Morrigan

So I have been revamping my main site for ages today and it reminded me how much I loathe the "Create" link.
It shows you EVERYTHING you have access to submit if your database name and the record name are the same they are redundant as hell (Submit Record to Records) and this is even more prevalent when you use a single category setup instead of having multiple categories.
On top of that (and I'm submitting this in a separate topic) Pages databases are a mess in it.
I recently revamped my Create link, though I can't fix all of my issues I was able to take it from this:


To this:

 
While some of that (I'd say about five from the first section) are admin/staff only it doesn't make that list any less daunting or confusing for an end user.
 
So my issues:
No option in order. It currently follows an App order to put it into the list and for Pages they are all listed in whatever order they want looking at it now. No option in what shows in here. If I want a database to be submitted from only one page I can't tell the create menu (without editing the template) what not to show. Create is too vague of a term. I changed my verbiage to "Quick Create Content" to see if it gets used any more than it had been before as it stands even though it moves with the site I still don't think my members know what it is or how to use it.  
What I want is something where you can mange what shows up and in what order. People are already inundated with how much stuff can be on any one site, it would be good not to overload them with looking through a long list of what they can submit and focus them on your primary content sources.

Super simple, when using the standard ips Grid CSS on a paginated page the subsequent pages do not recalculate the height of the items so if there are items that are slightly taller on other pages they are out of alignment and throw the rest of the grid off. If you refresh the page (fully instead of the pagination) it recalculates for the page and everything shows as it should.
Having to define heights on things that could have a variable height because its paginated is annoying. Please re-trigger the height calculation when a page paginates.
Thank you!
 

Note that one has the line fandom while the other doesn't. But a refresh:

 
It legit only happens during pagination page turns.

Do you have cPanel?
If so then look in the top left. Normally it starts with /home/username/public_html/images/smilies for example

I vote no. Leave it to a plugin.
If there were one I'd like to put my true identification which is none of the above listed. I identify as a "Rainbow Princess Unicorn of the Fourth Order" in which I would feel both left out and angry because my identification isn't listed there.
I feel that this is a niche need and therefore needs a niche solution. Plugin. Plugin. Plugin.
 
Edit: To be clear I joke because I believe that this opens up a pathway for people to attack others because of their gender preference. I have removed gender options completely from my community and people can choose to identify in their introduction, in their about me or not at all. It is up to them to make that choice, not me.

Again, I don't think this is a feature that needs to be added to forums. This is a feature that needs to be added to pages. Pages has its own thing and I think that Topics need to be unique to the users and SHOULD NOT be shared by multiple people. Pages articles/records, on the other hand, should have this capability especially on large sites where you want content submitters but not necessarily a million moderators.
Its like "group blog" adjacent but at the article/record level of pages where you can add those that are permitted to make changes to the article that are non-staff members.
So:
I own an article but I need you @Jordan Invision to be able to edit the article because you're a person that knows about the subject/article/company/listing/thing that the article is about. I add you as "additional editors" or whatever you want to call it. Now, even though you're not a mod/admin you have the "can edit" functionality on my article, you can click edit and make changes as needed but I still own the article. Then, lets say you are no longer the business on this article and or no longer interested in updating it. I can remove you and add someone else to edit said article.  
That mod only works if you are also using the "account switcher" mod and you allow people to create accounts that multiple people can log into. Which is technically the only solution for what I'm asking for at the moment but the account security there makes me cringe.

I don’t want this suggestion to get diluted! Please!!
I am looking for the ability to say “this is my article but I trust person1, person23 and person 1007 to make changes” and from there they have the same rights as the owner to make changes to the article.
I’m not exclusively talking about wiki editing in which doesn’t have a real owner and all members can edit. Wiki editing has a mess of its own that needs to be solved first before this feature is permissible.

Correct.

I also need this functionality often. Just because someone started a record, doesn’t mean others should not be recognized. They might have done most of the work. 
I set this up as custom MySQL query with some of my databases: 

Better control for who can edit would also be nice. I guess the typical way to do this is to allow “invitations” for contributors instead of letting all members edit. 

I feel like just having a field makes it seem compulsory. Even if its not. Even if you can leave it blank. I'm a completionist. Seeing a blank field that I CAN fill out makes me feel icky (blame games) but then what if you make it a part of profile completion? Even if its not required if its not filled in then it is forever at 99% complete.
I also tend to X out of sites that have this sort of thing because it means that my gender or my gender identity is more important than my contributions to the community when it means very little to me what you identify as.
For me this sort of thing reminds me of the call centers that are in the Philippines or India where they are all named Steve or Julia. You know that's likely not their real name but at the end of the day does it matter?

I vote no. Leave it to a plugin.
If there were one I'd like to put my true identification which is none of the above listed. I identify as a "Rainbow Princess Unicorn of the Fourth Order" in which I would feel both left out and angry because my identification isn't listed there.
I feel that this is a niche need and therefore needs a niche solution. Plugin. Plugin. Plugin.
 
Edit: To be clear I joke because I believe that this opens up a pathway for people to attack others because of their gender preference. I have removed gender options completely from my community and people can choose to identify in their introduction, in their about me or not at all. It is up to them to make that choice, not me.

