→Links in the box: Proposal |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Long-needed fix for broken line-initial wikimarkup: new section |
||
Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
:::It display 48 links, then start searching and linking archive 49, 50, etc. Archival bots could be instructed to update that number. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
:::It display 48 links, then start searching and linking archive 49, 50, etc. Archival bots could be instructed to update that number. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Until anyone fixes this (I've previously brought it up at [[WP:VPT]]) the workaround noted at [[Template talk:Archive list long]] will do the job. --[[User:Trevj|Trevj]] ([[User talk:Trevj|talk]]) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
::::Until anyone fixes this (I've previously brought it up at [[WP:VPT]]) the workaround noted at [[Template talk:Archive list long]] will do the job. --[[User:Trevj|Trevj]] ([[User talk:Trevj|talk]]) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Long-needed fix for broken line-initial wikimarkup == |
|||
{{editprotected}} |
Revision as of 17:10, 22 December 2011
Suggested change
The current template is using a table for layout, which is generally frowned upon within web design. I have made another design (with some slight adjustments) using layers. My version of the template is available at User:AndreasBlixt/Sandbox/Template:Archives.
– Andreas Blixt ☺ 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Image
What about using this image File:Wiki archive cpu.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walter Humala (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Optional stuff doesent work
I'm getting: [{{fullurl:User talk:Darkest Hour/Archive|action=edit&preload=Template:Archives/Preload}} edit] in my archive box corner. --Semper Fi, Darkest Hour 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I took out one option and it works just fine. See above. --Semper Fi, Darkest Hour 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Need help fixing use of this template at...
Talk:Child sexual abuse Please help if possible. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Only 20 archives visible?
I would like to put this template on the Talk:Circumcision page but there are 27 archives there and only 20 show up with this template. Can this be fixed? Joie de Vivre 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect default archive list on archive pages
When I put {{archives}} on an archived page, the default /archivelist file is as a subpage of that archive page, not the main page. For example, the archivebox on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archive01 uses Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archive01/archivelist not Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archivelist. Seems like if the goal is to have a unified and semi-automated archive list for the archives of Foo, the archives should default to using the same archivelist as Foo itself. Should the archivelist parameter default to {{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/archivelist instead of ./archivelist (essentially {{FULLPAGENAME}}/archivelist)? DMacks 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
#ifexist limit
This template needs to be adapted, see w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)##ifexist limit.--Patrick (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the template
If you "edit" the default contents and create an archivelist, initially, the template will not change from its default appearance. However, if you click edit again, and save, the template then changes to the list you created. Very weird and I don't know why. That was my experience on two pages.
I don't know if this is relavant, but my watchlist added watches for [the article's name]/Archive 1, as opposed to [the talk pages name]/Archive 1, which I thought might be a clue. I'm sure someone could play with a sandbox and replicate this error. TheHYPO (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Heading, help, edit, index
Hi, all. I've got some ideas that I think would make this template better. (1) Make the heading inside the box read "Archived discussion", instead of just "Archives". That makes it clearer to newbies what the archives are for. (2) Unlink the heading. I would expect a link to the archived discussion, not a link to help about archives. (3) Make the link to the help read "About archives", and put it at the end, so the archives themselves come first. (4) Move the edit link to the end, also. This conserves vertical space. (4) Make the index link (when present) a parenthetical, to connect it to the heading, and also to conserve vertical space.
Something like the mock-up that appears in this comment. (Note that the non-small option, auto features, and the rest of the layout would be preserved; I just wanted the mock-up code to be compact.)
Comments? Suggestions? Objections? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, nobody spoke up, so I did it. I figure that will attract any objectors. :) If anyone does have objections/problems, please feel free to revert (although I would appreciate an explanation here). I did have one problem, something kept eating the space between the "Archives" title and the "(Index)" parenthetical (when index is used). I eventually gave up trying to figure out why and stuck an empty SPAN block in there. That's a kludge, of course; if anyone knows what's going on, please let me know what I'm missing and/or fix things! Cheers. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Option to disable "Edit this box" link
Well, disable or rename it (the target, too). I just had MrKIA11 subst my list into my talk page, saying the archivelist parameter is going away. I did some playing, and found that if I redirected User talk:Voyagerfan5761/archivelist to User talk:Voyagerfan5761/Archives/List, I could have the same behavior as before, but without the extra parameter.
