I've finally went ahead and converted the movie template (and by converted, I mean "smashed together elements from other templates"), which should get rid of the stray Divs at the top. The differences are minute and mainly cosmetic, but if I've checked everything, the functionality should be the same.
I want to try it on some more pages to be sure it all works, if you want some more testing and fiddling with it, go ahead.
Speaking of testing, what's the case for Template:ImageTest?
As long as it works, it's no biggie to me. I've wasted hours trying to get rid of those stray divs without breaking things, so if you managed it, that's super.
I don't think ImageTest is needed for anything. I don't think anything relies on it.
To be honest, I pretty much forgot it existed after making it, and the changes I made in it are now standard on the main image template. So it can be eradicated from existence.
I was paining myself over those divs as well, until I remembered we don't have to even use divs anymore, we can just use a system that tells you you messed up a tag. Only a couple more infoboxes need converting, as well as the disambig template - all my attempts at that have failed.
Hey Rab! I'm Marcus, the Fandom Wiki Manager for DC Database. I am here to help the community by being a liaison to full-time Fandom staff. If you ever have a question or issue relating to the wiki, editing, etc., feel free contact me on my message wall. If you have any questions about my role, don't hesitate to ask!
I don't "refuse to fix it". I asked you to add the full line to the talk page, which is what has pretty much become standard practice. And because you did not add a line to the talk page, nothing was added. And rather than whining about it, you could do as you're told.
And you won't do as you're told. There is no protocol--I posted here and this user decided that he thought a solution was unlocking the pages. I'm asking him to do that again and this time, I won't take "File:" out of galleries so that you won't remove the helpful edits. None of this involves you.
If that's the protocol, why is it *this* admin did something different? I posted to both of your talk pages and got two different answers.
You refuse to revert yourself, so now I'm asking the admin who chose a different option to choose that option again, since there *isn't* a protocol. Again, none of this involves you. I made a request on your talk, you refused--fine, I'll go somewhere else.
Also, I *did* do as you asked at Talk:Joker and you didn't do anything about it there.
If you're tired of arguing, then stop arguing. I moved on already.
It does involve me, as you chose to misrepresent events involving me. I told you about the workaround. You didn't do it. Ergo, nothing was done. You did not do as asked on Talk:Joker. I don't see the thumbnav line anywhere with your name behind it.
I'm tired of arguing, and I'm tired of you. Take a break.
If I'm being honest, I'd say the exception is that an admin created it, using formatting that mirrors the page templates we use. Warnings against creating untemplated pages are really meant for people who might try to create a character page without using the appropriate page template. When there is no appropriate page template (yet), the rule is a bit more flexible.
We have a few pages that are to some degree more informational than encyclopedic, and those are typically created by admins, because they serve a purpose for readers. For example, anyone who might have heard about the Primal Age thing, could google it thinking "I wonder if I can find out a bit more on that," and then there would be our page on it.
I opened a discussion on the talk page for that article about what we might do with it, but I see the situation more as a "repair, not remove" situation.
Thanks for starting conversation elsewhere--probably best to keep it centralized. But I've definitely seen other admins just delete pages because they were not templated or unsourced. I don't see why this should be any different. I've posted to the talk page so maybe that's the best forum for discussion. Thanks again.
Your position has been made clear--you don't need to post here. There is no point in having the same back-and-forth. If you want something to be a rule, make it a rule and use the consensus process. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of noise.