Template talk:Archive box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Alignment

Is there a way to make this appear next to the table of contents rather than below it for pages that are wide enough to display both side-by-side? Specifically, I'm wondering about my talk page. BigNate37_(T) 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Either delete the "__TOC__" or put it below the infobox. The infobox is floated with "float: right". --Swift 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, putting __TOC__ below the archive box did it, thanks! BigNate37_(T) 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I suggest that Template:Archivebox be merged with this template. The former currently contains an archive link example which makes it necessary to substitute the template. It, furthermore, presupposes that the archive is made according to date &mdash not topic. Finally, by forcing a substitution, changes to the template will not affect old template boxes and if consistancy is to be maintained, updates must be made by hand.

I neither see the need nor great benefit for the added functionality that Archivebox has over Archive_box and suggest that we deprecate the former in favour of the latter. --Swift 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Seems wise. It's rather convenient that Archivebox must be substituted, so there are no inclusions to be fixed before merging. Will do. -- Visviva 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Actually I see the other version has some defenders, although I'm durned if I can figure out why. No harm in having both, I guess. -- Visviva 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been merged, {{archivebox}} now redirects here – Gurch 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icon

Can we start a discussion on which icon works best? The contenders so far are:

Vista-file-manager.png	Crystal Clear app file-manager.png	system-file-manager.svg	Icon_file_cabinet.png
File-manager.svg	File.svg	Replacement filing cabinet.svg

Or we could move away from the filing cabinet concept (yes, I know, file-manager.svg is more like a safe). --Random832(tc) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Archives are usually kept in boxes rather than filing cabinets aren't they? See here for an example of what I am talking about. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any icons of one of those? That would be ideal IMO. As it is, all of Vista-file-manager, Crystal Clear app file-manager, and Icon file cabinet are in active use in various templates. Note I have expanded the scope of this discussion to all of these.--Random832(tc) 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're drowning in a glass of water...Why don't we just keep the icon??? ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armando12 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

It's been changed twice on this template. Also, there are several archive icons used across different archive templates and i think it would be better to have a single default. --Random832 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What template does not use Vista-file-manager.png ? —Centrx→talk • 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Archives uses the crystal clear icon. Icon file cabinet.png is used in Template:Afd-privacy. --Random832 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, the current icon is in PNG format — doesn't scale very well. An SVG format icon would be heaps better to use. — JeremyTalk 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Prefer File.svg, otherwise Vista-file-manager.png. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Prefer Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg -- Avi 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I made you guys a category: commons:Category:Archive icons :P. Now it's very easy to have a quick overview over all the confusing icons. --Ysangkok 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image?

I'd rather have Vista-file-manager.png, however as of today another image has appeared that I don't see here and that doesn't look clear. And I also wouldn't like an icon with lots of boxes, even if it was clear. The drawer thing is quite established for what it symbolizes. For myself, instead of reverting here, I will replace the template with its code containing the 1st icon in my talk page. Hoverfish Talk 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo that replaced the file cabinet icon looks like nothing more than a brownish white grid on most pages. Are there copyright issues with using one of the icons above? For something that's usually always small or icon-sized I think it would make sense to go back to one of those earlier choices. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I must agree that the new image looks poor. Hard to make out what it means. I would prefer it as it was but appreciate if there was good reasons for the change, i.e copyright issues or whatever. The previous image was Image:Vista-file-manager.png, what is the issue regarding using this? Adambro 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, it is under GNU General Public License with no mention of any restrictions... Hoverfish Talk 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back - GPL is a free license, and the picture that was there before doesn't work that small. --Transfinite 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was presumably changed due to WP:AN#Possible serious copyright/policy violation. --Random832 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the Crystal Clear icon with one I drew myself. It's very like the old Vista-file-manager image, but no part of it is derivative of the Vista image, or of File.svg. I'm kind of used to a brown filing cabinet icon, but (as always) you know how to revert if you prefer the, um, very blue Crystal icon. Thanks. — mholland 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a new icon for this template. It combines features of the other icons and looks quite nice.

