User talk:MrKIA11/Archive Box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Too much of a good thing

1. an archive box must have universally recognizable look-and-feel. The many options negate that recognizability.

1a. Employ a style= switch, and the appropriate classes that already exist in site-wide CSS.
style="compact"|"small": the "traditional" one with class="messagebox small-talk"
style="wide"|"standard" ("large"): archive box with class="messagebox standard-talk"
1b. links/nobr/image/image-size/align/talk are automatically inferred from style=
1c. font-size= is not good. Archive boxes must have a standardized look-and-feel.
1d. The heading= is not good. The heading must the same everywhere.
1e. width= is useless. Width is defined by content (Optionally use white-space:nowrap)
1f. Either the image= is universally recognizable as representing an archive, or its not. Determine how many pages are actually using image= with {{void}}, and if there are not more than at least 25% using image=, discard that parameter. Also, don't use non-free images.

2. bot-name and bot-days have no business being in an archive box, the purpose of which is to list the archives, nothing more.
3. consider moving this to {{Archive box/core}} (or {{Archives/core}})
-- Fullstop (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I'm not sure if I agree with your opinion that there should be less parameters. I understand that there should be a "recognizable" look-and-feel, but each page has it's own requirements. I have a few questions though, as this is the first time I have made a template, and much of what you said I'm not sure if I understand. Many of the things that you said should not be included, were included just so that it encompasses all of the current parameters of the other 3 templates.
  1. For the style=, are you saying that I should replace large= and talk= with style=, and make the parameters be something like (compact|wide) which should relate to messagebox small-talk and messagebox standard-talk respectively? If so, what if the box is not on a talk page, and so the background should not inherit that standard color?
  2. links= and nobr= are current parameters of {{archive list}}, which I think are good to have for aesthetic reasons.
  3. I have no problem removing image-size and align, but what about the pages that currently do not have the "standard" size? Just ignore that?
  4. I also agree with you for text-size, but on one page in particular, I know there was a consensus on smaller font.
  5. I don't mind removing heading=, but I don't see a problem with keeping it.
  6. width= is another that I don't mind removing, but once again, I know pages that do not have the standard width.
  7. image= is only meant to be used for other archive images, such as the ones that are in the documentation. I also have no idea what you are talking about by using {{void}} to figure out what pages are using image=?
  8. I thought that bot-name and bot-days would be helpful since many pages use bots to archive, and it gives the page a cleaner look if it is all in the same box.
  9. I also do not know what you are referring to with {{Archive box/core}} or {{Archives/core}}
Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Complexity is directly proportional to the number of customizable parameters. Compare this template with the ones that are already in use to see what I mean.
The supported options should depend on what is actually being used, and why they are being used, rather than unconditionally carrying the legacy cruft forward. For example,... the width= parameter was a hack so that archive names don't wrap. In effect, width= addressed the symptom, and not the problem. (see also #6 below)
Addressing the points individually:
  1. The point was that there are predefined site-wide classes that ought to be stuck to. As far as colors go, no one has felt the need to give non-talk pages archive boxes a different color, but even if they did, it would be possible to do so based on the {{NAMESPACE}} magic word.
  2. links= and nobr= can be inferred from the style when one knows what the box is supposed to look like. The nobr= was again a hack to enable the use {{archive list}} by templates other than {{archive box}}/{{archives}}; originally the <br /> were fixed, hence requiring the need of a switch to disable them. But this would not have been necessary if the output had been subject to natural flow/line wrapping to begin with. Also, links= is just further refinement of the hack: nobr=(no|undef) is the same as links=10, and nobr=yes is the same as links=~0 (or any integer >= 101).
  3. image-size is redundant when you have a standard that needs adhering to. *Every* page is affected by an image that is "too big", and an editor who wants to have "his" talk page with another/a smaller icon is WP:OWNing. Either things are standard or they are not. And besides, "its too big" is really saying "its too invasive" which is again a "reason" for collapsibility.
  4. If that one page using font-size has a "good reason" for the smaller (not larger?) size, then the same reason would also apply to all other pages as well. But it probably doesn't, because (very likely) the "good reason" is addressing a symptom, and not the *problem*.
  5. heading= provides "functionality" for a problem that no one has had yet. Don't succumb to feature creep! :)
  6. As I said, width= is a hack to work around line wrapping. But if the table did't have a fixed size to begin with, it would grow horizontally as the situation demands. The minimum width can be implemented with &nbsp; And even when the table is fixed size, non-wrapping can be implemented with white-space:nowrap.
  7. image= is a matter of personal preference, and has little relevance to the world at large. The few people who really care what the image is are welcome to subst the template on their own talk pages, and fiddle with the image (and size and background color and what not) there. As far as standard usage is concerned, choose one and be done with it.
    The {{void}} note was a reference to m:Help:Template#Monitoring parameter usage
  8. bot-name and bot-days don't further the purpose of the archive box. It is also of little interest to readers of a page how/when/which bots are being used to archive a page. Also, if it were really of any import, then the archival bot templates would already be saying something to the effect.
  9. {{archive box collapsible}} cannot actually simply #redirect <someplace>, but must instead call the common code, passing collapsible= (or whatever) as an argument. Since one template already needs to do this, this is a chance to keep the 'common code' as simple as possible, with the "front ends" (i.e. the existing templates) translating their legacy parameters into a simplified/unified form and passing them on to the back end ({{xyz/core}} or whatever you choose to name it).
There is nothing to be gained by standardization if the end-result is not standard, simpler and easier to manage.
-- Fullstop (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I will make many changes according to your recommendations, but could you first explain to me how to monitor parameter usage? I have tried to understand it and have tried a couple of tests, but nothing has worked. For example, how would I check the usage of the width= parameter for {{Archives}}? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Archives
Archive
Example of parameter usage check
Like so: used unused
Your edit at {{archives}} had it right, you need to give the cache time to catch up though. (worst case: 'what links here' may not be updated until the calling page is modified)
-- Fullstop (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you would be surprised at how much each parameter is used. I made links to all of them on the template page, so you can look yourself if you want. I'm not really sure where to go from here. I removed the bot parameters and the box-align, but I'm not sure about the others. I have posted for opinions on several pages, but you are the only one to respond. What would you recommend? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

