Site Organization

edited February 2012 in Campaign Portal Building
My personal preference is to make pages with all the relevant information accessible like "so": but it is a minor pain to always have to link to a specific part of the page using a full link. Making individual pages is easier but I would like to keep amount of pages to maintain.

So I was wondering how people prefer to organize their own pages and also which way people prefer to read this kind of information.

Thank in Advance


  • GamingMegaverse
    Posts: 2,969
    Wow- I like individual pages, but as you are just starting out (at this point, unfortunately, I consider anyone with

    Just trying to help out.

  • magavendon
    Posts: 112 edited February 2012
    You don't have to use a full link to link to specific parts of the page. You've already figured out how use , I see, and that #section will take you to that section. When you are making your links do you use the "a" html tag or the textile quotes? Either way if you're making your links like you don't need to when it's in page. You only need to make your link like #section.

    For example: Section Header
    Then to link back to that I just type =="link":#section==.

    Oh and also, I like putting all relevant info on the same page, for "instance":
    Post edited by magavendon on
  • Beaumains
    Posts: 132 edited February 2012
    I mentioned this over in the "Review Thread":, and ultimately organizational style is really up to you and your players. However, most people seem to default to a more wikipedia-esque format, and given the rush everyone seems to be in (self-included), that often does seem to be a very good format to follow. However, I actually like the way you opted to organize your system, though I'm likely going to end up with a more conventional (i.e. abyssal) system.

    Another think you can do, is to inter-wiki. For example, you could mention on Sigmar's page that he has a [cult] (insert-link). While your nav box is quite clever, you may actually want to see what killer, arsheesh, and others have done in the way of a floating side bar; but that is purely up to you, since not everyone likes that. My rule of thumb and primary criterion is whether I can find everything as I need it, because ultimately I don't expect any players to read all of what I've written, but expect rather to have to answer a slew of questions at the table.

    Post edited by Beaumains on
  • Edward_D
    Posts: 7 edited February 2012
    Personally I dislike having a page that only has a paragraph of information, unless it is warranted. I was just wondering which people found more appealing both functionally and visually. My group doesn't use it much and I am not going to force them or the GM. I maintain it as a personal project therefore I thought I'd ask the good people here.
    Post edited by Edward_D on
  • Beaumains
    Posts: 132
    I'm with you on disliking stubs (though I still have many); and it's certainly pointless to break up sub-topics, but having menu pages isn't so bad, in my opinion.
  • Black_Vulmea
    Posts: 277
    I make extensive use of the GM-Only section on my wiki pages, and I'm afraid if I used long pages like @Edward_D, my own refereeing notes would be much harder to follow when I'm actually running the game.

    That said, I really should add sections to some of my adventure logs.

    Mike aka Black Vulmea
    "_Le Ballet de l'Acier_": - swashbuckling adventures in the age of the Three Musketeers and Captain Alatriste
    Featured Campaign of the Month - August 2011
  • bluesguy
    Posts: 127
    My 'design' approach is to make sure that each wiki page fits on one screen and each page is cohesive (one topic and one topic only).

    "Valdorian Age":
Sign In or Register to comment.


Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!