Difference between revisions of "CWCki talk:Transcription Collective"
(Color coding: What should the standard be?) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
But that's just me.--[[User:Beat|Beat]] 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | But that's just me.--[[User:Beat|Beat]] 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
:* I've always liked the fully-colored dialogue, but then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a colored-names-only transcript, so it's hard for me to say for sure. [[User:Llort|Llort]] 05:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:13, 25 February 2010
To do
- make neato user box to identify users who are part of the Collective <--- Done? 37 Rb 85.468 20:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- promote it and stuff.
- have this page serve as a place to discuss meta transcription issues.
Point is, Clyde likes to joke that I need to get transcribing [insert new Chris media here]. But in reality, there's a lot of hard working transcriptionists who manage to transcribe new videos within minutes of them being released. It's something that very much impresses me and what makes CWCki so damn great.
One of the goals should be to utilize such efforts towards completing a lot of unfinished transcripts and to allow for better collaboration on transcription projects.--Champthom 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- As the author of CWCki's style guide (or what's currently passing for one), I figure I'm one of the dudes you're talking about. You can count on me to keep our transcripts stylish. ;3 Llort 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So is this a good place to discuss color-coding?
Because I'd like to address that. I personally find it easier to read when we only color the speaker's name instead of his whole chunk of text. It's also easier to see the links that way.
But that's just me.--Beat 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've always liked the fully-colored dialogue, but then again, I can't remember the last time I saw a colored-names-only transcript, so it's hard for me to say for sure. Llort 05:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)