Template talk:Archives/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive banner addition

I have changed the large parameter to a banner parameter and then altered parts of the template in order to give the same appearance as the Template:Archive banner. They are not identical. I have chekced and I think it works fine however some parameters such as search-width will not do anything if it is in banner mode as well as bypassing the long switch for the Archives list to just a numbered horizontal list. I did also have to remove the class="mbox-text" from the header cell in banner mode becuase it was stopping the formatting and since I don't know what that does it might break something? It is at the bottom of the Template:Archives/testcases. Just wondering peoples oppinions on this and if it is all good before I request for it to be added to the main code again. Terasail^[Talk] 20:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Terasail, looks good on the banner version, but if you look at the second lowest testcase which basically is a collapsible banner you broke that. I would suggest keeping |large= as an alias for banner and add support for collapsing the banner. --Trialpears (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, thanks for the feedback I have changed the parameter back to |large= and I have also updated it so that the small collapsed box no longer is broken. However there is no real need for the expanding/collapsing banner since it can display all the archives on a single line, I did however make it so that the banner itself could be collapsed into a single line as shown in the testcases. Terasail^[Talk] 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(1st unnamed parameter)

Have a look at this usage (link to diff adding the usage).

The 1st unnamed parameter is used to display a custom message explaining the archival parameters. In this case just saying "Threads older than 30 days may be archived" wasn't deemed sufficient to explain - threads may stick around for much longer, and the explanation for this is because of the minthreadsleft parameter: |minthreadsleft=10. Since the number of threads that must remain is high, threads will often not be archived after only 30 days.

Please address this.

At minimum, update the documentation to explain how to use the 1st unnamed parameter for this purpose. (Unless of course there's a better way!)

Ideally, the template (along with {{Auto archiving notice}} etc should support a standard message for this usage; when there is need for further explanation than merely "Threads older than 123 days may be archived".

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, is the bottom testcase what you meant by displaying the minimum threads? It is currently only a sandbox version that I am intermittently working on trying to add a "talk banner" style. Terasail^[Talk] 23:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That looks promising :) My feedback:

Whatever you do, please replicate the exact same functionality for both {{Archives}} and {{Auto archiving notice}}. Thank you.

In the best case, the banner automatically detects the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} and {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} parameter settings so there is no need for manually giving the same instructions twice (to the bot and the banner, respectively), minimizing work and the risk of updating one without the other.

Failing that, can I suggest you choose one popular archival bot (might I suggest MiszaBot/lowercase sigmabot III?) and then use its exact same parameter names? That is, avoiding the situation where a pair of related parameters have slightly different names - for instance |minthreadsleft= but |minthread= is just annoying.

Also while I'm making a wishlist :-) can I ask for the ability to customize the message, or at least be able to select the following alternative phrasing: "...but only when more than N topics are present." While your phrase "and the N most recent threads are not archived" technically explains it equally well, I feel it would be intuitive to explain it as no archiving will take place unless there are more than N topics.

Keep up the good work! CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Template change proposal

Hello, I have made some minor and significant changes to parts of the Archives template in the sandbox and added some extra testcases to the bottom to better show some of the changes. The following are some things that I changed:

• Added horizontal padding for |1= and |list= so text isn't against the border.
• The Archives title is now set to link to Help:Archiving a talk page by default unless an index is set.
• Changed the text for archiving bot to be more inline with {{Auto archiving notice}}. (Shown in the bottom testcase)
• Added |long= to bot archiving text which states when sections will not archive. (Shown in the bottom testcase)
• Added |minthreadsleft= which is set to 4 by default, requires |long=yes. (Shown in the bottom testcase)
• Changed |large= so that it displays in a talk banner style in line with {{Archive banner}}.
• Removed the switch for the image.
• Altered the switch for {{Archive list}} settings.

Everything appears to work in the testcases and I have checked on some pages and it appears to work well, so I was wondering if anyone objects to these changes / has any comments. So that if they are all good I would request the changes. Terasail^[Talk] 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for |minthreadsleft= but I don't understand the |long= (or is it |large=?) requirement. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film for my manual kludge I want the template to automatically support. I genuinely don't see the need to require |long=yes? Also I don't understand how |days=weeks can work as intended in those testcases of yours? Finally a friendly reminder: please mirror your improvements for {{Auto archiving notice}} after your good work here is done :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And oh, in the interests of backwards compatibility, can I suggest that you leave the appearance of |large= as is? You don't need to throw away your code - how about supporting your new appearance through |large=banner? CapnZapp (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply: CapnZapp the |days=weeks testcase appears to be an old testcase that is before I started editing and is no longer part of the active template, the |long= parameter extends the text shown for the bot archiving, since it may not be useful to show on the smaller box style and so I added a parameter to allow it to be added if an editor wishes. I dont see a point in |large=banner since the current form of the large style is just a wider version of the box I personally think it is just a worse version and it is doubtful that anyone uses it. Terasail^[Talk] 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so days=weeks works. Cool, I'll take your word for it. Thank you for considering |minthreadsleft= even when |long=not yes. If you feel confident |large= doesn't break anything, more power to you. 'Twas but a suggestion. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the double s issue by checking if the units parameter ends with s before adding it. I personally think that the auto archiving message should be as brief as possible and would prefer something like "Any threads with no replies in 5 months are automatically archived." with possible addition of minthreadsleft. I don't think anyone care which bot archives the page as long as it works and really don't see any reason to include it. I also think sections without timestamps fall in the same category since experienced editors sign their posts, new editors have theirs signed by the bot and most of the sections without time stamps are not supposed to be archived such as todo lists or instructions. That is just my opinion and I have no idea what others think. This large and banner mess is quite weird, but I think its fine displaying it in the same style as Archive banner. I've also added banner as an alias for large so both can be used for the same version. I think banner is the clearer terminology to use and what should be used in the documentation, but we have a significant amount of pages using large from a previous merger. One last thing, If we are to add a link to Help:Archiving a talk page we really can't have the index link at the same location. I think the best solution would be having it at the start of the archive list like is done at {{Talk header}}. --Trialpears (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

At this time, I would personally encourage you to go ahead and implement your changes (or request an edit thereof), User:Terasail. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I did mean to add an edit request however for the last 10 days I just forgot that I had worked on this template... Terasail^[Talk] 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice

I have started a discussion over at Template talk:Auto archiving notice#General Update you might be interested in. CapnZapp (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Error from recent change fix

I noticed a formatting error which could be breaking some transclusions if they are using |list=. I have fixed it in the sandbox with this diff: sandbox dif Terasail^[Talk] 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you just moved some whitespace or is there an actual change there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: the |list= parameter should start on a new line to allow for the formatting of bullet points and such, because as it is currently, the first bullet point would not format correctly. Terasail^[Talk] 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done okay I see, that makes sense — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Archivelist detection

It was noted above by Izno that if there is archive list created, it was not being auto detected by the template as it used to. I have fixed this in the latest version of the sandbox (or the two edits made on the 23 October). There was an extra if statement which stopped the auto detection and I removed this along with making sure the text aligns left for archivelists.

Code Change:

Previous code: |[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] }}{{#if:{{{archivelist|}}}| {{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} |{{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}}}} Changed to: |[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] }}{{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} |<div style="text-align:left;">{{ {{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} }}</div> Terasail[Talk] 15:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Not entirely sure the align-left is called for. If someone wants a different alignment they can change their index. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC) I guess, the template editor who sees this doesn't have to add the div for text align it if they agree... I was just trying to be consistent to how it worked originally. Terasail[Talk] 16:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC) To editors Izno and Terasail: so, yes or no... this?: |[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] }}{{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} |<div style="text-align:left;">{{ {{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} }}</div> or this?: |[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] }}{{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} |{{ {{#rel2abs:{{{archivelist|./archivelist}}}}} }}

That decision should be made before this template is edited, and I have no opinion which way it should go. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno and Paine Ellsworth: Personally I think that the edit change that I orginally suggested should be taken since it text aligns left, how the template used to format. And this is probably better to avoid strange formatting on any page using this, as to change all archive lists to format correctly seems impractical to me... Terasail^[Talk] 10:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't care enough to hassle over it. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay then,  done. And thank you both for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

To editors Terasail and Izno: and  Undone by Johnuniq with an edit summary of "Undid revision 985559597 by Paine Ellsworth (talk) sorry, I haven't got time to investigate atm but that broke User talk:JzG and I can't see an error on that page." I checked the sandbox on JzG's talk page and there is indeed a very weird problem with that code, a problem that I cannot yet find. Hope you can find it. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging JzG in case Guy noticed and wants to know what's going on. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The edit to Template:Archives was diff and that included a new {{#ifexist:. However, there is no matching }} to terminate it. I don't know how this template is used but the div opens don't seem to be matched with closes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I hadn't noticed, so thank you for looking into this. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep this is an interesting problem, I have no idea why it is creating a template loop... I will look into it and see if I can find the issue. @Johnuniq: The if is ended later in the code. just before |no=<!--No output-->. Terasail^[Talk] 11:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I think I got it in the lastest sandbox.. The rel2abs statement was returning the user talk page if archivelist had a value of a "space"... This in turn caused a loop of the whole talk page. Not sure why this happens but I just added an extra if to make sure it can't. Terasail^[Talk] 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To editors Terasail, Guy and Johnuniq: okay then...

