Jump to content

Template talk:Talk archive navigation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Debresser (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 28 March 2017 (→Numeration: Fixed now.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See Template_talk:Talkarchive#Add_Reference_to_User_and_Link_to_User_Page --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-filling another {{talkarchivenav}} in the new page link?

This would save me a little typing when clicking on the redlink to the next available archive page. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea here would be to get any redlinks to include the preload parameter. I've got a preload template at user:thumperward/talkarchivenav, so the links would need to look like:
Archive 2 >
Is this doable? Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, using preload would be very nice, and is very doable. And we can get rid of the external link icon. There's just one problem, then the link to the new archive won't be read, but light blue instead since it then is an "external" link. So I think I prefer not using preload. Unless there is some way to make the link red.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how this gives a redlink to the next potential archive, when none has been created yet. For example, if you are in Archive 2, there will be a blue link to Archive 1, and a red link to Archive 3. There should be a parameter so that no red link to the next archive appears, until that archive has been created. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Huh? The redlink is a great idea, because it reduces the effort of expanding into the next archive. There's nothing wrong with redlinks when they're specifically used as pointers for future development. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it reduces the effort of expanding into the next archive -- I do not understand this. What do you mean by this? Cirt (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
When one is creating a new archive (i.e. archiving more old threads from the current talk), the first thing one has to do is to create a new page at the correct location for the new archive. If there's already a convenient redlink to click then this reduces effort. I don't see the negative to having a redlink except some aesthetic belief that redlinks are always wrong. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to have some sort of automatic archival bot create the next archive. Then the redlink isn't really needed, and for those people that like to set up the next archive manually, it's easy to just type in the next number and create a new page. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'd really prefer if bots could do archives well too, but that isn't currently the case. As someone who uses this template on a daily basis to manually archive pages, I find the redlink to be extremely useful. I still don't see that there's any argument against it except a dislike of any redlinks. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if other editors have found it useful to manually archive pages, I won't object. Thanks for answering my questions. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? I've modified this template so that in normal uses, it functions exactly as it did before. However, now if you add {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}, redlinks will not be displayed! I also took the opportunity to expand the template from supporting 40 talk archive pages to supporting 50. Check the template documentation for the details of the new feature. Enjoy! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea. It's going to make my job harder if people adopt it. Choice isn't necessarily a good thing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not exactly sure what you mean by your "job", I can't really see how this enhancement would make it harder. If you keep using the template in the same way, it will have thee same classic behavior. The only thing that will make it change is if you set the noredlinks parameter equal to y. If the parameter is missing or set to something other than y, the template functions in the same way that it always has. Is this a problem for you? Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spend a lot of time archiving talk pages. If someone else sets the parameter on a talk archive to "y", it means that it takes me longer to create new archive pages because I can't just click on the appropriate redlink. I can't see any possible benefit to this except for the aesthetic benefit of people who have some irrational dislike of redlinks. So in general I'm opposed to the option even existing. This isn't meant to be an attack on you (you've done a good job implementing it), but there are times when increased flexibility and more options aren't a good idea and I think this is one of them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris here. It is annoying when trying to archive some page and there is no redlink to the next page. It makes it error prone to manually type in the next archive name. Remember that this template and many other archive templates depend on that people spell archives exactly like this: "/Archive 1". Even a minor error in the spelling breaks things. I have seen many archives with misspelled names.
As I see it the only place where it is legitimate to turn off the redlink would be in user space, where it only is the user himself that does the archiving. So I would like to modify this template so it only honours the "noredlinks=y" parameter when in "User:" and "User talk:" space.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, though we're a year and a half later here ... –xeno talk 01:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so no one wastes their time to try to add this: Making it so this template only honours the "noredlinks=y" parameter when in "User:" and "User talk:" space is messy to do in the current code of this template. But I am going to do a technical rework of this template soon. And when I do that it will be much easier to handle the "noredlinks=y" parameter in a smarter way. (See section Technical rework below if you are curios.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted white space

{{editprotected}}

This template is producing an unwanted white space at the very end

Change: 

|} 
<includeonly>

to: 

|}<includeonly>

This will eliminate the white space. --Farix (Talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix picture

{{editprotected}} Could someone replace 

|image=[[Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg|48px|center]]

with 

|image = [[Image:{{{icon|Replacement filing cabinet.svg}}}|50px|Archive]]

? The picture looks better while centered. MathCool10 Sign here! 22:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you want this edit to be done? --- RockMFR 02:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is too close to the text. It should look like {{Talkarchive}}. MathCool10 Sign here! 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Although I could see no difference with the position or size of the image, I have fulfilled the request. Martinmsgj 09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further tweaking

