Template talk:Archive box/Archive 2

Parameter search=yes not working properly
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&oldid=281075013 – xeno  ( talk ) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Amalthea : Chat  14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pedro. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think something might still be up. On Talk:Nintendo DS Lite for example, the Search results for merge is "merge prefix:Talk:Nintendo DS Lite/" however, removing the slash at the end gives better results.  « ₣M₣ »  21:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Units parameter
Didn't there used to be a units parameter for this template? I was using a units= parameter on my own talk page, but just noticed that it was no longer working, and isn't listed on the docs. If it was removed, would someone mind explaining why? — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't remember such a parameter, what would it have done? —Ms2ger (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it did (from what I remember) change the wording of the notice at the bottom to use "hour"/"day"/"month"/"year", as specified. On my own talk page, for example, I had it set to hour, due to the fact that I have MiszaBot archive my page every 4 hours. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the code, and tested it. The "units=hours" parameter is still there and works fine. I even tested it on your talkpage (only previewing it, not saving it) and it worked there too. Of course, this template in turn calls archives and that one has been heavily edited since you wrote your message, so at the time you wrote that the parameter perhaps didn't work.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Prefix need, root doesn't cut it
editprotected

At WT:FAC we need to use without the trailing slash that it add to the search field. I suggest that we add a new parameter named prefix. — Dispenser 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not done. I see why you need to add search prefixes without a trailing slash. But as the documentation of this template says:
 * Note that this template is preserved for compatibility purposes; the more flexible archives template should be used for new instances.
 * This template calls . This template is just a compatibility wrapper for old usage cases out there. So I think that new functionality should instead be suggested and added to and that you should be using that template instead. So I think that you are asking in the wrong place. (Sorry about the bureaucracy.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just one of those s implemented differently.  Anyway, I've changed the notice on the documentation page to use tdeprecated (that template needs to be more flexible).  04:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of deprecated
(Re) Yes, I know what it means - thank you. I see no reason (nor consensus) to strongly disapprove of, or consider obsolete, archive box. It's simpler than archives in that it doesn't require the named list parameter in order to create archives with an inline list. – xeno talk 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s a compatibility wrapper for crying out loud! The admins are unwilling to implement new features into this template.  In addition, I see that you have deemphasized this language in the past, confusing people in the matter.
 * How about we use instead of  on archives since the former is much more widely used.  We know that unnamed parameters have a significant usability problem with HTML attributes and other uses of the equal signs.  I suggest while we are tinkering at it that we add an error message for people trying to use the unnamed parameter.  — Dispenser 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've implemented plenty of the new features into this template... I'm just not sure I understand the desire to relegate this template, it's a perfectly functional and elegant solution for most cases. – xeno talk 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that archive box accounts for 15319 of the 18383 transclusions of "archives", so it is clearly the preferred method of creating archive boxen. "Deprecated" - hardly. – xeno talk 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what "deprecated" mean, it isn't a popularity contest. — Dispenser 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you think deprecated means, and why it applies to this template? And further, why you feel that archives is "more flexible" and "should be used for new instances" (!) rather than this one? Lastly, given that this template is used more often than archives by a ratio of 5:1, why doesn't archives call this instead? That would reduce the total number of templates transcluded on talk pages. – xeno talk 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