Now, of course, the link to "Edit this box" points to a redirect. Does anyone know of a way to change the template so the edit link's target pagename can be changed, or the link removed altogether? Removal isn't the ideal for me, but if that's really a lot easier than making the link target changeable, I'll go for it. Just wondering, since I didn't see a problem with having archivelist in there...
Why's archivelist getting nuked, anyway? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I was a little quick, so this shouldn't be a problem. Sorry, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The part of this regarding archivelist has been resolved on my talk page. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why the edit link is shown even if archivelist sub-page doesn't exist. Could it be made to only show the link if archivelist page exists? example --Kslotte (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- What about
editbox=auto
that is default? --Kslotte (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- What about
- The solution here is to use parameter
editbox=no
. --Kslotte (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
New Archive Box
I have designed a new archive box that incorporates everything from {{archives}}, {{archive box}}, and {{archive box collapsible}}. 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. There has been some discussion about it, so you might want to look there first. Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
auto-start for "auto=long"?
Firstly, massive thanks for this template. It's great.
Using auto=yes for pages which don't currently have any archives automatically adds a handy redlink to /Archive 1 - but this doesn't work for auto=long. I'd dive in, but there's some mighty template-foo in this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
box-width parameter
{{editprotected}}
|box-width=
isn't being used, see Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters. ({{Archive box}} uses |style=
instead.) Could it please be removed? —Ms2ger (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, that category isn't empty, and hasn't been for a day. Seems to be still in some use? --Amalthea 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
At my whining protest, Thumperward (talk · contribs) made some proposed changes in the above linked sandbox to remove some seemingly unnecessary padding that was needlessly bloating the archivebox. When I suggested we go ahead and implement it, he said "Seems fine to me, but I'd like to hear from others regarding whether losing those classes is okay (they shouldn't be doing anything except adding default styling, but there might be some semantic or other value I'm missing)." So... thoughts? I've also removed the line "About archives" (moving the about instead to the title) which makes an unnecessary line when the archives are set to auto or specified in the parameters of Template:Archive box. –xeno (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Diff. Looks good to me. --Amalthea 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've made a change to the sandbox so that it now accepts all kinds of image parameters, per the section below, using the brand new
{{Image}}
template. The test cases are looking good. --Amalthea 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)- we should go ahead with implementation, if the changes I mentioned above screw things up royally, I'm sure we'll hear about it=) looks ok to me. –xeno (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- this is
Done. shoot me, i'm impatient. –xeno (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- this is
- we should go ahead with implementation, if the changes I mentioned above screw things up royally, I'm sure we'll hear about it=) looks ok to me. –xeno (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've made a change to the sandbox so that it now accepts all kinds of image parameters, per the section below, using the brand new
Optional image parameter?
Has the option to use an image other than the default been removed from this template? If so, why and can it please be added back? Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- It has been changed half a month ago to take in a full image link, instead of the image name. Changing the signature of a template is usually a bad idea, especially if it's that highly used, but since it's been a while already I don't know if changing it back would make things better.
