Template talk:Talkarchive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Talkarchive has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

This is a sister template to Template:Archive. This specific template is designed for use on talk page archives, the major difference between this and the main archive tag is that this does not have a talk page link and it is phrased slightly differently. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Discussion on talk link bug 2 Alternatives to {{Talkarchive}} 3 NOEDITSECTION 4 Template Link broken 5 Revert 6 Colour 7 Bolding 8 Can we get the old image back? 9 template behaving incorrectly, at least in "help talk" namespace 10 Category inclusion

[edit] Discussion on talk link bug

Copied from user talk pages:

(rv. Link created by last edit is broken under some circumstances (e.g. on user talk archives made using article history rather than subpages.))--Srleffler

Can you provide me with some specific instances where my modifications to Template:Talkarchive broke the talk page link? I'm not sure what you mean by "user talk archives made using article history rather than subpages." The proper way to archive discussions is to copy the text to a subpage. ~MDD4696 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to my version for now -- I'd like to do some testing to see if I can make it work for your archive. I'll undo my changes if I can't get it to. ~MDD4696 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your comment that "the proper way to archive discussions is to copy the text to a subpage": you are mistaken. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Permanent link archives method. Note that this Wikipedia guideline is linked to from the template you were editing. The subpage and permalink techniques are both accepted, and {{Talkarchive}} needs to work for both (especially since it links to a description of both.)--Srleffler 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found the issue and filed a bug on Mediazilla. I'm going to try and write a patch, so hopefully it will get fixed quickly. {{BASEPAGENAME}} doesn't work when viewing old versions of a page, but once it does the link will automatically work in your archive. Would you mind leaving the template the way it is for now? I think you have a very unique archival technique, and I want people who accidentally subst the template to be using the new one. ~MDD4696 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, unique in that it is not widely used. (I've never seen it before, but I think it's a cool idea). ~MDD4696 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this template must not be left "broken" in the interim. If you can't find a way to make it work until the bugfix is implemented, revert to a working version until the bug is fixed.--Srleffler 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to {{Talkarchive}}

You may want to consider the following alternatives to {{talkarchive}}

1. {{Talk archive}} - Somewhat different wording, could be merged into {{talkarchive}}
2. {{chronological talk archive}} - requires an argument indicating the period of the talk archive
3. {{topical talk archive}} - requires an argument indicating the topic covered in the archive

--Richardshusr 20:30, 14 June 2006

[edit] NOEDITSECTION

Is it really necessary to have __NOEDITSECTION__ included? It's a real pain to have to search through a long archive page looking for the section you're trying to correct; for example, the Mediation Committee chairman trying to clear up old uses of {{RFMF}} who has to search by hand through 150KB of text because the page has this archive tag on it and it's disabled section editing. It'd be really helpful to, you know, be able to use the section editing feature, since that's kinda what it was created for. Essjay (Talk) 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to discourage any editing. Is this to remove it from the mediation cases Category? I think a better solution might be to always have the mediation template be at the head of any Talk page, so that it won't get put in the archive. The mediation is for the article and not necessarily attached to any particular section header. Do you think it would be effective to change the RFM instructions to read "add the text...to the top of the talk page of all involved articles."? —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't get people to read the instructions now, much less if I add anything. I'd rather just kill the category outright and let the tags stay on the pages until someone notices and removes it. My main concern was that disabiling section editing doesn't just prevent any mistaken edits, it also makes necessary edits incredibly difficult. Essjay (Talk) 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even disable section editing really, so it is rather pointless. If you double click on the section header (and you have one of the javascript options in preferences on) it still works, and you can just do &section=15 or whatever. If all of that is too much of a bother, just edit the page and remove this template, but all of this is still rather annoying for a pointless hurdle when you need to edit archives or if you just want to copy the text of a section of a talk archive for further discussion. Kotepho 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The users who are more likely to accidentally or unknowingly edit a section are not the users who are going to know these fancy features. It is not to prevent someone who is going so far as to remove the template, part of the idea is so they actually have to scroll up to see the template. Mostly, no one should be editing the archives. The RFM case mentioned above is where a template is putin the wrong place, in the midst of a discussion rather than at the top of the page. What reason are you thinking of to edit the archives? The being able to copy reason is a good one, and might be reason enough in itself. —Centrx→talk • 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently, going around linking fair use images from talk pages and page drafts. Kotepho 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Link broken

The link which is supposed to take you back to the parent talkpage, doesnt work. The rest of it does though, so otherwise, good temp, so I'll just subst it until the bug is fixed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It works for me. One case where it doesn't work is if there are sub-subpages (e.g. Talk:Anarchy/Archive/1), but those are uncommon and should probably be moved to the standard location anyway. —Centrx→talk • 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar problem. I (perhaps stupidly) created an archive subpage with a forward slash (/) in the title. Now the link to the talkpage doesn't work properly. Is there a fix or should I just rename the subpage? Thanks. —anskas 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha! look what I've done! —anskas 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted today's change to the template's link back to the current talk page, because it breaks the template for permalink archives. (Note that this Wikipedia guideline is linked to from the template itself, so the template must work for this style of archiving.)--Srleffler 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What??? this template can't be used for such type of archives, so I don't see the point of your revert. _→AzaToth 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It works just fine for permalink archives.--Srleffler 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colour

For what it's worth, I like the lighter colour better. Having all talk page templates the same colour is a good idea because it gives a uniform appearence to talk pages, but this is not a talk page template in the normal sense. None of the other talk page templates should ever appear on the same page as this one; this one should also be less intrusive. Plus it goes better with the rest of the interface in general.

