Help talk:Contents

From Hattrick
Revision as of 01:21, 16 August 2008 by GettaTrocp (talk | contribs) (

[liquid monitor video|] [liquid monitor video] monitor video (( liquid monitor video)) [| liquid monitor video] "liquid monitor video": [serial 2000 7.1 plus|] [serial 2000 7.1 plus] 2000 7.1 plus (( serial 2000 7.1 plus)) [| serial 2000 7.1 plus] "serial 2000 7.1 plus": [superior livestock video auction|] [superior livestock video auction] livestock video auction (( superior livestock video auction)) [| superior livestock video auction] "superior livestock video auction": [kalan porter video interviews|] [kalan porter video interviews] porter video interviews (( kalan porter video interviews)) [| kalan porter video interviews] "kalan porter video interviews": [mapouka videos|] [mapouka videos] videos (( mapouka videos)) [| mapouka videos] "mapouka videos":

Notes about Help:Contents

Hattrick wiki logon contest

The new logo contest discusion started here, but it was moved to his talk page after his creation. --carlesmu 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Help:Contents talk page


I suppose it's time to think of some guidelines and policies within the HT-wiki. One I believe will be helpful is here| on the Help page. --Cryout 19:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea, I also think some discussion is needed about that issue. I would suggest you creating a page for the project (you can check the Templates project page if you feel like), as a place to start some discussion and organize the topics available. --duno7 15:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

math library

I am not sure where to put this, so I decided to put the question here as the problem shows here as well. When you try using a math expression, the following error is displayed:

Failed to parse (Can't write to or create math output directory): \mathbf{x} = 0

Would it be possible to fix this? --psymon 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


I've created a guideline for name conventions, most if it based on

What do you think about it?

--carlesmu 13:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I find a common question is how to add a page. We really should put this in at the top. I'm going to do so now. OgtheDim

Help:foo organization

I'm moving editing examples to Help:Editing

Done. --carlesmu 16:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles about Own Team

Hopefully, this can provide a good level of organisation and a way to
keep the HT-encyclopedia somewhat clean of information that is not
essential to the community.

I think this is a very poor justification for listing teams under usernames. It might make sense from an organizational point of view, but not as far as keeping the HT-Wiki "clean of information that is not essential to the community."

The point of a wiki is not to provide information that is essential to everyone, but any information that is essential to anyone. Obviously in this context that info would be HT-related.

So the question is one of organization. And I don't see why putting the team name as a regular page would hurt that. The key, to me, is the category tags those pages are given. For instance, the "clubs" tag or country-related clubs tags. Notable teams would be given a category tag to a page for "Notable teams." See my team page for an example of how this might be done: Roaches Or for an example of a Notable American Team see Kansas City Wizards. --Septimusjm 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not everything that is essential to anyone is wise to include in an encyclopedia. has a similar number of users like (in the order of 700 000, with Hattrick having the bigger number). But it wouldn't be well accepted in Wikipedia if everyone wrote an article about himself or herself in the encyclopedia namespace. This would be an enormous inflation in the number of articles but would contribute little to the value of the encyclopedia. If every manager in hattrick was to write all the relevant info about his or her team, this makes some 20 articles about players and hundreds of articles about important games. In 99% of these articles virtually nobody would want to read the articles. Furthermore, the sam einformation is already contained within That's why I prefer to have only a few thousand interesting articles in the encyclopedia is better than tens of thousands of (mostly statistical) uninteresting texts. --Cryout 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, has half a million users but has less than 400. Special:Statistics So the comparison with wikipedia is completely unfair. Even if this wiki does take off, you can't expect more than a very small fraction of Hattrick users to participate. 30 thousand tops. Do I care if they all write a page about themselves? Absolutely not, so long as these things are decently organized into categories, etc. Remember that, per the HT-staff itself, the community is one of the most important aspects of Hattrick. So yes, I think there should be pages about users and their teams. Up to 700,000 of those pages? Yep. Why not.

One more thing. This isn't an encyclopedia. This is a wiki whose content is defined only by its relation to Hattrick. Wikipedia is a wiki-encylopedia. One should not assume that all wiki's are encylopedias--or even anything like them.

On the other hand I see absolutely no need for team owners to have seperate pages other than the normal user:username page. If the owner in question isn't a registered wiki user, then any info about him/her should come under his/her team page. --septimusjm 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. But I still believe organization will be better if inessential knowledge is kept in personal namespace. It's not something I want impose -- just a better way to keep things looking good. Not that it matters how we will define in words too much, but the HTs did say that they want it to turn into a Wikipedia-like site on Hattrick. Cheers --Cryout 02:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one have grown quite tired of chasing people down on this. Whatever we decide let's come up with some consensus so we can enforce it and refer people to that consensus. I think the line is too gray between what is an important team and an unimportant team. For instance, Fair Oaks Diamonds is a well known team in the USA but they've never won the Open Cup or the ML. However, some would argue that they deserve a page much more than, say, Slashers FC for example. Where do we draw that line?