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync of {{talkarchive}} and {{talkarchivenav}} with their respective sandboxes (template:talkarchive/sandbox and template:talkarchivenav/sandbox) to further bring their use of images in line with that of other modern message boxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done - I came here to do some fixes of these templates myself. So I did some more tweaks:
1: I see that you changed the image size to 40px instead of 50px. The style guideline for talk page message boxes used to say that such boxes should use 50px images. Then we standardised about 40px size for the other types of pages. And now the style guideline for talk page message boxes says 40 to 50px. So reducing the size to 40px is voluntary. Personally I am okay with both sizes for talk page templates, but since you wanted 40px I kept your change.
2: I see you removed the image caption. I remember that other editors have said that message boxes should not have an image caption. I don't remember the reason for that, but since I don't have a point of view on that I kept your change.
3: You removed the <noinclude> tags around the NOEDITSECTION tag. I disagree with that. It means that the template documentation gets no section [edit] buttons. Well, since those templates currently are protected only we admins see those buttons, but anyway. And people might reuse this code to build some other template that is not protected. Or they might transwiki these templates to another language version of Wikipedia. So I think the code should be complete. So I added the noinclude tags back.
4: And what I really came here for: I noticed that Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace didn't have any section [edit] buttons, which was very annoying. I discovered that the cause were the {{talkarchive}} and {{talkarchivenav}} boxes demonstrated on that page, since they use the NOEDITSECTION tag to suppress the edit buttons on archive pages. So I added the possibility to suppress the NOEDITSECTION tag in these templates. Since the standard way to suppress categories in templates when demonstrating them is to feed an empty "category=" parameter, I used the exact same parameter. Using that name might seem a bit weird, but I think it is practical. Since this means that for instance {{tlrow}} will correctly and automatically suppress the NOEDITSECTION if used to demonstrate these templates. And if we ever add categorisation to these templates, then the "category=" parameter can suppress both the categories and the NOEDITSECTION at the same time.
I tested it all in the /sandbox and /testcases subpages and then deployed these changes.
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please add these two parameters to tmbox's parameter list, these will allow extensive modification of the looks of the archive box. 

| style = {{{style|}}}
| textstyle = {{{textstyle|}}}

Thanks. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noindex

After seeing searches like [1] and [2] I'm convinced we need to do more to clean up our search output. Right now none of the Talk: namespace pages are noindexed, as we rely on Google's internal process to not include them. However, other search engines like Yahoo don't have the same internal processes and include them. I propose adding {{NOINDEX}} to this template on a namespace triggered basis to noindex the archives of the Talk: namespace. MBisanz talk 05:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one, there are legitimate reasons to search our archives from external search engines too. I know that some Wikipedia editors use those search engines and set "site:en.wikipedia.org" to search within Wikipedia. Although now that Wikipedia's own search has become fairly good that is not as needed anymore.
Why do you only want to noindex archives in the "Talk:" space? Why not in "Wikipedia:", "Wikipedia talk:", "User talk:" and so on too?
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I figured it would be least controversial to merely replicate Google's actions (which is only the Talk: namespace) instead of expanding to other namespaces. Also people would still search things like Wikiproject archives with google or yahoo. MBisanz talk 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any further noindexing, as per my usual. –xeno talk 01:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical rework

I am planning to do a technical rework of this template soon. My rework won't change how the template looks but it will make it so it can handle archive numbering up to 999. For instance WP:ANI already have 530 archive pages... And it will make this template work correctly in the "Help talk:" and "Category talk:" namespaces that currently doesn't have the MediaWiki subpage feature enabled.

I am currently building the meta-templates needed for this, see for instance {{number of archives}}. And don't worry, those templates are efficient.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

{{talkarchivenav}} used to link to the preceeding and following archives, for instance archive 4 would have a link to both archive 3 and archive 5. These seem to have been lost somewhere. As long as I'm here I'd love __TOC__ to be added as an auto feature as well but i'm sure someone will hate the idea - I still find it useful. -- Banjeboi 19:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still does; unless you have non-standard naming. What about TOC? –xenotalk 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your problem. you have more than 50 archives, it only supports up to 50. I would suggest consolidating your archives into more sizable chunks. Else, you can use {{archivenav}} manually. –xenotalk 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My system crashes too quickly for larger archives but {{talkarchivenav}}{{archivenav|{{archive number}}}} seems to do the trick. Thank you for the suggestion. -- Banjeboi 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by the section above, David was working on a new version which would accommodate further archives. I'll try pinging him when he returns from his wikibreak. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