• Guy's talk page ✓ Pass
• My talk page ✓ Pass
• Testcases, all 23 of them ✓ Pass

Time to hope that this time's the charm. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay so we're back to a stable version? At least that's what I'm assuming. If y'all read the next section and get stressed out because the current work isn't finished, please just disregard it for now and focus on your current task first :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Detecting many archives

Not sure if this is the same bug or a new one... or if it's a bug at all...

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome note how the last archive listed by the box is "Archive 30 (Jan 2020 – )". In reality, the latest archive used by the bot is Archive 33: [1]

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Well that talk page is using a manual archive using |1= and that list should probably be moved onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/archivelist but it just needs to be manually updated, or removed if the archive numbers should be shown.. This doesn't have anything to do with a break in the template.. just a problem with manual archive lists. Terasail^[Talk] 14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Template edit request 19 October 2020

I am proposing some substantial changes to this template and have added these changes to {{Archives/sandbox}} and these can be seen at the testcases. I have posted updates to my changes previously in the talk pages and discussed with User:Trialpears and User:CapnZapp about these changes until the current version of the changes.

Breif Background: This template was merged with a now deleted talk page "banner style" archive template and this was done by just adding the old template to this current template and selecting either style with an if statement. This is not the best way to achive this in my oppinion.

Changes that have been made in the sandbox:

• Removal of the large if statement surrounding the two template styles & the banner style.
• |banner= is changed to be synonymous in functionality with |large=.
• The switch statement to select an image for the template was removed for an if statement.
• The switch statement to select {{Archive list}} was removed for a set of nested if statements.
• The |large= / |banner= parameters now shows the talk page "banner style" rather than any previous styles.
• The archiving bot message was altered slightly & |minthreadsleft= was added to allow editors to display the archive bot setting.
• Padding was added to data displayed when |1= or |list= are used.
• The template is no longer collapsible at testcase 21.

If these are to be implemented it would probably be best to just use the sandbox version. Side note: While not exactly the same as when the current |banner= style is displayed, it provides identical functionality. Terasail^[Talk] 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor Terasail:  done. I use this template myself, and wasn't crazy about the bold title, but it's not a deal-breaker. Thank you for your work! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Index popping up?

Consider this usage (from MOS/Film) - look right: Note how I'm using custom text.

The second {{Archives}}'s my attempt to recreate this look using official parameters (after the recent upgrade).

Question 1: why is the index suddenly popping up? (The sole "1" that would be dozens of archives back on its "real" page)

Question 2: what's different about the |bot= parameter? I can't get it to accept a wikilink. CapnZapp (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaking change

Did the most recent edit break uses of the template such as at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists? Pinging Paine Ellsworth. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To editors Terasail and CapnZapp:, as well as the above IP207+. Thank you for your catches! I have rolled back the edit at least until the problems you've logged are fixed. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor Terasail: If you go to the talk pages in question, WT:MOSFILM and WT:MOSLIST, then test the sandbox (I've replaced your code there) in "Show preview", you'll see that all the archives disappear from the boxes. If you need more help to do this let me know. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
PS. I should note here that, on my user talk page, all my archives were still in the box after the edit – none of them disappeared, so this seems to be a rather weird problem. Just so you know, I add my archive links into the box manually, which might be why they didn't disappear. PS added by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the issue is when both automatic and manual archives are used at the same time, which is most commonly done when there is a centralized talk page where the other talk pages had archives before centralizing. I don't have time to look into it more right now though. --Trialpears (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, Trialpears, and CapnZapp: I have just tested the sandbox on both of those pages and it now follows the live template after the changes I made. I just didn't notice that this was a possibility, I apologise if this caused any issues for anyone.

The Error: was caused because I misinterpreted the switch for {{Archive list}} parameters not realising that if |auto= is assigned a value, the data in |1= is shown along with the archive list. But not when |auto= has no value.

The Fix: I have implemented a short switch which adds that funcitonality back as this appeared to be the easiest way to achive this.

Checked: I have checked this against the two pages you noted and it appears to work as intended. Terasail^[Talk] 10:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To editors Terasail, CapnZapp and Trialpears: okay, LIVE again. Keep a close eye on it. With around 40K transclusions somebody's bound to notice any further anomalies. Cheers! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. CapnZapp (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing

The example output "Any threads with no replies in 30 days and 10 threads remaining are automatically archived by MiszaBot II." doesn't do, I'm afraid. Can we change it to use more idiomatic English please?

Suggestion: "Threads older than 30 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II when more than 10 threads are present."

Note the return to the verb "may", which was used because archival bots don't always run, and there are several ways the bot might skip a thread even if it does run. Also, minthreadsleft=10 doesn't mean the page is archived at 10 threads, it means the bot makes sure there are 10 threads left. And so the message needs to say "more than" - the current language could be interpreted to mean that a page with 11 threads remaining is *not* archived. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I can support this as a change, my edit request was originally to just merge the banner and normal template, it got a bit sidetracked on other changes aswell. I do see how it is confusing and it would make sense so if anyone made an edit request on it, I would support. Terasail^[Talk] 19:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly picky here, just thought having it as consice as possible was preferable. --Trialpears (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay great. General question: are we still in the middle of an edit request process (seeing that at least some of you guys have the power to edit the template)? Or does each new change we agree on need its individual new {{Edit template-protected}} thingy? CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you're free to suggest even better improvements, but let me just note that my suggested replacement is less than 5% longer than the previous phrasing :) CapnZapp (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

 Note:This section continues the previous discussion on "Phrasing" after subsequent work. Note the date stamps. CapnZapp (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This regards the phrasing of the output of combinations of the |age=, |minthreadsleft= and |bot= parameters.

Here I'm using an example that uses all three.

Please change

"Any threads with no replies in 30 days and 10 threads remaining are automatically archived by MiszaBot II."

to

"Threads older than 30 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II when more than 10 threads are present."

Please see #Phrasing above for the discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Please place required code in Template:Archives/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this is less specific than the one before. The one before was clear: threads with no replies. The current says "threads older". Well, by what metric? "Oldest threads" could mean by creation date, or by last edit date. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to exploring various replies to this question. I do want to note I didn't grasp my phrasing out of thin air - this was the phrasing before this latest flurry of construction work. CapnZapp (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, my own reply is "I think it's pretty clear we're talking by last edit date". In the context of archiving, it doesn't make sense to archive threads mid-discussion just because the discussion has been ongoing for x days. CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The message is seen by new editors and regular editors alike. Editors who don't even know this (template) talk page exists probably make up the majority of editors. So what you and I think is clear may not be universal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Link in heading