I've fixed it for your talk page, and will prepare a version in the sandbox that can handle both input forms. --Amalthea 12:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply and the fix! – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
protected edit request
{{sudo}}
"Edit this box" link should only be displayed if "archivelist" parameter is set; most of the time the list of archives in this template is generated automatically and thus showing an "edit" link which points to an empty page is confusing, and may lead people to create said page for no reason, ending up with redundant pages. Gurch (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seems the option auto=no is specifically provided to avoid checking for that subpage and displaying that link. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case, I'd think we would want that to be the default. I agree with Gurch in that that it's rare to have a "manual" archive list. If we put an "edit" redlink there by default, people are going to click it thinking they should. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, the link is hidden for any value of "auto". auto=no turns off automatic display of archive list, auto=long or auto=short display the list in long or short form . "long" is the default. "no" shouldn't be the default, because most of the time an automatic list of archives is all that's needed. Rather, the "edit this box" link should only display if auto=no, because that's the time when you'll need to edit the subpage to update the box. At other times adding a new archive will appear not to update the box, until the page is purged, then the new archive will appear in the list. You could even put a "purge" link in place of the "edit this box" link when auto is something other than "no", but it's not necessary. Gurch (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- How's that now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- better. Gurch (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- How's that now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, the link is hidden for any value of "auto". auto=no turns off automatic display of archive list, auto=long or auto=short display the list in long or short form . "long" is the default. "no" shouldn't be the default, because most of the time an automatic list of archives is all that's needed. Rather, the "edit this box" link should only display if auto=no, because that's the time when you'll need to edit the subpage to update the box. At other times adding a new archive will appear not to update the box, until the page is purged, then the new archive will appear in the list. You could even put a "purge" link in place of the "edit this box" link when auto is something other than "no", but it's not necessary. Gurch (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now it has shown up in Template:archive box, which passes the non-auto generated list in a paramater rather than a subpage. –xeno talk 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Is there actually any difference between this template and that one other than that that one has different default values? Perhaps that one should just be a redirect. Gurch (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, dunno. I just know I was quite cross when they got enjoined and then someone fixed it for me and I wasn't quite so cross, and now that "Edit this box" showed up, I'm starting to get cross again. Yes, anal-retentive ftw ! –xeno talk 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) add: I believe the difference is, as I intimated above, archive box can take the customized archivelist without needing a subpage. (cf. User talk:Xeno/header) –xeno talk 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- eh, when you want something, do it urself and all...
Fixed, but someone double check my work... –xeno talk 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- eh, when you want something, do it urself and all...
- Erm, dunno. I just know I was quite cross when they got enjoined and then someone fixed it for me and I wasn't quite so cross, and now that "Edit this box" showed up, I'm starting to get cross again. Yes, anal-retentive ftw ! –xeno talk 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) add: I believe the difference is, as I intimated above, archive box can take the customized archivelist without needing a subpage. (cf. User talk:Xeno/header) –xeno talk 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Is there actually any difference between this template and that one other than that that one has different default values? Perhaps that one should just be a redirect. Gurch (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive template problem caused by page move
I know this is not the usual place to post a help request, but I've run into a problem directly related to this template (caused by a page move) so I thought I might give this a try.
If anyone watching this page could help, that would be much appreciated. If there's a better place to post this request, please let me know - here or on my talk page.
Here's the background: on an article archived by MiszaBot, there are 18 archive pages. The article was moved, along with its talk page, but the 18 archive pages did not move along with it - they still exist as subpages of the prior talk page (that is now a redirect).
My question is: is there a way to list the old archive pages in the archive box that uses {{archives}}? Or is it necessary to move all those subpages to the new page title?
If the links can't be added to the archive box made by {{archives}}, is there another template that would be better suited to this use? Would that require changes to the setup for MiszaBot?
