Template talk:Message

This is the discussion page of Template:Message. To add a comment, use the Edit button near the headline of the appropriate section. To create a new section, you can use the Add topic button at the top of this page.
Comments on talk pages should be signed with "~~~~", which will be converted into your signature and a timestamp.

Was this really a good idea?

I feel like this could have been approached differently. OK, maybe using the template over plain wikitext had issues and if the issues were glaring enough to warrant its removal, I have no problem against that. But was deleting it outright, so suddenly, the best way to go about getting rid of it? If making a change/supposedly "fixing" something completely ruins most talk page content on the website, is it worth taking such measures?

A better way to get rid of the template would have been to do something similar with Template:Lang; that is, simply deprecating it. I would much rather be able to see the messages in a talk page than countless Template:Message redlinks everywhere where they're supposed to be. A notice would be enough to tell new and existing users not to use it and to use the MediaWiki default instead.

I fail to see why this was even necessary, though. What wrong was the Message template doing? Was it too over-engineered compared to the original method on basically every other MediaWiki wiki? I personally saw and had no problem with it, but if deleting the entire thing for "damage control" was a necessary course of action then I assume that it must have been wholly necessary. At some point, I might make the go-ahead and reinstate the template under a deprecation notice if someone else doesn't do it or something similar before me. This is simply way too destructive for it to stay like this. — Cheers, theki (hit me up) 18:38, 17 June 2024 (PDT)

About this template

Using a template: yes, to use it you need to copy the prepared text, but you do not need to manually specify the time and user. To fix the problem, you can add a copy sample directly to the disscussion page template, thereby making it more useful. Also in this way the user will not be able to forget to indicate who wrote the message and when it was written.

User icon: I realized that people are against the site turning into a kind of social network, but what can you do when it is precisely such decisions that make the separability of the text much more noticeable. The icon can be removed.

Timestamp: Compared to the standard timestamp, this one is in UTC time format, and also this time uses the #time: function, which automatically translates the time into the desired language. It is also possible to add another type of time display for certain languages, for example, for Chinese. And also the timestamp and username ABOVE the message are much easier to find than the standard ~~~~ which one or another user may forget to put, which can leak some comments and drive others into a stupor.

Steps to make this template better:

• Remove custom user settings to achieve the same time in all messages
• Remove users icons
• Make this template in inline format so as not to disturb the formatting of messages and their indents

I'm fighting for this template not for the sake of style and turning it into something from social networks, but for the sake of functionality and opportunities that it gives. --Max34 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (PDT)

The template felt like answering a question that wasn't posable in the first place. I never used this template as I just go to edit page then add semicolon for answering, text, and signature. It's easier and more clear to me than some form (I just couldn't understand how to reply underneath someone's message, the "Reply" button said "leave the subject empty" - how would it know where to put my comments?). I won't be using this template even if it persists.

"What can you do when it is precisely such decisions that make the separability of the text much more noticeable" - the text is easy enough to read and if people use semicolons for answers then the structure is easy to follow. If they don't train the skills to use a wiki, that's on them. This is a wiki, on par with Wikipedia, or Combine Overwiki, it's not a fun site with tutorials, it's a developer's resource, so some mental rigor is required by default to be using it. And in fact, most people don't even enter discussions, so not having a fancier way to send messages doesn't decrease base-level usability, it was disruptive to the more in-depth usability.

"drive others into a stupor" - it was actually the pop-out novelty of the template that drove me into a temporary stupor. I didn't know it was mere users who changed wiki discussions to use it, I thought it was some driven from above directive. It looked messy and dumb, it shouldn't be brought back because it doesn't solve any real problems. Cvoxalury (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2024 (PDT)

Well, I think a compromise can be found. I personally see that it would be possible to use subst:, something like {{subst:m|This is my message}}. No need to copy and paste complex code structures; there is no need to sign the message, because it will sign itself (and timestamp too), which means this will eliminate situations when someone forgets to sign the message; the message will still remain plain text, allowing you to use colons for indentation; nothing superfluous: no icons or other “stylish” things. --Max34 (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2024 (PDT)

I agree with most of what Cvoxalury said. Functionality may be a cool thing, but its use is minimal. For example if I'm really interested in the time when something was written, I look into the page history - and those times are correct with no doubt as opposed to text that can be edited.

The thing is that if you found out the few wiki discussion quirks (namely colons and --~~~~), you can do this on every wiki. This is worth much more in my opinion. The style that {{Message}} brought may have been cool, but in the long run I think it was disturbing. And finding a place to copy the template from was a pain for me every time. I was not a fan. I'm a fan of simplicity. The compromise you proposed may be much better compared to {{Message}}, but still I don't think it is necessary at all. --popcorn (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2024 (PDT)