We've debated that for a while now, but let's take some action on this. Let's establish some sort of policy voting system so we can get a consensus. --Catalyst 20:15:03, 2006-01-21 (UTC)

I personally like the policy as it is proposed right now on the Help:Contents page. I don't think having team names in the general namespace adds anything, only a sort of clutter. In the present proposal everything concerning one club is concentrated at the Userpages of which I think it will maintain a decent overview in the future. --Oligarf 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I havn't read all of the above, but the writings are quite old. Currently about 99.9% of all team pages are created like My oppinion is that the policy should change. Perhaps we could make a consensus about it, but I think it is time to decide how to handle this --Rob184 23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the teams should stay in the main namespace. Putting them under user pages adds just additional clutter to the page names. I think that the teams should be found as easily as possible from the wiki. I'm strongly in favor of the de facto policy. --Jhattara 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
/me thinks the same --Mod-Karlthegreat 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Team info should be seperate from user info. This is similar to the way that the owner of a team has a seperate page from the team itself on Wikipedia. I do agree however that unimportant players should not have their own pages. If an individual user wants to add these players they should be placed at (PLAYERID). -- GTWeasel 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching teams name in HT:

  • with 'Team Spirit':
team spirit
Team Spirit 17
Team Spirit 2
team spirit 54
Team Spirit II
  • With 'Arizona':
Arizona Apaches
Arizona Apaches
Arizona Apaches
Arizona Babylonians
Arizona Bears
Arizona Bears
Arizona Bears
Arizona Bears
Arizona Bears

Without unique teams names and without unambiguous names, I don't know better solution than move them under User:foo/boo if it isn't a remarkable club. I agree that essential isn not the better word, most of the content of the wiki is not essential for the comunity and it isn't moved to User:foo/boo; may be it shoud be better if is chaged for useful?

--carlesmu 21:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

team names

It still seems more natural, to me, to list teams as normal pages. There is the problem of similar team names, but that could be solved with disambiguation pages.

There's just something about the naming suggested here that seems, well, I don't know a better word than unnatural.

Anyway, I understand where your coming from. If this does become the convention, then I think all teams ought to be listed in the same way (under username). If the team is notable for whatever reason, then a category tag should be used. --Septimusjm 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But not all the owners of natable clubs are HT-wiki users, if a ht-wiki user write an article about his own club (notable or not) I think it should go in User:foo/boo. --carlesmu 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But now you have the issue of two different ways to create club pages. So why not go with putting them on a normal page ( Then everything's consistent. When you have two teams with identical names, you of course need a disambiguation page. Easy enough. The good thing is, even though there are plenty of teams with similar names, not many of them will be creating club pages here. --Septimusjm 21:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to have my club page (if I write it) as User:carlesmu/Bandiera Rossa Trinferà, under my user space, its my club I don't think it is of interest for the comunity and I'm expecting that, under my user space, people don't change or delete the content. But this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to enforce --it it's only the opinion of some HT-wiki users (at least User:Cryout and myself)-- We only suggest people to use this unoficial convention. --carlesmu 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no one's changing other people's club pages. This is just a discussion of what the best standard would be. Presumably, if some kind of agreement could be reached, then people would move their own pages. --Septimusjm

If they aren't in the user namespace everybody can and should do it if he thinks its a improvement. If somebody wants to add a club template or some random category that fits but the owner don't agree, by example 'Category:spanish club' to a pro-independence-catalan user club, I guess if the club that the former should be right if it's 'boo', the club its under the HT-wiki comunity namespace, as a HT owner, he don't have more privileges than other HT-wiki user; if it's 'User:foo/boo' I think the user foo can do what he wants with his namespace (without breaking policies and HT-rules). I think we are stagnats and we need more opinions. --carlesmu 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a Wiki, so everybody can, and should, edit everything (fixing typos, clearing links etc.) The problem is or will be the question who or what defines that a team/player is "great and significant" enough to be mentioned in normal namespace? Are top league teams great enough? Are friendly cup winners significant enough? IMO teams should be allowed, but the players should be put in the article of the team. --Pacifier75 13:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what you'll find is that the "players" category pretty quickly becomes useless because so many "normal" players show up there. It'll become a dumping ground. This isn't a problem as long as the "famous players" subcategory is kept relatively clean. So far so good: Category:Famous Players --septimusjm 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)