User:John Reid/arboxes

Archive listbox templates[edit]

I'm not a Werdnabot customer; no offense, I just support manual archival to history through permalink. Werdnabot does have a following and we need to embrace that.

Let me tell you how I fell into this area. I archive talk pages from time to time; the method that works for me is to create an /Archive subpage and on that, list all permalinks to history. I then transclude this entire page onto the original. This keeps all the messy permalinks on one page. Also on this page, I add a little markup to box the list float right and offer a link to the transcluded listing page itself. You can see this in action on my talk page.

Since I've been doing this ad hoc, it comes out a little different each time -- and that led me, naturally, to create a template for the purpose. Given the template approach, it makes more sense to keep all the box and link markup in the template itself, which reduces the listing page to exactly that: a list of links to archived versions of the original page. This new (so far unused) template is Template:Arbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Like an idiot, I created this without looking over existing templates. I see 3 competing versions:

Template:Archives(edit talk links history)
Template:Archivebox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Archive box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a certain political odor surrounding archival. There are basically 4 methods currently used (that I know about):

Cut and paste to new archive page
Move, then restart discussion on old page, overwriting redirect
Delete stale threads outright and link to history
Werdnabot (which I think is an automatic cut-and-paste bot)

(see How to archive a talk page)

I'm not interested in fighting a war among 4 competing factions but I dislike proliferation of templates. The whole point of templates is to standardize presentation and stabilize the user interface. I'm willing to tolerate some variation but in theory, everyone who archives a talk page should put up one standard link-listbox to archives. This therefore must accommodate adherents of any one of the above methods.

I understand that Werdnabot cuts stale threads and pastes them into a single designated archive page. What I don't see is any way that Werdabot interacts with any of the archive listbox templates above. This makes sense, since if there's still only one archive page, there's no need to update the listbox.

I suppose that one might flag the archive page itself for Werdnabot, giving a much longer expiry time, and thus cascade onto multiple pages. I suppose that some editors simply perform the second level of archiving manually and update the archive listbox themselves.

Where I get stuck is at WP:AN. My understanding is that AN (and AN/I and BN) are archived by Werdnabot -- but I see no code invoking it. There is an elaborate archive listbox.

Does Werdnabot truly archive AN?
If so, how does it know to do so?
How is the AN archive listbox maintained?

I suspect that the answers are yes, added to task list manually by Werdna, and manually. But I'd like to hear from you.

If Werndabot never does anything with or to any archive listbox, then all I really need from you is a statement of that fact and if you like, I'll move on, secure in the knowledge that I don't have to consider Werdnabot compatibility when I merge all 4 competing versions into one magic, please-everyone template.

However, I'd like your participation for two reasons:

I tend to think you may have a broad interest in the archival process; and

I'd like to see Werdnabot automatically generate multiple archive pages and properly interact with the archive listbox.

Both these considerations are secondary.

Your every comment is welcome. John Reid 07:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, John.

I'm writing to you in response to your questions on my talkpage regarding the archival boxes. Essentially, this response in a nutshell is that I will not require any specific changes to the templates — I prefer to do my parsing based on comments put in for the purpose of my bot, which stops things from breaking when people change things.

To elaborate regarding the remainder of your message, I remain committed to providing a more 'hands-off' archival solution. The future of Werdnabot rests strongly in that vein. To that end, the future plan of Werdnabot stands thus (roughly in order)

Continue to promote Werdnabot for other wikis. I have just (last night) completed interwiki and localisation support — due to the five or six messages I've received over the last month requesting it on other wikis.
Develop support for a "thread index". This means that every time a thread is archived, a permalink to that thread may be, optionally, placed on a specified page.
Develop support for the detection, tagging and setup of new archive pages. This ties into your question — I intend to have an extensible, working method of reliably pushing new pages to an archive box.
Develop support for an automatic rollover of archive pages when the archive page reaches a certain length.
Develop support for multiple methods of archival, thus helping to unify the different standards you referred to in your post.

So in response to your queries

Yes, Werdnabot is a cut and paste archival bot. It will cut and paste move any section which is marked for archival, or which is not marked for keeping and has had no comments within a certain timeframe.
In regards to AN

Yes, Werdnabot is set to archive AN. I'm not sure about ANI and BN.
No, each page is tagged for archival by an editor. The detection routine relies on directives in HTML comments and backlinks to an empty template (User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere).
Yes, they are currently changed manually, although, as stated above, the plans are in the works for having an automatic archive increment.

Nothing you do will break Werdnabot capability. If I require a specific directive in the template, I will place it there myself once your job is done.

Thanks for your consideration

— Werdna talk criticism 08:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I understand now that I don't see overt Werdnabot code on all customer pages; it's hidden inside comments. I can also see that this is a customer list. Does it make sense to have a Category:Werdnabot customer pages? Throw the cat in the template....

I'm glad to know you're thinking about archiving to multiple threads and interacting in some way with the archive listbox. I'm not real hot on the other aspects of Werdnabot. It's not that I oppose it in any way; I just look on archive time as an opportunity to exercise human judgement. I'm sure that Werdnabot has a role to play but I'm not competent to comment on that.

My project is to merge the listbox template into a single all-purpose gadget. For instance, discussion has mentioned that some people prefer a large icon, some a smaller; I prefer none; and one of these templates uses a different icon from the others. I can easily fix this with a parameter. All sorts of stylistic issues can be managed with parameters; it's a bit more difficult to anticipate all the weird and wonderful ideas people have about content.

My main concern in talking to you is to ensure that the eventual template makes a good accommodation for Werdnabot. Maybe you're an engineer of the non-collaborative type: you prefer to wait until the dust has settled, then build around whatever you find. That's okay too. I'm very big on extensibility and leaving hooks for others to grab on to. So, I'm reaching out.

Here's my general plan:

Let the template contain nothing but style information -- the box itself, some standard links. Let the box transclude a master archive index page, generally titled /Index. (I've been calling this "/Archive" but some editors use this name for actual archived content.) Finally, create a blank skeleton template that can be substituted into the new archive index. Depending on parameters supplied at the time of substitution, this will accommodate a number of archiving strategies. Of course, anyone will be free to format this index by hand in some other way; the skeleton is just an optional starting point.

I also plan some sort of jerry-rigged template that I can slap into existing pages, substituting and taking existing listbox content and converting it into a standard call of the new listbox template. I'd be extremely interested if you think you make these catch-up edits with some of the tools at your disposal.

Can you plan to write to the /Index page when you get to the point of wanting to update the listbox contents? If so, what would you like to see preexisting on that index page? Or, does this approach suck for you because you'd really rather write into the parameter list for a transcluded listbox or directly into the contents of a substituted listbox?

If you tell me rock on and you'll get into it later, that's fine too. John Reid 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)