Thanks a lot. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- The proper thing is to move all subpages as well. Anything else would only cause problems with archiving down the line, unless you want to maintain two separate groups of archives. Amalthea 04:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, understood. Thanks for your help. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Red link
It would be great of this template included a red link (perhaps just a "+" sign) for the next-needed archive page, especially the first. It would certainly save time when archiving. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed, but make it optional -- a lot of pages are archived automatically by bots, so there's no need for humans to do the grunt work. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Accessibility improvement for image
{{editprotected}}
For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, this template should provide alt text for functional images or should specify "|link=|
" for purely-decorative images, as per WP:ALT. Whether the icon here is purely-decorative depends partly on what the caller wants, so I have added into the sandbox support for new alt= and link= parameters to let the caller specify this. The default is to use the archive icon with no link, as that is the most reasonable for plain archive boxes. I have tested this with the testcases and have documented the new behavior. Please install this sandbox patch. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Done Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
search broken
Is the search parameter function broken in this template? I added "|search=yes" to the archives template in Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard but although it created a Search field and button in the Talk page, the search acted as a strange wikipedia "prefix" search and not a search of the Talk archives. I vaguely remember the search parameter working some months ago, so has something changed recently? I have also added search to this talk page to determine if and whether it works here. 84user (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: I find the search function for Template:Archive box also does not work, but I wonder if the fix mentioned in Template talk:Archive box is or was relevant? As a test, to this talk page I have now added search=yes to talkheader and Template:Archive box. 84user (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to work OK other than the strange offer to create the redlink at the fully expanded search input (prefix:FULLPAGENAME/ is how to search archives...) . That page with a single archive might not be in the search cache yet, you should try with an older talk page archive. –xenotalk 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the search works for older archives. But the single page archive I linked above is over 2 days old now. Is there a way to force the archive page into the search cache? It must confuse readers that click on search for an apparently existing page and get the message that it does not exist. 84user (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Update 2: search is still broken for this Talk page where the associated archive page was created 7 days ago. But search worked when I added it to Talk:Agatha Christie on September 2 where Talk:Agatha Christie/Archive 1 was created August 22, some 11 days previously. Does this mean the time needed for an archive page to enter the cache is between 7 and 11 days, or is there another cause for this problem? 84user (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
" You may create the page "Yronwode prefix:Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard/", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered.
* Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard/Archive 1 cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk ) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(slightly truncated for readability). –xenotalk 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And I can confirm it now Works for me too. Strange. I had been adding search=yes to several Talk pages of various ages to discover what the delay might be. See my contributions on September 8 from [2] to [3]. 84user (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Slight change to bot notice
Firstly, major kudos for adding a bot notice to the template.
The text is a little small, and also wasn't fully compatible with {{auto archiving notice}} (it omitted the word / parameter "days"). I've changed this in the sandbox: comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
No comment in six days, so requesting sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Not done:. I think this would break existing uses, i.e. we will get sentences like "Threads older than 30 days days are archived." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The functionality is fairly new and as of yet not widely deployed: better to change it now and then fix the few existing uses than to leave it vaguely incompatible with the old system and make it harder to adopt IMO. If you want to add a hidden category like category:bot notices on archives then I'll fix any existing deployments myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
- requesting sync with the sandbox to fix this: pages using the
age
parameter will be temporarily added to Category:archives with bot date notice. I'll fix any which haveage=30 days
as opposed toage=30
myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)- We could add some detection for whether the input is just a number of it it contains some text as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Less than a hundred transclusions picked up so far, and I doubt that half of them have the problem. I'm happy to fix it manually over the next day or so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Synced. Skomorokh, barbarian 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- We could add some detection for whether the input is just a number of it it contains some text as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- requesting sync with the sandbox to fix this: pages using the
{{editprotected}}
All done. Please sync with the sandbox again to remove the temporary cat (and delete it too, please). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I preferred it
<small>
, so I added backwards compat. Feel free to tweak it if desired, but update User talk:Xeno/header if you do. Thanks! –xenotalk 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Index link placement
I think it would look better if the (Index) link is on it's own line, rather than next to Archives. I changed the sandbox to reflect this. Any problems with changing it? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather this template were kept compact if possible. It's very heavily deployed now, and a lot of editors get antsy about minor layout changes to it. Could you add an example to the test cases page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I added a testcase. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Full size option
