Template:Archives is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archives template.
There was no error; it's just that CapnZapp's response to you clearly showed that he misunderstood you as saying "not a valid value for Archives to parse" instead of "not a valid value for configuring the archival bot". Aaron Liu (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A narrower banner would help declutter the top of talk pages
On talk pages without a {{talk header}} there is no way to know of the archiving unless one adds {{archives}}.
People may prefer a horizontal archive banner instead of the right-floating archive box. It would be nice if the banner was narrower. Especially if there are other top of the page notices and banners.
One way to narrow the banner is to remove the filebox icon:
{{archives|banner=yes|image=none}}
The software wraps that line in a paragraph element. The default paragraph style is a 1em margin above and .5em margin below. This is where the spacing comes from. I tried putting a div there in the sandbox which seems to only work some of the time:
I was thinking the same about it being too complicated. I suggest making it a duplicate of the bottom of {{talk header}}.
I don't know how to do that though. {{talk header}} is complex and uses Lua too. But someone with knowledge could just copy the parts dealing with the archive banner at the bottom of {{talk header}}.
I saw that; thanks! At first, I thought there would be a quick solution, but I'm not interested in trying to puzzle out the template if it means rewriting some large chunk of it, and so I will move on to something else. Timeshifter is probably right about how the template should display if someone else wants to puzzle through it, Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably possible (with a little wrangling because currently the footer area is shared between the box and banner versions), but I wonder why you would not want a talk header, not want the ultracompact box version of the archives, and not want the single footer line at the bottom? I understand not liking the vertical whitespace that RJJ removed but what's wrong with a single, small line more banner height? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the small-print takes up 2 lines. Many people don't feel the need for the {{talk header}} on all talk pages. Some people dislike the box version of {{archives}}. I prefer the horizontal version because it doesn't mess up the talk, no matter the screen width. Many talk pages have a lot of stuff at the top, and saving every line counts. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of note is that this wrangling duplicates the code used to generate the message describing the archival scheme. But it would make sense to make the template look like the bottom of talk header, which could also transclude this template so we don't have much duplication. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would make things a lot simpler in the long run. I hope this template shows itself even before the archive is created. To let people know that archiving has been set up. It would be missing the search bar and archive list of course, at that point. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's talk header's independent version's fault. You're right that that's the behavior for talk header and I think that should be changed as well, though I think the best way to change things is replacing TM:Archives with TM:Archives/sandbox, and then replacing the duplicate implementation in TM:Talk header with {{archives|image=none|tooltip=yes}}. If you think the sandbox version (shown below) is good to go, I'll file an edit request! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the tooltop parameter is not used, then the tooltip should be used by default. I am still seeing 2 lines of small text sometimes on my monitor. If people want the longer text, then maybe do it via a parameter like text=yes, or something.
I don't think we should make that the default as I like big banners to seem "fulfilling" and this is the first time objections against the footer were brought up, so more editors probably prefer the footer.
I suggest asking at Template talk:Talk header if they want the default to be the narrower version. That is what they have now. I have seen some animated discussions there about making the talk header bigger for this and that suggested addition. They like the thing as a whole to be narrower.
So if this is to possibly be a template that is transcluded into the talk header, then I am pretty sure they will want it be narrower as a default. When the small text takes 2 lines as it does now on this 1080p monitor sometimes that means the banner without the tooltip is 4+ lines tall. Versus the tooltip banner at 2 lines total. That's a big difference on a talk page with a lot of other project banners, contentious topic banners, and so on.
Maybe the transclusion can transclude the narrow version, and allow the taller version as a default for the separate horizontal {{archives}} banner.
But I think {{archives|banner=yes}} is easy to remember, and so it should have the tooltip.
