en.m.wikipedia.org
Template talk:Archives
Won’t collapse
Hi folks! Any idea why this implementation won’t collapse? It started life as a use of {{archive box collapsible}}, then got changed to
{{archives}}
by a bot (verify). I later tried adding |collapsible=yes to the already existing |collapsed=yes, but to no avail (verify). Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions? Thanks!
SpikeToronto 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
SpikeToronto For some reason collapsing and large/banner are mutually exclusive. I'm guessing this isn't intentional I can fix it but since there are so many weird quirks with this template I will leave it for a bit in case anyone has comments. --Trialpears (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Trialpears: Thank you for explaining this to me! In the layout that I use, I like the wide archive box (i.e., |large/banner=yes) because it lines up width-wise and centred precisely with the templates immediately above and below. Yet, I also like the idea of being able to collapse it while maintaining that width and centring because it reduces clutter and banner blindness at the top of the page. Thus, this may be one reason why having collapsing and bannering play nicely with each other could prove beneficial. Thanks!
SpikeToronto 15:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for responding so quickly. Your turnaround time was phenomenal! I figured if I heard back from someone in a week or two, I’d be lucky. But, such a rapid answer was wholly unexpected, yet joyfully appreciated. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that it is nothing mote than an oversight. Much of the functionality here is from merging with other templates which has made it a nightmare for testing. I'm unsure if having collapsing and banners at the same time has ever been possible hence it not being a problem in existing uses. --Trialpears (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Trialpears and SpikeToronto: From what I remember, the separate banner template couldn’t collapse and trying to make it collapse with the image and layout was a mess... With the template being how it is and trying to not add more breaking points, there never seemed a need to add more if’s to have the functionality. So the closest you can get is making it a flat bar as shown in the testcase. Although I don’t think I ever looked that hard to try to make it work originally either... Terasail II[✉] 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
You should be able to use the archive list parameter along with a subpage to format you archives and put them in a collapsible box. (I have never tried this so don’t know if it would work). Terasail II[✉] 04:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Terasail and Trialpears: Turns out I no longer need it to collapse. The archive box on my talkpage now has the word “index” on it, which, when clicked, takes one to the separate subpage where the uncollapsed Archives template sits. I no longer need it collapsed since it is the only thing on that page and it better serves its purpose there uncollapsed. However, it occurred to me that if one really wanted it to collapse, one could surround it with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates using the same colour as the Archives box and some appropriate label. Thanks!
SpikeToronto 10:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 UPDATE: I ended up using this where I did need it to be collapsed:
{{collapse top|title=Archives|bg=#F7EABA|bg2=#F7EABA|width=80%}}
Archives box
{{collapse bottom}}
See here for an example. — SpikeToronto 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I dislike how merge discussions sometimes don't even consider loss of functionality like this. People don-tvote merge as if merging templates was trivial. And then, after the merge, when the lost functionality is pointed out, we get... programmer's excuses, instead of the obvious solution: revert the merge and ban it until it actually keeps the promises made during the breezy merge discussion (by entirely different and non-technical people than the hard-workingvolunteers actually grappling with the code, this is not a dig at you, it is an observation on the lazy-ass uninformed careless process). CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair points, @CapnZapp. Moreover, with this particular template, I think it has experienced more than one merger. — SpikeToronto 10:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What I'm saying is: reverting a merge decision on the grounds functionality is lost/a bug is found should be the order of the day. It needs to be on those deciding to merge to actually make the merge work. So not just reverting the actual merge (the edit to the page), but reopening the merge discussion with "was not done properly, try again". Just asking random Wikipedians to not-vote "merge" with no clue as to the technical challenge sometimes with the most superficial of justifications, and not even asking the merge proposer to find out any challenges that might cause the merge to fail (=not go swimmingly)... and then putting any weight to that decision boggles the mind... It's no coincidence WMF technicians most often simply ignore Wikipedia's wants and needs completely - it's the only way. CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
CapnZapp No template has had support for collapsing banners meaning that no existing uses have experienced issues. I don't think anyone can really be blamed for not going beyond merging and adding additional features that wasn't present before. In general I feel mergers go quite smoothly and I can't come up with an example of a botched merger braking things not being resolved (either by reverting or fixing) very quickly.
