HearthRaven: You are absolutely one to talk, given your rude, offensive, and even discriminatory behavior in the recent past. Ableism goes against the ToU, y'know? ;)
Lady Furude, The Last Booker DeWitt, and YuzuPear: Please, let's remain civil. The ugly truth about the mess that is Wikia can be exposed in better ways than via nonconstructive finger-pointing.
FelineIva: Exactly my thoughts. If your mental health is suffering, why make it worse by holding on to what's hurting you? In the end, rights on a wiki mean literally nothing - any "respect" you may receive is illusory.
(Temporarily popping out of my inactivity to write this comment; hopefully it holds some value.)
I've had issues with CC moderation for quite some time, and that was admittedly part of the reason I've stopped going on the chat (and also part of why I'm not active on here in general anymore, but that's a story for another time).
For one thing, the rules everyone is supposed to follow are inconsistent and have been enforced incredibly laxly, especially with admods. As Ozzy showed, regulars have always been instructed not to comment on bans, yet mods do it anyway. I'm not sure why – haughtiness? A superiority complex? No telling – but way to go against your own instructions, am I right?
Second, since I know in advance that I'll likely get attacked over this comment: the CC moderation team cannot take criticism, even if it's constructive. Exhibit A: this entire thread. Exhibit B: that time when—actually, I won't name-drop, since a) I'm better than that, b) Staff won't listen to my qualms in any case, and c) what I said after the colon in sentence #1 of this mini-paragraph.
Third, I'm able to recount numerous times when Staff's so-called "trusted" volunteers have engaged in blatant acts of harassment. I'd give a few specific examples, but I'm not petty, and, again, Staff won't listen anyway! Still, if the moderation rules weren't enforced so loosely, none of these issues would be problematic in the first place.
As an additional note, the practices I've observed from team members are incredibly shady. Do I expect volunteers to mod the chat/wiki 24/7? Absolutely not. But they don't do much aside from lurk, and when they do say anything, they are highly secretive and at times even very rude. I get it, Staff like you, but no need to flaunt your meaningless rank.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be going back to sites without a heck ton of internal drama and with no corrupt hierarchal systems (aka not Wikia).
The closest page to that is Special:UserActivity, though, as far as I know, it only shows wikis on which you've contributed.
A fairly-basic stub template may be found on the Templates Wiki (here).
For centering text like that, the
<navigation> tag would be best, as it allows for the use of wikitext. I've gone ahead and edited the infobox to add it in place of
<data>, though please let me know if it's not what you need exactly.
No problem! Glad to hear it worked. :)
For uploading several images at once, there's Special:MultipleUpload.
Matthew Cenance wrote: So what is BASEPAGENAME supposed to do?
|“||Page title of the page in the immediately superior subpage level without the namespace ("Title/foo" on "Help:Title/foo/bar").||„|
Banana32 wrote: I did read this, yes, but I noticed that it didn't mention anything related to what I was asking. So this means I may directly contact fandom to merge without relocating any pages from the first wiki? In response to the second part of your answer, yes I also know that, but if anyone searches for the older wiki, and finds it, they may believe that there is only one wiki for boots, and that it is inactive.
It is not required to import pages from the first wiki to yours, though if there is any bit of salvageable content on it, I'd recommend doing so before submitting a merge request.
It is not possible to re-enable the older Forums on wikis with Discussions.
Template:Stub can be used to mark stub pages, though – if possible – expanding the article is usually better.