Maybe show the longer text only when no archives have been created yet. Because there will be no search form or archive list to make the banner taller. The text could be normal size in that case. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's sensible to ask Talk Header what they think about Archives's configurations they don't use. No matter what the default is, it doesn't affect them. I think you should gain consensus to make that the default at somewhere more visible than Talk Header's talk page, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. In the meantime, if you have no other suggestions, I'll make this an edit request!
Because there will be no search form or archive list to make the banner taller.
There will. As I said above the hiding of the template is something only done by Talk Header and not Archives.
Maybe the transclusion can transclude the narrow version, and allow the taller version as a default for the separate horizontal {{archives}} banner.
I guess since {{talk header}} could transclude whatever version its editors decide on, then what you do with the {{archives}} banner by default doesn't matter to them.
I am confused by one thing you said. Are you saying there will be a search form and archive list when there are no archives created yet? I wasn't saying to show nothing. You can show the text or the tooltip still. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there will be a search form and archive list when there are no archives created yet?
Yes. There is no mechanism within Archives itself to hide those by itself and I don't see why you would want to hide those. Though now that I think about it that probably needs consensus at Talk Header first; I'll ask. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cluebot III will archive sections when more than 4 are present.
Auto-archiving period: 30 days
I think you can put just Sigmabot or Cluebot as the link label. The full name can be used as the link under the label. That will keep it all shorter, and on one line in most cases.
As I suspected might happen, some of the {{talk header}} editors are allergic to change. So maybe the deduplication can only happen when archives already exist.
The Talk Header was always just a parallel thing. But I don't think I can implement that into this template that well. It's a bit much customization in terms of template size. Is there a reason the other example I gave isn't sufficient? And when Lowercase sigmabot is put in the two-sided thing you prefer, it displays a bit weirdly, splitting the tooltip side into a separate line. I really thing just having the short summary is much better. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized there is no need to left align one half, and to right align the other half. That makes more sense when separating out the actual archive links. But when there are no archives maybe conjoin the halves, and center align it all. Or left align it all.
But I would like it all to fit on one line in 1080p monitors. It's funny, I have a 39 inch 1080p monitor on my kitchen table. I have a 4K 43 inch monitor on my bedroom desk. The large monitors help my tired eyes.
People frequently complain about multiple banners taking up too much space at the top of talk pages. That is why I prefer a one-line banner on talk pages without archives.
It fits just as well as what you suggest, does it not? Most desktop browsers have a feature to simulate other screen dimensions and that's what I did. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about the duplication. This is pretty short below. In a table since I don't know how to do a banner. Removed "automatically". Kept full bot names.
Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 30 days when more than 4 are present.
Cluebot III will archive sections older than 30 days when more than 4 are present.
Please replace the live template with its sandbox version, which disables extra paragraphing in the banner style and adds an option to display the footer as a tooltip instead, akin to {{talk header}}Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misreading the diff or the testcases page. I see new parameters like |noarchives= and |inlinelist= in the sandbox, and I do not see test cases for those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like "noarchives" doesn't match with the current behavior. Is this intentional? Were these parameters discussed somewhere? And inlinelist looks odd. Maybe you could show these new parameters in action on a page where they would actually apply. I am marking this edit request as answered, since it does not appear to be ready for a template editor to implement pending some explanations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 Not sure what you mean by "doesn't match with the current behavior". New parameters always add new functionality. You can see these parameters in action on TM:Talk header/sandbox and thus TM:Talk header/testcases. There's debate on Template talk:Talk header is over whether Talk Header's behavior should be changed to show a certain thing when there are no archives, but there also seems to be consensus for the change of transcluding Archives to replicate Talk Header's behavior, which is what TM:Talk header/sandbox currently does. I've previously notified WT:TPG of those discussions. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I compare the live template to the sandbox, they output different text. I don't see that discussed. On the talk page you linked to just now, I see only sandbox renderings, which doesn't help me compare to ensure that desired output will remain intact. At that discussion, I also see a template that outputs the nonsensical phrase "Index no archives yet". A template edit request is supposed to be structured so that a template editor who has not seen the template can somewhat easily determine whether the proposed change will break existing functionality and will do what is intended. I am having a difficult time seeing that here. The best way to demonstrate your change is side-by-side (or vertically stacked) examples of what the template does now and what it will do after the changes are implemented. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Template talk:Talk header is meant to show consensus, not examples of the template.