Hope you enjoy it! ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose ;) too big, and too "cartoony" --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose and Revert to this version before people started toying with it. Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png is fine, fucking leave it until theres a final word on this "copyright violation" shit. -- Reaper X 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The color is so garish that I was compelled to come to this talk page and moan about it. =P The archive box is distracting now, while it needs to be visually out of the way unless one is looking for it. The previous image was fine. The illustration on this is fine too; I don't object to a recoloring to tone it down, but can we revert in the meantime? — coelacan — 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to revert it per my suggestion cause Image:Vista-file-manager.png is up at WP:AN#Possible serious copyright/policy violation, and Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png was suggested to be a good substitute in the meantime. AND, people are whining about the cartoony gold cabinet. Sorry Eugene, no offence, people just don't like fancy archives. -- Reaper X 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support if Image:Vista-file-manager.png can't be used. I personally think this looks better than Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Colour is a bit off, and it is not in SVG format. — JeremyTalk 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why a strong oppose just because of color issues? Plus, "not in SVG format" sounds like a poor excuse. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Languages?

Is there a way to get this onto another language Wikipedia? UncleMontezuma 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to sound glib: copy and paste. The basic wiki code should work on any of the Wikipedia projects (and, css styles apart, on any MediaWiki wiki). You'd need to translate the word and link, and swap the image for one available from the local Wikipedia or from the Commons. Versions of this template are already available on ar, bg and sl wikipedias (and probably others). Where are you looking to port it? — mholland (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking problem

Hey can someone look at User talk:Searchme? It shows the archives as valid links, but they are not clickable. I tried using this a long time ago, with the same results, which is why I didn't use it then. Thanks. Joe I 05:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Nothing seems to be wrong with your page in terms of coding, especialy there. Maybe it's a browser parsing error. --JB Adder | Talk 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is caused by the following block of code on your page:

The template floats to the right of the ad container's original position, so that it is actually behind the advertisement before the CSS repositions it. I suspect that your browser leaves a sort of phantom layer behind, or extends the layer from the original position to the new position; either way, it covers the links, so that you are clicking on the advertisement layer instead of the archives box layer.

Removing the advertisements fixes the problem, as does forcing the advertisement layer away from the box with <br clear="all" /> after the archive list template. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that got it, thanks alot :) Joe I 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:36:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hidden / collapsible

Is there an easy way to make the archive box collapsible? I played around with {{hidden}} and it looked somewhat ok, but I'm really just experimenting with syntax, I have no clue what I'm doing... Or does someone know how I could use navframe or some other template to do this? Wouldn't it be nice to have an archive box which is collapsed when the page is loaded? —AldeBaer 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Keep fiddling. Look at other templates that are collapsible and see if you can apply it to here. It is not the end of the world if this talk template is broken for a few minutes. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing around with it in my sandbox, but I'm a real newbie to CSS/JS etc so it may take me a while to get a working result. —AldeBaer 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a preliminary result in my sandbox. The last issue is how to make the box load as collapsed. class="toccolours collapsible collapsed" won't work - or I'm constantly messing up the syntax (which is quite possible). Does anyone have an idea how to achieve that? —AldeBaer 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collapsible archive box

Here's my collapsible archive box. The colors and width etc can of course be changed to your liking. See the code below. I have it on a subpage of my userspace which I transclude to each new archive page.

<div class="NavFrame" style="border:1; padding:0; width:200px; float:right;"><div class="NavHead" style="background-color:#e6e6fa;">'''Archive'''</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="display:none; text-align:left;">
{| class="plainlinks" width="100%" style="background: #f8fcff;"
|- align="top" align="left"
|
*[[User talk:YOURUSERNAME/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[User talk:YOURUSERNAME/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[User talk:YOURUSERNAME/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
|}</div></div>

—AldeBaer 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, here's a version with all the transclusions from the original template. Should work, but haven't tested.