Adding a link to the heading makes it appear in some cases that it will lead to perhaps an index of archive pages as opposed to Help:Archiving a talk page (I do not have nor want an index at this time). I was surprised by both the link and where it took me. I would not object to this change if it is added as a parameter, with preference to the default being to not display the link (though as long as I could opt out with a simple parameter, I would be content; this is too complicated of a template for me to easily substitute it). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The index will now appear as text 'Index' in the archives list rather than being a link in the title. I only added the link to the help page as it seemed appropriate if a new user wanted to learn more about archiving. And as per WP:SILENT I did note its change and there was no objection so it remained in the sandbox. The edit request I made did get sidetracked with smaller edits like this one. I do not personally mind if it is there or not however I think the new way index pages are displayed using text is better. I will attempt to update the doc soon in order to make it easier to understand the functionality of this template. Terasail^[Talk] 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if there is a header link or not, but having the index link in the header makes it unclear that it exist for most readers. Having it in the list makes it a lot clearer. --Trialpears (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I support Godsy's line of thought. Having new parameters default to the previous behavior is just common sense. Editors should need to explicitly invoke new behavior unless the consensus specifically needs the default behavior to change. CapnZapp (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This seems pertinent to this discussion: Template talk:Auto archiving notice#Hides the archive index. CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Something's broken, User:Godsy. I'm completely on-board with the heading not being a link by default, but previously supplying |index=, |title= in conjunction with |auto=no did combine to a title/header that was also a link to the supplied index. Have a look at my talk for a use case. Suddenly there's no link to my archive. (I'm fully open to having to tweak my parameters, I'm just pointing out that the link did not appear by "default", I had to experiment quite a lot to get the appearance/functionality I wanted, and now it works differently) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I am not sure if this is what you were asking but, since you have manual archives, your first archive doesn't have a number and so will not be picked up automatically. This can be fixed by renaming the two archives to start at "Archive 1" or you can use |list= to display the two archives. Such as the following:

{{Archives|image=[[Image:File-manager.svg|35px]]|list=
*[[User talk:CapnZapp/Archive|Archive]]
*[[User talk:CapnZapp/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}

However wait until the TPER below is completed as it will not correctly format yet. Terasail^[Talk] 13:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm using |auto=no because I'm not using the format of automatic archiving. I'm informing you template editors that, AFAIK, Godsy's edit removed the link from the header/title, and I'm asking y'all 1) to check this isn't breaking more important instances of the template (than my user talk), and 2) how do I get back the link to my archive? I want the link to appear in the header/title; precisely what Godsy don't want (at least not as a default). Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No longer displays archive list

Got an archive list at User talk:Izno/archivelist that no longer displays on my user talk page. How well exercised was the change? :) --Izno (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: It was checked against all the testcases and checked on a few main talk pages, however with this template being quite complex with some settings that are not often used it can be difficult to spot some errors. I accidently added an unnecessary if statement which stopped archivelists from auto-detecting... Sorry if this has caused you any issues. I have made a TPER below to fix this. Terasail^[Talk] 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I am unworried about the non-transclusion of the index, just gently poking. ;) --Izno (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Link in heading (2)

Taking things one issue at a time... :) I'd like to continue the previous discussion at #Link in heading, namely:

How do I make a link out of the title/header using the current version of the template, after the edits by Godsy & Co?

(Starting a new section for visibility - if everyone is confident this is seen equally well in the previous section despite not having an edit request to draw attention, feel free to move it up) CapnZapp (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Just use |title=[[(article/page)|Archives]] Terasail^[Talk] 10:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm - can you explain the change? Previously some combination of parameters made the header a link - for posterity, please detail the changes. I guess my question is: if using a simple wikilink is all that's needed*, why was the previous functionality there at all? Or rather, what functionality was removed? In other words, if there was some combination of automatic detection AND an option to link that auto-detected result (in the header), I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it was removed, or rather, why Godsy's removal (remember, I'm just guessing here) wasn't contested? CapnZapp (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

*) I also need you to be mindful of what's considered "simple" here. After all, I previously got the exact opposite advice (re |bot=). The documentation must make clear which parameters need to be linked manually and which parameters are linked automatically. CapnZapp (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: The header in the template before the merger was linked to an index page if there was one available. Since the index was moved to text, I originally added a link to the archive help page in the title. That is what was then removed. Since it was only a link to the help page no one really objected since it was a minor change that didn't really matter. As far as I know, the title parameter always was used to change the title text. Terasail^[Talk] 12:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

For example, CapnZapp, here is my title parameter on my talk page:

• title=[[Think outside the box|{{color|darkgreen|<u>'Think outside it{{hsp}}''!'''</u>}}]]<br /><br />{{maroon|* my archives *}}.

Not very simple, I know, but it results in the box on my talk page. It includes a link and also an unlinked... * my archives *... in maroon color following two line breaks. Just an example of what can be done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but what does "the index was moved to text" mean? Does it mean that indices were previously auto-detected/linked and are no longer (since it's static text?) Please educate me if I got it wrong. I'm trying to understand how my talk page {{Archives}} header lost its link (to my archive page, not to the help page). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: See the archives template on Talk:Kent Hovind, there is a link "index" directly under the title. That is what I mean by index in text.

The best way for you to add your achives to the box is to use an archive list since your archives start without a number. I can set it up for you if you wish? Or you can rename them so that they start at 1, then they would auto-detect. The way you are using the index parameter is wrong, you shold remove the slash. Also |auto=no is stopping anything from being displayed. Terasail^[Talk] 15:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm talking about the header, not any index underneath. My current settings used to be sufficient for the header/title to link to my archive page. Now that link is lost. Why? Once I understand the changes that have been made, I feel confident I can tweak my settings to my satisfaction. I understand the latest replies have discussed the index, but that is only(?) because an earlier reply started to talk about indices: The header in the template before the merger was linked to an index page if there was one available. Since the index was moved to text... Somehow I managed just the right combination of parameters to make this index-linking work to my advantage, and now that functionality is lost or changed? I would like to know which. Only if we understand our changes can we evaluate the risk of the template breaking on other pages. Okay then, so your answer then: does That is what I mean by index in text mean you removed the indexlinking ability (which presumably is what I got to link to my archive page?) from the header/title unto a new link (the line underneath, the line you call index)? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I think I understand what you are saying, and yeah the indexing before just added a link to the title, whereas now you will have to manually do it though |title= or you can use |list= to manually list the archives. I hope I have helped. Not sure if I have been answering your questions correctly since I didn't really understand what you were asking. Terasail^[Talk] 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My specific question is (and remains):

Previously the template's header/title could automatically become a link in certain circumstances (see my user talk for an example of these circumstances). Now, some change or sequence of changes has made this functionality disappear. What has happened and why? Was the change intentional or accidental? What was the reason for the change? Was this specific change discussed anywhere?

If this is still unclear, you will have to help me help you understand, because I am not sure I can phrase it any clearer. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The links that got auto added to the title was the index. The index link was moved out of the title. This was first mentioned at Template talk:Archives#Template change proposal. With later sections making changes upon that before the change was implemented. Reason: It is clearer when there is an index available. If you wish to add a link to the Archive in the title use |title=Archives. Terasail^[Talk] 16:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Would you agree it's fair to say that change got snuck into the template, maybe even accidentally, given the circumstances? CapnZapp (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My conclusion is that despite the change being implemented with close to zero prior discussion, nobody is objecting to it. In other words, the ability to arrange the parameters "just so" to make the header/title become a link automatically is now gone. CapnZapp (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect searching

I wonder if there's any means to get the underlying search function to follow redirects. E.g., the search at Talk:Teaching English as a second or foreign language does not work. My blind guess is that some Lua trickery could get it to evaluate each archive page (.../Archive_1, etc.) and determine whether it's a redir, and if so then pass that real page name for searching instead of just the "content" of the redirect page itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Links to index page given by |index= does not seem to work

According to User:ClueBot_III#Index_generation it should be possible to use |index= to specify a link to an archive index page which will be shown alongside the list of links to found archive pages. I tried to point this to |index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1, but no index showed up. Would be great to have.

This is what I expected to work:

{{Archives |search=yes |root=Help talk:Citation Style 1 |title=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Help: Citation Style 1]] |auto=short |index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Help talk:Citation Style 1}}

This is my temporary workaround:

{{Archives |search=yes |root=Help talk:Citation Style 1 |title=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Help: Citation Style 1]] |auto=short |{{center|1=[[User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Help talk:Citation Style 1|Index]]}}}}

BTW. The second example does not seem to work here as well (no archive pages are listed, whereas the same code works at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions. What am I overlooking?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul: This is working fine at WT:MOS:

{{Archives |auto=short |index=/Archive index |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30 |box-width=23em |search-width=30}}

My immediate guess is that the index page has to be a subpage of the page on which the template appears, but someone would have to dig around in the code to be sure. If you just must keep it where it is, an redirect from, say, the local /Archive index should work with |index=/Archive index.

