Nookipedia talk:Staff

Display Problems in 1024x768
This page isn't displaying right in 1024x768 Firefox; it's wider than it should be, stretching past the screen borders and breaking the site layout (as well as hiding the navbar on the side completely until one scrolls to the right; I initially didn't know it was there as I couldn't see it due to this problem). I believe the userbar code at the bottom is causing this. Not sure how to fix it, but someone should probably look into it, as it's a vital page and 1024x768 is still a common screen resolution.--Vellidragon 22:48, 9 November 2011 (EST)
 * Thanks for the bug report Vellidragon! Do you think you could take a screenshot of this so I can get a better idea of what's going on? Thanks again! :) -- Ja ke  23:02, 9 November 2011 (EST)
 * Alright, took some screenshots (cut off the firefox GUI at top & bottom and reduced colours for the sake of file size, everything else is unmodified). Here's how it initially looks. Note how the text goes on past the border of the screen and the navbar can't be seen.
 * And here's when it's scrolled to the right. The Log in/create account thing at the top is cut off here and the project page/discussion/etc. bar just ends.
 * On a related note, the "join Nookipedia today" banner that sometimes shows up also appears to be too wide for 1024x768 resolutions and similarly stretches the site for me, but it apparently only shows up on occasion and everything (except for the staff page) looks fine when it doesn't. Taking into consideration the wiki's layout and a vertical scrollbar, I believe 728 pixels should be the maximum width for something to properly fit on the screen in 1024x768; that's how wide the 100% width main page "frame" is for me (the banner is 891 pixels, the box for the code at the bottom of the staff page is 915 pixels).--Vellidragon 11:52, 10 November 2011 (EST)
 * Thanks! I've removed the user bar from the staff page. Let me know if that fixes it for you. I've also tweaked the join Nookipedia banner to make it fit on smaller displays. :) -- Ja ke  12:16, 10 November 2011 (EST)
 * That fixed it :3 Just had the banner pop up on this very talk page and it looked fine, and the staff page also looks normal now. Thanks for the quick responses & keep up the great work on the wiki :3 --Vellidragon 20:25, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Staff Lists
This isn't about the main staff page, but I thought I'd put it here instead of picking one of the rank pages. Anyway, with the exception of the director page (which has more detailed information about those members), the rank pages didn't list retired staff before. Now, the patroller and admin pages have cells for some of the retired staff, but not all. I was thinking that those could, perhaps, be removed, since they don't serve much purpose (directing users to staff based on activity) and aren't complete lists (and full lists could get pretty large over time). If people want to keep them, though, maybe we could make a different, smaller template (like single-line rows in a table) that include the users' retirement dates. Thoughts? -Sky (talk)   12:45, 24 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Good points - I think we should definitely keep track of our retired staff members, mainly for the sake of record-keeping (and in the event that a retired staff member decides to come back). I agree with having a smaller, simpler template for that purpose. As for the missing retired staff members, they should have been included in the retired staff lists; that would be my mistake, as when I created the retired staff sections, I wasn't aware that there were retired staff that are missing. ~Super Hamster  Talk 13:01, 24 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Something simple link this, maybe?


 * ~Super Hamster  Talk 13:07, 24 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Something like that, yeah. Maybe instead of "Retired ___", it could show the user's first promotion date to retirement; so, it might have "June 24, 2013 - July 4, 2013" in the darker part. -Sky (talk)   13:16, 24 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Sounds good; something like this?


 * ~Super Hamster  Talk 13:23, 24 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Yeah, looks good to me. -Sky (talk)   13:27, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

Edit request
I noticed something(highlighted in bold):

"Staff members should not use their powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that is not vandalism. Staff powers should be used to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. Ideally a staff member should not be considered "in charge," nor should the position be considered as a trophy. The ideal admin is simply someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the wiki. Remember, being an administrator is not a big deal. You're simply helping the wiki in a different way than the average user."

The Wikipedia link links to an article called "What adminship is not"(which does not exist). There is an article on that site called "Wikipedia:What adminship is not"(which might be what should be there)

This page is protected so I can't edit it

--50.136.149.237 20:40, June 5, 2015 (EDT)
 * Thanks. The link the direct to the appropriate page. I believe the link read it as a page called "What adminship is not" rather than "Wikipedia:What adminship is not" so I changed it to "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What adminship is not". Thanks again! 21:51, June 5, 2015 (EDT)

Question
Is there an age limit?

--Pachisu123 (talk) 18:20, October 4, 2015 (EDT)