Tabs at top of pages
Thor2000, Do you have any control over the tabs at the top of the pages, that say "Popular pages," "Our Gang Characters," "Male Characters," and "Community"? "Male Characters" is highly redundant next to "Our Gang Characters," and my choice would be a tab for the films. But I realize that with this new format, which is far worse than the old one, you might not have enough control. Rjh 06:28, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I totally hate this new format. I pretty much preferred the old way, but I assume it's automatic with the categories with the highest number of pages popping up there. Thor2000 16:37, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
What the damn hell is that video doing there blocking the main site picture from the top? I spent thirty minutes trying to get rid of it, but it's STILL THERE!!! Thor2000 (talk) 04:47, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
Do you all think that we could add new categories based on what kind of role each of the characters played in each short? For example, we could add "Our Gang leaders" to Mickey Daniels' or Spanky's page. Yorky97 (talk) 15:19, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I think we pretty much covered that with tags based on their personalities. I'm a little leery of that term anyway because it sounds like there was always one kid ordering them around and I don't want to go there because it would be so debatable, particularly since there are several times, like during the Jackie/Chubby/Farina years or Wally/Stymie/Scottie years, when there was obviously several kids sharing a role of authority over the younger kids. Thor2000 (talk) 19:19, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I see that someone put up "leader characters" as a category. I don't know about some of the choices, when was Bonedust a leader? Wheezer? And some were "leaders" very infrequently; Jackie Condon might be an example. I'm not fond of that category, and agree that on many occasions it was simply the older kids ordering the younger ones around.
As for other categories, why stop at "Over twenty shorts"? We could have 25, 30, 40, 50. Or since we have one for African-Americans, what about Asian-Americans, or would a category with about four characters be too small? Rjh (talk) 06:17, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't authorize a "leader category." I said I didn't like it and I still don't like it. It's too subjective and open to too much wild speculation.
The problem I have with an Asian Category is the same problem I have with category "Over 25 Shorts." - There's not enough characters to warrant it. Although several Rascals exceeded others in number of shorts, I considered twenty shorts a typical average for a typical Rascal and to exceed twenty was remarkable by itself, and besides, the higher number you go, eventually you're going to diminish the number of qualified Rascals until hou have only three for "Over 50" and only one or two for "Over 70." I hope that makes sense without sounding too OCD. Thor2000 (talk) 18:04, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
- That makes sense, and there don't appear to be enough Asian characters. As for the number of shorts, I picked 50 as the cutoff because there are 9 rascals with 50+ shorts, including two with exactly 50, and that is about the same as your "Bookish Characters" category, which has 7, and "Wealth Characters," which has 8. Actually 5 rascals made it to 70 shorts, but that's going too far. Still, numbers like 25, 30, and 40 didn't seem so out of place compared wtih some existing categories. Rjh (talk) 04:53, November 19, 2013 (UTC)