Just FYI, <center> hasn't been valid HTML since the 1990s. Please don't use it on Wikipedia; it adds to the WP:LINT cleanup problem. See WP:HTML5 for CSS and templated alternatives.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice 2

Again, I would entreat the powers that be to add the parameters that now work on this template to also work on Auto archiving notice (See Template talk:Auto archiving notice#General Update) CapnZapp (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Archives on Archives

I noticed our template doesn't work... here on its own talk page. (It doesn't recognize or link to Template talk:Archives/Archive 1) The template works perfectly in "article" space (the template page itself) but not here at talk. (It recognizes and links to the dummy index and archive examples) I have no idea what might be wrong. I tried removing the |age=90 which is the only difference to how it's "used" on the template page. Didn't help. CapnZapp (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I observe that removing |noarchive=yes from {{talkheader}} does correctly find and link the archive so it appears the issue is with this template, not the structure of the archives. CapnZapp (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Koafv, Paine Ellsworth, Johnuniq, MSGJ, Godsy, and Primefac: Calling this issue to the attention of recent editors of the template. I hope you don't mind. CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed I think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with display on my talkpage

Hello, I started using MiszaBot III in December 2007, some nine months after starting on wp. I added an archives 'plate later that month. Obviously Lowercase sigmabot III has inherited my talkpage's archiving.

Somehow the display on my talkpage now shows the early archives only, with 2008 Archive 3 as the latest. It does not display any of the later archives, which should be up to Archive 13 (no year). I don't know if the bot is working erratically, sometimes content has been left on my talkpage for a lot longer than 7d. I've manually archived some content from time to time. More importantly it is not easy to go to a particular archive: I have to do a search for my talkpages.

The code I use is:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives
|auto=yes
|large=no
}}

Can you advise where I've gone wrong?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, you're using an archive list set up in 2008 at User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar/archivelist either you will have to update that list or delete it so the template can automatically detect new archives. --Trialpears (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Also possible to move it into the list parameter which can be displayed along with automatic archives. --Trialpears (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:MULTI, you posted exactly the same question at User talk:Σ/Archive/2020/December#Problems with archiving and display on my talkpage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be the same issue as the above. Instead of just checking for existence of the archivelist, it should use something like {{ifexist not redirect}} which ensures it is not blank and not a redirect. This would allow users to control the archiving behaviour without needing admins to delete pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor formatting changes

By comparing the before-and-after display in the sandbox/testcases, I found that this diff changed the display of this template in several ways based on Template talk:Archives/Archive 2 § Template edit request 19 October 2020, but also in a few potentially unintended ways.

(1) The "Threads older than ... may be archived by ..." message is now is significantly larger, and always left-justified instead of centered, even when the large parameter is not active. I think this looks worse, and is contrary (?) to what code was trying to accomplish.

(2) There is no longer a small space between the search bar and the "Search archives" button, which just looks strange to me.

I tried to fix these in the sandbox myself, but I wasn't able to get the display to look like before. — Goszei (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me take another look at this to address your concerns. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Goszei: Having a quick look at this, the button touching the inputbox is because of "{{{large}}}" is missing a pipe at the end of it, which should be: "{{{large|}}}". I haven't looked at (1) though. This will make the search button touch the bottom of the box, which I have fixed with a style in the cell (shown on the current sandbox version). Terasail^[✉] 14:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Terasail! Missed that. If that meets Goszei's concerns, it might be ready to go live. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just noticed, that font-size and text align have been changed in the sandbox (to 11.9px and centered) not sure if this was intended to be added into the live version or not. Just thought I should note it since unnoticed changes could cause issues. Terasail^[✉] 15:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd already made those edits to satisfy "(1)" above. If there are no more changes, then the sandbox is ready to go. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, these changes have been incorporated into the template. I widened the bottom gap just a bit. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Feature request: Optional auto-hiding of box when no archives found at all

It would be great if there would be an |auto-hide=yes option, which would completely hide the archive box if / for as long as no archive pages are found / were created (similar to what {{Authority control}} does when no identifiers are to be displayed. This would allow to drop the template onto talk pages proactively (for example when setting up an archive bot) while the box would not occupy any space for as long as it is not necessary (which may take quite some while up to years on low traffic talk pages). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Good idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Was this implemented? CapnZapp (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

This page Help:Archiving a talk page#Templates for some reason contains a duplicate (and quite frankly, ridiculously bloated) set of examples of how to use this template (instead of referring to our documentation).

As long as this situation persists, any code changes here needs to be double-checked there.

Cheers! CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CapnZapp! Added that to the See also section on the test cases page. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice 3

Again, I would entreat the powers that be to add the parameters that now work on this template to also work on Auto archiving notice (See Template talk:Auto archiving notice#General Update). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Examples for archivelist and 1st unnamed parameter

In the Examples section, can we have an example of how the template is specified with the archivelist parameter? And one example for the 1st unnamed parameter. I am trying to use the template for my user talk page having two archives (not index based) and it is not working.

Examples, or links to pages that use such archiving, would have helped. Jay (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply googled "wiki archivelist" and the first hit was Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archivelist. And yes, it's actually used by Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, or rather its subpage Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Header. I'll see if I can clarify the documentation, but there you have an example. CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As for your second question, I agree the documentation does not adequately explain "Same as list parameter, but can be used together with an automatic list, if auto=long or auto=short is used." What's the difference? Is the manual list before or after the automatic one? Why does auto have to be long or short? Can auto even have other values?! Etc... I'm not even sure it works as advertised any longer; there's been a lot of work on this template. Anyhoo, I'll leave explanation and/or documentation updates of that part up to the experts. CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a search in the Helpdesk meanwhile and got the indication that "archivelist" is the actual name of a subpage that we should create. The template page says "Specifies a link to a subpage that contains the archive list, such as '/archivelist'" meaning the subpage can have any name, including "archivelist". So it's still not clear, and are there are rules on creating content for this archivelist subpage? Jay (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

archivelist doesn't work for me if it requires creating a new subpage. Can there be an example of how the "list" parameter works? The template page says it is an "Inline list of archives". If I try to use it in the format "archives| list=archive2019", the page displays the text "archive2019" but it is not hyperlinked. Jay (talk)

Updated with an example that the list values have to be explicitly hyperlinked. I was assuming they will automatically be hyperlinked and be namespaced with the talk page.Jay (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to clarify the difference between "archivelist" the parameter and "archivelist" the example subpage. CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The auto parameter just sets the archive list to: "Archive 1, Archive 2 ..." when |auto=long ^(Default) or "1, 2 ..." when |auto=short. See Talk:Elon Musk for a archive list with a short parameter (In the talk notice box). It isn't used very much as far as I am aware since most pages don't have enough archives to requre |auto=small from this template. Terasail^[✉] 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I am having trouble following your line of questioning, Jay. Can I ask you to distinguish between two equally worthy tasks?

a) getting assistance on fixing your own personal talk archives. To accomplish that, use the {{help me}} template on your own talk page, or if you feel an expert on Archives specifically is needed, ask on your own help page and ping editors you see active here. Point is: such discussion should take place on your own talk page.

b) helping out improving the documentation for this template. In this case, you're in the right place :)

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Doc/Notes

There has been considerable work done on this template lately (for which we are all thankful, I'm sure). However, the documentation seems to be left behind. Two questions raised by the Notes section of the doc: 1) is it really broken to use |auto=no in conjunction with the "Edit" link? (Please read the doc and resolve the editor question currently displayed to readers). 2) does |auto= really override |archivelist= as the documentation claims and what does it mean in practice? CapnZapp (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like archivelist should be deprecated. It adds significant amounts of complexity and confusion and makes it harder to find where to edit the list rather than just have the archive list in the template. There are currently 353 archivelist subpages. Based on a querry only 12 of these are used multiple times in all other cases they could just be substituted in as the archive list without any disadvantage except perhaps a bit longer wikitext. The last 12 can stop using the archive list by either removing the archivebox if its unnecessary or by replacing it with {{archives|{{/archivelist}}}} which would have the same effect. Could of course be a few more using the archivelist parameter but deprecation and removal definitely seems very feasible and a not insignificant improvement in ease of use. --Trialpears (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Doc

I took a stab at copy editing the documentation, specifically the parameters section, have a look. I began by repeating the otherwise easily overlooked formatting info from the header. Next I reorganized the parameters in a logical order (from simplest to most special/complex). I explained more.