Hey all. I would like to add a feature to this template. An option to have the archive box to appear full sized -- the same size as the other "banner boxes" on talk pages. Suggested paramaeter name box-style=<compact|full>, defaulting to compact. (Reason I'm looking to do this is entirely asthetic. Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy doesn't want {{talkheader}} (it's got banners covering everything it wants), but the side-style archive box squishes stuff.) Before I put template code work into it, does anyone have comments/objections/suggestions/etc? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Could we just simplify it to
|class=tmbox
, similar tostyle=float:none;
but replacing the existing classes instead of adding? — Dispenser 05:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I generally prefer to expose "application semantics" in templates like this, and leave CSS classes, HTML attributes, and the like hidden as an "implementation detail". I think it makes it easier to use. Many people have no idea what the CSS classes are. Plus, this way, if the CSS classes change, we don't need to change every template call. Standard "abstraction" programming concept. No? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that page is something of an edge case. I dare say it would look cluttered no matter how it were laid out. That said, if a parameter is going to be added then the name should be
small, which is the prevailing name for templates with this switch. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You make a very good point. Forest, trees. Never mind. Thanks. :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Prefix need, root doesn't cut it
{{editprotected}}
- Moved from Template talk:Archive box
At WT:FAC we need to use {{{root}}} without the trailing slash that it add to the search field. We need this because we have other talk subpages that aren't archives. I suggest that we add a new parameter named prefix. — Dispenser 05:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Could you sandbox the code and then seek consensus for the change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've added {{{prefix}}} to the sandbox. This is needed for sub-talk pages which are not related to parent page. Most of the featured article/list process pages operate in this way. If this cannot be added a fork will be needed to accommodate these pages. — Dispenser 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looks fine, I will add it. By the way, do you know of any current uses where {{FULLPAGENAME}} is different from {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and {{FULLPAGENAME}} is actually what is wanted? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and could you update the documentation? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've updated the documentation. Try the magic words on Talk:/dev/null, {{FULLPAGENAME}} produces
Talk:/dev/null
while {{BASEPAGENAME}} produces /dev
. — Dispenser 15:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Right, but I was wondering if there are cases when people do just want to search the subpages. I suppose if that is the case, they can just use the prefix option. Your example, would be one such case. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's an interesting bug that's come up on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests that the {{FULLPAGENAME}} is passed escaped. — Dispenser 21:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I will take a look. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could this be fixed by moving the nowiki logic into this template? I have run into similar such problems before with the prefix option, but I can't remember the exact context. I believe it had to do with special characters in the pagename. Good catch with using the {{#tag}} parserfunction. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it appears it can. The problem seems to be that {{FULLPAGENAME}} internally escapes some characters, {{#tag:nowiki|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} undoes that. I have changed to using just the string on that page. However, I think we should file a bug about this. Anyone got a Bugzilla account? — Dispenser 21:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Padding?
{{editprotected}}
How about we add some padding to this template, say 5 px? I have a sandboxed version. This can be achieved by simply replacing
{|
with
{| cellpadding="5"
Then, we won't have these boxes with text in them that touch the edges anymore, which doesn't look very good. Centered text will look the same. Gary King (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Eh? Where do we have boxes with text which touches the edge? Maybe I don't understand what you mean... could you please explain? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- This will break existing uses; it would be better to allow for customization of this if desired. –xenotalk 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Padding was manually removed from the template in the past because editors who have existing deployments of the code (Xeno was one of them IIRC) didn't want this being specified for them. Do you have particular common test cases where this is currently a problem? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the following example, the text is touching the edge:
test
- When you say "touching", do you really mean "touching", or just "there are only a few pixels of padding"? In Firefox 3 here there is certainly still distance between the text and the border. And just to pick the example I brought up earlier, this is the desired effect in some cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- How about adding padding as an option? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as long as existing uses stay the same or can be made to stay the same. –xenotalk 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there's about one pixel of space between the left border and the text. Compare with the following table, which has more than one pixel:
header
cell
- This is because of the
border-collapse: collapse;
style that's only applied to templates like ambox, ombox, tmbox. Gary King (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
test
- How about this, which assuming the sandbox version is still the same as when I last edited it, would result as show, when used like this: {{archives/sandbox|auto=no|test|padding=5px}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- The layout looks better to have like 5px padding. The 5px should be default. --Kslotte (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Content
It is possible to put content into the archive box like in this case with topic archives. How can I make the content centered? --Kslotte (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wrap the content in
<center></center>
. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Kslotte (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Auto yes vs. long
Compare this and this. Archive numbering has gone wrong and archive number 10 was moved to number 2. The "long" algorithm shows the redirect but "yes" doesn't. I think the algorithm should be the same for both "long" and "yes". And, I would preffer that number 10 isn't shown. --Kslotte (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deprecate template Archive Box
It exist two templates for making archive boxes {{archives}} and {{archive box}}. {{archive box}} is legacy wrapper of {{archives}} with the same features. The only difference is two parameters (editbox and auto) that has different default values. We don't need two similair templates. We should merge the templates into one. Opinions?
