Template talk:Archivebox/Archive 1

Guide for dummies, please!

I like the look of this approach to providing archive links, but must admit I'm not sure how the correct links below the picture are created or controlled. Could someone bear to add a guide for dummies on this page? Some archive pages I've seen for particularly active talk pages need more than one (32kb) archive page to cover posts made within one month, so I'm not sure how that would work here either. I'd like to try using this template, so thanks in advance for dummy help!  David Kernow 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The usage is mostly subjective depening on article. On a rather low/medium-traffic article, you can easly have like this. But for more heavier traffic pages, different appruaches exists. Please look in Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:Main Page and Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for different approaches. _→AzaToth 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; I didn't it make it clear that I was having trouble using {{archivebox}} in a page's source. I suddenly realised, though, that I'd forgotten to input it as {{subst:archivebox}} !!  Thanks for a neat template and the useful pointers. David Kernow 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe :) <evil mode>Perhaps start a Wikipedia:Guides for dummies</evil mode> ._→AzaToth 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple links to the "See also" section. I've also removed the History section since it's self-explanatory (this comment is an example of History in action). --J. J. 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates

The template appears to automatically fill in the starting and ending date with the current date. Is one supposed to correct that after substituting or is there a piping trick? Hyacinth 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Substing just gives you the framework. You're supposed to fill everything in afterwards. ~MDD4696 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Add the template using {{subst:Archivebox}} and save. Then edit the page again, and fill in the bullets. ~MDD4696 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it now. Thanks. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging this template

Recently I suggested that this template be merged with {{Archive box}}, but have gotten little response. This here, just to bump the subject in case people missed it. --Swift 06:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the size of the filing-cabinet and text in this version; whether or not there are any less superficial benefits/drawbacks is something I haven't researched. Regards, David Kernow 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that in your oppinion, the minor differences in image size and box width are reasons enough to have two archive box templates? --Swift 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite; perhaps a single template with parameters, so people's preferences may be accommodated. Regards, David (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly possible! --Swift 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually: Done! See {{Archive box}} --Swift 04:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One difference between the two is that archivebox is listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace as {{subst:archivebox}}. Consequently, it's impossible to tell the two versions' relative usage. However, since it's also listed on Template:Template messages, I expect the archivebox version is the preferred design. My suggestion would be to merge "archive box" into "archivebox" with the distinguishing parameters of box width and image size. A modified version of the examples list (syntax and less commentary) would be helpful as well. Rfrisbie^talk 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The relative use isn't really that important. If we stop supporting {{archivebox}}, redirect it to {{Archive box}}, delete it, or something else; people would still be able to subst: it. Since it is always subst:-ed changing the template (even deleting it) won't affect the previous usage. It will only change whether — and in that case, how — it can be used in the future.

The reason why the archivebox is listed and Archive box isn't is simply because the former is older and the latter was created as a proof of concept to compare what I think is a better method to the existing one. Instead of going and listing Archive box alongside every archivebox on template lists, I figured it would be more productive to get some discussion on the pros and cons of either since we might end up revamping one or both of these.

The "direction of merge" determines in my view mainly whether the template should be subst-ed and will have an automatic link generation; or if it should be transcluded with a more flexible choice of archive listing method. Isn't your suggestion basically the same as making archivebox redirect to Archive box?

Is there anything in the functionality of archivebox which makes it superior or warrants it being kept as a seperate template? --Swift 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As this seems to be a POV Fork, I must object to a merge. _→AzaToth 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Swift created archive box but hasn't given any rationale for creating it or why archivebox should be merged into it, I see no compelling justification for a merge. Rfrisbie^talk 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Swift thought the difference between the two templates' approaches to the task were obvious and that anyone glancing at the code would see the rationale for either. I apologise for having assumed too much.

1. {{Archivebox}} must be subst:-ed while {{Archive box}} can be either/or.
2. The subst also means that consistancy between archive boxes is lost if the template is changed (e.g. colour of border, default width, default image size, image icon, etc.)
3. The Archivebox semi-imposes a certain type of archiving naming-scheme and type of listing. The Archive_box does not.

Two advantages which aren't inherent in the Archive_box "method" are what I find to be a better usage section and the parameters. These can be easily integrated into the Archivebox, but that is a side issue. --Swift 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just saw that I already had given a rationale. This you would have found by following the Discuss link on the {{mergeto}} banner that is quite prominently displayed on both template pages. Sorry for forgetting, but a month without any responce kind of makes you lose track of things. --Swift 10:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wha? The only rationale I see for an objection would be that there were some inherent quality in {{Archivebox}} that would be worth preserving!