These templates developed in parallel and were later merged by means of subclassing one to the other. archives is "more flexible" in that it simply has more features, and should be used for new instances because it has more sensible defaults ( is on by default, for instance). They were merged in order to present a consistent, attractive and universal solution to page archive notices and to stop the massive duplication of effort involved in maintaining multiple forks of basically the same thing. There is nothing stopping people from using archive box for now if they want, but seeing as it's just a hard-coded instance of the other template there is no reason not to just use the base template directly (and as such it's just legacy code, the deprecation of which is appropriate to eventually get everyone using the same code). As for why the merge went to archives and not the other way around, it could probably have gone either way at the time but that's now irrelevant. I seem to recall you actually being present during the discussion in question, so it's a little puzzling that you've chosen to edit war over it over a year after that recommendation was made (or indeed edit war over something so lame in the first place). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the same token, I am confused why people are edit-warring to denigrate this poor defenseless template that by no means needs to be deprecated or strongly disapproved of, or made to believe that it is unsuitable for use in "new instances". – xeno talk 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're anthropomorphising a bit of code. It's deprecated because it's a compatibility wrapper and doesn't have the full feature set of the parent template; to keep them in sync would be a waste of effort when you can get everything that you get here from the parent template just by passing  to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ... and while we're at it, I haven't the foggiest what you're on about with "inline lists requiring a named parameter". Have you actually looked at the code in question? It just passes  through! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In archives you would need to use list= to bypass the other behaviours. Using an unnamed parameter on its own just adds junk at the bottom. – xeno talk 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, you can add, and then use an unnamed parameter as normal. The default behaviour makes for minimal syntax when both numbered auto-archives and additional pages are needed. Regardless, that the other template doesn't have a particular set of defaults certainly does not mean that this wrapper needs to be promoted in parallel to it; the defaults are sensible for most uses and can be overridden for people who insist on their own special archives layout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So rather than letting people keep it simple, we should encourage them to use some other template that requires additional parameters to do what they want? – xeno talk 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For new instances, automatic archive detection is much more convenient ("simple") than having to manually specify the archives, not least because it keeps itself up to date as new archives are created. If users want to manually specify the archives then they can do so, but as it's less convenient it doesn't make sense for it to be the default behaviour. As such, it doesn't make sense to encourage anyone to use archive box for new pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... And with that, I propose re-deprecating this. There's nothing "K.I.S.S" about this: it's exactly the same template except with the helpful auto-detection turned off. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is encouraging this for new instances, but I similarly don't see a reason to actually discourage it (many people manually specify the archives in some other format such as long-date format, or other descriptors). I've tweaked the message to reflect your position. – xeno talk 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To have consistency with archive boxes I see we should guide users to use only one archive box template. The fact is that this "Archive box" template (about 15000 transculations) is much more used then the "Archives" template (about 3500 transculations). So, it is much easier to guide users to use "Archive box" then the other way around. What is sub-template of the other is only technical thing that can easily been changes. --Kslotte (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for Only One Archive Box: variety is the spice of life. But I agree that if consensus develops to merge, then it would make more sense to merge "archives" into archive box. But it still strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. – xeno talk 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Migration and merging with archives?
Is it time to do migration and merging with archives and make this into a re-direct? --Kslotte (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A breakdown of the differences:

--Kslotte (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The algorithm goes as following:

--Kslotte (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have "auto=long" then remove it
 * If we have "editbox=yes" then remove it
 * If we don't have "auto=no" then add it
 * If we don't have "editbox=no" then add it
 * ... and replace "{{archive box|" with "{{archives|"
 * I assume some bot coding is needed. AWB won't be able to follow this algorithm, or? --Kslotte (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think AWB will be able to do this with some RegExp and Advanced find and replace. My bot User:KslotteBot can assist with this job. --Kslotte (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be about 15 000 places where this template is used. --Kslotte (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A breakdown of the current template usage: Based on this it would be simpler doing a migration {{tl|Archives}} --> {{tl|Archive box}}. Opinions? --Kslotte (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * {{tl|Archives}} 3586
 * {{tl|Archive box}} 15465
 * I suggested that above somewhere. – xeno talk 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

After some thoughts I see the best compromise is to have archive template with default values "editbox=no" and "auto=long". --Kslotte (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a pressing need to have only one archive box template. Different strokes for different folks. – xeno talk 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * There is no need to do this. – xeno talk 13:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see there is no need to have two archive box templates with same features. Users are not sure witch one to use. It is much easier to choose if there is only one. --Kslotte (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which user was confused? – xeno talk 14:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who want to add an archive box to a talk page. --Kslotte (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a difflink to where users were confused? – xeno talk 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The only reason this template still exists is your attachment to it, but that should not prevent this unnecessary duplication of effort. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What effort? Is there greater effort in having a wrapper template, or committing 15,000 edits to replace it? – xeno talk 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - proposal would commit 15,000+ unnecessary edits that would have zero effect on the rendered page and make it necessary to supply an additional parameter to manually supply archive names, thus removing functionality and flexibility and replacing simplicity with complexity, for little-to-no tangible benefit. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - sometimes reaching consistency have a "high cost". What is your opinion on merging the other way? --Kslotte (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are merged, users who want one result will have to use parameters they don't have to at present. I think this is a solution without a problem and would makes things more complicated, not less. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it is that much complicated. It's only one major parameter "auto". The "editbox" could be leaved as value "no" as default (would satisfy more then 95% of implementations). --Kslotte (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You still have not given any evidence that the current state of affairs ever confused anyone or caused any problems. Without a problem, there is no need for a solution. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that inconcistency confuse users a bit. Users choose one and see if it works. And, if it works they wont report or ask anything about it. So, it is more about tweaking inconcistency then about problem. We save about 30 deconds of wondering for some users. --Kslotte (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find it obvious. And any potential ambiguity is resolved by the banners in the template documentation. You are seeking to replace the hypothetical confusion with the actual confusion that will result when users realize that functionality has been reduced for the want of a single template. There is no need to merge these. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deprecated, a better template exists. It would send it for DB-T3 but I guess you would oppose it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to TFD if you insist. Not everyone wants auto-generating archives, and redirecting this to archives will force them to use a parameter in order to achieve that end = less flexibility for some strange personal desire to have as few templates as possible. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This template with auto disactivated serves really no purpose when Talk header exists. Maybe a solution would be to remove it in these cases? My main concern is to have clearer talk pages as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should find a task worth doing. Your obsession with minutiae - insignificant and trivial edits - is starting to become disruptive. If someone is using archive box to display manual archives, you can set noarchive=yes in the talkheader, but I don't see the need. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Two more editors think this template is unnecessary. I am not the one who started the discussion, nor the one who added the deprecated templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are apparently some who share your belief that we are suddenly running out of templatespace and we really need to get archive box off the books and force editors to start using a parameter if they want to create manual archives. Go to TFD then. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: who was confused by two boxes, I'll admit that I was until I found this page. "Legacy wrapper" suggests to me that using this template calls the other template, but it appears that is not the case (?). Anyway, it's worth cleaning up in my opinion. II | (t - c)

