Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

alesh · 2007-07-06 22:05:30

I think this might be more of a feature request, in which case I’ll impose on the moderator to move the post, but let’s try it here first:

I create static pages by creating a new section, and adding a single article to that section, and creating whatever appropriate link to the section. Fair enough, except that after a few of these my “section” dropdown under the write tab becomes cluttered, making it more difficult to find the three or four sections I actually post to regularly.

Since just about any website will have sections that have just one (or zero) article assigned to them, wouldn’t Textpattern’s support for “static” pages be improved if there was a way to hide the less used sections from the write-page dropdown?

So… how can that be done?

FireFusion · 2007-07-07 06:50:11

That’s a great request actually, simple but effective. I’m sure someone could make a plugin or they may put it into the next release. As for a hack I don’t know.

redbot · 2007-07-07 14:08:22

Hi,
I always thought this feature would be great …maybe it should be posted as a plugin request

Mary · 2007-07-08 23:47:19

A plugin couldn’t do this, you’d need a small modification to txp_article.php.

redbot · 2007-07-09 09:55:19

Ah, thanks for the clarification Mary

alesh · 2007-07-10 03:04:15

Thanks Mary. So . . . anyone see a reason for not including some version of this in a 4.0.6 release?

colak · 2007-07-10 08:19:31

hi alesh
the only reason this would be useful is for people using the /title url schema

For the rest, I would think that (may be proven wrong here) one section for those articles with status sticky would be enough

Last edited by colak (2007-07-10 08:20:14)

alesh · 2007-07-11 01:05:54

colak~

I think it effects anyone who has /section in their scheme, which includes me (even though I use /year/month/day, /section works great on my site).

In my case, for example, I have sections about (contains a single article), archive (pulls articles according to the URL via rss_suparchive), random (pulls random articles via rss_suparchive), and tag (pulls articles from the URL via tru_tags). Of course /contact would be another popular choice, and that’s just for a simple blog.

All told, I have 10 sections in the dropdown on my write page, only three of which I regularly assign articles to. I could imagine non-blog situations where the situation could be even much more drastic then that.

Mary · 2007-07-11 02:37:55

a reason for not including some version of this in a 4.0.6 release?

Excluding sections is easy enough. It is a complicated thing to add, because you’d need to add an interface to allow users to manage what is shown versus not shown. We don’t want to add big features like that to 4.0.x. Crockery is where we’ll be managing single article ‘pages’ versus ‘real’ sections better.

Pat64 · 2007-07-11 07:23:50

I agree and send a same feature request some months ago.

Mary said :

Excluding sections is easy enough. (…)

Fine. It’s exactly what we need : a checkbox button named “hide” within the section tab for the admin choices. No need a workflow feature to manage each privileges for the sections access.

Another question Mary :

What do you think about the hability to answer comments from the back-end side for the writers of a website (all privilèges)?

Regards,

anoke · 2007-07-11 08:19:54

A question usage in mind: If some section is marked “hidden”, how do you post there in the first place? Do one go always make that section briefly visible when posting there is needed? That’s why privileges is needed I think. As Mary said, “easy enough”. It’s that 90% that makes it labour to implement such functionality even as a hybrid mod/plugin. (been there, done that.) </IANAC>

Then again – another approach. A section property “Can contain articles yes / no”. One could still assing pages/styles to those sections so they could be used as archive/file/image/link/contact displays without cluttering the article options.

Last edited by anoke (2007-07-11 08:34:35)

Pat64 · 2007-07-11 08:38:11

anoke wrote:

A question usage in mind: If some section is marked “hidden”, how do you post there in the first place? Do one go always make that section briefly visible when posting there is needed? That’s why privileges is needed I think. As Mary said, “easy enough”. It’s that 90% that makes it labour to implement such functionality even as a hybrid mod/plugin. (been there, tried it) </IANAC>

Then again – a section addition “Can contain articles (yes) (no)” would be welcomed. One could still assing pages/styles to them so they could be used as archive/file/image/link/contact displays without cluttering the article options.

Yes.

First : I think when you/we create pages like “contact” or “sitemap” or “about”, you/we generaly assign only one sticky article or none article at all. Administrator could hidde some of these sections AFTER added needed stickies articles.

Second : a checkbox named “Can contain articles (yes) (no)…” would be more usefull… but (more) difficult for Core Developers to integrate it (see above Mary’s answer)

Conclusion : it will be very usefull if next TXP 4.0.6 (the Great :) could have these feature cause actually writers may associate wrong section with their articles such as “pseudo static” one. The sections list can become a long one in some case and become a little bit confusius.

What is your point of view, Mary?

Cheers,

Last edited by Pat64 (2007-07-11 08:39:50)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#1 2007-07-06 22:05:30

Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#2 2007-07-07 06:50:11

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#3 2007-07-07 14:08:22

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#4 2007-07-08 23:47:19

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#5 2007-07-09 09:55:19

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#6 2007-07-10 03:04:15

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#7 2007-07-10 08:19:31

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#8 2007-07-11 01:05:54

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#9 2007-07-11 02:37:55

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#10 2007-07-11 07:23:50

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#11 2007-07-11 08:19:54

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

#12 2007-07-11 08:38:11

Re: Better support for "static pages" by hiding sections on the write tab

Board footer