Template talk:Portal skeleton

Usage:

{{subst:portal skeleton| topic=Topic| bg=yellow| headbg=black| headfg=yellow}}

to get:

removed reference to portal skeleton since it puts this talk page in the portal category list

Namespace issues

It seems to me that the current portal skeleton introduces problems by splitting portals between the Wikipedia and Template namespaces. At the moment, all the subpages are put into the Template namespace by this skeleton, while the main page is in the Wikipedia namespace. Also, the main page is at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/(topic), while the subpages are all at Template:(topic) portal/(subpage). This is all a bit confusing, certainly from an editing point of view, and I think it's not really using templates for what they should be used for.

On the astronomy portal I moved all the pages into the Wikipedia namespace, as it helps navigation via links to higher levels at the top of the page. Would it be sensible to adjust this skeleton to automatically put the subpages in the Wikipedia namespace?

I know there are unresolved issues as to which namespace portals should go in, but it seems sensible to me to at least have all the parts of a portal in the same namespace. Worldtraveller 11:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Go right ahead. --MarSch 14:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that. Worldtraveller 17:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed height is useless

How the heck do you put news items into a box that's 10 exes high? The usable area is about 1-1/2 lines of text. I'm going to see if I can fix this. —Michael Z. 2005-05-28 22:13 Z

the fixed heights are supposed to be changed so everything fits. If you want to have a box at the bottom which spans the entire width like "Other portals", without one of the boxes above not aligning then one thing you can do is use fixed heights. Another thing might be to use three levels of tables, but I have not been able to make that work yet. The only problem I see with the fixed heights is that people using different resolutions, might not get the same pixelperfect results. Another drawback of the current model is that the number of boxes should be the same on either side for perfect alignment. --MarSch 11:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

could the template be changed from "height:55ex;" to "vertical-align:" or even no command at all. This seems to work well on several portals where the info in the box changes regularly (esp. if it changes automatically)Trevor macinnis 14:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking because you think I won't like it or because you can't get it to work (you were editing things and in the end reverted everything earlier today). In the first case: please go right ahead. Just don't leave the template broken worse than it is. In the second case: I'd be glad to help. --MarSch 19:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I thinks i figured it out. I removed the heights so the page should automatically resize to whats in the boxs (and I've re-done the Aviation portal with this template).Let's see what bugs come up now.Trevor macinnis 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This template should probably be converted to use template boxes as per Wikipedia_talk:Wikiportal#Wikiportal_box_templates.--MarSch 3 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Done. {{box portal skeleton}}.Trevor macinnis 3 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)