I made assumptions I'd like you to confirm (or refute): 1) how many archives can be auto-detected? I couldn't see any number-specific formatting code in the template, so I'm assuming you could have millions of archives if you like. If the code runs out of memory (or something) already in the four figures ("Archive 9999") perhaps you can change the current statement. 2) I also had to assume manually supplied archives are assumed to live in the same space as the talk page the template is on - that is, the links are relative and that subpages are possible. Feel free to rephrase/correct. 3) normally if a parameter takes a default, then supplying that default changes nothing. This is not true here; meaning that this template is hacked so while {{Archives}} defaults to |auto=long that is NOT identical to {{Archives|auto=long}}. In the first case, if you add the unnamed parameter (|1=) automatic detection is disabled, in the second, it's not. (the |auto= parameter does two jobs at once)

CapnZapp (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

1) It's only limited by template limits. According to {{archive list}}'s docs it should go to ~400,000 on an empty page and even on Talk:Donald Trump you should be able to have over 300,000 so no limit in practice.

2) It's evaluated just like normal wikitext so relative links shouldn't be an issue. For archivelist where it does matter a bit more rel2abs is used so relative links should be fully supported everywhere if used correctly. 3) See my comment below. --Trialpears (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay so my doc changes are fine. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding search=yes shouldn't matter

The documentation says yes is default for search so adding |search=yes shouldn't matter but it does.
{{archives |banner=yes |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=one |units=month |search=yes}} produces:

"Threads older than 90 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III." is placed to the left with many lines, making the box much taller with lots of empty space. Omitting |search=yes places it better at the bottom:

I noticed the poor layout at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of how |auto=long is said to be default, yet you (can) get different results if you actually add |auto=long... Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp, auto=long is not really the default anymore. Instead the template is more clever and can detect whether there is a manually defined archive list or not and if not trying to auto detect with auto=long. If auto=long is specified it doesn't check if a list is manually supplied. That is at least how I intended it to work, but this template is quite difficult to read since it doesn't use a consistent method for handling default values and some of the logic goes through {{archive list}} and so on. Do you have an example where this is a problem/don't work as it's supposed to? --Trialpears (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My perspective is that of a documentation writer. In this context, I just made a remark, comparing the way the supposedly superfluous |search=yes should change nothing, yet does (did?) so; to the way |auto=long shouldn't really do anything, yet (per the documentation) does so (it reenables auto-detection when used with |1=). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A second minor comment: if you are wondering why the output says "Threads older than one months..." it's because Prime accidentally spelled out "1", that is |age=one instead of the |age=1 that displays the correct grammatical number: "one month". CapnZapp (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I copied |age=one from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. |age=1 actually displays "1 month" but I suppose that's better than "one months". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it. CapnZapp (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I really fixed it ;) CapnZapp (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Terasail is this another quirk from your simplifications? --Trialpears (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears: No, its from an if which sets the rowspan for the image cell. I think I fixed it in the sandbox. Terasail^[✉] 15:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Terasail, alright! The change make sense and the testcases look good so I've gone ahead and implemented it. --Trialpears (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Stripped td tag

@Izno, Paine Ellsworth, Koavf, Johnuniq, MSGJ, Godsy, Primefac, ProcrastinatingReader, Nardog, Steel1943, Trialpears, DannyS712, Wugapodes, and Headbomb: It seems that the combination of |image=none and |large=yes causes a stripped tag lint error for </td>. I discovered this at Portal talk:Ancient Egypt and various sandbox tests. There may be other combinations of parameters that cause lint errors. Most transclusions of this template do not use |large=yes, and I didn't find any other live examples causing lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking into it — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I think I fixed the |large=yes |image=none combination creating an extra header cell in the sandbox. Terasail^[✉] 22:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Terasail. I checked it at Template:Archives/testcases/lint and the sandbox version you have seems to work as expected with no lint errors. I'll add it to the main template. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, hmm, looking at the test cases page, when no image is used, the "Archives" header is not bold now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what this template is doing. :) (Given all the conditionals, could use some Luafication.) --Izno (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The only way I can see which fixes the bold issue is to use another if to just add bold to the "Archives" part of the small table. Which isn't the best but I can't see another easy way to fix it. Terasail^[✉] 23:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be the only solution. Good enough for our purposes, so I implemented the changes. Thanks Terasail! — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes and Terasail: |image=none is still, or again, causing errors, as can be seen in Portal talk:Cheshire, with a stripped </th> emanating from {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no|...}}. Help talk:Pictures has the same problem: {{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=no}}. Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions has many stripped </th> tags emanating from this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

... and this is still true.... —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Anomalocaris Should be fixed now. I really can't blame anyone for not wanting to deal with this. It is a minor lint error affecting a very small number of pages. It takes a good while to find for sure and then you have to make sure it doesn't break anything. Far from the most time effective or fun way to improve Wikipedia. --Trialpears (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears: Thanks! Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions now has no stripped tags. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Auto archiving notice § Combine with Template:Archives or Template:Talk header

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Auto archiving notice § Combine with Template:Archives or Template:Talk header. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 UPDATE: Renewed and closed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Auto archiving notice. — SpikeToronto 10:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Won’t collapse

Hi folks! Any idea why this implementation won’t collapse? It started life as a use of {{archive box collapsible}}, then got changed to {{archives}} by a bot (verify). I later tried adding |collapsible=yes to the already existing |collapsed=yes, but to no avail (verify). Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

SpikeToronto For some reason collapsing and large/banner are mutually exclusive. I'm guessing this isn't intentional I can fix it but since there are so many weird quirks with this template I will leave it for a bit in case anyone has comments. --Trialpears (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Thank you for explaining this to me! In the layout that I use, I like the wide archive box (i.e., |large/banner=yes) because it lines up width-wise and centred precisely with the templates immediately above and below. Yet, I also like the idea of being able to collapse it while maintaining that width and centring because it reduces clutter and banner blindness at the top of the page. Thus, this may be one reason why having collapsing and bannering play nicely with each other could prove beneficial. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for responding so quickly. Your turnaround time was phenomenal! I figured if I heard back from someone in a week or two, I’d be lucky. But, such a rapid answer was wholly unexpected, yet joyfully appreciated. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it is nothing mote than an oversight. Much of the functionality here is from merging with other templates which has made it a nightmare for testing. I'm unsure if having collapsing and banners at the same time has ever been possible hence it not being a problem in existing uses. --Trialpears (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears and SpikeToronto: From what I remember, the separate banner template couldn’t collapse and trying to make it collapse with the image and layout was a mess... With the template being how it is and trying to not add more breaking points, there never seemed a need to add more if’s to have the functionality. So the closest you can get is making it a flat bar as shown in the testcase. Although I don’t think I ever looked that hard to try to make it work originally either... Terasail II^[✉] 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to use the archive list parameter along with a subpage to format you archives and put them in a collapsible box. (I have never tried this so don’t know if it would work). Terasail II^[✉] 04:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terasail and Trialpears: Turns out I no longer need it to collapse. The archive box on my talkpage now has the word “index” on it, which, when clicked, takes one to the separate subpage where the uncollapsed Archives template sits. I no longer need it collapsed since it is the only thing on that page and it better serves its purpose there uncollapsed. However, it occurred to me that if one really wanted it to collapse, one could surround it with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates using the same colour as the Archives box and some appropriate label. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 10:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 UPDATE: I ended up using this where I did need it to be collapsed:

{{collapse top|title=Archives|bg=#F7EABA|bg2=#F7EABA|width=80%}}
Archives box
{{collapse bottom}}

See here for an example. — SpikeToronto 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I dislike how merge discussions sometimes don't even consider loss of functionality like this. People don-tvote merge as if merging templates was trivial. And then, after the merge, when the lost functionality is pointed out, we get... programmer's excuses, instead of the obvious solution: revert the merge and ban it until it actually keeps the promises made during the breezy merge discussion (by entirely different and non-technical people than the hard-workingvolunteers actually grappling with the code, this is not a dig at you, it is an observation on the lazy-ass uninformed careless process). CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair points, @CapnZapp. Moreover, with this particular template, I think it has experienced more than one merger. — SpikeToronto 10:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: reverting a merge decision on the grounds functionality is lost/a bug is found should be the order of the day. It needs to be on those deciding to merge to actually make the merge work. So not just reverting the actual merge (the edit to the page), but reopening the merge discussion with "was not done properly, try again". Just asking random Wikipedians to not-vote "merge" with no clue as to the technical challenge sometimes with the most superficial of justifications, and not even asking the merge proposer to find out any challenges that might cause the merge to fail (=not go swimmingly)... and then putting any weight to that decision boggles the mind... It's no coincidence WMF technicians most often simply ignore Wikipedia's wants and needs completely - it's the only way. CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp No template has had support for collapsing banners meaning that no existing uses have experienced issues. I don't think anyone can really be blamed for not going beyond merging and adding additional features that wasn't present before. In general I feel mergers go quite smoothly and I can't come up with an example of a botched merger braking things not being resolved (either by reverting or fixing) very quickly.