Ths following discussion may be of intrest at Template talk:Archive box:
- Will eliminate one or the other default functionality for no added benefit. –xenotalk 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Auto-detect index subpage
It should. –xenotalk 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Tracking for auto=long where archives are dropped
I'm inclined to propose this edit to Template:Archive list long, so there is an indication when there are more archives than the box supports. Since Template talk:Archive list long nonexistent and probably not watched, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Comments? Anomie⚔ 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Help!
I'm not sure if this is a bug or what but I can't seem to get this thing to work like I want it to. I want to be able to use /archivelist but also still have it display the "Edit this box" link so that I may be able to easily edit my archivelist subpage when I want to update it. Is this possible? The code I'm using is in User talk:OlEnglish/top, at the very bottom. (Adding the |auto=no
parameter seems to make the archivelist disappear, and make the edit link reappear, kinda contrary to what the docs say at Template:Archives/doc#Additional_notes, so this is further confusing me.)
Also one other minor thing I want to report: when the |collapsible=yes
parameter is used, it throws off-center the filing cabinet image. -- Ϫ 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does this help?[4] It should appear correctly in your user talk, but not the /top subpage. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks! Very clever! -- Ϫ 06:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Only most recent archive is showing
At Talk:Toplessness there are four archive pages, but only archive 4 is showing up in the list of archives. You can find the earlier archives from the navigation, but they should be listed on the main talk page. I can't see from the code why this is happening. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Done Since the links are in groups of 3, the template looks to see if the first of each line exists, and since the archives were started at 3 instead of 1, it didn't show the first line of 3 archives, but when it checked for the first of the next line, which was 4, it existed, and therefore showed up. I moved the archives to be 1 and 2, so everything is good now. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Links in the box
I use this template on my talk page with a link to the archive index page. Rather than having the word "Archives" (which links to Help:Archiving a talk page) I want the link to my archives index in the prominent central position, and the link to Help:Archiving a talk page in a 10 point font off to the side somewhere. It would be the case for most talk pages that the index is more important than the link to the archiving help page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree 103 per cent, except for messing with the font size. I consider it to be a terrible Easter egg link, even worse than for ordinary articles because it’s part of the user interface for navigation. (Template:Old AfD has a similar link that trips me up, but I’ll leave that for another day.) The link was placed there in revision 280636171 in 2009. I propose changing the header from
- to
- Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
Stops at "Archive 48"
In Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, the last link is to #48, but there are 125 archives. I can't visit the latests archives from the template because they are not linked at all. Talk:Homeopathy already has 48 archives and will hit this problem soon.
Is this a technical limitation of loops in wikipedia templates? Is there a go-around that doesn't involve a hand-made list of archives?
(By the way, the template uses "&preload=Template:Archives/Preload" in a link, but Template:Archives/Preload is a red link. Looks like old code that could be removed safely.) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note that {{Talkheader}} displayed all 125 links. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm here to note that too. I see the limit was expanded from 20 above. Just get rid of the limit altogether. We can collapse it if we want to. There is never any valid reason to hide the most recent archives.
- If the template must for some programming reason include a limit at all, set it absurdly high, like one or two thousand. That should get WP talk:MOS through 2013 or so. — LlywelynII 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, found the problem. {{archive list long}} is employed by this template to do its searching and that template stops at 48. The name is a gross misnomer, since {{archive list}} tout suite stops at 200. — LlywelynII 03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- To reduce overhead, can we add a parameter indicating the last archive number? For example:
- {{archives|searchfrom=48}}
- It display 48 links, then start searching and linking archive 49, 50, etc. Archival bots could be instructed to update that number. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Until anyone fixes this (I've previously brought it up at WP:VPT) the workaround noted at Template talk:Archive list long will do the job. --Trevj (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Long-needed fix for broken line-initial wikimarkup
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bdb40/bdb4065f3c657f752cb01b25f9599c373f190c1b" alt=""
It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Archives.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes
parameter to deactivate the template.