Template talk:Forum message

From Hattrick
Revision as of 22:25, 27 November 2005 by Carlesmu (talk | contribs) (Features in Testing stage)


Parameter explanation

  | from      = nickname of the poster
  | to        = nickname of the destinator
  | msgid     = full id of the message (xxxxx.y)
  | prevmsgid = full id of the previous message (zzzzz.a)
  | datetime  = date and time of the post (dd/mm/yyyy at hh:mm)

Please check HT's on Global/How to win for an example.

Empty syntax

  | from      = 
  | to        = 
  | msgid     = 
  | prevmsgid = 
  | datetime  = 

Features in Testing stage

Be careful: this feature is not fully tested. Another parameter can be used currently on this template:

  | text     = the post text itself

However, some issues have to be test when using the post text as a parameter, you might need to modify the text so no special wiki characters are on it. If anyone can test it and (even better) solve it, it would be nice.

What about the nowiki element? That could work... --Catalyst2950 15:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tested it and it isn't work. You lost the parameter {{{text}}} (it is inserted in the page calling the template). --carlesmu 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


  • This template is to be used when quoting a message from the Hattrick forums.


Whoa, that's one ugly colour! ;) I suggest a mild pastel colour, either green or blue. What do you think? --Catalyst2950 14:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

it was my first attemp at picking a red-ish colour, but i was thinking of green too. Please make some changes to it until it looks nice! --duno7 14:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for red. It draws too much attention. Perhaps a slightly orangeish color? I'll go test now. --Catalyst2950 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if the template could be modified to accept the message text somehow... Hmm... And I suggest a parameter that accepts some keywords, like "match engine" or "attendance". --Catalyst2950 14:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if light orange is the correct colour anymore... How about light green, like on the main page, since it's the Hattrick team's forum posts? Or a milder approach using neutral light gray? Ugh :( Template:Disambig could be orangeish (in fact, I'll go change it right now)... What do you guys think? --Catalyst2950 14:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it would make more sense if we redefine the "wiki system messages" as red-coloured, and use the green for this and similar Templates (and probably a lot of tables around the pages). Good work, it looks much nicer now! --duno7 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Green it is, then, and the disambig page is orangeish. --Catalyst2950 15:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Slightly tweaked the CSS and limited the width for easier reading. Feel free to remove the width CSS property for the table if you don't think it's necessary. --Catalyst2950 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW: what's the datetime format? mm-dd-yyyy or dd-mm-yyyy? --Catalyst2950 15:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting boring ;) I don't think linking to User:Foo is good... If you don't mind, I'll remove that. --Catalyst2950 15:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, it can be added in the future if the hattrick user database is added to the wiki.--Carlesmu 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the removal of the link to the second user, however it might make some sense if the user is also a user of this wiki. But I agree, it generally doesn't really provide any useful information related to the context, so I would remove it. Another issue, i think the width of the table could be tweakened so it is a bit bigger than now (but not as big as 100%). Could this be changed? Since all the wiki is at full 100% width (more or less), I find it coherent to keep the table nearly that size - perhaps a little shorter than 100% width, so it looks like a "special entry".

On parameters: I can't think of a nice way to implement the tagging system, perhaps someone can take over that. Also, beware of the text parameter, if you encounter a pipe on the text then it would take it as the next parameter, ignoring that part. And finally, what about a "Thread title" parameter?--duno7 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed User:Foo and linking to the destinator for now. As for the table, hmm, dunno. If it were up to me, I'd put all of the wiki in a semi-fixed-width content area - I'm running 1280x960, and it's already difficult to read some texts due to massive width. I'll test tags/keywords now. --Catalyst2950 15:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The keywords, ugh :/ ... What if we did this: "Keywords: [keyword1], [keyword2], [keyword3]"? If we're going to use them, they need to be put in delimiters for easier searching on the page. Round brackets, perhaps? --Catalyst2950 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the table width to 90%, please check wheter it looks right. I think using a fixed size table does not really fit into the way the wiki contents are displayed, in my opinion it is best to let the reader choose instead of forcing him to use a determined width. If an user is ok with the page of 100% width that all the other articles use, then he will be ok too if he comes accross a message that has 100% width :). I personally found it odd-looking (in on 1280 resolution too); but it could be the case that I am the only weirdo here. --duno7 17:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with tables having the width as the rest of the wiki, but the thing is, the wiki is "broken" from the point of accessibility. You need 45-60 characters per line for optimal reading, and this is not the case here. I have about 160 characters in 1280, and that's way too much... All of the inner content should be forced by the site CSS to have less width, because this is truly awful. We can't do anything about it, though - it's on the HT's to decide. --Catalyst2950 17:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I also think the wiki is not yet quite good from the accesibility point of view, but I don't think we should take this approach to solve this issue. As you say, it probably would be best left for the site CSS or some other form of making changes to all the wiki, not to individual elements such as this table. What I think is that the table should be more or less the same size as the other text, wheter this text is 60 caracters, or full page, or anything: but we should be consistent with the style. --duno7 17:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)