Collapsing banners is definitely a feature that should exist however and I will look into making it a thing shortly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp and Trialpears: I have messed with the sandbox and made the banner collapsible, I have been looking at the testcases and it doesn't appear that I have broken anything so I am requesting the change below. Turns out it wouldn't place the "show/hide" button in the right place because of the header cell. Terasail^[✉️] 15:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Collapse Banner TPER

I have made 2 changed to the template in the sandbox, shown with this diff.

• Simplified a long "if" for |button-label= |search-button-label=
• Added a collapsible option when using |large= |banner= by:
  • Removing an "if" which stopped access to it
  • Changing a header cell to a data cell
  • Changed how rowspan is calculated for the image
  • Made |title= always bold when not in banner mode (Since it is no longer a header)
  • Made |list= |1= into a new row so they collapse

I have looked at the testcases and do not see any problems that have been created by these changes. The changes were discussed above where it was noted that the two styles of this template (Banner / Box) should share all of their options. Terasail^[✉️] 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I found an error with the current sandbox - I also was just granted edit access so will implement after I have ironed out and fully checked for errors. Terasail^[✉️] 14:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Terasail Perhaps it would be nicer to implement it with divs as shown at Wikipedia:NavFrame#Migration? That would avoid a bunch of the table weirdness you seem to be encountering. Just a thought and I haven't looked to deeply here. --Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't really have time to look at the moment. Just thought I should cancel the TPER since it isn't ready and there is no point requesting something which will break current use cases. Terasail^[✉️] 14:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixes and question

@Trialpears: as I have been going through the template on the sandbox, attempting to make the above (collapsable banner) work, it is working I just need to test it on a few pages... I noticed that you made |list= & |1= have the same functionality with this edit. As stated in the parameter descriptions, they were slightly different. In the current sandbox I have given the functionality back but if there was a problem caused by this I can remove it again. Terasail^[✉️] 21:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Terasail That was a while ago so I may have some details wrong, but I believe before said edit if list was provided it used the list without checking auto options. After this edit I think it does the same but in a different way. There are some things I really would want done to simplify this template and make it less confusing. Merging |1= and |list= is a prime example of such a thing. Others include archivelists and box-width. --Trialpears (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I "sortof" merged the two parameters in the sandbox & removed the whole switching entirely since it was acting as an if with only 2 options anyway. I just added an "#if" to turn off auto detection if list is used... I am slowly trying to simplyfy the template since its such a nightmare to read (May have not helped here with previous tpers) Terasail^[✉️] 21:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Doing this without loss of funtionality will probably require not insignificant numbers of edits to current uses. The list parameter is used ballpark 570 times with it only being different to |1= if |auto= is given an affirmative value which it then ignores which is really confusing behaivior anyways. I at least think that's the case. If that's all we really should get rid of it. I believe almost all such cases should have been removed in my cleanup for the above mentioned edit but I can't be sure. I would probably wait until the first and use the template data report to generate a list of pages that would be affected and then cleanup that handful before removing the feature. --Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree that |list= is currently pretty much useless, since someone could just use |auto=no if they don't want auto detection and since it is such a limited number of cases it really seems pointless. Terasail^[✉️] 22:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Template data report doesn't exist for talk pages so I'm creating a list where a non empty list parameter is used. Looks like really very few pages. If you want to do your rewrite with list as an alias for 1 that should be completely fine since these can very easily be handled manually. I'm also quite tempted to ask Primefac to do a run with their bot dealing with the box width parameter replacing it with the equivalent in the style parameter. --Trialpears (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it would just require a slight change to line 10 of the sandbox, just trying to search for any problems with the sandbox on pages at the moment Going to make more testcases and split them onto 2 pages (1 for banners & one for the box size). Should the parameters still allow auto detection of archive lists or act as |list= and block it? Terasail^[✉️] 22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Like |1= is currently handled with auto detection? --Trialpears (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but I just realised that I have slightly altered how |1= works (see my sandbox) but its an easy fix, just working on better testcases to catch these slight differences more easily. Terasail^[✉️] 23:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The recent edit to this template has broken its use on my talk page. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 07:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

box-width and Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters

Would anyone here mind if I took a bot and went through this category fixing the cases where there's no style parameter present? I'll file a BRFA if there are no objections in a while. --Trialpears (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I support removing |box-width= from all usecases shown at Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters. -Side note: @Trialpears: The sandbox you have been working on has removed |style= entirely, is this intentional? Since there are a lot of archiveboxes which use this. Terasail^[✉️] 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

Please replace {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed|{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible}}}|yes|collapsible}}}}

with the following fragment {{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|yes|mw-collapsible mw-collapsed|{{#ifeq:{{{collapsible}}}|yes|mw-collapsible}}}}

the classes for collapsible were renamed when they were moved to core years ago and the old ones are deprecated (and less performant). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of "Threads" in BOT text changed to "Sections"

I have been bold and altered "Threads" to "Sections" in the text displayed by the BOT parameter. This is because threads" has more than one meaning in this context.

A section could contain several distinct threads about different aspects of the issue under discussion. Using the word threads could be misunderstood to mean that separate threads in a section would be archived at different times depending on when they terminated.

This is not what is meant. What is meant is that a whole section (which might contain several threads) will be archived if the last comment was made more than a pre-determined time ago, unless the last thread in the section means that that section will not be archived until newer sections are created. -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mad Men

The index is not getting updated at Talk:Mad Men. I'm not clear on how it's supposed to work. There is a list of archive pages in the Archive box template. Are those auto generated somehow or are we supposed to update the list manually? No one is doing it, so is there a way to get rid of the manual list and have it generated automatically like it would be for numbered archives? GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it wasn't easy, but I figured this out and it's working now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yearly and alphabetic archives

I've made a version supporting yearly and alphabetic archives using {{yearly archive list}} and {{archive list alpha}}, just like with {{talk header}}. If there are no objections I plan on implementing this in a couple days. This will cause there to be about 21 more expensive parser function uses, but this is far from the limit of 500 and most talk pages don't use many expensive parser functions anyway. I will monitor for issues if this is implemented. --Trialpears (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This is cool, I would use this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ignore archivelist

What is the setting for {{archives}} to ignore the associated /archivelist page without having to nuke it? Right now there doesn't appear to be a way around the auto-detection. czar 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

Please implement the sandbox version which added a parameter for start. This can be helpful for people who want to have archives zero-based. I have also added a test case at Template:Archives/testcases/box#25. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 15:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 17:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef if you wish to fix your archive box then just set it to: {{Archives|start=0}} Terasail^[✉️] 17:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! 0xDeadbeef (T C) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to remember updating the docs whenever its template gets new/changed features. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Template is redlinking to an archive page that exists