<div class="NavFrame" style="border:1; padding:0; width:200px; float:right;"><div class="NavHead" style="background-color:#e6e6fa;">'''Archive'''</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="display:none; text-align:left;">
{| class="plainlinks" width="100%" style="background: #f8fcff;"
|- align="top" align="left"
|
{{#if:{{{auto|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{auto}}}|long|{{Archive list long}}|<div style="text-align: center">{{archive list}}</div>}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br/>}}}}{{{1|}}}
|}</div></div>

—AldeBaer 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The second does not appear to work. The first one works but it should start off with the default link being "show", rather than "hide", otherwise you one has to click it twice. 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsable by default / banner

See template:archive banner for a collapsible, banner-style archive box. It has advantages over this template:

1. It is a banner, so it has an obvious location on talk pages (with all the WikiProject banners, etc.)
2. It is collapsable.
3. By default, it assumes pages named "Archive 1", "Archive 2", etc. Thus, just putting {{archive banner}} on a page accomplishes the goal of displaying archives — no parameters needed!

Timneu22 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add optional link ?

Hi, on the dutch wiki I made a template pretty similar to this one. One difference though is that on the dutch version I added the option to have a link to the next (or first) non-existant archive page, so if you already have /Archive 1 the link will be /Archive 2. After adding content to that page, the link will be /Archive 3, and so on. Would it be a good Idea to add this option here also? Freestyle 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Archives is a similar, automatic, template on enwiki. I'd be concerned that adding automation here might break quite a few existing transclusions. — mholland (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

It shocked me today when this edit happened, because I thought this template would be considered high risk for sure, and would be semi-protected. I'm going to go and apply for semi-protection now. -- Reaper X 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Reaper X 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we tried, but Centrx seems to think he knows best 86.133.139.195 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Most pages are unprotected after a time. There is no special reason why this template ought to be protected. It does not appear on articles and over the course of four months had only a single instance of vandalism—rather tepid vandalism that was quickly reversed. —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a special reason: It's a high risk template. Besides, what improvements can we make to it? If there are any, what are the chances an anon/new user will bring any change? If there is some, they can just discuss it here. Bottom line is it's an HRT, and I feel it should stay semi-protected for that reason, with rapid reverts or not. -- Reaper X 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a high-risk template because it does not appear on articles and over the course of four months had only a single instance of vandalism—rather tepid vandalism that was quickly reversed. —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does it link to edit windows?

On Talk:Polar bear, clicking the archive links takes the reader to an edit window view of the archive. Why? This does not seem like proper behaviour since archives should no longer be edited. I think this template used to work right, but then the Talk page was moved, the archives had to be moved seperately, and now I have this problem.--Yannick 02:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, the pages are linked properly. The problem probably only existed when the page name had a capital B on bear, and the pages would be linked to Talk:Polar Bear/Archive 1 instead of Talk:Polar bear/Archive 1. Capitalization makes a difference (which is dumb, but hey, I'm no meta-junkie). -- Reaper X 02:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem I'm talking about only happened after I moved the archives to Polar bear with a small b. If you go to Talk:Polar bear now and click on /Archive 2, the correct archive does open up, but it opens up in an edit window instead of a normal view.--Yannick 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats wierd man. I'm telling you, it works fine for me. Is your computer calender set correctly? If I remember correctly, that can tamper with what page version you view. Besides that, I have no idea man. Sorry. -- Reaper X 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Checked the calender, rebooted the computer, cleared the cache, no change. Thanks for the suggestion though. Note that clicking on your links in this section works fine for me. It's just through that template.--Yannick 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey it works now! What happened?--Yannick 03:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. I dunno. -- Reaper X 03:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links not working

This template currently does not work in Talk:Solar energy. The links to existent archives are shown as red links. Shawnc 12:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem with the template. The article was recently moved, and the archives were left behind at the old title. I have moved all three talk archives to fix the problem. — mholland (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subst?

