Memory Alpha


Back to template

38,286pages on
this wiki

Forum:Archive template Edit

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. - Archduk3 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 {{archive|5}} 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 {{archive|2006|2008|2009}}, as Morder already suggested elsewhere, or (=exclusive or) by having something like {{archive|2005}} 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 {{Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/archive/}}. 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. :) - Archduk3 10:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oldpeerreview Edit

Still needed? Edit

This might be worth merging into {{archive}}, since they do the same thing, basically. - Archduk3 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. - Archduk3 07:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Merge Edit

Merged into {{archive}} as part of changes to PRs stemming from Forum:Overhaul of PR, FA, & AotW. - Archduk3 06:24, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki