Thread:Manuel de la Fuente/@comment-3544775-20181031162638/@comment-5774380-20181101183532

I have to say that I'm baffled by this answer. I'm being told that "each wikis is free to choose whatever to add it or not", but I'm also repeatedly told that I can't make this template because there are other individual magazine footers I must use instead, when I've explained multiple times that we want to promote wikis from the other Kodansha magazines too; and strangely I'm even being called "selfish" for wanting to do that.

I'm sorry but I didn't see any guidelines regulating what I can and can't do with footers, and I don't find any problem with wanting to make a unified footer for the editorial when it's perfectly feasible and provides a benefit over separate ones (its documentation includes test cases where it can be seen in action—I reiterate it's still in development). The current BSM footer is not what we're looking for, and I think we're in our right to make a different version if we wish and share it with others that may potentially like it as well, and I don't see why this would be a motive for such a harsh negative reaction.

The reason I wasn't planning to contact all wikis is because they're so many and I'm unfortunately already investing a lot of my free time in making this template, so I was hoping it would be enough with contacting some major communities so that word would then spread from them. It's not that this would cause any issues, and right now the current set isn't used by all wikis either, so I find this response out of place.

Unless there's a rule that forbids me from continuing with this project, I'm going to complete it and put it at disposal of the community once it's ready if you don't mind, and I'm sorry that your wiki isn't joining us.