I've noticed a few bots running around subst'ing this template (e.g. User:SoxBot) but the template documentation doesn't say anything about the appropriateness of this. Is there a particular benefit to subst'ing? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! WHY?! That's utterly ridiculous, it takes up a bunch of space and just complicates things? I'm going to look into this. -- Reaper X 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just removed {{archivebox}} (the previous version of this template which DID require subst'ing) from the list of templates that should be substituted. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The operator has been notified and has indicated he understands the problem. About 95% of his edits have been reverted by me. -- Reaper X 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove {Archive list} and {Archive list long} calls from {Archive box}.

Presently {{Archive list}} and {{Archive list long}} are together making 165 calls to #ifexist. Per Werdna, that is putting too great a load on the servers, and all pages that (including cascades) that make more that 100 calls will break.

The list of articles crossing the limit are listed here, and very many are talk pages that simply include {{Archive box}}.

Please remove {{Archive list}} and {{Archive list long}} calls from {{Archive box}} until some other solution can be worked out. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this being worked upon (by you!). Splash - tk 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yes. See next note. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

I have temporarily removed the call to {{Archive list}} so now any instance of auto= goes only to {{Archive list long}}. I chose the latter because it has only 36 calls to #ifexist (versus 100 in the former). -- Fullstop (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #ifexist continued...

Has anyone worked out a solution to this yet? MrKIA11 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had written a "fix" for {{archive list}} that didn't use #ifexist at all, but it got shot down for accessibility reasons. The fix is at archive box/sandbox. (or was anyway)

All solutions, including the #ifexist-based ones, are really just lousy hacks, necessitated by the fact that the archiver bots don't update the call to {{archive box}}/{{archive box collapsible}} (for example, by providing/updating a parameter that would tell the template how many archives there are).

{{Archive list long}} could probably be replaced by {{Special:Prefindex/{nameofpage}/}}. Prettiness is all well and good, but utility must take precedence over prettiness.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about {{archives}}, which can do either type of list, or neither (defaulting to "long")? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reasons why {{archives}} is not simply a redirect to this template?

On second thoughts: is there any reason why the functionality of {{Archive box collapsible}} can't be integrated into this template too? For example with a collapse= parameter? Or better yet, with a generic style= parameter? -- Fullstop (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive box vs. Archives?

What is the relation between {{archive box}} and {{archives}}? Which should be used? Should one be depreciated and merged into the other? Why or why not? TheHYPO (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Different options I think. Some users may like the other template.--Tasc0 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, {{archives}} was created on April 20, 2006. {{archive box}} was created on August 2, 2006, well after that. The latter was suggested to be merged with the former 2 weeks after its creation, but the tag was removed in January after the merge had apparently taken place. I don't know why any depreciation took place. A very good question indeed, and it's something that should be looked into. The only differences I see is a different image, an edit button, and {{archives}} displays it's archive list through a transcluded subpage. -- Reaper X 05:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're just too different takes on the same idea, probably converging over time. FWIW, I've been sort-of working on incorporating functionality presently only in {{archive box}} into {{archives}}, so that the later has features which are a superset of "box". The "box" template could then be turned into a wrapper, or replaced, or whatever. Or left alone. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Archive Box

I have designed a new archive box that incorporates everything from {{archives}}, {{archive box}}, and {{archive box collapsible}}, and then some. I propose that this be the new code for {{archive box}}, and that {{archives}} and {{archive box collapsible}} translude it. Would people please test it out and see if there are any glitches or problems. I think I have tried every possible combination, but there might have been something that I missed. Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the new template, but I wish to register strong objection to the lack of a width parameter in the template. Many editors prefer a different size for their archivebox, and there is no justification for requiring standardization of size. Also, as this will affect many pages, I suggest getting more feedback before making any such change. seresin || wasn't he just...? 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Seresin - I'd prefer to have the option of a non-standard width--Cailil ^talk 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, see below. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Width parameter

