Template talk:Talk archive/Archive 1

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

Discussion on talk link bug
Copied from user talk pages:

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

Alternatives to
You may want to consider the following alternatives to


 * 1)  - Somewhat different wording, could be merged into
 * 2)  - requires an argument indicating the period of the talk archive
 * 3)  - requires an argument indicating the topic covered in the archive

--Richardshusr 20:30, 14 June 2006

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


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

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

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


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


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

NOEDITSECTION again
Could an admin please add the magic word to the template? There's already a __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word, but there's no reasons sections should be edited in archive anyway. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:40pm • 07:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The  magic word was . I've seen a user follow a section link to an archive and accidentally respond there using the editsection link. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As this change was undiscussed, I have reverted it as requested. But I would like to speak up in defence of that edit. When you are trying to retrieve stuff from an archive, which is quite often necessary in my experience, it makes it much harder to do so without the link to the section. I don't know how much of a problem it is with people editing archives, but you cannot stop them using the edit button at the top of the page anyway! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen it only once or twice. Removing the links doesn't prevent intentional refactoring, but an editor at the top of the page is less likely to miss "Archive" in the page name. I would prefer hiding implemented with CSS that allows display override with user CSS or JavaScript. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Link broken
The link which is supposed to take you back to the parent talkpage, doesnt work. The rest of it does though, so otherwise, good temp, so I'll just subst it until the bug is fixed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It works for me. One case where it doesn't work is if there are sub-subpages (e.g. Talk:Anarchy/Archive/1), but those are uncommon and should probably be moved to the standard location anyway. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar problem. I (perhaps stupidly) created an archive subpage with a forward slash (/) in the title. Now the link to the talkpage doesn't work properly. Is there a fix or should I just rename the subpage? Thanks. —anskas 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha! look what I've done! —anskas 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted today's change to the template's link back to the current talk page, because it breaks the template for permalink archives. (Note that this Wikipedia guideline is linked to from the template itself, so the template must work for this style of archiving.)--Srleffler 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What??? this template can't be used for such type of archives, so I don't see the point of your revert. → Aza Toth 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It works just fine for permalink archives.--Srleffler 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * 1. Archived talk pages are still talk pages. They merely aren't active talk pages.
 * 2. As I noted, an important function of this coloring is differentiating between templates intended for use on talk pages and those intended for use in other namespaces. (This one, for example, could easily be mistaken for a project page template.)
 * 3. There's no rule against using this coloring on user talk pages. Nonetheless, I won't object if you'd like to use ParserFunctions to make it appear grey in that namespace.  I'd do this myself, but I'm not sure that you would prefer this to the current across-the-board consistency.  &mdash;David Levy 13:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Done. &mdash;David Levy 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done — Mets501 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the old image back?
Can we get the old image back? This one is too bright and flashy IMO. Who has bright blue filing cabinets? :) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I restored it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


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

template behaving incorrectly, at least in "help talk" namespace
The archives of Help talk:Contents included this template, but the "current talk page" link was just pointing to the archives themselves. You can see what it was doing when I subst'd it, before fixing. I don't know what the technical cause of the problem was. If I did, I'd add editprotected here. Any ideas? — coe l acan t a lk  — 07:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


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

Category inclusion
This template is so widespread that the categories are enormous, and essentially useless for navigation. Removing the "includeonly" category. - jc37 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted it, as the categories are only filled via this template. If you want to get rid of the categories, please take it up on WP:CFD first. → Aza Toth 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * jc37, do you have another method for categorizing these talk pages? I don't think there's any point to removing the current categorization system unless we have another one. I think the categories are still useful, even if they are large. ~MDD4696 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How are they useful, and what are they useful for? I presume Special:Prefixindex can find any archive you're looking for. How is having these grouped together useful for "anything"? - jc37 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, if you think the categories are totally useless, then go ahead open a CFD. → Aza Toth 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, though it will be an interesting challenge to find them all, since the syntax variable causes several categories to be created : ) - jc37 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The categories are useful because they separate the talk page archives in alphabetical order, with letter headings, by talk page type, so it is easier to browse than Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Talkarchive or Special:Prefixindex. You can't use Special:Prefixindex if you don't know the name of the page that you are looking for. There is a category for each namespace, and I think all of them are listed in Category:Wikipedia history. These categories might be a pet peeve to you, but they aren't really hurting anything. Why single them out over other large categories? ~MDD4696 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And for the record, this template is currently used on 17952 pages. ~MDD4696 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "big" does not necessarily equal "useful". In fact, typically the reverse is true. See also WP:CAT, and WP:CFD. - jc37 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but I made the above argument that they still have some utility despite the fact that the categories are extremely large. Since there is no proposed replacement categorization scheme, and since there is absolutely no harm being done by their existence, I don't see any reason to remove them. ~MDD4696 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if you want to get the categories removed, then take it up on WP:CSD, not here. → Aza Toth 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Archive?
The intended difference stated at the top of this talk page no longer applies. One of these can redirect to the other. –Pomte 07:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not AFAIK. "Wikipedia: space" pages are often archived, but are not talk pages. - jc37 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I came here exactly for that reason. Now I see the difference in categorization, though I can't figure out why uses fullurl: in an external link instead of an internal one. –Pomte 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that uses fullurl: is so that the archive template will link to the proper talk page no matter which method of archiving the page is used. (See above discussion). ~MDD4696 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vector
I changed the graphic to the SVG version. -- Avi 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Add "Please"
editprotected