In the few I checked, I didn't see anything to suggest that it would be necessary to continue supporting those options.
For instance,...
  • (box-)width= collapsible's box-width usage is typically to make it as wide as a banner. Which is what the newer (and well-used) large= was eventually added to do. Collapsible is thus to a great extent equivalent to "banner-like AND collapsible." The remaining (box-)width= usage is almost exclusively from usertalk space, where it is also just being used to inhibit white space wrapping.
  • image= usage is virtually only from usertalk pages. (Who else would care about the image?)
I'd recommend designing 2 archive boxes from scratch; one for banner style and one for traditional style.
  • The banner style would...
    • never use auto=long (i.e. if auto, then short) so that it can...
    • use the "caption area" when auto=
    • be always "collapsible" (but whether there is something to hide or not depends on whether {{{1}}} is defined)
    • look something like this (colors only as an example ;):
  Archives?    1, 2, 3, 4, 5  (Index...)
This is real code. Note that there is no [show] symbol unless {{{1}}} is defined. The only functionality not yet implemented is what would appear in the caption if auto= were undefined.
ArchiveArchives? (Index)
  • Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
  • Sed enim pede, consequat vel, viverra suscipit, dapibus eu, arcu.
  • Nunc molestie euismod urna. Vestibulum lacinia.
  • Sed et metus.
  • Duis sit amet tellus vitae arcu aliquet aliquet.
  • The traditional style would use ... (again, the box on the right is real code)
    • white-space:nowrap if {{{1}}} is defined. Note how the box on the right grows wider with the dummy text. The minimum-width is defined at 20em in the caption. There is no predefined maximum. This way, a reader's choice of a larger font doesn't cause things to wrap anyway.
    • pick one image, under GPL, of a size of your choice, and be done with it.
      Or even, discard the image altogether and use a big fat text that screams "Archives" (use the same colors you choose for the banner-style box).
      As the talk pages pages that do use image-width= demonstrate, the image-size parameter is predominantly used to make it tiny, so it may even be desirable to have no image unless one is specified.
    • drop support of auto=long (much too wide for traditional style anyway).
    • you can make this box optionally collapsible too. (just add "collapsible" to the list of classes)
In addition,
  • all pages would automatically have an index; if no archivelist=/indexfile= is defined, then using [[Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/]].
  • the colors ought to be standardized so that archives are immediately recognizable as such.
-- Fullstop (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed most of the parameters as you recommended, but I think the remaining ones should stay. I have changed the image= parameter to include the ability to remove the image completely. I think changing to your banner would be too drastic of a change, and that the current collapsible box is fine. I thought that the reason to remove (box-)width= in the first place was to "standardize" the box in the first place, so why would it have the ability to grow with the text? auto=long is actually the perfect size for the box, so it will stay, besides the fact that auto=short can not be implemented right now anyway because of a dispute over {{archive list}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The specific width wasn't implemented to standardize the size, but to give the table a width. The author of the box wasn't thinking "maximum/minimum", but "width" as he/she saw it.
If the intention of the CSS width= had been to standardize the width, then the request for (box-)width= would have been rejected.
Bug #1: What the author wanted was to give the box a width, but by using style="width:nnn" for the whole table, he/she also gave the box a non-negotiable maximum and minimum width.
What the author should have done is give the first row (and not the whole table) a width=nnn*em*.
As every css guide will tell you, don't expect/lock things to a certain size.
  • the prefined value is too narrow for lines like "* September 2004 - January 2005",
  • everything on wikipedia *except the talk box* is independent of font-size. That sucks!
Bug #2: (box)-width= hack to override the effect of bug #1. But what the editor actually wanted was to grow the width of the row in which {{{1}}} appears. Which is actually the HTML's default behaviour, but which had been restricted by bug #1.
But instead of simply fixing bug #1 or even just using css width= in the second row of the table, (box)-width= was again setting a particular fixed with.
Thoughtlessness begat thoughtlessness. Just like {{archive list}}, the nobr= hack and now the link= hack.
Seriously now: Is it *really* important whether a list of numbers is centered, or wraps every N numbers? Is the increase in complexity to the template proportional to the increase in value?
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] small parameter