Why is it being removed? Lara❤Love 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To standardize the archive boxes. There is somewhat larger discussion here. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....I guess I can see part of the reason, however I find it mildly disturbing that something so widely used is basically being completely redone at the decision/discussion of only two people, one of which is admittedly new at template making? Why wasn't the issue of a redesign and parameter changes brought to the attention of a larger group of people? Collectonian (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the above comment here, on archives, on archive box collapsible, and on WikiProject Templates. I couldn't think of anywhere else. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of discussion to wade through just to find out what the point is in removing the width field. I happen to like the use of the field and don't see the point in removing it. The Village Pump would be a good place to alert the community to a discussion. Currently, as I'm opposed, that puts consensus as 66%. I think recent events have established that the community as a whole does not agree with 66% being an actionable consensus. Lara❤Love 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of this fiasco, I also agree that widthshould stay. This was what I originally thought, but the admin that I was discussing it with seemed to have valid points that I did not know. For anyone that cares, I have reincorporated it into my new archive box proposal. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image linking, titles, etc.

For (mostly) aesthetic (but also functional) purposes I went through the template and converted the image code so that now users may set a link for the image. Also, this enables users to set their own image size for changed images, while they couldn't before. They can also set optional 'title' text that pops up when you hover over the image. Just notifying everyone of my changes. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Float parameter

Currently, Mediawiki.css has infoboxes always float to the right. I'd like to add a parameter that allows left floating, which I think will help eliminate some whitespace issues on various pages. The code would read something like:

<!-- Template:Archive box begins -->{| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width:{{{box-width|238px}}};float:{{{position|right}}}"
| style="padding-top:4px; text-align:center;"| {{{image|[[Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg|{{{image-width|40px}}}|Archive]]}}}'''<br />[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]]'''
----
|-
|{{#switch:{{{auto|}}}|yes={{archive list}}|long={{Archive list long}}}}{{{1|}}}
|}<!--
-->{{voidd|{{Template:Archive box/box-width/{{#if: {{{box-width|}}}||un}}defined}}}}<!--
-->{{voidd|{{Template:Archive box/image/{{#if: {{{image|}}}||un}}defined}}}}<!--
-->{{voidd|{{Template:Archive box/image-width/{{#if: {{{image-width|}}}||un}}defined}}}}<!--
-->{{voidd|{{Template:Archive box/auto/{{#if: {{{auto|}}}||un}}defined}}}}<!--
-->{{voidd|{{Template:Archive box/1/{{#if: {{{1|}}}||un}}defined}}}}<!--
--><!-- Template:Archive box ends -->

Before I would make the change, I'd like some feedback or comments from the regulars here. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that it should be an option. There is not a big enough reason for it, and I think it is better for all of the boxes to be the same, on the right side. If it does end up being added, I would recommend having the parameter be float. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if having the variable being the same as the parameter name may cause some issues,but if it's safe, it certainly is more convenient. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other comments? -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional item links

I'd like to add a parenthetical link to the specific revision that an archive represents, as shown in the following example:

• Archive 1 — 2006 Apr - Dec   (2006-11-25)

The current template does not allow me to specify anything past the closing "]]" brackets of the archive link; if anything is present, the archive list appears empty. Enclosing the link within the brackets does not work either. Is there a way to do this? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] root, links, nobr parameters now work in auto mode

When auto=yes, the optional root, links, and nobr parameters now pass on to {{archive list}}. When auto=long, the optional root parameter now passes on to {{archive list long}}. The documentation has also been updated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conditional color scheme

I added code to use the our talk page color scheme when the template is transcluded on talk pages (but not non-talk pages). Rjd0060 reverted with the edit summary "sorry; this looks horrible. perhaps a discussion should be necessary before changing".
So I'm initiating the requested discussion. I disagree with Rjd0060's opinion that our talk page color scheme "looks horrible," and I believe that the style guideline should be followed. —David Levy 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you make it conditional on both an input parameter and a talkspace? For now, make it change only if some new parameter, say, stdtalk, is "yes." In the future, make it change if either stdtalk=yes OR stdtalk is not no AND the namespace is an article talk page or perhaps any non-user talk page. Orange on user talk pages looks awkward, and people shouldn't log in to find the layout of their user talk pages mucked with.

