Forum:User groups page layout

Forums: War Room → User groups page layout

Note: This thread has been unedited for 1117 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

Since the successful proposal of User Groups on Avatar Wiki, many user groups have been created and many members joining each. One of the first thing people see of user groups is the user group's respective main page, which details what they are all about, who they are, rules, etc. etc. Since all of the user group pages (as far as I am aware) are created in the Avatar Wiki: namespace, I believe each of the User Group pages should be of a certain standard, or at least have a similar layout much like any article, fanon, or policy page. I believe that some pages are not meeting these standards, and appear to be quite messy and unorganized.

Now I would love not to mention any names, but it is vital to present evidence here to strengthen my case. Apologies if anyone becomes insulted by my naming, but I think it is easy to agree that the focus with user groups thus far has been recruiting, and editing to their purpose. The group's pages I believe to be under standard, are that of;

Comma Crusade, namely the inclusion of discussion such as the mascot discussion making the page look slightly messy and unorganized, and the names of the members not being listed clearly (instead using 'nicknames'). Could be improved by having all discussion on the Avatar Wiki talk:Comma Crusade page, and the members being listed as;

Theavatardemotivator (Grammar Ozai)
Spo55 (Comma Crazula)
etc.

Fauna Council, not having a image (not compulsory obviously, but it looks very nice), again the member discussion messing up the main page, the userbox section is a bit messy, and could use some code tidying and re-formatting. Can be easily improved with some small edits.
Referencing Warriors I think the introduction and overview could be expanded on greatly, instead of having only one line of a description, the members section should have bullet points to list, again the userbox section could use some tidying, and the member discussion might eventually mess the page up. The latter two points are easily fixed, but some effort has to be put into the description to clearly outline exactly what the user group is for, what it is doing, and how it is to go about this.
Referencing Warriors

The user groups pages I think are up to standard are the;

Fire Sages
Minor Character Council
Council of Shippers
The Ember Island Players

I think these pages are the cleanest, most organised and most informative because of the detailed descriptions of each user group, namely on the Minor Character Council, Council of Shippers, and The Ember Island Players. Now I redesigned both the Minor Character Council, and The Ember Island Players, but redesigned to the inital design of the Council of Shippers, to which I believe the credit goes to The 888th Avatar, Vulmen, and The Ultimate Waterbender. I think that Project: and Avatar Wiki: pages should be the most organized pages on the wiki, as they document official Avatar Wiki Policy, and if user groups are to remain in this namespace, they should also be the most organized pages on the wiki.

I propose that all user group pages be re-formatted to the formatting of the user group pages I labelled as up to standard. Although this means that most user group pages will be drastically changed in one way or another, the last thing I would like to do is limit individuality and uniqueness, what I aim to achieve is the group of pages to resemble one another, just as the Avatar Wiki:Administrators page and the Avatar Wiki:Fanon Administrators page resemble one another, but are still clearly different. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 07:33, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, these pages should not look messy. All of them should follow a standard as Rassilon said. I think nominations, "mascot discussions" and other discussions would have to be in another page for example "Avatar Wiki:Fire Sages/Nominations", so "Avatar Wiki:Fire Sages" works as a main page and it redirects to specific pages of discussions. Dcasawang1 (talk) 02:39, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of subpages, I have actually archived the member requests for the Minor Character Council in order to maintain the neatness of the main page, and after each successful request/nomination, I intend to do the same. The mascot discussion that took place on the Comma Crusade user group]] could just as easily happen on the talk page, so as to not create a million sub pages for every discussion the group has. If you go to the Avatar Wiki talk:Minor Character Council|Minor Character Council talk page]], you can see how discussion may take place. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 02:47, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what the Minor Character Council has done with subpages and talk pages is what I think it's the right thing, it looks more tidy and organized. Dcasawang1 (talk) 02:55, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to fix the Comma Crusade page but am unsure how to do so. All Comma Crusaders, please check the talk page for the CC. Thank you! TAD, theavatardemotivator - talk 10:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well since it was my idea, I'll offer my services to fix the page if you like. Just make sure no one edits it while I am, and make an edit conflict (I get very mad when I get an edit conflict)! Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 11:20, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Please, go ahead. The CC is in awe of your talent. TAD, theavatardemotivator - talk 19:58, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I like the layout of the CC, MCC and TCOS. The member discussion on all pages should be moved to the talk page. Moon Beam (talk contribs) 04:15, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start once I have aproval from all user groups founders. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 04:25, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is the TT page up to standard? It's not mentioned on this thread, likely because this thread was started before it was officially created. Bassmasta2012 (talk • contribs) 14:00, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Transcript Team's page is set out nicely, but once we have all agreed on everything, I will be archiving the Member Requests, and the Member Discussion section will be moved to the talk page. Just a little tidying and house keeping. :) Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 04:29, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

How about making a infobox for user groups? We an put in fields like members (then we can cut the section for members), the founder (if necessary), job of the group etc... what do you all think? Natsu-Talk-See My Work 02:38, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Also see this template. Natsu-Talk-See My Work 03:58, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

We do actually have a navigation template for the user groups, Template:User groups navbox. :) Do you think it would be better for that template to be collapsible? The 888th Avatar (talk) 04:02, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think it wont really make a difference. But it may look nicer in a way... —Haybernathy ^talk http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff433/Toph_Lover/KataangSprite.png 06:03, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

For now, I prefer the current template, but if more user groups are created in the future, then perhaps a collapsible table or scroll bar should be implemented. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 06:44, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I personally like collapsible templates 'cause they don't take a lot of space. By the way what do you think about the infobox? Also if we will need navigation templates like that one in the future we can use this template. Natsu-Talk-See My Work 07:16, May 9, 2011 (UTC).

Not big on the infoboxes, they could work. But not sure... Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 07:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

hmm... Lets see what other user think. Natsu-Talk-See My Work 07:27, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I like the current one. It uses the colors of the wiki and I think not-collapsible looks better. Dcasawang1 (talk) 13:51, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the color, that can be changed and changing the navigation template can be discussed later. By the way I meant the infobox idea above. Edit: Check the template now Natsu-Talk-See My Work 14:17, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's quite easy to make the current one collapsible; it only involves adding a class to the template. You know... why use a more complicated navigation template imported from another wiki when there is a simple equivalent on the wiki that can just be modified? The 888th Avatar (talk) 00:23, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Lets just talk about the infobox thing, just let the navigation template as it is. @888, btw that template is not imported, I made long ago with some help from other navigation temps. Then I came to know that the same type of template was used in other wikis. Natsu-Talk-See My Work 02:50, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

It seems everyone is in aggreement, so I will begin the reformatting within the next few days, unless there are any objections. Rassilon of Old ^{(Talk - TTFF - Teru)} 06:55, May 11, 2011 (UTC)