Not sure what's going on with this template on my talk page, but the link to Archive 1 is a redlink despite the page existing and having content. I recently had my username changed from The_Only_Zac to TheOnlyZac so I wonder if that has anything to do with it. — TheOnlyZac (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheOnlyZac, I can see a blue link. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Weird, I see that too now but it was definitely a red link there for a few minutes (with &redlink=true at the end of the URL). Clicking it brought me to the edit screen but with the page content already filed in. — TheOnlyZac (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@TheOnlyZac, this happens from time to time, I think it's a caching issue. You can find similar cases in the archives of WP:VPT. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please copy the latest version of the template from the sandbox, with these changes: [3] Matma Rex talk 23:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your edits are appreciated; however, the sandbox fails on two counts: 1) on my talk page, the sandbox alters the centering of the image in a negative way, and 2) that same off-centered image appears in test #3 at Template:Archives/testcases/box. So this edit will need to build and achieve a consensus before it can be added to the live template. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Thanks for the review. While that was an intended change (to make test case #3 consistent with e.g. #4), I'm happy to undo it if it seems controversial. Please have a look again now after this change: [4] Matma Rex talk 22:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Its still not quite right. I made a similar mistake when I was messing around with the template over a year ago but you can't move the bold (''') out of the if statements because if |title= is left empty it can leave a rogue apostrophe in its place. See Template:Archives/testcases/banner#25 Terasail^[✉️] 03:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like my own concerns were dealt with by the new edit, so thank you, editor Terasail, for the good catch! Never would have thought to look at the banners and find that "rogue apostrophe". I've often come across such as I've edited templates, and I've always considered it a little quirk of the Wikimarkup. But I've always found workarounds, so perhaps editor Matma Rex will also be able to overcome it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's why there's that   in the current code that I thought was useless. That is causing the text to be misaligned though. Let's try like this then: [5]. (Is the template even supposed to support empty |title=?) @Terasail @Paine Ellsworth Matma Rex talk 18:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it works to me. Idealy the parameter wouldn't be left blank but it is common for people to copy code from elsewhere and then just leave parameters they don't want blank instead of removing them so it is best to just account for it rather than telling people not to do it. I won't implement since I haven't looked into the changes, just thought I should mention the error I noticed. Terasail^[✉️] 18:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

After looking at the code changes, I created a somewhat perverse testcase 26 at Template:Archives/testcases/banner. It shows two formatting differences. The sandbox format may be preferred, but it does not appear optimal. |banner=no is the mild perversity, but editors do all sorts of logical-seeming things that template editors do not expect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to say that it's a pre-existing issue… some of the template code checks this parameter like this, requiring it to be 'yes':

{{#ifeq:{{{banner|{{{large}}}}}}|yes|...}}

While other bits check it like this, only requiring it to be present and non-empty:

{{#if:{{{banner|{{{large|}}}}}}|...}}

I could make it consistent, but I don't know which one was intended, and I didn't want to start another discussion about this… ;) Matma Rex talk 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I saw, which is why I created the testcase. I support changing all of them to ifeq to match the template documentation. It is bad programming practice to assume that people who use software (in this case, a template) will behave properly. The software should match the spec. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Done: [6] Matma Rex talk 20:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerned that the consistency of "if" would be better than that of "ifeq", so I tried that in the sandbox. All passes except for your 26 (banner=no). Is "ifeq" consistency really necessary? or will "if" consistency cover all existing usages without any possible breakages? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly the discussion I didn't want to have when I initially decided not to make it consistent ;) I think it really doesn't matter, and you should pick whichever way makes you happy. Matma Rex talk 21:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh heck, I see that since there were already some ifeqs used, and I see that the /doc tells editors to specifically use |banner=yes or |large=yes, so I don't see the problem. Lots of templates begin with ifeqs and then later use ifs assuming editors will follow the documentation. If we try to cover all least likely permutations, we'll just make things more complex for future editors, won't we? My gut says to keep it simple and don't worry about function consistency – [this code] should be used (with one exception, the live template has an if that has a "large" parameter without a pipe, which I've fixed in [this edit]). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

PS checked all the other ifs in the live template, and they're all okay. Jonesey95 I do revere your work with templates, so what do you think? Can we not worry about function consistency and "perverse" usages that make editors run back to the /doc page to find out how to do it correctly? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 22:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: We should either use ifeq throughout to follow the informal specification provided by the documentation, or use ifs throughout and change the documentation to read something like "setting this parameter to any non-blank value converts the box design of the template into a talk page banner style of template". I have seen that done at other templates. A third option is to use {{yesno}}, which allows things like "y" and "Y" as options, but that seems like a lot of work here for little benefit. I'm happy with any outcome that results in consistency between the code and the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Okay then, this edit request has been granted, and I've included the function conversions, ifs to ifeqs, to improve consistency as you described. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Matma Rex talk 17:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

my pleasure! Paine  17:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking an archive index with no Archive 1 redlink

Hey. I have my archives set up in a unique fashion on my talk page, and I wanted to direct people directly to the index as opposed to linking to suboptimally explained archive names (the search button is there anyway if they're searching for a specific message); however, I couldn't get the template to display the Index without having a redlink to Archive 1 immediately below. I ultimately opted to just use the |title= parameter to change the title into a wikilink, which works, but I'd like to have the index below without a redlink to Archive 1 there. (You can see an example of what I'm complaining about in this oldid.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The documentation says However, if a list of archives is given manually through the first unnamed parameter, then it does not check for archives automatically. Did you try this? (Try changing {{Archives|index=Archive index}} (from that oldid of yours) to {{Archives|list=[[Archive index]]}} to supply your destination page as the complete list of archives (with autodetection permanently disabled for good measure) instead of as the archive index) CapnZapp (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe I did try that, and my main issue was that it wasn't centered. I guess I forgot I could use html tags; <center> fixed that issue. Thanks! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapse just the list

I wish there was a way to collapse just the list, while leaving the search box visible. This would cut the clutter on heavily used talk pages while still encouraging people to search for prior discussion. I'm thinking of Talk:Donald Trump here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

For indices generated by ClueBot III (talk · contribs),

change

Line 18:

|#default={{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] 

to

|#default={{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] |{{#ifexist:User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|[[User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Index]] }} 

Sawol (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Could a way to disable display of the index be added as well? I personally don't want the index when the search bar is there anyways. Changing the above line to

|#default={{#ifeq:{{{index|}}}|none||{{#ifexist:{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|[[{{#rel2abs:./{{{index|Archive index}}}}}|Index]] |{{#ifexist:User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|[[User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Index]] }}}}

should make it so that it won't display an index when index=none, even when one exists. Tollens (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the |index=none parameter and argument have been enabled. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Doc update

I always found this page hard to understand, so I've done some reorganization for clarity. A few paragraphs stuck in the middle of the parameters section made no sense to me there, so I moved them down to section § Notes, but it seems a mixed bag of stuff and I don't think it belongs there, either. Probably it needs to be sliced and diced with pieces shipped off to different parts of the doc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Without having looked at your changes yet, probably best would be to mirror the documentation section from Talk header. So we document the same thing the same way, I mean. CapnZapp (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, that would be difficult, but a useful task to attack. My changes to doc amounted to an overhaul of the whole page structure including heading names and where they were placed, and not very much on changing any of the parameter descriptions. I definitely wasn't concentrating on the bot-notice part of the doc here, but everything else not involving parameter descriptions, which was one big mess and hard to navigate. The re-org gives the doc a comprehensible ToC with logical subsections, and shorter and tighter intro sections or paragraphs, with more info added where needed in a couple of cases. Except for wikicode reformatting which did not affect the rendered page, I hardly touched the actual parameter descriptions at all. It's very long (28 parameters) and there's a lot of clunky descriptions which could be improved, but I have barely touched them, except to add a couple of explanatory notes in two cases. If you want to improve that section, with or without making them look similar to the Talk page template doc, be my guest; that would be a help. Mathglot (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

More examples needed

A template with 28 parameters needs a lot of examples; currently there are two. On the other hand, we don't want to have dozens of examples in that section, making the page needlessly long. I would propose something like four or five examples showing some of the most popular param combos, and then a subpage Template:Archives/doc/Examples (or maybe Template:Archives/Examples) linked from the #Examples section, for more detailed examples of all of the parameters, or at least the params needing one. Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to drop archiving params