Why? Let's assume there were an infobox which was "forked" with a new look (different styling and setup). Would the fact that the two would differ only in the user's POV warrant the dismissal of any attempt to merge, thus maintaining two templates with identical content? There is no rule saying that they must or mustn't be merged. It must surely be up for debate among the community, right?

What I was seeking with this comment was the POV of those interested in the template. I, personally, feel that the Archive_box goes closer to Doing It Right than Archivebox (I may be wrong, feel free to attempt to convice me). My comment was made to request the community's oppinion on the matter. If there is consensus, we could merge them. If there is not, we can keep them both seperate. A merge proposal is not a sentence — simply a proposal.

I'm sorry if you feel offended and that I'm trampling on your creation. I mean to do neither. If you feel strongly about this template, don't worry, I'll withdraw my proposal and simply list the Archive_box as an alternative (unless you convince me that Archviebox does the job better, in which case I'll deprecate it an nominate for speedy deletion). I apologise for any misunderstanding. --Swift 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, no I'm not ofended, I was just pointing out that you have forked this template and then trying to get this template removed by a merge is per definition a so called POV Fork. The reason this template looks like it does is that we want to help people have a consistent archiving system, but also have the possibillity to customize. _→AzaToth 10:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of POV forking. Archive_box was meant to be a PoC fork. See [1]. I created it because I wanted a non-subst-ed template and didn't want to wreck this one without discussion.

What do you think about {{Archive box}}? Are you more concerned with consistency in the archive naming convention and link titles, or the overall box display on talk pages? I honestly believe that the former is of less importance since there isn't any worrying unconsinstency and custom archive names can be very useful (see e.g. Talk:Nitroglycerin/Synthesis discussion). --Swift 11:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Table formatting

What is the reason for not using table formatting? It is much clearer when editing. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I guess it ought to be, unless it generates some difficulty otherwise avoided... I only use this template occasionally, so haven't (yet) looked more closely... Regards, David Kernow 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

...per my comment in the preceeding thread, I've just reverted your recent tweak, Centrx; hope you don't mind. Perhaps a merged Archivebox template that uses tabulation and offers optional parameters for image/font sizes is the solution... I'll try it sometime soonish. Yours, David 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The changes to the header are unrelated to using tables or not. The archive box doesn't need to be some flashy gimmick and the talk page header area is already crowded. —Centrx→talk • 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My mention of tabulation is to agree with you that "it is much clearer when editing", i.e. it's what I'd use when attempting a synthesis of the {{Archivebox}} and {{Archive box}} templates. Although my personal view is that the image and "Archive" sizes are out of proportion in {{Archive box}}, I suggested optional parameters not to make the template more of a "flashy gimmick" but to accommodate folk who might not share my POV. I agree that the talk-page header area is sometimes crowded, but don't find this to be the norm. Where it is crowded, I'd say this is more due to it needing a little layout/formatting work between templates than within them. Hope I haven't misunderstood anything. Yours, David 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is the answer you have been looking for: I doesn't really matter :) I did use table-type code in the begining, but the save isn't extensive in relation of div type. _→AzaToth 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New idea

see {{archives}} and as an example Talk:Swedish_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by AzaToth (talk • contribs)

Not that keen, I'm afraid... (1) the links in the top right-hand corner seem superfluous (and look a little out of place to me); (2) including "for article" (as in "for Swedish language") seems redundant. I also suspect those folk keen to limit the size of any archive box won't be too happy either... I reckon adapting {{archivebox}} to use parameters for the image and "Archives" size should be sufficient (with redirect from {{archive box}}). I've put this on my to-do(-if-no-one-else-has-by-the-time-I-reach-it) list, but not as a major priority. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just minor details, the major thing is that the archive list is in another page, so yoo only need to type {{archives}}. 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If he brought it up, evidently he doesn't think they are relevant. I'm sure you are all full of good ideas. Discussing them with those that offer constructive critisism is often a good way to find the optimal way and iron out possible drawbacks.

As for the "major thing": no, you don't "only" need to type that. You also need to type in the list of archives ... just on a different page. Frankly, that is no enhancment, but certainly complicates the matter. Parser functions and variables aren't really here to write application-like templates. The click-me link which an empty archive-list subpage causes isn't really useful either. Why do you find the sub-page such an asset?

Also, since you have so much interest in archive list template design, how about commenting in the merge section on what are desirable attributes in such templates (given that you "want to help people have a consistent archiving system")? --Swift 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)