I might sound a bit naive, but is it worth adding "Please" to the front of "Do not.."? -- Martian . knight 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of whether they should edit the contents if they so please, they should not, regardless of whether they would please to do so. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martian.knight - I think it would definitely be worth adding please, just to be polite! I don't think it would take away from how important the request is :) Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has replied yet, so I've used - I think 'Please' should be added before 'Do not...', as in . Thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the objection seems to come from mis-understanding the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Reference to User and Link to User Page
It would be nice to have a reference to the user who's archive it is in the text box like

...start a new discussion with user Username or revive an old one..."

The code would look like this:

"...start a new discussion with user  [ ]  or revive an old one..."


 * You can see how it would look like here User:Cumbrowski/talkarchivetest
 * The Template:Talkarchivenav should also be changed accordingly.

Don't you think that this is a good idea? --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and made the change to the template myself. I also added


 * to the end of the template to show the "userpage" template at the end of the user talk archive page.


 * I made both changes also to Template:Talkarchivenav --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update Note:
 * User:Mets501 reverted my changes with the argument that the template is also used for none user pages. I did not know that.

That would make the addition of the "userpage" template not such a good idea, however, the reference to the basepage would still be good, we just rephrase it to make it usable for user talk archives and other talk archives as well.

For example: This is an archive of past discussions for Namespace Whatever. ...

The code:

"This is an archive of past discussions for  [ ]  . ... "

Would that work? --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would, but I believe that a link to the current talk page is enough. — M ETS 501 (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will create a template in my userspace then. Sorry again for the trouble, it was meant well. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To add a special message for User talk: pages and not any other pages, you can use. –Pomte 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Pompte, I copied the template into my user space (the template:talkarchivenav actually). I made a significant amount of changes to the template to make it easier to use and really practical for the purpose of user talk archiving. I added also a little primer to it, since I just helped a newbie without technical skills to implement it on his user talk pages. You can find the modified version here User:Cumbrowski/usertalkarchivenav --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobots?
Would it make sense to add Nobots to be transcluded with this template? So that bots wont make any silly changes to archive pages? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * impossible, as nobots is made to be interpreted verbatim, not per linkage. → Aza Toth 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Will a talk page's history be destroyed if a Wikipedian cuts all content (except templates) to a different one? Sorry if it didn't make sense. TobytheTramEngine 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered at User talk:TobytheTramEngine. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

However, current talk page does not link to existing talk page - at least not when for USERs --JimWae (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to all: this edit is not trivial (although it only plays a role on "deep" archives). On User talk:Example/Archives/2007 the variable  will say "User talk:Example/Archives", which is not what I would expect from a "base" page name.   will on the other hand evaluate to User talk:Example, which is what is expected from the template. Миша 13  14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix alternative talk page link
Please change this:
 * [ current talk page]

to this:
 * |current talk page

To fix the piped link for specifying a different current talk page. Right now, its completely broken. Fixed code comes from working archiveAnmaFinotera (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this right now. This edit seems a bit confusing - it was the edit that introduced the external link syntax. --- RockMFR 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit I suggested should fix it. I think its a useful feature, particularly after page merges when the old page's talk is archived :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got this figured out. The external link was added because of bug 6062, which is now fixed. I'm going to keep the #titleparts parser function in per Misza13's comments above, but will change the link to an internal link. I will also be adding a category to catch current usages of the template that may be broken. --- RockMFR 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please, add pt:Predefinição:Arquivo de discussão to iw.  Gerbilo :&lt;  19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Ms2ger (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmbox
editprotected Please replace the page with the following code: 

Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will wait a bit, in case there are any objections, but I don't see any obvious problems. Tested in preview, looks identical to me except for some very minor differences in margin width. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION suppression etc
For discussion on the "NOEDITSECTION suppression" and the other small changes I did to this template today, see Template talk:Talkarchivenav.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Add toc
I just think for easy navigation of talk archives (and prob archives in general) the toc should be there, not suppressed. Simply south (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd like to see TOC added as pages are difficult to use without this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the code and I see no reason why the TOC should be suppressed ... can you give me an example so I can investigate further? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TOC is not suppressed by this template, see for example Talk:Altruism/Archive 1. Whichever page you are looking at must be having its TOC suppressed by a different template or some other mechanism. Anomie⚔ 20:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Magic word
editprotected Shouldn't this template also have the __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word?--Unionhawk Talk 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I will do it. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

add ukrainian interwiki
add ukrainian interwiki uk:Шаблон:Архів обговорення Rkononenko (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add this to the bottom of Template:Talkarchive/doc. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging to talk archive navigation
I've updated the sandbox with code which will enable this template to be merged to talk archive navigation: the template will then be a wrapper for the other template with the additional  parameter to disable the navigation links. This works fine in my tests, so I'll sync it in a few days unless anyone objects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dom497, 20 July 2011
You might want to change the image on the template to this: File:Crystal Clear action info.png. Its very close to the current one but it is more detailed.

