No edit summary |
TacticAngel (talk | contribs) 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
Deadlyslashsword - +Hark! What yon personage doth mine eyes see over yonder?+ TALK - 16:48, August 20, 2012 (UTC) - Shanks! I meant shanks! | |||
The following is a topic that has been brought up some number of times in the past, and with the conclusion of the most recent staff discussion, I feel it's worth bringing up again to see whether or not sentiments have changed on the subject. It was brought up on IRC quickly with some modicum of positive feedback. Points to discuss:
| |||
Is there an article you think is of an exceptional quality? Vote for it here! | |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 17:11, August 20, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
Inactive staff are still staff unless they have actually had their rights revoked. So they should definitely still be listed one way or another. I see no reason not to leave them listed as they are, though one option would perhaps be to remove portraits from the image tables. Though I liked the idea of inactive staff being manikins back when we used the character models for mods, that isn't viable now that we have artwork portraits. And wouldn't have worked for sysops anyway.
As for what constitutes inactivity, I don't think the lists of inactive staff have really changed much for months, so it's not something we necessarily need a definition for just yet. The main complication is BH, frankly – if it comes down to choosing one or the other category for him, I guess he's kind of active again now? At any rate, if it's more than a few months with no edits, or only really small superficial edits, then that's a decent initial cutoff until we decide something more formally. EDIT CONFLICT | |||
BlueHighwind Q? 19:01, August 20, 2012 (UTC) TALK - So if you care to find me, look to the Western Sky!ツ: | |||
Despite my love of complicating your lives, you can just count me as active, more or less. | |||
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)
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - 19:39, August 20, 2012 (UTC) | |||
What constitutes "inactive"? There have been multiple references to Fae, Yuan, and I being "inactive, semi-active at best, faded away", etc. Does the staff member in question need to declare they are inactive, as Yuan did in the most recent staff discussion, or are people going to time staff contributions by the month? | |||
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)
|
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)
Catuse says at 22:34, August 20, 2012 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
Here's the deal, guys: the whole point of having a staff directory is listing users to go to for whatever reason; if a user isn't responding to messages they should be marked as inactive. Also, users who still respond to messages but haven't been paying much attention to wikibusiness aren't going to be able to give up-to-date answers easily, and should also be marked as inactive. At least that's how I saw it. | |||
My opinion hasn't changed regarding this. No one gets stripped of any rights. I greatly dislike changing the portraits to accommodate leaving staff members, but that may just be me. I think someone is considered inactive when they either claim to inactive, have no appearances for a significant period of time (IRC is iffy; Hexed is on the IRC every day, yet is considered inactive since he hasn't edited in a millennium), or no longer respond to messages on their talk pages in any real fashion. | |||
Template:Spira
Deadlyslashsword - +Hark! What yon personage doth mine eyes see over yonder?+ TALK - 02:16, August 23, 2012 (UTC) - Shanks! I meant shanks! | |||
What about a category, "Semi-Active"? This would include aforementioned staff who only edit userspace, talk pages, rarely mainspace, etc. It would act as a compromise for those who we can't honestly label as active, yet who still hang around here or IRC. Though if there are those who would want to label themselves as inactive, then we should respect those wishes. | |||
Catuse says at 04:26, August 23, 2012 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
This seems like a good compromise to me. Users who aren't actively editing stuff but still good go-to guys or something, are kind of in a state of flux. BlueHighwind and Kokushishin IIRC described themselves as this or something like it on the staff page, it makers perfect sense to me. | |||
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)
Deadlyslashsword - +Hark! What yon personage doth mine eyes see over yonder?+ TALK - 02:28, August 24, 2012 (UTC) - Shanks! I meant shanks! | |||
Unfortunately, it's not a completely a black and white issue, nor can we force it to be one. | |||
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - 04:22, August 24, 2012 (UTC) | |||
I don't think we should complicate the staff page by creating multiple categories of activity nor fiddling with the portrait tables. Unless someone really wants to make grayed-out portrait images ._. This isn't a black and white issue, but it also isn't a black, white, and gray issue. It is like a full electromagnetic spectrum of an issue, that is not quantized into traceable activity levels. o3o So I agree with Scathe and TA; either someone is active, or declares themselves inactive/is absent for months at a time. | |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 21:25, August 24, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
Just feel the urge to point out that we wouldn't need multiple greyed out portraits, if we did decide to do that. One image file would suffice for that purpose, as the one crucial requirement is met – all of the images are the same aspect ratio (i.e. square). I've done something conceptually similar before on another wiki.
| |||
Deadlyslashsword - +Hark! What yon personage doth mine eyes see over yonder?+ TALK - 22:00, August 24, 2012 (UTC) - Shanks! I meant shanks! | |||
We might not even have to gray them out, I'm in favor of merely grouping all of the portraits of active staff together and inactive staff together, just like the lists on the page do. | |||
@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)
Catuse says at 23:46, August 24, 2012 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
@Sorceror Nobody: One of the problems with Oasis is that it isn't friendly with older browsers... but at least it does what it's supposed to. Don't make that mistake. @8bit: ...but if something looks red, even if it's not in the exactly red part of the EMS, we still call it red. | |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 22:11, August 25, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
It sounds like you are jumping to completely the wrong conclusion about how I would achieve the effect. It does not involve any CSS or special effects whatsoever, which is what you seem to be assuming. I know for a fact my method works in IE and in Oasis (and in IE in Oasis) because I have just specifically checked it.
I would totally be on board with telling IE users to switch to a competent browser anyway, though ; ) | |||
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)
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 22:47, August 25, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
It's quite simple really. Almost crude, in a way, though I would also say it's elegant. All we would need to do is this:
[[File:blah blah staff portrait]]<div style="float; margin-top:-XXpx">[[File:XXXXX.png|XXpx|]]</div> Where XX is the height of the images, which is what, 54px for sysops and 56px for mods? And XXXXX.png is a perfectly simple file: a white square that is semi-transparent. Which is of course why it's crucial that the staff portraits are all the same shape – in this case, square. And you can see it implemented here. EDIT: And of course we can make it a template if we want to, just as I have on Alundra Wiki. Even if we don't use it for staff portraits, it may end up being useful somewhere else eventually. | |||
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)
If greyed-out portraits are desired, I can create just one in about 60 seconds in Gimp, will be quick and simple to do all of them.
EDIT - And so it was. :) Can upload any time if this is indeed what we want. | |||
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)
I tried your method and I disliked it, it was obviously just the normal portrait with a grey wash.
| |||
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)
The exact effect was to crank the saturation down to -100. Here, have a sample.
File:Portrait-GreyWofLight.png I didn't bother with transparency since the only place they would be used doesn't require it. | |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 17:41, August 26, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
Test implementation of my method submitted for opinions.
I'm thinking maybe make the fade a little stronger. | |||
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)
"I don't think a file should have to be desaturated every time a staff becomes inactive." - Not a problem, I've already done all of them. :)
| |||
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 19:02, August 26, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
Why the hell does the file link matter? I mean, that's easily remedied, but what, we expect users to actually have a reason to click on the images? Hell, I've long been an advocate of having the images link to the userpages rather than the file pages.
So I fail to see the issue, JBed. But just for you, I'll remedy the apparent concern. | |||
- 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)
Sorceror Nobody – The supreme nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow Colosseum · MSPA Wiki · 19:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC) "I can detect matter down to one atom in a vacuum the size of the moon, and apparently, this guy doesn't exist" -- Foaly | |||
At no point have I said my method is better than CSS. I'd probably be all for the CSS, it looks handy. I'm merely defending my method from you implying that it's a bad method by picking holes that aren't really there.
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. | |||
|