Edit request: Update default title
Please update the title parameter to
 * | title              =

And also reinstate the recent change to Archives to restore the new default, according to Template talk:Archives.

If there is a nice way to inherit the default value then that would be even better, but the best I can find is “to preserve the possible undefinedness” under meta:Help:Template which is so complicated it isn’t any better than doing it manually.

Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can explain better what you are trying to do and what you mean by "inherit the default value" I will try to help you code this in the best way. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I’ll try. Before my proposed change to Archives, its title parameter is used like this:

In, the title parameter is passed through Archive box to Archives, and the same help link is introduced if this parameter is not specified. Now I am trying to have the Archives title parameter used as follows, depending on whether the index parameter is specified:
 * index  or

I think Archive box should use the plain text “Archives” if no title is specified, without specifying a link, since my changes to Archives include the help link independently. Hope this explains things :)

If we were to simply unlink the help page in Archives by default, this change to Archive box would be less important because it wouldn’t be duplicated or broken by the index link. But I guess I would still prefer it be unlinked in Archive box too. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I've got a version in the sandbox.


 * produces what you see on the right. Let me know what you think. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes things more inconsistent; compare the two templates on the right. Why not just pass title= to keep it consistent with Archives? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

For clarity, I made User:Vadmium/Template:Archive box which has the precise change I was suggesting here. It still works with your latest changes to Archives/sandbox. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 02:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Okay, I was just trying to produce the behaviour that you descibed above, because I thought that was what you wanted! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

nobr parameter
This was introduced in 2008 but now seems to be redundant and therefore appears to require removal. It's still referred to in the /doc. -- Trevj (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple titles
How do I do mulitple titles, for example like this (ignoring beginning template call): I tried something like that, but I couldn't get it to work properly. Numbermaniac - T  - C  08:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * title=2013 Archives|
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * 2014 Archives|
 * Another archive
 * etc.

Bad layout sometimes
Please see 3rd box on Archiving. Its image layout seems to be broken, however I was unable to fix it, can some admin help me with this and fix this ugly layout bug? Thanks in advance! --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: It's not broken, it is the result of the "collapsible" parameter being used. That places the [] link in the upper-right corner and displaces the usually centered image.  Apparently, the only way to avoid this is to exclude the collapsible parameter from the template code, and that probably won't happen.  Individual usage that excludes the collapsible parameter will keep the image centered. –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 03:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't at all clear what problem you are referring to. If, as Paine Ellsworth evidently thinks, it is the fact that the image is slightly further to the left than for the other boxes, are "ugly" and "bug" perhaps getting it out of proportion? How many people, seeing that box on its own, without having the others for comparison, and without having any reason to dwell on it and think carefully about its appearance, would even notice it? Of those who did, how many would care? I suggest leaving it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird layout with standard use of template ArchiveBox?
Hi. I tried to put my talk page into an ArchiveBox. But the outcome is not what I intended. Esp. the Template und the Template  do not seem to do what the documentation says. What did I do wrong?? --hdamm (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2015
Please consider the edit I just made to the sandbox version of the template for the live template. My similar change (functionally, not technically) worked well on meta. . Change default to include search of archive feature.

Elvey(t•c) 18:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto for the edit I just made to the sandbox version of the archives template, which this template depends on.--Elvey(t•c) 18:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Woo hoo! I think this'll help users a lot - people who couldn't (figure out how to/easily) search archives will be able to quickly do so now, on ~50,000 (?+40,000) popular pages, hopefully improving discussion quality!--Elvey(t•c) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)