{{aan/sandbox}} contains a version which allows for exactly this. I'm prepared to back-merge said templates improvements here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there are many different naming schemes for archives. And there are many different templates and several bots that handle archives. So I have realised that the only sane way to handle this is to standardise on one single naming scheme, or we will never be able to keep all the archive templates and bots updated. And the main naming scheme now is "/Archive 1", "/Archive 2" and so on, so we should use that.
{{aan/sandbox}} seems to add support for a new naming scheme using year+month. But I am opposed to adding support for more naming schemes in this template, since if we try to support it then people will use it, and other archive templates and bots will break. But if you just want to make this template handle more than 50 archive pages, then by all means do it.
As I mention in the section above I was/is working on making all the archive templates understand up to 999 archives. Unfortunately when I was doing that last spring I met heavy resistance from some admins and devs, they ordered me to stop building the meta-templates I was making. (Which made me leave on a long wikibreak.) That's the usual reaction from several admins and devs when they don't understand the code in a template and don't understand what it is for, or even worse if the template works around some bugs in MediaWiki... As I have now learnt after a number of incidents: Never ever mention in a template's doc that it works around some MediaWiki bug, then the wrath of the devs comes upon you.
I don't know if or when I will continue fixing the archive templates. So don't wait for my fixes, go ahead with your fixes.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom

Is it possible for me change it so instead of it saying Archive 2 for links, it says the dates of my archive. CTJF83 chat 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{aan}} allows for custom naming in that format. The two templates haven't yet been merged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CTJF83 chat 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Import features from Template:Atn

{{editprotected}} I wondering if we could include the advanced navigation features of Template:Atn into this template? -- Phoenix (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean the "first" and "last" pointers? i.e. « 1 ← Archive 21 Archive 22 22 » ? I like the idea...but they should retain the current formatting and have an opt-out. –xenotalk 13:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure an opt out option would be fine. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Phoenix is asking someone to write the code :) Anyway I'm disabling the request for now because this needs to be worked on in the /sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to write the code when it has already been done. Either import Template:Atn into this template or put the link below. It should be rather easy actually. I'll re-enable the request, disable if you believe that is premature. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is premature, until we have a version in the sandbox which has been properly tested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the current spacing to be retained as well as the "redlink for next" as well. –xenotalk 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noeditsection

Pain in the neck. sometimes an archive does need to be edited, sometimes merely the source code inspected, cut and pastes, etc. We can of course use page notice/group notices now as well, and we have page history. Removed. Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Just noticed this now as I pulled some shiny's out of my archives, and it was convenient, and agree with change. –xenotalk 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this change was applied to {{talk archive}}. Users sometimes accidentally respond to archived discussions after they've been linked directly to their sections, so a notice would be good. Adding &section=n to the edit URL seems to work regardless of whether the section links are suppressed. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for Template:Talkarchivenav

{{Editprotected}}

Because Template:Talkarchivenav is currently fully protected indefinitely, I would like to be able to specify my own location of my user talk page. Because I use two sub-pages (two /, slashes) to my archived talk pages with the discussions, the link that says "current talk page" is red. I know it was a stupid idea by me, because I didn't know it. Therefore, I would like to specify my own location.

I want to have it this way: If {{{1}}} does not have a variable, automatically use "{{TALKSPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}". The {{{1}}} option should be inside the brackets which activate the link. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a long wait. The idea is that you tell us what changes to make - i.e the full code change. We don't write the code for you, unless you are lucky to find an admin who wants to (and is able to do so). You are free to move your pages where you want - I would suggest that would be far easier - e.g. move User talk:Heymid/Archive/2010/May to User talk:Heymid/Archive/2010May - one's other option is to change {{Talkarchivenav}} to {{subst:Talkarchivenav}} on your talk pages, save page, then edit the header it generated.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, "{{{1|{{TALKSPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}". /HeyMid (contributions) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have now moved all my archived pages to "User_talk:Heymid/Month Year". /HeyMid (contributions) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please add the __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word to the template, new sections should not be created in archives, editing sections may be necessary but adding new sections isn't. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:47pm • 07:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging {{talk archive}} here

I've updated the sandbox with code which will enable {{talk archive}} to be merged here: the other template will then be a wrapper for this one with the additional |nonav=yes parameter to disable the navigation links. This works fine in my tests, so I'll sync it in a few days unless anyone objects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update for non-talk page archives

New code in the sandbox to replace instances of {{TALKSPACE}} with {{NAMESPACE}}. This allows for archives on non-talk pages (like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard etc.) to a) link back to the correct current discussion page instead of the talk page of the correct page, and b) form the navigation links to the archive pages that come sequentially before and after. I tested it on the RS noticeboard and on an article talk page and it works on both. This template is automatically inserted by default when using one of the archiving bots. Shouldn't affect existing uses. — Bility (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie⚔ 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to Lua

