Template talk:Auto archiving notice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Auto archiving notice redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 120 days

Hides the archive index

Normally, index=ArchiveIndex puts "An archive index is available here.".

If the user also specifies small=yes, the link is not rendered.

(I found this on a page whose "archive index" does not seem to be kept current.)

(Also this template does not link the archives - to find the archives, a visitor has to browse History to see where the bot moved them to. Maybe users should use {Archives} instead, or maybe this template should unify with {Archives}.) -A876 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A876: Possibly still relevant. CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bot fixing instances where this notice conflicts with the actual archiving period?

That seems like something we'd want, since sometimes people change the period and forget to change this notice. Per don't repeat yourself, it seems like a bad idea to have this notice that needs to fixed every time the underlying metric is changed. (please use {{ping|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider any efforts along this line to also take {{Archives}} et al into account. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah: @Sdkb CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Update

Template {{Archives}} (talk) has recently seen a number of changes/improvements. For instance, the addition of a |minthreadsleft= parameter.

Please acquaint yourself with these changes and then consider the following:

Suggestion: synch/update Auto archiving notice to support the same behaviors as Template:Archives. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was referenced at Template talk:Archives#implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice. CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was referenced at Template talk:Archives#implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice 2. CapnZapp (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was referenced at Template talk:Archives#implement upgrades also to Auto archiving notice 3. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good idea to add the "minimum threads" sentence. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with Template:Archives or Template:Talk header

{{Archives}} has since a few months ago supported a built in auto archiving notice which I think should be used in favor of the standalone template when possible. This would make the notice logically placed with the archive list on all these pages and make it take up significantly less space. The same could be done with {{Talk header}} if/when it gets the same functionality incorporated (Sdkb has recently been working on this). If this gets consensus I will file a BRFA for a bot doing this task. For future reference: {{Auto archiving notice}} is currently used on 9,615 pages, 7,991 of these have a talk header, 1,895 have {{Archives}} and 512 have neither. Advertised at Template talk:Archives --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the wording at {{Archives}} could probably be made a little more concise, but overall this is definitely a good step. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify the proposal here please? If you want to technically combine the templates with zero change in functionality I'm all in. If, however, if you basically want to remove this template because you think people should use Archives instead... idk CapnZapp (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp If a page has both templates I want to combine it so it only has {{Archives}} which would display the same information. Other pages will not be affected by this proposal. Here is a diff of what it would look like. --Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I could be wrong but that sounds like you're not trying to change the templates at all. Instead, that sounds you want to remove this template from pages that already have the other, making sure any info from this one carries over to the Archives or Talk Header one? (I read "combine" as merge, maybe that's wrong) Not sure why you'd go through this trouble, though, unless you're intending to TfD this as a second step...? If you could clarify that'd be great. CapnZapp (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No edits would be required to {{Auto archiving notice}} or {{Archives}} (but to {{Talk header}} since it doesn't have the functionality yet). The reason for doing this is to decrease banner blindness by having one less banner on these pages. It is possible a TfD could be coming in the future, but there are a few hundred pages where neither of the templates are present where this template may be suitable thus making deletion of the template possibly undesirable. --Trialpears (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then I think you could benefit from clarifying your proposal in your initial post. What you are suggesting is, if I get it right: "remove this template from every page where either of the other two already exist, even if this physically moves the information to the reader to a different spot on the talk page". Assuming this is correct:

Support: consolidating archiving information with the archives list seems appropriate where both templates are used. Terasail ^[✉] 14:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let us ask ourselves a couple of questions: is this a pressing issue that overrides editorial decisions on individual pages? Is this an issue big enough that it can't better handled by editors (such as Trialpears) visiting those pages where "banner blindness" is a practical rather than a theoretical concern? Isn't the layout freedom afforded by the current situation, where you can have a banner stating old topics get archived every 7 days, while actual archive functionality (search/index) is handled by a different right-aligned box? Are there instances where this proposed bot job will break more complex talk pages? I am not asking these question as a veiled "oppose". I am asking these questions because the idea as presented so far seems frankly half-baked and I want to help baking. CapnZapp (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through these question by question.

It is not a pressing issue by any means, but I think it is a clear (but minor) improvement to the status quo.
I am not concerned about undoing something that was a deliberate decision since I haven't once seen a talk page discussion about what specific banners and templates should be on the top of a talk pages and even if that was the case they wouldn't have had this (better) alternative. #The issue affects enough pages (thousands) for a bot to be worthwhile. There is value in being concise and emphasizing the more important information (such as BLP, sanctions, previous discussions or consensus) on shorter talk pages as well.
I guess there is less freedom? I'm thinking of it more like the manual of style. Per MOS:DASH we're not "free" to use two hyphens (--) instead of a dash, but no one is complaining since the alternative is better and nothing is technically preventing you from using it. (The bot would only run once making any editwarring concerns mute)
The functionality at {{Archives}} was based on this one meaning they use the same parameters making this task very easy. The bot will not break anything and will be vetted by the Bot Approvals Group. --Trialpears (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal: In the light of this proposal seemingly dying out, how about we keep this template and update it to match the functionality of {{Archives}}. That is, make them fully compatible = support the same set of bot info related parameters with the same output. The immediate problem right now isn't that this template exists imho, it is that its functionality lags behind that of Archives. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice at {{Archives}} reads as follows (with appropriate hiding based on parameters and without my simplifications):

This page has '''[[{{{target}}}|archives]]''' Threads older than '''{{{age}}} {{{units|days}}}''' may be automatically archived by [[User:{{{bot}}}|{{{bot}}}]] when more than {{{minthreadsleft|}}} threads are present.

In this template it reads:

{{{page|This talk page}}} is automatically [[Help:Archiving a talk page|archived]] by [[User:{{{bot}}}|{{{bot}}}]]. Any threads with no replies in '''{{{age|7}}} {{{days|{{{units|days}}}}}}''' may be automatically moved to [[{{{target}}}]]. (Threads with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.|Sections without timestamps are not archived.) An archive index is available [[{{#rel2abs:{{{index}}}}}|here]].

I think the target parameter definitely can be removed from {{archives}}. It only has a handful all of which were redundant to the list in the ones I checked.

|dounreplied= seems worse than useless with that bit being a feature anymore since if I remember correctly that functionality wasn't adopted by lowercase sigmabot when it moved over from MiszaBOT (citation needed on that one). If sigma still does that it still would only be used accurately two times based on my search. List of uses].

Also worth noting that I don't think it's a problem this template exists but I do think it would be preferable to use the notice in {{Archives}} when possible. --Trialpears (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see please see #General Update. For instance, while support for the |minthreadsleft= parameter was added to {{Archives}}, it as of yet unsupported here. I find the utility of this template falls sharply off when the parameter set isn't fully interchangeable between all templates capable of presenting archive bot instructions to the user. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion renewed: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Template:Auto archiving notice CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]