→box-width parameter: not done: Seems to be still in use |
→Template:Archives/sandbox: new section |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
: Hmm, that category isn't empty, and hasn't been for a day. Seems to be still in some use? --[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#823824;font-weight:normal">Amalthea</span>]] 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
: Hmm, that category isn't empty, and hasn't been for a day. Seems to be still in some use? --[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#823824;font-weight:normal">Amalthea</span>]] 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Template:Archives/sandbox]] == |
|||
At [[Template_talk:Archive_box#Template:Archivebox|my whining protest]], {{user|Thumperward}} 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]]. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xeno|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xeno|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:17, 30 March 2009
Index
|
||
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)
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)