Hatebunny

I was thinking maybe Event as well, but that can become a coding mess when there are two Events.

So, are you suggesting dropping this in the synopsis section, or as an "overview" type of blurb that precedes the infobox?

Above the infobox. Pages need text above the infobox.

Makes sense.

Thoughts:

• I'm pretty sure there's already a template that switches a Month number for a month name. I feel like it might even just be {{Month}}.
• it'd be a tedious piece of code, but I feel like it would be sexier to say "is the {{{Issue}}} <conditional "st, nd, rd, th"> issue of {{{Volume}}}."
• The bit where you say "is an issue of {{{Title}}} Vol {{{Volume}}}" seems redundant, if we're going to be using CnstNL on the pagename first.
• There probably aren't enough unpublished comics to warrant an automated one (vs. manual, that is), but if you want to, go for it.
• I feel like a writer is more important than a penciler/inker in most cases, but then you end up with anthology issues, and things get messy. Might be best not to include creators.
• Ideally, let's not replicate the content of the infobox so much that it renders the infobox irrelevant. Maybe, more of a contextualization of that data.

I thought about “ numberth issue” too, but Zero Hour’s #0 messes up the numbering.

Mock page

Hm. Could i convince you to rephrase:

“XXXX is an issue from Justice League (Volume 2), dated June, 2013. It was first published on April 17, 2013”

That said, would almost prefer “series title (series start year)” over volume number, but i think that would require dpl.

At least "cover dated"? Otherwise people might be confused about the conflicting dates. I tried to avoid a double "It" start like the volume template has.

Not going to bother with Unpublished, that can just be a new template field.

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.

Ugh, there's a bug. movies with no writing credit get a script error (but only if there's a Producer credit).

That was embarrassingly easy to fix.

Looks like it doesn’t work anyway! I think i was just trying to work out an ancient project page that we also deleted.

It doesn't work because it lists all pages that are not in Category:Templated Pages... which no longer exists, so every page on the wiki is not in Category:Templated Pages.

Fixed. You only half-closed a template.

Kinda panicked on this one thanks :)

There already is a French DC wiki here.

Please unlock these pages or add them. Thanks.

Sorry for the delay - these have been unlocked. Please let me know when you've finished adding them so they can be protected again.

No worries--you do a lot of volunteer work around here. Thanks for what you do.

I added them and also took "File:" out of galleries but it was reverted and the person who reverted it refuses to fix it. Will you please unlock again? Also, Joker (see Talk:Joker). Thanks.

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.

I'm tired of arguing with you. This is the "protocol"; I don't hear anyone else complaining. So follow it like everyone else.

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.

To be clear - I chose to unlock the pages so that I wouldn't have to deal with this bullshit when I said no.

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.

incidentally, if you were referring to this phrase: "However, all users must interact with the templates on an indirect level to edit properly on the wiki."

The "must" there is a matter of fact, not an imperative. You can't properly edit on this wiki without interacting with templates - especially page templates.

Maybe I'm not reading my own words thoroughly, but I don't see anything else in there that suggests that failing to use a page template should result in deletion.

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.