Dom497 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The image should have been a filing cabinet and the edit on the 22 June removed that. I've put it back. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag for TfM
Please add:

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Simple navigation
Can we add  and   parameters to this template to allow for simple navigation between arbitrarily named archives (numbered, by month, by year, etc.)? What I am envisioning is being able to call this in the following way:

I don't see any similar templates that currently allow for this. - dcljr (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request — 6 June 2018
Shouldn’t the text be centred like in Talk archive navigation? Inter qwark talk  contribs 14:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. They probably should sync, but whether they should both be centered/both left justified should probably be discussed before changes happen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks better when the text is centred. Inter qwark talk  contribs 14:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know. If there is some more support and consensus for changing then it'll be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent addition
User:John Cline, you recently added the footnote "Consensus exists to allow for closing a discussion (while archived) when archiving occurs before the formal close has posted." As the footnote is not anchored within the template, it appears at the bottom of talk pages, often far away from the template itself (see for instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists/Archive 1). If the footnote is to be kept, it should probably be contained within the template. However, I pose the questions to all: 1: is this footnote relevant and realistically useful or extraneous clutter? and 2: if such consensus exists, should there be link to previous discussion establishing it? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, and agree. You are the second editor mentioning this to me. I will, therefor, self revert the changes and, since I've adopted the view that its usefulness does not surmount the cluttering effect of its presence, will not seek consensus for its reinstatement. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅; thank you .--John Cline (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

One or negative one
Back in December 2018, Nardog made a change that added a negative (hyphen, marked here in red) to this part of the code:

saying in the edit summary, "support subpages and File namespace".

Then today, JJMC89 removed the hyphen, saying, "revert edit that broke established uses".

So, Nardog, can you please explain what issues you were trying to fix with your edit (preferably with specific examples), and confirm whether or not the current version of the template works with respect to those issues?

And JJMC89, can you also please explain what problems you were trying to fix, with examples?

It seems likely to me that both versions of the template are "breaking" certain things, some of which Nardog has seen, and others JJMC89 has seen. If so, we should figure out whether it is the template or specific calls to it that need to be fixed. - dcljr (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dcljr, thanks for bringing this to my attention. My edit in December fixed the link when the template was used on an archive of the talk of a subpage.  returns "Talk:Foo", the very root of the page.   returns "Talk:Foo/bar", the direct parent.
 * See e.g. Help talk:IPA/Oghuz languages/Archive 1, which now links to Help talk:IPA. This is not desirable. It should link to Help talk:IPA/Oghuz languages because that's what the page is an archive of. But now I see that there are some talk archives where this is not desirable, such as Talk:Quantum teleportation/Archive/1. With my version, the link will point to Talk:Quantum teleportation/Archive because all numbered archives for this talk are given an extra layer.
 * I don't know what the solution should be, but we should probably: disallow structures like "/Archive/#" and move existing ones to "/Archive #"; or make the template figure out where to link, using something like #ifexist.
 * (On a side note, Talk archive navigation and Automatic archive navigator, which uses Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator, also behave like my version, i.e. link to the direct parent. If we were to stop categorically linking to the direct parent nor the root, we should edit that module too.) Nardog (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The link had pointed to the root talk page since 2006 . Nardog's edit may have fixed a use case, but it broke uses where it is intended to go to the root talk page – anything of the form Talk:Foo/Archive/some_subpage, commonly done by time, e.g. User talk:Example/Archives/yyyy/Month. You shouldn't make breaking changes to widely trancluded templates, especially without discussion and fixing all cases that are broken by the change. I don't see a good reason to make all of the templates function in the same way – its why there are different templates. I'd suggest using 1 or the more common aan when you don't want to link to the root talk page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There should be a link to the article page too
When someone is on an archived talk page, there should be an easy (one-click) way to navigate to the article the talk page is about, just like there already is on the current talk page. Can someone edit the template so that it includes a link that goes straight to the article? As things stand, you have to navigate to the current talk page and then from there to the article. Richard75 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a good idea. Though I'm wondering if this shouldn't ideally ultimately be handled by the mediawiki machinery. When you're on an archived talk subpage, say Talk:Mathematics/Archive 11, at the top there's already a mediawiki-generated link back to Talk:Mathematics, and that looks like a good place to have the link to Mathematics as well. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this should be discussed more widely elsewhere—say, Village pump (idea lab), given that the proposal is not very specific—since any solution implemented in this template should probably be done to several other similar talk-archive templates, as well. (In the meantime, ideas can be tried out in the sandbox and testcases subpages, which are not protected from editing.) - dcljr (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)