I feel like just having a field makes it seem compulsory. Even if its not. Even if you can leave it blank. I'm a completionist. Seeing a blank field that I CAN fill out makes me feel icky (blame games) but then what if you make it a part of profile completion? Even if its not required if its not filled in then it is forever at 99% complete.
I also tend to X out of sites that have this sort of thing because it means that my gender or my gender identity is more important than my contributions to the community when it means very little to me what you identify as.
For me this sort of thing reminds me of the call centers that are in the Philippines or India where they are all named Steve or Julia. You know that's likely not their real name but at the end of the day does it matter?

I vote no. Leave it to a plugin.
If there were one I'd like to put my true identification which is none of the above listed. I identify as a "Rainbow Princess Unicorn of the Fourth Order" in which I would feel both left out and angry because my identification isn't listed there.
I feel that this is a niche need and therefore needs a niche solution. Plugin. Plugin. Plugin.
 
Edit: To be clear I joke because I believe that this opens up a pathway for people to attack others because of their gender preference. I have removed gender options completely from my community and people can choose to identify in their introduction, in their about me or not at all. It is up to them to make that choice, not me.

I vote no. Leave it to a plugin.
If there were one I'd like to put my true identification which is none of the above listed. I identify as a "Rainbow Princess Unicorn of the Fourth Order" in which I would feel both left out and angry because my identification isn't listed there.
I feel that this is a niche need and therefore needs a niche solution. Plugin. Plugin. Plugin.
 
Edit: To be clear I joke because I believe that this opens up a pathway for people to attack others because of their gender preference. I have removed gender options completely from my community and people can choose to identify in their introduction, in their about me or not at all. It is up to them to make that choice, not me.

I don’t want this suggestion to get diluted! Please!!
I am looking for the ability to say “this is my article but I trust person1, person23 and person 1007 to make changes” and from there they have the same rights as the owner to make changes to the article.
I’m not exclusively talking about wiki editing in which doesn’t have a real owner and all members can edit. Wiki editing has a mess of its own that needs to be solved first before this feature is permissible.

I vote no. Leave it to a plugin.
If there were one I'd like to put my true identification which is none of the above listed. I identify as a "Rainbow Princess Unicorn of the Fourth Order" in which I would feel both left out and angry because my identification isn't listed there.
I feel that this is a niche need and therefore needs a niche solution. Plugin. Plugin. Plugin.
 
Edit: To be clear I joke because I believe that this opens up a pathway for people to attack others because of their gender preference. I have removed gender options completely from my community and people can choose to identify in their introduction, in their about me or not at all. It is up to them to make that choice, not me.

Please keep this madness out of IPB.

I think this is better as a plugin.
It's a seriously infected issue that will cause division in the user base. Personally I would never add it, unless my community is based around a community that think this is important. The reason for that is that it is pretty much a safe bet that people will behave just as bad as on Twitter and I think we have enough trolls to worry about to not add strife amongst our members if we can prevent it.
I am all for expressing yourself and adding whatever labels you feel is appropriate to your community, but this is what custom fields are for and this is what plugins should be used for in my opinion.

I’ve complained before that wiki editing shouldn’t have an original author, or owner, at all. While the authors/editors should be in the editing history the listing itself should never truly have a single author.

 
It should be possible, especially in pages, to set multiple owners. You see this behavior on major websites such as Microsoft where the people that have contributed/have ownership of the listing are listed as “contributors”. I would like to empower my users to allow secondary editors to some of the contributions so those people also have the ability to edit their content. Sort of like adding a moderator to a forum, do it at the listing level in pages.

Again, I don't think this is a feature that needs to be added to forums. This is a feature that needs to be added to pages. Pages has its own thing and I think that Topics need to be unique to the users and SHOULD NOT be shared by multiple people. Pages articles/records, on the other hand, should have this capability especially on large sites where you want content submitters but not necessarily a million moderators.
Its like "group blog" adjacent but at the article/record level of pages where you can add those that are permitted to make changes to the article that are non-staff members.
So:
I own an article but I need you @Jordan Invision to be able to edit the article because you're a person that knows about the subject/article/company/listing/thing that the article is about. I add you as "additional editors" or whatever you want to call it. Now, even though you're not a mod/admin you have the "can edit" functionality on my article, you can click edit and make changes as needed but I still own the article. Then, lets say you are no longer the business on this article and or no longer interested in updating it. I can remove you and add someone else to edit said article.  
That mod only works if you are also using the "account switcher" mod and you allow people to create accounts that multiple people can log into. Which is technically the only solution for what I'm asking for at the moment but the account security there makes me cringe.

I don’t want this suggestion to get diluted! Please!!
I am looking for the ability to say “this is my article but I trust person1, person23 and person 1007 to make changes” and from there they have the same rights as the owner to make changes to the article.
I’m not exclusively talking about wiki editing in which doesn’t have a real owner and all members can edit. Wiki editing has a mess of its own that needs to be solved first before this feature is permissible.

I’ve complained before that wiki editing shouldn’t have an original author, or owner, at all. While the authors/editors should be in the editing history the listing itself should never truly have a single author.

 
It should be possible, especially in pages, to set multiple owners. You see this behavior on major websites such as Microsoft where the people that have contributed/have ownership of the listing are listed as “contributors”. I would like to empower my users to allow secondary editors to some of the contributions so those people also have the ability to edit their content. Sort of like adding a moderator to a forum, do it at the listing level in pages.

Okay. Which at face value, to me, is a database record from the pages app to a forum topic since this is an IPS support forum. 😉 

To be clear I believe they are talking about a pages database to a topic which is not natively possible. 

@niKee at this time there is not. No.