I would like to know whether or not it would be acceptable to create wiki pages for the purpose of grouping collections of pools, particularly in cases where the number of pools would meet or exceed the hourly update limit. Some examples of such cases include the Helltaker comic shorts, the Wanderlust universe, Helper SHIBETA, and MLP: Colt Quest.

Every single time a new pool is added to the collection, every prior pool would have to be updated as well in order to keep things current and up-to-date. This amount of work seems necessary and quite time consuming. A single addition to the Wanderlust or Helltaker collection would take almost 2 hours just to update the descriptions of the previously created pools in order to keep things current. Not to mention that users may not decide to make changes to all the pools when they make changes to one, as is already the case (notice the differences in the sections for pool #18776 and pool #14311).

My suggestion, if acceptable, is to have a wiki page that serves as a portal of sorts where all the links to relevant pools would be kept. Only one place would need to be updated as new pools are created in a series, cutting down on work put in and time spent.

Why not make a second pool that specifically navigates the start of each minipool?

furrin_gok said:
Why not make a second pool that specifically navigates the start of each minipool?

This could be an alternative, yet. Using the Wanderlust example again, pool #18776 acts as a portal to other comics in the series. However, I'm not sure if it would be more beneficial to use the pool schema over wiki pages.

Using pools as a portal

• Pros:
• The first post in every pool would link directly to the portal (eg. post #1529584).
• "Portal" pools are already somewhat of an existing standard (eg. pool #18776 for multiseries. pool #12127 and pool #8923 for comic collections).
• Cons:
• Creating and editing portal pools is still "costly". There is a very strict limit to how many edits can be made. Users who edit pools somewhat often or those who may have to re-edit pools to fix simple mistakes will be hampered.
• In order to link a portal pool you would have to know the specific pool ID number (eg. pool #18776 as opposed to Wanderlust Universe).

Using wikis as a portal

• Pros:
• Linking to a wiki portal can be done using text, making it much easier to remember. (eg. Wanderlust Universe as opposed to pool #18776).
• Should embeddable/template wiki pages become available in the future, this would be much better to include in pool descriptions than pool hotlinks.
• The full list of hotlinks would be available with an embedded template whereas a portal pool can only be linked to.
• A transition from portal pools to template wiki would presumably be more streamlined. Wiki pages would already exist and only need to be changed to the template format, portal pools would become "useless" and require time from staff to be deleted.
• Editing wiki pages can be done far more often in an hour. Making changes or fixing mistakes is not "costly".
• Cons:
• Users would have to be made aware of the introduction of using wiki pages as portals.
• Using wikis as portals can potentially be "abused". For example, making a portal when unnecessary (a collection with only 2-3 pools total), or the creation of duplicate wiki pages meant to serve the same purpose (eg. the creation of Wanderlust Universe, Wanderlust Comics, Wanderlust Pools while only one would be needed).

In the specific case of wanderlust, would it not suffice to use the wiki page it already has to list all the pools?

wat8548 said:
In the specific case of wanderlust, would it not suffice to use the wiki page it already has to list all the pools?

Considering that the wiki page already exists, yes. I was mostly just using "Wanderlust Universe" as a blank example.