outputs the nonsensical phrase "Index no archives yet"
It's not nonsensical as it would indicate a page has an index of archives but no actual archives, an admittedly rare situation that in this case results from a bug. But that bug was always there and some mysterious force compels me to only fix it in a separate edit request.
The best way to demonstrate your change is side-by-side (or vertically stacked) examples of what the template does now and what it will do after the changes are implemented.
I've linked to those. I think you already saw the smoke-test cases for tooltip, and the other two parameters are tested at the bottom of the box and banner testcases pages. They're side-to-side comparisons. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another template editor is welcome to make some or all of these changes. I have been unable to make heads or tails of the many pages linked from this request. Sorry for the inaction. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like most of the edits (especially 90 days → 3 months, and removal of redlinked archives) but I don't think this change is uncontroversial for a few reasons:
The sandbox version removes the word "automatically" and shifts the focus from "the topics are automatically archived" to "it's this USERNAME that archives topics". I think we should keep the focus on the fact that the topics are automatically archived; people shouldn't care which bot does it.
In the examples {{Archives/sandbox|root=Talk:France|banner=yes}} and {{Archives/sandbox|root=Talk:France|banner=yes|tooltip=yes}}, I think the image of the drawer isn't vertically centered and should be lowered. Same for Template:Archives/testcases/banner#27
In the example {{Archives/sandbox|root=Talk:France|tooltip=yes}}, I believe these should be more vertical padding around Auto-archiving period: 3 months, both above and below it. It feels too cramped to me.
Additionally, when hovering over the text Auto-archiving period, there are two whitespaces next to each other instead of one. Before, they were rendered as one space, but with the tooltip enabled, they are visible.
This change was from a user above complaining about screen real estate and wanting the banner to be short. and only one-or-two lines tall. I kind-of agree with him here, since "Bot" in the username implies "automatically". Though I can revert to the previous wording with "automatically" if you think it's important enough.
This bug existed before my changes, which it wasn't affected by. However I agree that it's enough of a nuisance. Should be fixed.
I've added some below the tooltip. I don't think the space above it is any cramped; it's the exact same spacing as between the rows of the list of archives.
I agree the old sentence in the template is too long and should be shortened. However, I think the new version of the sentence should be changed to retain the old meaning. The old one was written in the passive tense to highlight that "sections may be automatically archived", and then proceeded to add technical details such as the name of the bot who performs the action. The new version instead starts with "Lowercase sigmabot III may archive...". If i were a new user, it's possible I wouldn't read the entire username, and, even if I did, it's possible I wouldn't think the process happened automatically, possibly because the username doesn't immediately seem to belong to a bot, because it is not stated explicitly in the rest of the sentence, or because of the use of the verb "may" instead of "will". A possible way to do this could be to keep the passive tense instead of the active tense, hyperlink some of the words to point them to the bot's userpage, and then remove the name of the bot from the sentence. I wouldn't personally mind this change, but idk if the bot's username needs to be displayed in full for other reasons.
I noticed, but the new version, being shorter, makes it more noticeable. I think you may have fixed it now?
Thanks! "[T]he space above [is] the exact same spacing as between the rows of the list of archives"; this is one of the reasons I felt it was cramped, it wasn't visually separated. But your change already looks good and this issue doesn't really matter now.
