Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:archive box. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:archive box, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:archive box in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:archive box you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:archive box will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:archive box, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Usage
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I suggest creating specific sub-templates that set {{{title}}}, {{{intro}}} and {{{image}}} (and maybe {{{1}}}), and then using those with just the {{{text}}} parameter, but you may use this directly on talk pages too. Conrad.Irwin19:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The replacement for these is the pair: {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}. aWa already uses these two, if you noticed. The benefits of using them are that you no longer have to worry about escaping = and | characters. Also, fewer templates means fewer changes needed when archive categories are to be reorganised for some reason.
The above templates can be simply substituted to yield their replacement; some are already orphaned.
And the argument for that which Polansky put at BP instead of here (where it belongs) is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Except that in this case it is definitely not "ain't broke". Every once in a while when someone puts "|" inside a discussion it fails to display properly in the archive box because someone failed to remember/realise they should use {{!}}. Splitting the archive box into two templates eliminates that problem. But who cares about that if I dislike the nominator? — Keφr11:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Seeing that you only objected to the incomplete quotation, I assume you entirely agree with the rest. Thank you for dropping your opposition. — Keφr11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
For the record and the reader, I did not drop my opposition; I still oppose deleting these templates. I have to admit that dealing with the inflammatory style of the above speaker stretches some of my capabilities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Deprecate. I don't see an urgent reason to delete these, rather than deprecate them, including removing them from membership in the categories in which they reside in favor of the same name preceded by "deprecated". @Kephir But can a bot accomplish the conversion reliably? Presumably the functionality of {{archived from tea room}} could also be replaced. DCDuringTALK16:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Kephir: That doesn't exactly answer my question. Can a bot be made to do the operation reliably or does it need to be done manually? If a bot can't do it, who will? If no one volunteers, why not just deprecate the inferior, older templates. If the 346 or so transclusions of {{archived from tea room}} can't be bot-replaced, that might be something for me to get started on. DCDuringTALK17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
As I said, templates nominated above can be simply {{subst:}}ed, which can be done with a regex replacement, and I have made some preparations to make this process lossless. The problem with {{archived from tea room}} is with finding where the archived discussion ends (i.e. where to put {{archive-bottom}}). It would be reasonable to assume that the discussion spans from the {{archived from tea room}} template to the end of the section. This is possible to implement, but a bit tricky. — Keφr17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your answers may seem to you to have answered my questions, but they presuppose more knowledge about the power of tools than I have. As I interpret your answers, the specific answer to my question is: "No. A bot can't do it, but there are semi-automated methods that <<<someone>>> could use to reduce the time and effort required." If that "No" should be a "Yes", please forgive me for not understanding. DCDuringTALK17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, for starters I am not sure what "it" is, so I am answering two questions at once.
The nominated templates can be losslessly substituted in place, which is a matter of purely mechanical text replacement: "{{rfv-failed" → "{{subst:rfv-failed", which triggers MediaWiki to generate the updated wikimarkup. Yes, a bot can do it. (You just need to take care of erroneous template usages first, but I have already dealt with those.)
Orphaning {{archived from tea room}} would require guessing where the {{archive-bottom}} template should go. The best method would be probably by inspecting page histories, but I doubt that can be made into a reliable algorithm. Or you could just assume that archived discussions span the whole level 2 section (or make some other "educated" guess), but this assumption is just that, an assumption.
Thanks. I did not know for sure that subst:ing could be done by bot without a problem and that you had already eliminated anything that didn't conform to the requirements for subst:ing or didn't otherwise fail. Both of those are what I wanted to know. I think others would want to know too so that they could also support the proposal.
I wouldn't bother with {{archived from tea room}}. Arguably it's less useful for the tea room discussions and the list of items is not terribly long.
