qwaletee, I don't mind these changes, but can you update the current documentation to clarify all the parameters in that section? I started to add them and realized there are some inconsistencies in the current content:

Code: Select all

{{ForumLink | search-linktext }}

{{ForumLink | topicid-wikiforum }}

{{ForumLink | link-text | topicid-wikiforum }}

{{ForumLink | forumid=nnn | search-linktext | topicid }}

{{ForumLink | lang=aa | forumid=nnn | linktext | topicid }}

{{ForumLink | forum=url }}

1. Is "search-linktext" and "linktext" supposed to be the same thing? If not I don't follow how option 4 and 5 can be different?

2. Is "topicid-wikiforum" and "topicid" supposed to be the same thing? If yes I recommend we can just use "topicid" and tell people where it is in the search string.

3. We need to have a section on what these terms mean and where you find them from the forum or URL.

4. If the primary intent of all this complexity is to prevent using external URLs, I am not sure we are actually achieving that here. People can still post links to other tools using the mbox and create their own. I propose that it would be better to simply tell people not to do that and then we can just add the URL to the specific forum desired. Seems a LOT easier than all this.

On the message text that is displayed in the box, I recommend we make the message more consistent between them.

Some ideas to incorporate into the messages we have currently:

1. I propose that all the messages be based on the same general format like:

Comments or questions on this page can be brought up in ...

2. Do we want the message to be more dynamic to allow for section specific links as well as page specific links? I don't think we want to get too overly complicated here. I am fine with just a whole page reference as we do now. If that is agreed, I then propose we add {{PAGENAME}} to the message in pace of "this page" so it automatically adds it and increases clarity for the reader.

3. In the case of the search string option, I can see that message should be slightly different like:

Check {{{these forum threads}}} for information on {{{SearchText}}}.

What do you think about adding the option (or hard code it as default and optionally disable) that the user is taken to the last unread message of that forum. If the user never went there before, it goes to the first entry. If they went previously, they don't have to figure out where was the last thing they read.

I believe we just need to add: to the end of the URL

PesachZ wrote:I'm not sure I like that idea, many forum threads for various things throughout the wave have a specific general information on the first post which the user will miss

But in the case of unread, the system will only skip the first entry if they already read the first entry.

Today I believe most people currently only follow unread posts through the forum links to last unread or Tapatalk entry. If they want to see the OP, they just need to click on page 1.

Good points.

In light of that and people assuming the current action, what if we just add the last unread link to the current entry in the mbox:

Comments or questions on this page can be brought up in this forum (unread link).

Or we can use the current forum icon for unread, so only those familiar with that icon would even know to press it. We add the hover text describing it as "Link to unread entries".

Comments or questions on this page can be brought up in this forum (https://www.waze.com/forum/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_topic_newest.gif).

PesachZ wrote:I like the second option better, and to keep the formatting uniform we should put the icon before the forum title meaning before the link text

Like this:

Comments or questions on this page can be brought up in (https://www.waze.com/forum/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_topic_newest.gif) this forum.

I'd be fine with that (with the appropriate hover text I didn't simulate here).

OK on the bold. I would think the parenthesis helps separate the two links, but I am not stuck on them.

I think in the forum it is different because you have lists of those entries. In the Wiki you will only have it in one or two spots, but I am OK to accept if no other objections. I am certainly OK to implement without them and if future overwhelming objections come in we can always add them at that time.

PesachZ, did you want to make the alteration, do you want me to do it, or have the first one to get to it? I am OK with any of these.

Also, I think we should use a non-breaking space between the unread icon and the forum description to prevent this awkward wrap.

Comments or questions on this page can be brought up in the https://www.waze.com/forum/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_topic_newest.gif
New Glossary concept and format forum topic.