I've just converted this template to use Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator. This completes the requested merge at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 12#Template:Talk archive navigation. Now, the template is the same as {{automatic archive navigator}}, but with different default settings. The links are still displayed below the banner, but the arrows appear after the first skip in numbering, like {{automatic archive navigator}}. (This means that they will no longer be visible by default, as with only three archive links the numbering is always consecutive.) There are a few new options as well. You can change the number of links displayed with |links=n, and you can set an archive prefix with |prefix=, so, for example, this will now work on ANI archives with the code |prefix=IncidentArchive. Please leave a message at Module talk:AutomaticArchiveNavigator if you spot any issues with the module code. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishing the edit-ban of archived talk pages

Currently the template says: 

    Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I propose abolishing this edit-ban as it significantly hinders discussion and progress on Wikipedia.

(Close to) nobody is going to actually go to an archive and revive an old discussion to post a single comment (especially for some rather small but nonetheless useful comment) - please don't deceive yourself.

Actually that's more than to expect from most editors - let alone readers - already. If anything allow editing of the page and automatically move the revived discussion to the talk page via a bot / automated process.

It's Wikipedia - these are not actual physical "archives" - these are dynamic websites and we should be making use of this advantage (which is that no matter how old a discussion is it can be easily returned to).

I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest this - if not please redirect me to whatever site is more appropriate; and if it is please vote & discuss.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been up long enough now. I just converted the post into an edit-request. Please also implement this edit request for {{Talk archive}}. --Fixuture (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There should probably be more discussion for what you want to do. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MRD2014: Well as you can see nobody condescended to at least making a comment here. And this has been up for about a year now. What more do you expect me to do? --Fixuture (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make that change because sometimes a vandal will go in those and mess with them, or someone (not a vandal) may randomly change a discussion not knowing that they shouldn't edit the contents if that sentence is missing. I'd rather let someone deal with this. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This needs wider discussion. I suggest posting to the village pump. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wider discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Abolishing_the_edit-ban_of_archived_talk_pages.
I hope that this will be reassessed at some point or that reviving discussions can be made with a simple click or automatically by a bot. (See: WP:Flow)
As a sidenote a relevant example: User:Redrose64 reverted an edit in which I added a link to a phabricator issue to a village pump suggestion I made, saying that if I wish to revive the discussion I should start a new thread. However I did not wish to revive the discussion. I only appended a simple link to the post so that users who by search or by a link might find this proposal are made aware of the phabricator issue. --Fixuture (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: Yes, I reverted you; did you check how many watchers that archive has? If you're not an admin, the page information will merely show "Fewer than 30 watchers"; but if you are an admin, it shows 3. I'm one of the three, I'm guessing that you're another, but I have no idea who the third is - it might even be Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) - but I would not expect it to be the person that you were replying to.
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 153 doesn't have {{Talk archive navigation}}, it has {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}; and there are several other related templates, such as {{Automatic archive navigator}} which all say basically the same thing - archived discussions should not be continued, nor should their meanings be altered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I wasn't replying to anybody nor was I expecting people to watch the page. As said I was just leaving a link in case somebody ever comes across my post (e.g. by searching because they had the same idea). I don't have a problem with you reverting it - I have a problem with the policy that says that archived pages shouldn't be edited (see the post above). Do you watch all archived talk pages to revert changes on them? If not I guess people with bad intentions still can edit archived pages while people who like to add short info to old posts etc can't (also I never saw anybody ever revive a talk page entry - in practice it's simply not getting done, especially newcomers don't do it). Maybe at some point they will get auto-revived once a post gets edit or alike but I guess for now there's no better solution... --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have all archives watched - just a few, including the last four years or so of the VPT archives. People do occasionally try to continue discussions there (or even start new threads); there are three examples in Archive 147. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected edit request on 11 October 2016

A protected redirect, Template:Talkarchivenav, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Talk archive navigation]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Talk archive navigation]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from modification}}
{{R from template shortcut}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine  u/c 06:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Martin!  Paine  u/c 20:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numeration

On my last talkpage archive, there are two links to page 14, instead of one to page 14 and the next to page 15. This is some bug. Please fix it. Since you use this LUA module, normal good-willing template editors like me can't fix anything any more these days. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is Module talk:AutomaticArchiveNavigator#Link to non-existing archive should not be selflink and I would fix it myself but I can't because it's been converted to Lua, and so is unmaintainable except by those in the cabal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: It seems to be working fine now. Judging from your contribs, I'm guessing this happened when you created Archive 14? It was probably just a glitch while the job queue caught up with you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reason, and the job queue is a likely candidate, it is fixed now indeed. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Talk_archive_navigation&oldid=772662772"