I was looking here, and saw that you want to remove the "small" parameter. That one was made to fit other templates using the small parameter, i.e. {{notice|small=yes}}{{archives|small=yes}} →AzaToth 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice Bla bla bla
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box
Are you referring to the literal size, or to the fact that the font becomes smaller and the background changes color? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just using the small class in commons.css →AzaToth 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I do not see any reason to make everything smaller, but I can add a talk parameter to make the background orange. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no, it's standard to let a small=yes parameter to utilize the small and small-talk class →AzaToth 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk page templates →AzaToth 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen that page before, but I like it. Consider the parameter back. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Is the color shown above (orange) the set color or is it white? Also, can any image be used? Lara❤Love 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard will be white, but with talk=yes, it will be orange. And yes, any image can be used, the ones on the main page are just some examples. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot parameters

Does anyone have an opinion on whether it would be good to have something like bot-name and bot-days which would work like {{AutoArchivingNotice}}, but in the same box? MrKIA11 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object. I like the idea. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk parameter?

Why use a talk parameter? just use {{#ifeq:{{TALKSPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|talk|notalk}} →AzaToth 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call, I never thought of that. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archive box double duty as nav

Since you guys are discussing things about archive boxes, I'd thought I'd point out something I've done that I haven't seen much in other talk pages. User talk:Ned Scott/archive is a transcluded subpage for my archive box, and it's also transcluded on all of the archives themselves. Basically, it's an archive box and an archive navigation box. The nice thing about this is you can do that with what you're proposing here, and most other styles, by simply making it a subpage. Just thought I'd throw that out there. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange. We had the exact same idea independently of each other. Incidentally, that's how I first started {{Archive box collapsible}}. Dorftrottel (troll) 17:05, February 26, 2008

