User talk:Hecato/Single backend portal layout
Request for comments[edit]
Hey, @Northamerica1000:, @Bermicourt:, @Certes: and @UnitedStatesian: I have tried to create a portal layout that only uses one single sub-page for all of its content. This way the actual portal page just has information about the portal appearance and the /backend sub-page has all of the actual content in one central location. Which makes it easy to edit, browse all the selected content and guard against vandalism. And you only have to add two pages to your watchlist, instead of the usual dozen or so. So far it seems to work.
Do you think this is a good idea? Did I miss any important features? Any concerns? Anything else that comes to mind? Please ignore the content of the test portal, it is just exemplary nonsense. --Hecato (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly looks good to me, and the vandalism/watchlist benefits are compelling. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: If you are okay with it, then I will test this on Portal:Olympic Games. --Hecato (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds great. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: If you are okay with it, then I will test this on Portal:Olympic Games. --Hecato (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea. In other fields such as computing it can be good practice to separate the inputs and logic (salary = hours × rate) from the presentation (print salary rounded to two decimal places right justified) and this feels similar. The main portal page can then become {{subst:some template}} with any inapplicable sections cut out, and won't need editing unless the layout changes. This could be a good compromise between having everything in one place and having a separate page for each element. Certes (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Having seen some of my painstaking work in creating portals trashed by the anti-portaleers, I'm afraid I'm rapidly losing interest in portals. Which of course is what the A-Ps want. So thanks for asking me, but I don't want to spend any more time on them until there is a portal guideline that is fit for purpose and an atmosphere of editorial cooperation. Bermicourt (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: I am sad to hear that, but I understand how you feel. Regardless of what you do in the future, I want to thank you for your work on the project and portals specifically. --Hecato (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Having seen some of my painstaking work in creating portals trashed by the anti-portaleers, I'm afraid I'm rapidly losing interest in portals. Which of course is what the A-Ps want. So thanks for asking me, but I don't want to spend any more time on them until there is a portal guideline that is fit for purpose and an atmosphere of editorial cooperation. Bermicourt (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm in a similar position to Bermicourt. The tools to improve portals are in place but most pages on which they were deployed have been deleted or reverted. We're now down to 742 portals and still losing 200+ a month. By simple arithmetic, the deletion will have to slow by the end of the year. That may leave us something worth salvaging, but I can't work on the namespace under its current ownership. Certes (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'm rather busy lately, but may provide input at a later time. North America1000 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)