" and edit the staff page, and that would be the end of it. Like it has in the past. JBed (talk) 19:47, August 20, 2012 (UTC)


Fistpaladinsmall
TacticAngel TALK 21:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
We have always maintained that the people who have been conferred certain acknowledgement should maintain it indefinitely and only have that acknowledgement removed if they surrender it or if they come back and are some unholy terror. So far we have not had to test that. I don't think we necessarily need to move them down. We could certain go another rout and simply draw some sort of dividing line through the sections so that active users would appear on the left of some line and those who are not active would be on the right. You could even do something fancy with it and grey out their portraits if you wanted to, but as far as removing them from the staff list.

I would say any activity would be considered active, in the same way that a light cannot be half on, nor can you did half a hole. Any hole is a hole, its just a question of how deep. Any light is on, its just a question of how bright.

My definition of active on the wiki is being active in the wiki. Responding to messages on their own user talk page and maintaining their own userpages shows presence on the wiki but it doesn't do anything for the wiki.

You may argue that just by responding to messages on talk pages is work toward helping the wiki as posted questions may be queries about the wiki that the user may answer, but if the staff page were to list that person as inactive then the querier would just go to another member of staff. 79.69.202.156 22:06, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

FFVII Cait Sith Battle

Template:Spira

TA2-notVaan-spr
FFVII Cait Sith Battle

Such a category is completely unhelpful. We don't list active and inactive to label our staff, we do it for the benefit of users looking at the staff page. They want to know who is active. A semi-active group is redundant. 79.69.209.89 19:09, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

TA2-notVaan-spr
Galbana-ffxiirw
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
TA2-notVaan-spr

@SN: And while you do that you can also tell all the lt IE 9 users to update their browser, right? 79.69.204.161 22:52, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

FFVII Cait Sith Battle
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody

If it does not involve CSS, JS, or one of the other scripts then it is wrong. AFAIK, web standards says use opacity. The only problem that, as I said, IE8 doesn't work and IE doesn't force users to update their browser and lots of people still use IE8. IE9 is a competent browser. The only problem is that I can't get it to use CSS3 on my websites without doing something really specific which I don't remember.

"works in IE" doesn't mean it works in IE8. But what do you have in mind? 79.69.199.146 22:31, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody

Personally,

<td style="background:#AAAAAA"><img src="name.fmt" style="opacity:0.5">

(or

|style="background:#AAAAAA"|<span style="opacity:0.5">[[File:name.fmt]]</span>

in wiki terms) is easier and simpler and more all-encompassing.

Of course, those with IE8 will get screwed over-- but not really, they'll only miss out on a visual effect--- and why should we support outdated browsers? Just use a message to lt IE 9 users to update their browser or contact their system administrator.

Admittedly, I somehow forgot that images can be simple semi-transparent colours, so that entire idea slipped my mind. 79.69.193.88 23:12, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS

But it can be done with two CSS properties. In fact, just one if only want to use 0.5 transparency on a white background. And it can be done universally by SN's method. There's no need to handle each of them individually. 79.69.206.151 13:47, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS

I assumed you were doing the exact same thing. I guess you were instead making it grayscale, right? 79.69.206.151 16:49, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody

And with the inactive staff portrait links going to a blank square, I am now strongly for using CSS.

I'm against handling them on an individual basis since the images serve only one function, being for an unnecessary aesthetic. There is argument for a bit of code or a single file that will work across all, I don't think a file should have to be desaturated every time a staff becomes inactive. JBed (talk) 18:04, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
Userbox-DEmperor Userbox-DBartz Userbox-DOnionK Userbox-DLaguna Userbox-DCloudofD Userbox-DZidane Userbox-DGarland
Userbox-DKain Userbox-DGabranth Userbox-DGolbez Userbox-DLightning Userbox-DShantotto Userbox-DKefka Userbox-DSquall
Userbox-DExdeath Userbox-DYuna Userbox-DJecht Userbox-DCecil2 Userbox-DVaan Userbox-DWarriorofL Userbox-DSephiroth
Edit conflict

And that's easier and more accessible than adding opacity:0.5? At least the current images serve a dual purpose on wiki, greyed out versions of all the images will require most of them to be unused for most of the time or we'll have to upload when they are necessary.

This is just a bonus idea for aesthetic value to distinguish active from inactive. There shouldn't need to be any more work than adding a CSS property or class.

@SN: Because it's horrible to see. Honestly, if anything (preferably nothing) it would make more sense to link down to where the user is mentioned on the page via id. JBed (talk) 19:07, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
Fistpaladinsmall
TacticAngel TALK 03:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
Size aside, which I assume is for obvious demonstrative purposes, I do like that table. It is effective and simple. I would tend to think that being able to do what we want to do without uploading additional files. Though we don't service the wiki servers, as a matter of respect to them and because it makes the wikignomes not happy when we have silly files that don't belong in the mainspace, I would tend to support the opacity option.

Just an opinion.