Worst Case
Worst case... we hardcode the html. As long as the content is all in editable templates, I think it's reasonable to have some html in the portals. --Steelviper 11:27, 16 March 2006 (CST)
- Once article becomes Portal, it should work according to the IRC group. --Shane 16:28, 16 March 2006 (CST)
Interesting Example
I hardcoded the html, then copied the html into a template. Should work the same, right? Apparently not. When I use the template (Template:Steelheader), it's broken like the boxheader. But if you do subst: in front, it works correctly. Something behaves differently when a template is being used. --Steelviper 12:52, 16 March 2006 (CST)
Looking Good
It shows a lot of promise. A couple of questions:
- Navigation. Is there going to be some sort of a navigation (not unlike the character template) to cut straight down into the characters people would most likely want to access?
- RDM content. Are we going to keep the portals RDM only? I kind of liked the idea of supporting all of the series with the portals, but the reality is that the TOS and 1980 gets a lot less traffic, and might be plenty served just by having portals of their own (the TOS and 1980 portals) rather than getting a share of the character portal. It looks like you're running out of real estate just with RDM stuff.
That's all I've got for now... --Steelviper 21:11, 16 March 2006 (CST)
- The way my werid mind works is like this....
- Navigation: will be right below each introduction. If it is a "General" Portal, which Characters are they be split into three groups. I think this will help the "Catagories Listings" but they won't link to catagoies. They link to Article pages that have a little bio about each group. them and then they could view the large bio if they clicked on a link. Since this is the "Characters" and not "Cylons" no Cylons would go here. Maybe I should just create it just as a better example.
- The "Series" Portals are about Actors, Crew, Guides to the Shows and about the show itself. It makes it so charaters and actors are not mixed up in the group.
--Shane 22:05, 16 March 2006 (CST)