Template talk:Archive

Forum:Archive template
I created a template for linking to archive pages, mainly to standardize the basic text and call attention to the link by placing it in a 'box' while keeping the page code to a minimum. If you have any comments, questions, accusations, or better ideas please tell me now, as I'll start adding this to more pages in a few days if there aren't any objections. - 09:10, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is obviously the best time to do it the other way around: not create a template that works with all the different constructs that two dozen contributors over the years thought works best - but instead try to find a standardized way that actually does work best, and then change everything to that way.


 * One such way might be to simply use numbered archives - in which case we could just add   to create a link box linking to numbered archive pages #1 to #5.


 * Another way might be to do something similar, but with years - either in the form of  , as Morder already suggested elsewhere, or (=exclusive or) by having something like    create links to all yearly archive pages since 2005. Some of which might then be redlinks, but we already now how to deal with those.


 * A third, and probably most elegant solution, would be to use Special:Prefixindex. On my userpage (section "Meanwhile"), I'm listing all existing subpages by using a simple call to that special page. Similarly, all existing archives of a talk page should be listable by . If possible, that should allow us to drop all parameters from that template. Thinking about it, I definitely prefer this third method. -- Cid Highwind 09:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with using the third option, though you would have to add it to the template, as I know I'll find some way to mess up the code. :) - 10:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Still needed?
This might be worth merging into archive, since they do the same thing, basically. - 19:33, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that this indicates that it was specifically a peer review as opposed to just another talk page. -- sulfur 19:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

A good number of these are just one post long, while the rest a still rather short. I think it would be better to just merge old peer reviews into the talk page, since I don't think we need to overemphasize the importance of old, generally small or non-existent discussions. - 07:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Merged into archive as part of changes to PRs stemming from Forum:Overhaul of PR, FA, & AotW. - 06:24, November 30, 2011 (UTC)