On the start page there is a table of containing 9 cells, with a bunch of links in each cell.
Lets look at just one of them as an example - "Wikidot for Beginners"
If I view source for en:start, I find that I can edit the table. Fair enough, that's to be expected.
If I open up en:wikidot-for-beginners, I can also edit the table. Now that's what I'd call redundancy.
Wouldn't it be better to create 9 include pages for each section, then use one in each cell?
For example, on the start page en:start
Currently, it is this.
That can be shortened to something like this:
|Wikidot for beginners||Editing for beginners||Site creation for beginners|
|[[include en:include:wikidot-for-beginners]]||[[include en:include:editing-for-beginners]]||[[include en:include:site-creation-for-beginners]]|
|Advanced Wikidot usage||Advanced editing||Advanced site management|
|[[include en:include:advanced-wikidot-usage]]||[[include en:include:advanced-editing]]||[[include en:include:advanced-site-management]]|
|User and community control||Content control||Site promotion|
|[[include en:include:user-and-community-control]]||[[include en:include:content-control]]||[[include en:include:site-promotion]]|
I've got a few questions, after saying that.
1. Do you understand/agree with what I'm saying?
2. Are there any disadvantages with using two colons ":" in a page name, e.g. en:include:pagename ?
I'm willing to set this up tomorrow if you want (at least for EN, and possibly even for a few other languages). Just looking for some feedback on those two questions before I do anything that will cause navigational problems, for example.