[edit] Suggestion

Hi there, you requested suggestions for you archive box at the Village Pimp (deliberate error). I am a fan of Archive Box Collapsible in particular but it has one notable deficiency. Automatic listing only occurs for archives that are numbered as "Talk:Articlename/Archive 1", "...Archive 2", "...Archive 3" etc. However there are occasions where topical archives were created to house specific discussions e.g. Talk:Buddhism/Abolitionism, Talk:Buddhism/Religion status, and Talk:Buddhism/Vegetarianism which had to be manually added to the Archive Box code in Talk:Buddhism. It would be nice if an archive box could recognise and list any archives of the style "Talk:Articlename/Archive X". Green Giant (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you basically want the box to link to everything in Special:Prefixindex/Articlename/ ? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite everything. Just the archives related to the talkpage irrespective of whether they are numbered or just have a title in words. For example Archive box allows you to automatically list archives numbered specifically as /Archive 1, /Archive 2 etc by adding {{archive box|auto=yes}}. This feature saves a lot of effort by automatically listing the current numbered archives (of which there are 15 at the moment). However some talkpage archives are subject-specific and it wouldn't make sense to number them; so these have to be manually added as follows for example:
{{Archive box collapsible|large=yes|box-width=100%|auto=yes|'''Topical'''
  • [[Talk:Buddhism/Abolitionism|Abolitionism]]
  • [[Talk:Buddhism/Religion status|Religion status]]
  • [[Talk:Buddhism/Vegetarianism|Vegetarianism]]
}}
Basically my suggestion is that the automatic listing should be modified so that we wouldn't need to manually insert those three extra archives and any other un-numbered archives. If need be these un-numbered archives could be renamed as Talk:Buddhism/Archive Abolitionism, Talk:Buddhism/Archive Religion etc or some similar naming scheme. Hope that makes sense. Green Giant (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the only way this is possible is if they are named as you said, with the "Archive" prefix. I'm not quite sure how to do this, but I will work on it. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, best of luck. :) Green Giant (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some notes

Well, choosing {{Archive box collapsible}} effectively does the exact same job as defining collapsible=yes, so there's nothing gained by merging the templates convenience-wise as far as that goes. And if someone wants to switch an {{Archive box}} transclusion to ABC, s/he can simply add "collapsible", and you don't even have to remove the image code (if any): it just won't be displayed since it's not intended to be there: My basic idea behind ABC was to have a non-bullshit-straight functional box that doesn't take up much space on the page and doesn't include any dispensable stuff like images, or unnecessary parameters.

Another, if minor, inconvenience with your current code which would require yet more complicated and unnecessary explanation is the fact that leaving e.g. the image= parameter empty does not result in the image not being there, but instead it returns [[Image:|30px|Archive]] — which means that people would have to be advised to assign the parameter a value (a concept some don't fully understand to begin with) or remove it entirely.

So that's already more complicated than just choosing either of the existing templates. Most users are probably not interested in doing a lot of configuring when the "configuration" can be done simply by choosing a particular template.

Imho we should do everything to help with countering systemic bias, which includes keeping the configurable fancy stuff to a minimum to guarantee maximum usability particularly for the less tech-savvy. We code-fiddlers can build and maintain anything we like, but it's not for everybody. Just in case you're still thinking about replacing TL:AB and TL:ABC with your template. I don't think it's a useful idea, as outlined above. Dorftrottel (criticise) 16:42, February 26, 2008

I disagree. The only difference between the code of ABC and making this box collapsible would be =yes|large=yes, which I don't think takes up that much additional space. This also allows for easier switching in the future. Changing from AB to ABC or vice-versa would not work very well for those that currently use all or most of the parameters. The inclusion of an image in the collapsible versions can be discussed, but I do not see any problem with having something that is hidden in the first place. I did not realize that leaving the image= parameter blank would remove the picture, because I have always tested the template by completing removing the blank parameters, so I will fix that. This template would also provide maximum usability for any user. Instead of users having to choose a particular template that has specific features, they can use this one and do whatever they want with it. I have seen templates with many more parameters, not that I agree with that either. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)