Template talk:Archivebox/Archive 1

message: I like the look of this approach to providing archive links, but must admit I'm not sure how the correct links below the picture are created or controlled. Could someone bear to add a guide for dummies on this page? Some archive pages I've seen for particularly active talk pages need more than one (32kb) archive page to cover posts made within one month, so I'm not sure how that would work here either. I'd like to try using this template, so thanks in advance for dummy help!  David Kernow 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage is mostly subjective depening on article. On a rather low/medium-traffic article, you can easly have like this. But for more heavier traffic pages, different appruaches exists. Please look in Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:Main Page and Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for different approaches. →AzaToth 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hehe :) <evil mode>Perhaps start a Wikipedia:Guides for dummies</evil mode> .→AzaToth 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple links to the "See also" section. I've also removed the History section since it's self-explanatory (this comment is an example of History in action). --J. J. 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide for dummies, please! 

message: The template appears to automatically fill in the starting and ending date with the current date. Is one supposed to correct that after substituting or is there a piping trick? Hyacinth 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Substing just gives you the framework. You're supposed to fill everything in afterwards. ~MDD4696 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add the template using  and save. Then edit the page again, and fill in the bullets. ~MDD4696 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it now. Thanks. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • not even doom music) 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: What is the reason for not using table formatting? It is much clearer when editing. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...per my comment in the preceeding thread, I've just reverted your recent tweak, Centrx; hope you don't mind. Perhaps a merged Archivebox template that uses tabulation and offers optional parameters for image/font sizes is the solution... I'll try it sometime soonish. Yours, David 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes to the header are unrelated to using tables or not. The archive box doesn't need to be some flashy gimmick and the talk page header area is already crowded. —Centrx→talk • 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mention of tabulation is to agree with you that "it is much clearer when editing", i.e. it's what I'd use when attempting a synthesis of the  and  templates. Although my personal view is that the image and "Archive" sizes are out of proportion in , I suggested optional parameters not to make the template more of a "flashy gimmick" but to accommodate folk who might not share my POV. I agree that the talk-page header area is sometimes crowded, but don't find this to be the norm. Where it is crowded, I'd say this is more due to it needing a little layout/formatting work between templates than within them. Hope I haven't misunderstood anything. Yours, David 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table formatting