However, I vastly prefer either colour to an edit war over the colour of a template. Apart from anything else, caching means that half of them are now one colour and half the other. – Gurch 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was formally decided by the community that all templates appearing on talk pages should use this color scheme. Any aesthetic advantages are secondary to the helpful identification of the proper namespace for these templates. This is a valid concern, not a bureaucratic application of the rules purely for the sake of applying them. —David Levy 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This template doesn't appear on talk pages. It appears on talk archive pages. These pages are completely different; one should be edited, on shouldn't; one should have lots of orange boxes at the top, one shouldn't. Anyway, {{talkarchive}} is used in other namespaces as well (User Talk for example, there are certainly no rules on template colour there) – Gurch 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Archived talk pages are still talk pages. They merely aren't active talk pages.

2. As I noted, an important function of this coloring is differentiating between templates intended for use on talk pages and those intended for use in other namespaces. (This one, for example, could easily be mistaken for a project page template.)

3. There's no rule against using this coloring on user talk pages. Nonetheless, I won't object if you'd like to use ParserFunctions to make it appear grey in that namespace. I'd do this myself, but I'm not sure that you would prefer this to the current across-the-board consistency. —David Levy 13:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The caching will catch up eventually (assuming that the guideline-backed version remains). —David Levy 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It did... and then you went and changed it back! – Gurch 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the aforementioned guideline-backed version. —David Levy 13:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still convinced the guideline doesn't apply to archive pages, which means that at the moment the only person backing this version is you. But as I said earlier, I don't want to get into an edit war about the colour of the template, so I will leave it – Gurch 14:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would the guideline not apply to archives? How does a page full of "talk" suddenly cease to be a "talk page" when it's archived? (The template is even called "Talk archive"). How is the need to identity the correct namespace for a template negated when it's applied to an inactive page instead of an active one? —David Levy 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding

Bold "Do not edit the contents of this page" For example:

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Done. —David Levy 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Change [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png]] to [[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png]]

Done —Mets501 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get the old image back?

Can we get the old image back? This one is too bright and flashy IMO. Who has bright blue filing cabinets?  :) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I restored it. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template behaving incorrectly, at least in "help talk" namespace

The archives of Help talk:Contents included this template, but the "current talk page" link was just pointing to the archives themselves. You can see what it was doing when I subst'd it,[1] before fixing.[2] I don't know what the technical cause of the problem was. If I did, I'd add {{editprotected}} here. Any ideas? — coelacan talk — 07:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not supposed to subst this template. Only subst templates that are meant to be preformatted messages, not templates that are used to tag/mark/categorize pages. ~MDD4696 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category inclusion

This template is so widespread that the categories are enormous, and essentially useless for navigation. Removing the "includeonly" category. - jc37 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, as the categories are only filled via this template. If you want to get rid of the categories, please take it up on WP:CFD first. _→AzaToth 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

jc37, do you have another method for categorizing these talk pages? I don't think there's any point to removing the current categorization system unless we have another one. I think the categories are still useful, even if they are large. ~MDD4696 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How are they useful, and what are they useful for? I presume Special:Prefixindex can find any archive you're looking for. How is having these grouped together useful for "anything"? - jc37 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me, if you think the categories are totally useless, then go ahead open a CFD. _→AzaToth 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, though it will be an interesting challenge to find them all, since the syntax variable causes several categories to be created : ) - jc37 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The categories are useful because they separate the talk page archives in alphabetical order, with letter headings, by talk page type, so it is easier to browse than Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Talkarchive or Special:Prefixindex. You can't use Special:Prefixindex if you don't know the name of the page that you are looking for. There is a category for each namespace, and I think all of them are listed in Category:Wikipedia history. These categories might be a pet peeve to you, but they aren't really hurting anything. Why single them out over other large categories? ~MDD4696 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, this template is currently used on 17952 pages. ~MDD4696 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"big" does not necessarily equal "useful". In fact, typically the reverse is true. See also WP:CAT, and WP:CFD. - jc37 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I made the above argument that they still have some utility despite the fact that the categories are extremely large. Since there is no proposed replacement categorization scheme, and since there is absolutely no harm being done by their existence, I don't see any reason to remove them. ~MDD4696 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if you want to get the categories removed, then take it up on WP:CSD, not here. _→AzaToth 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)