I don't think there's much of a difference in meaning for including "automatically" (the bulk of the length shortening) here or not. Since we say that sections are archived when {bolded conditions}, it results in the same conclusion of a trigger causing archival. I think removing the bot's name would be a bigger change to the status quo as it's a bigger subtraction in meaning than the absence of "automatically".Also, when in tooltipped form, the box already says "Auto-archiving period" anyways.On "may" vs "will": "may" is, as you say, the original wording and "will" would cause people to ask when the archival when happen, while most archiving bots are inconsistent in when they archive things. Cluebot, for example, can occasionally not archive anything despite it being archivable for half a week.
Feels a bit awkward but I can't tell if it really is awkward or it's just me ol' familiarity biases all kicking in. I've updated the blurb generation to your recommendations. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think 5 or more is clearer than more than 4 (and also shorter!) but that's a very small change and I don't mind it either way. I noticed the bot name isn't shortened (e.g. Lowercase sigmabot iii → Sigmabot): is that because of technical limitations? Or for other reasons?
Nevertheless, I like the current sendbox version enough and I think this edit request can be implemented in its current form. FaviFake (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you both seeing this exactly? I prefer shortness to avoid wrapping in as narrow a screen as possible. I think Sigmabot and Cluebot are good enough without the full name. Especially since the full name is in the internal link. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first one to be confused, so I'll put a big notice with links all the changes (taken from Aaron's replies above):
To compare the two versions of the template, please visit these test pages:
In my 1080p monitor with larger text size that horizontal banner has the equivalent of 6 lines of text when counting the blank space as lines too. That icon takes up a lot of space because it seems to set the boundary on the left. It would be better it it were inline at the top left, and the rest of the template wrapped around it. So there would be no indented left side boundary.
I would like to see what the new, improved banner looks like with the shortest lines:
Sections older than 3 months may be auto-archived by SigmaBOT if there are 5 or more.
Sections older than 3 months may be auto-archived by ClueBot if there are 5 or more.
If the archives list and the blurb were on the same line, then I don't see why the banner couldn't be done with a total of just 2 lines in my 1080p monitor. 2nd line being the search form.
(As mentioned above I'm not going to shorten the bot names.) Talk:iOS would look like this:{{archives/sandbox|root=Talk:IOS|banner=yes|index=/Archive index|collapsible=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}} →
The new banner has to be merged into the actual template before you see its changes reflected; not to mention you need to add |tooltip= if you want to see the tooltip syntax.I was going to name this subsection "edit request" before I realized that could result in two headings with the same name on the same page, which is not something I particularly like, so I mashed in "Narrowing" to the front as a disambiguator. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. I wasn't aware there was another Signmabot, I agree it would be misleading. I disagree that the archive icon should go inline; that's not how we deisgn templates. (Still not sure why it doesn't say "5 or more" but, as I said, i think it's ready to be implemented in its current form.)
I don't think Jonesey will ever understand this unfortunately. The edit request banner is already calling everyone who can implement it. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the unnecessary line separator should be removed. Also, some of the blank space. I convinced some template editors to put an icon inline on a Commons template. There is no reason it can't be done. It would be at the beginning of a line. So the icon would still be on the left side of the template.
OK. I figured how to view the banners outside their talk page locations. Via root=
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.
I see that using the blurb (even my shortest suggestions) on the same line as the archive list will result in 4 lines total (counting the unnecessary line separator and blank space) in my 1080p monitor. Especially if you keep "This page has archives." as part of the blurb. Could it be removed? Then the blurb could be put on the same line as the archive list. Thus arriving at a 2-line template.
What shows up if there are no archives yet? Say I add {{archives}} and the bot code to a talk page with a few sections in anticipation of the next section added tripping the bot. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're suggesting, but I don't think this should be discussed inside the edit request topic. We already expanded the scope of the edit request earlier and luckily managed to establish consensus quiclky enough, but these changes are more complex and should be discussed in a separarate topic before being included in an edit request. Edit requests are no for establishing consensus. FaviFake (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This footer style currently used absolutely everywhere Archives is used has been the status quo for a decade and would need far more consensus than us to change by default. Just append |tooltip=yes on the talkpages you come across if you wish. Just removing "This page has archives. " has a much higher chance of getting consensus, but again is not something I'm comfortable with doing without further input from others. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have made numerous requests for changes in this edit request. And Jonesey95 said this edit request was not ready for prime time.