In general, any change to the default behavior should be discussed before being implemented. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The point is automation (the appropriate color scheme on every page without further intervention). For manual color scheme selection (which most users probably wouldn't care to bother with), it would be far more practical to have two separate templates.

2. It would be quite easy, however, to simply exclude user talk pages from the change (or to exclude them unless a parameter were specified in the manner that you suggested).

3. I disagree that it's necessary to discuss minor changes in advance (especially when they're made for the purpose of complying with guidelines), provided that the editor is prepared to respond to a reversion and/or complaint with good-faith discussion (not by reverting back and ignoring fellow editors). —David Levy 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You were bold, and got pushback. Having the template up as an opt-in during the discussion period will help people see what it looks like while not changing all of Wikipedia. Once the discussion is over, if there aren't any major objections you can make it opt-out for most talk spaces, leaving it opt-in for user_talk. A color change from white to orange is a highly visible change and whether it is minor or not is a matter of personal opinion. Personally, I think the color should match that of the table of contents, but that's just me speaking. On article talk pages, maybe the TOC should be orange too, for consistency. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, I was bold and got reverted. That's why I'm here discussing this (and not reverting back, you'll notice). That's how it's supposed to work. I perform similar edits fairly often, and relatively few draw complaints. When they do, I'm more than happy to address them. If we were required to discuss such changes in advance, we'd get far less done around here.

And again, this edit was based upon a guideline with longstanding consensus (not on a whim). That we should use this color scheme for talk page templates already had been discussed and agreed upon. We aren't required to verify this decision for each individual talk page template.

2. As I noted, if the color scheme is to be optional to that extent, the most practical means of accomplishing this would be to simply fork the template into two separate versions. But the idea isn't for it to be optional; it's for it to be automatic (with the possible exception of user talk pages, for which considerably more leeway exists). Our namespace-specific color schemes exist for the community's benefit, and there's nothing to be gained by encouraging users to arbitrarily deviate from them in any of the non-user namespaces.

3. Your screen's colors might be off, as the boxes are supposed to be grey and tan (not white and orange).

4. Indeed, I have given some thought to the possibility of making talk page TOCs tan, but I'm not sure of the technical feasibility. —David Levy 06:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all valid. If only every article-editor was as polite as you are with respect to discussing rather than edit-warring. I think where you will have some disagreement is that the archive box, while technically a talk-page template, is more like a tomato, which technically is a fruit was taxed as a vegetable for legal reasons in the 1800s. Unlike traditional talk-space contents, the archive box serves a similar purpose as the table of contents - it helps users find specific comments. When the talk-page template guideline was created, I don't know if the individual editors and voters considered whether archive boxes "counted" or not. Regarding splitting the template, that might be the way to go, as might re-coloring TOC boxes in talk pages outside of user_talk. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The scheme looked fine for Talk: pages, but this template is used on User talk: pages also, and doesn't look good. There should be an opt in/out for the color. It seems you are taking offense to my undoing, which you shouldn't be. This guideline doesn't apply to User talk: pages, AFAIK. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not at all offended! You reverted and requested discussion, which is exactly what should be done when someone objects to a bold edit.

You're correct user talk pages needn't reflect the guideline. (There's no rule that they can't, of course.) As noted above, it would be very easy to exclude user talk pages from the change unless they're opted in. Would that be okay with you? —David Levy 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. Sorry I didn't get to posting this last night; it was late when I undid your edit. I'm sure you understand that the color scheme fits perfectly well with Talk: pages, but really doesn't fit in User talk: pages. That is the only reason I removed it. I wasn't sure how to modify the code to be namespace specific. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! I'll wait for further comment before editing the template again.  :-) —David Levy 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea for implementation: Add an optional style= parameter, which by default would be blank for user_talk pages and non-talk pages and "standard-talk" for other talk pages. If there is further pushback from the community the default can be made blank for all pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)