Collapsing banners is definitely a feature that should exist however and I will look into making it a thing shortly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talkcontribs) 11:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@CapnZapp and Trialpears: I have messed with the sandbox and made the banner collapsible, I have been looking at the testcases and it doesn't appear that I have broken anything so I am requesting the change below. Turns out it wouldn't place the "show/hide" button in the right place because of the header cell. Terasail[✉️] 15:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Collapse Banner TPER
I have made 2 changed to the template in the sandbox, shown with this diff.
I have looked at the testcases and do not see any problems that have been created by these changes. The changes were discussed above where it was noted that the two styles of this template (Banner / Box) should share all of their options. Terasail[✉️] 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 Note: I found an error with the current sandbox - I also was just granted edit access so will implement after I have ironed out and fully checked for errors. Terasail[✉️] 14:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Terasail Perhaps it would be nicer to implement it with divs as shown at Wikipedia:NavFrame#Migration​? That would avoid a bunch of the table weirdness you seem to be encountering. Just a thought and I haven't looked to deeply here. --Trialpears (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, I don't really have time to look at the moment. Just thought I should cancel the TPER since it isn't ready and there is no point requesting something which will break current use cases. Terasail[✉️] 14:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixes and question
@Trialpears: as I have been going through the template on the sandbox, attempting to make the above (collapsable banner) work, it is working I just need to test it on a few pages... I noticed that you made |list= & |1= have the same functionality with this edit. As stated in the parameter descriptions, they were slightly different. In the current sandbox I have given the functionality back but if there was a problem caused by this I can remove it again. Terasail[✉️] 21:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Terasail That was a while ago so I may have some details wrong, but I believe before said edit if list was provided it used the list without checking auto options. After this edit I think it does the same but in a different way. There are some things I really would want done to simplify this template and make it less confusing. Merging |1= and |list= is a prime example of such a thing. Others include archivelists and box-width. --Trialpears (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I "sortof" merged the two parameters in the sandbox & removed the whole switching entirely since it was acting as an if with only 2 options anyway. I just added an "#if" to turn off auto detection if list is used... I am slowly trying to simplyfy the template since its such a nightmare to read (May have not helped here with previous tpers) Terasail[✉️] 21:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Doing this without loss of funtionality will probably require not insignificant numbers of edits to current uses. The list parameter is used ballpark 570 times with it only being different to |1= if |auto= is given an affirmative value which it then ignores which is really confusing behaivior anyways. I at least think that's the case. If that's all we really should get rid of it. I believe almost all such cases should have been removed in my cleanup for the above mentioned edit but I can't be sure. I would probably wait until the first and use the template data report to generate a list of pages that would be affected and then cleanup that handful before removing the feature. --Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I would have to agree that |list= is currently pretty much useless, since someone could just use |auto=no if they don't want auto detection and since it is such a limited number of cases it really seems pointless. Terasail[✉️] 22:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Template data report doesn't exist for talk pages so I'm creating a list where a non empty list parameter is used. Looks like really very few pages. If you want to do your rewrite with list as an alias for 1 that should be completely fine since these can very easily be handled manually. I'm also quite tempted to ask Primefac to do a run with their bot dealing with the box width parameter replacing it with the equivalent in the style parameter. --Trialpears (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, it would just require a slight change to line 10 of the sandbox, just trying to search for any problems with the sandbox on pages at the moment Going to make more testcases and split them onto 2 pages (1 for banners & one for the box size). Should the parameters still allow auto detection of archive lists or act as |list= and block it? Terasail[✉️] 22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Like |1= is currently handled with auto detection? --Trialpears (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah but I just realised that I have slightly altered how |1= works (see my sandbox) but its an easy fix, just working on better testcases to catch these slight differences more easily. Terasail[✉️] 23:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The recent edit to this template has broken its use on my talk page. Thanks. --- Possibly 07:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
box-width and Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters
Would anyone here mind if I took a bot and went through this category fixing the cases where there's no style parameter present? I'll file a BRFA if there are no objections in a while. --Trialpears (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I support removing |box-width= from all usecases shown at Category:Archive boxes with unusual parameters. -Side note: @Trialpears: The sandbox you have been working on has removed |style= entirely, is this intentional? Since there are a lot of archiveboxes which use this. Terasail[✉️] 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Archives" page.
Last edited on 19 September 2021, at 03:13
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
 Home Random  Nearby  Log in  Settings  Donate  About Wikipedia  Disclaimers
WatchEdit