Editors interested in this template may be interested in the discussion Template talk:Talk header#Proposal to drop archiving params. Template talk:Talk header has recently been updated to automatically derive archive bot params, and this is being imported here; the sandbox currently has a version of it, but it is not working yet. See Template:Archives/sandbox. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Once the code for Talk header is functional and bug-free, do feel free to implement the same functionality for this and any other alternative template. To clarify: the proposal I'm supporting is not merely to drop the support for those params. I am supporting the drop iff their role in the display of archiving params is replaced as mentioned. CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to further edits by Tollens, at first glance this appears to be working now, but there aren't any test cases for it yet, so it's not ready to be released until there are; I'll try and add some. Mathglot (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Initial remote test cases added here reveal one problem in the |banner=yes version, with the full caption squeezed into col 1; probably just needs a colspan=2 added at the right point. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And to further edits by Aidan9382 as well to fix the banner issue. There has been little discussion in a month, so I verified test cases and released this to live. Remember that new param |nobot=yes will suppress the automatic bot notice; doc updates to follow. Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I just added {{Archives}} to Talk:Gravity (2013 film) (only in the preview of course, I didn't save my edit), and it does not appear to handle |minthreadstoarchive= which is used there. I expected the text to say "This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present if 2 or more threads are eligible for archiving." (my underlining). If you are still working on it, feel free to ignore this. I am just posting this because I got the impression from the previous comment development was considered finished. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, it doesn't handle minthreadstoarchive, and never did, so that is the expected behavior. The {{Talk header}} template won't display it either, except in the sandbox version only developed yesterday, and remains pending further test case development and testing before it is released there. I think you might be confusing two things: the automation of the bot notice, which was released a while ago at {{Talk header}} and just released here, and the requested change to the bot notice wording which you proposed, which is a new feature now in testing at {{Talk header}}, but never developed here. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'd like this template to correctly display the same information as talk header. Once development of {{Talk header}} is complete, I hope the same or similar handling of |minthreadstoarchive= is implemented here as well. CapnZapp (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a serious regression which makes me want to just ditch this template from pages I care about in preference for some more reader friendly template. Showing the name of the bot is usually distracting noise. Writing the archive age as "730 days" vs. "2 years" is much harder for readers to interpret. Is there any way to get the old behavior? –jacobolus (t) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree somewhat for this template. The reason the change was made here was that a similar change was made at Template:Talk header, but the change there is just in a tooltip, unlike this one. I completely agree that the name of the bot should basically never be visible directly on the page, and somehow I don't think any of us considered conversion to months or years, though that wouldn't be difficult to implement. The importance of this change in my mind is that it prevents incorrect archive notices (and there are quite a number of those). I'm really not sure how to feel about this one.

One idea that might make everyone happy would be to display information only for parameters which have any value, rather than making it an all-or-nothing situation like nobot=. That way the information presented wouldn't be any more or less than what had already been set, and in the future a simple =yes or something along those lines would work for those parameters. Would that work in your case, assuming conversion to larger timescales was implemented as well, Jacobolus? Tollens (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If the bot name (or other irrelevant config trivia) is in a tooltip that's fine with me. I just don't think we should be shoving these long and confusing bot names in every talk page reader's face. Anyone who cares about that can easily look at the page source.

Dates should ideally be rounded to the largest reasonably accurate unit, e.g. 30 or 31 days should be presented as "1 month" but 45 days should probably say either "6 weeks" or "1.5 months". Anything between 720–740 days should probably present as "2 years", but 550 days can plausibly be presented as either "1.5 years" or "18 months". I don't know if there's an existing facility in mediawiki/wikipedia for fuzzy time names. –jacobolus (t) 22:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the value in spending a lot of effort in order to fuzzy our parameter reporting. I'm completely fine with reporting 30d, 60d, 90d, and 120d as "30 days", "60 days", "90 days" and "120 days" respectively. Seeing "1 month" reported only to have to look at the actual parameters in order to understand if the period set is 30d or 31d (or 28d or 32d) is what seems like a downgrade to me. If anything, how about instead upgrading lowercase sigmabot to accept the full gamut of date units (so you can write 1m for one month, or 4w instead of 28d and so on and so on) - then we can simply report exactly what's written, trusting the editor to have made the choice between 4w and 30d and 1m, say. CapnZapp (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relatively few people care about the bot config whatsoever (nor should they), and effectively nobody cares even a tiny bit about the precise number of days before bot archiving will happen, when archiving is set to more than a couple weeks. The config is done in terms of hours or days because that was convenient for machines, but it's an illegible and irrelevant unit for humans, who should not be distracted by an excessively pedantic summary making them try to calculate precisely how many months or years are in 740 hours or 1800 days or whatever. The point of these archiving bots is to (ideally conservatively) prevent talk pages from ballooning to unwieldy length and to prevent people from answering decades-old stale discussions with irrelevant new comments, not to enforce some kind of precise bureaucratic deadlines. –jacobolus (t) 17:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"convenient for machines" - no, it was done because it was convenient to the human programmer creating these bots. The "machines" can understand weeks and months just fine. effectively nobody cares - with that mindset, you're not only trying to discredit other viewpoints; you're effectively disqualifying yourself from constructive discussion, since your stance amounts to "let's not show any real useful data at all". As a counterpoint: while the majority of people might not care how and when talk pages get auto-archived, not every piece of information needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It's perfectly fine for a template like this to remain useful for those that need it, even though plenty others don't "care". What REALLY would be dumb, however, is to fuzzy the output enough so it's useless for those interested in it just to please those that will skip it anyway. CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not "real useful data". It's configuration details intended for an automated bot which was never intended to be communicated to humans unless something malfunctions and they go hunting for it. If you personally care about these details they are very easy to find in the source, but forcing them into clear view in the talk page where they will distract every reader is reader-hostile; these details must be hidden behind a tooltip, collapsed section, or the like. If this template regression remains in place, I am going to start removing it from pages where I encounter it.

As for the dates: the over-precise dates are strictly inappropriate for human readers. The fuzzy dates are not "dumb": They are comprehensible at a glance, at the level of detail relevant to humans. (The extreme precision is not necessary for bots either; if bots were, say, 10% late to archive a page vs. whatever its configuration says, nobody would care.) As a compromise though, one thing you could do if you really care about the precise number of hours or days is you could put that information in the tooltip, and leave a fuzzy human legible date in plain view. –jacobolus (t) 15:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

And as for the shoving these long and confusing bot names in every talk page reader's face part: bot names aren't necessarily longer or more confusing that human editors' names. I believe helping new editors to understand how to set up autoarchiving themselves is a net positive, and for me, it really helped that I could click the bot name (leading to archiving how to info) directly. Let's not assume our audience is dumb. CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This does not remotely "help new editors to understand how to set up autoarchiving". Come on. Perhaps more importantly: new editors do not need to set up auto-archiving. That's a task for someone who has been around for at least months if not years, and it's really not hard to figure out from the page source where to find relevant info. –jacobolus (t) 15:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Change color

Can someone teach me how to change the template's background color to my preference? Thanks in advance. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 17:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius: You can do it using this CSS rule:

#archivebox {
  background-color: #EE82EE;
}

in your CSS. This will alter the background to  . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 19:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"This page has archives"

The phrase "This page has archives" that starts off the bot notice in the bottom section predates the recent round of changes. I didn't really take much notice of it before, but I don't know what purpose it serves. This is more noticeable now, in those cases where new param |nobot=yes is in use, because currently the bottom section ends up with that phrase and nothing else, which really seems pointless. But the whole phrase seems pointless to me, and I think we should just get rid of it. Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree: remove it. I recommend just copying the language from {{talk header}} of something like "Auto-archiving period XX unit", with other config metadata in a tool-tip on auto-archiving period. –jacobolus (t) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If it seems pointless to keep the phrase when |nobot= is used, then by all means remove the phrase too (along with the suppressed bot parameters). If the bot parameters are there, I don't see the harm in having a friendly introductory phrase; perhaps tweak it from "This page has archives" to "This page is archived automatically" in order to say something relevant to the following information. CapnZapp (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want the phrasing to be "This page is automatically archived after XX unit", with the tooltip on "This page is automatically archived", that also would be fine. If there's no bot config, it could maybe say "This page is manually archived". –jacobolus (t) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, |nobot=yes may have a name that suggests "no bot" but as documented, really means "suppress the bot param display". That is, "there ARE bot params active, just don't show them". I don't think there's a parameter to say "this page is manually archived". The only way to determine that is to not find any bot setup on the page. (If the page isn't archived automatically, then the only explanation for any archives is that they were/are created manually) Do tell me if I'm wrong, though. CapnZapp (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could change it to |nobotnotice= if it isn't clear. There are currently 9 Talk pages that use it under the name 'nobot' so those would have to be updated if we make a param name change. Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)