I mentioned this before: I like this from Aaron Liu:
Cluebot III will archive sections when more than 5 are present.
Auto-archiving period: 3 months
It is on one line, and would be great for pages where {{archives}} has been added, along with the bot code, in anticipation of the next section tripping the bot. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that this can be discussed in an edit request as part of the consensus behind it, but I'd like to get the current changes out of the way first before looking at that, especially since Jacobolus has objected to the one-liner. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the proposed changes should probably be done in chunks. Jacobolus comments were at Template Talk:Talk header, not here. I hope we are no longer trying to integrate the 2 templates.
>You have made numerous requests for changes in this edit request.
I have pointed out the flaws i noticed in the proposed design, specifying I didn't think it was uncontroversial and thus shouldn't be discussed in an edit request. You, Aaron, and I have managed to come to an agreement quickly enough that solved the issues. What you're proposing is a much more radical change that needs consensus.
>Jonesey95 said this edit request was not ready for prime time.
They actually said the opposite: "Another template editor is welcome to make some or all of these changes."
I, for one, might disagree with your proposal, partly because the tooltip message displays comments in plaintext, and because I haven't seen test cases for it nor understood its purpose. FaviFake (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95's very next sentence was: "I have been unable to make heads or tails of the many pages linked from this request. Sorry for the inaction." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the failure of one editor to understand on which pages the test cases for the sandbox version of a template are located could be interpreted as the sandbox version itself being flawed. FaviFake (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests here must be understood and fulfilled by a template editor like Jonesey95. See:
Just to be clear: I abandoned this request because I no longer understood what was being proposed or whether there was consensus. There has been much discussion since then, along with many changes to the proposal. I have no opinion on the changes or the proposal, and any template editor who wants to dive in and attempt to understand what has been discussed and proposed here is welcome to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion to months
(I moved down the Edit Request subsection, since this seems to have veered off from the scope of an edit request. The messages below are replying to Aaron Liu's proposal FaviFake (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Looking at the France testcases, what's up with the change from 90 days to 3 months? What is the change and why did you decide to implement it? (Feel free to point me upthread if this has already been hashed out) CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I completely forgot. I've reverted it, though the shortened version right outside the tooltip after the colon still uses "3 months" to conform with the TalkHeader version. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for asking stupid questions but where is the date change discussed and/or documented? (I'm not opposing anything here, just asking questions) CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't discussed; I had a reason when I made the change but have since forgot what the reason was and I can think of reasons against it. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the reason was that it's easier to understand if the time is between 2-3 months and 12 months. For example, you wouldn't know off the top of your head that 274 days corresponds to exactly 9 months. This is the reason why I liked it, at least. FaviFake (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The archiving bots don't operate in terms of months, but in terms of days or hours. This is, I think, because a day is exact but a month is imprecise - it can be 28 to 31 days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I believe it was merely a visual change meant for readers, not editors. The number of days in the underlying configuration would have remained the same. FaviFake (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As somewhat of a nitpick, that argument isn't completely accurate, User:Redrose64. We discussed earlier the date units accepted by the code; I was genuinely surprised it only accepted hours and days (I think it's only those two). I can't remember off hand right now, but I am positive I've seen Wikipedia code utilize the full range of php date units (yes, I know that's not the language used). Certainly computers can handle months, and with ease, and even more to the point: without getting confused over how many days there's in a month. What I am saying is that a programmer could easily have made the bot accept months as a unit, in addition to somewhat frivolous units like "fortnight" or "week". If a human says "archive every three months" that just isn't the problem for a computer you appear to make it out to be, assuming proper library support, which, again, I am certain other functions around here have used. (I probably could find out where I saw it; can't just remember off hand). Again, this is something of an aside and should probably be ignored. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument I thought of against changing it to months is the loss of precision. How is one to know if "3 months" means 90 or 100 days?If you want the bot to accept months as a unit, you have to ask yourself what that even means. Is a month 30 days, 4 weeks, or whatever it takes to land on the same day of the month; in other words, is one month from today going to be 1 September, 30 August, or 2 September? I don't think there's a good answer to this choice, as whatever it is will lead to some unnecessary confusion. Plus, any additional feature is additional complexity in the code to maintain and adds to the difficulty of successor maintainers understanding the codebase, so every new feature needs to have its benefits weighed against the code complexity. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Aaron about the months, it's too vague for a bot. But I don't see why weeks couldn't be implemented; you'd just take the number and multiply it by 7. FaviFake (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me be clear: I'm not arguing for/against support for months. I am merely clarifying that the "bot" (or rather, the computer code that controls it) has zero problems handling months: it simply is supported as a date unit. This is PHP so the syntax is different, but $date->modify('+3 months'); adds three months to some date. It just isn't too "imprecise" or "vague", not for the bot at least. And I believe most humans that would choose to use |algo=old(3m) (MiszaBot config example) to say "archive every three months" wouldn't obsess over the exact frequency. In fact, I'd note that the "loss of precision" is probably viewed as a feature and not a bug here - in fact, it's probably the exact reason someone would choose |algo=old(3m) over |algo=old(90d) 🙂. Take care, CapnZapp (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot uses Python. And the issue is more interfacing with humans. However the bot actually implements it, the human wouldn't be able to guess. I find having at least one place to see the precision better. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know Python modules support PHP date units, as I've said. And the human interface is not the problem you think it is, which I also explained. Still, my persistence isn't about getting this implemented but to cut through the conjecture and misunderstandings. Months may be vague, but this is likely a feature and not a bug for humans, and the bot/computer handles it just fine. Don't avoid adding this based on uninformed thinking it can't be done or that it's difficult to comprehend or use (for either man or machine). Do, however, avoid adding this based on a consensus it's really not necessary, should that be the case. Either way, at this point y'all either choose to believe me or you persist in not taking in what I'm writing. I'm repeating myself, so I'll end here. This was, after all, a giant side track. Keep up the good work, CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first the scope of the edit request was solely to disable extra paragraphing (and therefore padding) while adding an option to display the footer as a tooltip instead, akin to {{talk header}}. Then it grew with discussion to also include some parameters for hiding the archives list and using an inline custom list so that {{talk header}} could use this template instead of a custom implementation.
There is no need to read the above discussion, though you're welcome to if you wish. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the examples where the sandbox version is used alone, it all seems to be working. The edit request mentions "using an inline custom list so that {{talk header}} could use this template instead of a custom implementation", but in some examples under Template:Talk_header/testcases#arpol=yes_/_noarchive, the templates render at two different widths (on Firefox/Chrome, Vector-2022, and Linux Mint). Also, it adds some extra padding on the bottom of the banner at Template:Talk_header/testcases compared to the current setup. Looking at the talk page discussion there, I see some consensus to transition to a single template. All of the talk page debate there seems to be about whether or not to show a banner at all before the first archive is created. @Aaron Liu, do you want to work out the kinks on the combined template idea over there first, or would you like to push the changes live here in case that discussion drags on? Rjjiii (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough testing.I kept the padding because otherwise it just looks weird when you transclude it with the properly-wide page width. The borders of the search box/button and of the banner don't collapse and would be ugly close to each other, something you do not see with the default mbox styling. The width thing might be an issue, but it seems to be only present at very small screen sizes (where the user would've been using the bannerless mobile interface instead), and is something that should be fixed in TalkHeader instead: Archives is at the width every other banner would be at, while TalkBanner is overlong. Having Archives grow to match TalkHeader would still make them inconsistent with the rest of the banners on the talk page.Since I don't think there's changes needed to Archives, I feel like the best course of actions is to push the changes first. Thanks in advance! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've moved the sandbox changes live, as there is consensus above. I see that there is a new template to create text (I believe so that multiple archive templates will have consistent text); that template will soon be protected by a bot as it is transcluded by the live template. If anybody not following this page notices the changes and turns up here, feel free to post below with questions or concerns. Rjjiii (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here is what it looks like on a talk page without any archives yet:
{{archives|auto=yes}} displays poorly here with 132 numbered archives. Lines of 3-digit numbers are wrapped for me. 100+ archives is rare and the user can add a width parameter but I suggest doing something automatically if there are 108+ archives. 107 should be OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any wrapping - every line begins with a number ending in 1, every line (except the last) ends with a number ending in 0. This is one of those situations where different users have different experiences depending upon multiple factors, including (but not limited to) operating system, browser, fonts installed, skin, customisation. In short: we can't see what your setup is like, all we can do is aim to give the majority of users a reasonably satisfactory experience. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried logged out in four browsers on Windows 10: Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Opera, all with default settings. The same happens in all four: All lines above 100 have a wrap while no lines below have it. There may be skins and user settings where it doesn't happen but as far as I can tell, the large majority of desktop viewers will see wraps above 100. Did you try logged out? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like a line break after every ten links if those ten fit on one line like they do below 100. Module:Message box/tmbox.css sets width: 238px which is usually not enough for ten comma-separated 3-digit numbers. 271px is the smallest which works for me in Firefox with Vector 2022. I suggest automatically setting something a little larger for 108+ archives, but it's rare to have so many archives. We could also just mention in the documentation that |style=width:300px; may look better for more than 100 archives. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter, I don't have an issue with either the automatic change or the update to the documentation. I was just explaining what causes the line break. If other editors don't see it break at "108" they may have a smaller default font, a font with a thinner "1", or a different theme. I made a section at User_talk:Rjjiii_(ii)#For_testing_large_numbers to test and the line breaks at different numbers when I change the Wikipedia skin. Since Module:Archive list is already dealing directly with counting the number of archives, it could add "white-space: nowrap" and maybe a small margin when the archives exceed 100. Rjjiii (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not crazy about line breaks every N, that is kind of anathema to HTML. But I get the need for an organizing principle so one's eye doesn't get lost in a sea of numbers, where it is hard to pick out the tens; I just don't think fixed line breaks is the way to do it. What about just highlighting the tens, either through bolding, a preceding bullet or dingbat, or other styling?
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.
There are plenty of other styles that could be used, e.g. 115% font-size, etc.
Do users even know that they want exactly 'Archive 87'? Why not list, say, all of the last 20-or so archives, and then before that, just every tenth one. When they click an even ten, they get a set of ten navigation links at the top that get them to the nearest ten archives. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, this?
Sample archives box with a completely different approach
@Waddie96, could you explain the changes a bit and how output would differ across devices? Many editors don't use screen readers at all. Just now, I tested on Orca (for Linux) and the prefilled text makes it more clear that the search box exists. For the other changes, I don't hear a difference between the live and sandbox versions, Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii Hi there, I've made edits see this diff that hopefully clarify the changes and will assist editors in the future who may come across them. Since I know W3C ARIA is a relatively unknown topic amongst template editors. waddie96 ★ (talk)12:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And not testing lol, I always use a screen reader. That's why I'm starting to add accessibility to templates, because I deal with the issues every day, and I think someone who uses it it probably the best person for the job waddie96 ★ (talk)20:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, and thanks for looking into the accessibility of templates. I'm going to push this live if nobody else does first or raises an objection. I want to test on NVDA and will then make the changes. Feel free to {{ping}} me if I get sidetracked, Rjjiii (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
