Zelda Wiki talk:Staff: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 28 September 2009 by Mases in topic Revamp
No edit summary |
(→Revamp) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Revamp== | ==Revamp== | ||
I went and improved the admin table. I dumped my results <span class="plainlinks">[http://zeldawiki.org/index.php?title=Zelda_Wiki.org_talk:Sandbox&oldid=159701 here]</span>. Once I get the green light here I'll put in on the actual page.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 19:47, September 28, 2009 (UTC) | I went and improved the admin table. I dumped my results <span class="plainlinks">[http://zeldawiki.org/index.php?title=Zelda_Wiki.org_talk:Sandbox&oldid=159701 here]</span>. Once I get the green light here I'll put in on the actual page.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 19:47, September 28, 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I like it, looks good. Personally think at this point in time, we should no longer have this distinction between crat and admin, but rather, just highlight the activity level instead... Also don't think a listing of sites is necessary. However, it's not something that bothers me much. More information is always good I suppose. Nice work. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | :I like it, looks good. Personally think at this point in time, we should no longer have this distinction between crat and admin, but rather, just highlight the activity level instead... Also don't think a listing of sites is necessary. However, it's not something that bothers me much. More information is always good I suppose. Nice work. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Yeah, I think that would be good on the administrators page. Looks good.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ::Yeah, I think that would be good on the administrators page. Looks good.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::My light is yellow. It's looking good for the change, but probably needs some adjustments. I don't see Gender as a necessary field, and like Mases, maybe positions aren't necessary, but I wouldn't have raised that myself. Will look good once implemented though. Also, I'm guessing that only crats can have a site other than ZW listed. ;) {{:User:Melchizedek/sig}} 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:57, 28 September 2009
Accuracy
I don't really like the information in the page's header. It's rather misleading. Not exactly accurate at all. It doesn't accurately describe what the positions mean and what importance is behind each one.User:Matt/sig 06:20, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Then change it? If someone doesn't like it we can modify it further. --Xizor 07:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Revamp
I went and improved the admin table. I dumped my results here. Once I get the green light here I'll put in on the actual page.User:Matt/sig 19:47, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
- I like it, looks good. Personally think at this point in time, we should no longer have this distinction between crat and admin, but rather, just highlight the activity level instead... Also don't think a listing of sites is necessary. However, it's not something that bothers me much. More information is always good I suppose. Nice work. Mases 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that would be good on the administrators page. Looks good.User:Mandi/sig 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- My light is yellow. It's looking good for the change, but probably needs some adjustments. I don't see Gender as a necessary field, and like Mases, maybe positions aren't necessary, but I wouldn't have raised that myself. Will look good once implemented though. Also, I'm guessing that only crats can have a site other than ZW listed. ;) User:Melchizedek/sig 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)