Template talk:Archive top

I've created this archived template along with Template:Archive bottom in order to use them in the VfD archive pages. Do you guys would like the idea of changing the look of those closed VfD discussions. Please have a look here for an example. I've borrowed this idea from WN. I would like to propose the same change for RfA archive pages as well. See this for example and Votes for undeletion.. --Saqib (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can any Wikipedians comment on the pros and cons of this sort of archive approach? I like the improved clarity of flagging a discussion as archived and using a standard format, but prior to rolling this out everywhere it would be good to first know if there are any alternatives that people have proposed or any specific limitations on usage that should be specified (for example, only archiving discussions for VFDs or admin nominations).  Similarly, if there are any proposals that are simpler to implement that might also be helpful to know about. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Archive pages, by definition, do not need these tags. Simply by virtue of being located in an archive, the discussions are clearly archived and edits to them easily reverted.  From a technical standpoint, this particular implementation is awkward, because the header template goes before the section header, which means that when editing individual sections, the template appears at the bottom of the previous section rather than at the top of the edited one.  LtPowers (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the details, and may have misunderstood the arguments, but there may be compatibility problems with Virtual Editor. There was a discussion somewhere recently warning against template systems that are broken up into two pieces. Sorry about the vagueness - I didn't pay much attention as I wasn't expecting to need to remember. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Archives on Commons is done this way. --Saqib (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would solve one of the problems, although the template's goal of alerting a user not to edit a section may be compromised (as now the section header is not within the archive box). But the other concerns remain.  LtPowers (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * LtPowers, this method is being used on WN since 2007 and I believe they never feel awkward using this method to archive the VfD's. I know the header template goes before the section header, but who's going to edit the sections once it archived and it doesn't matter if the Template:Archive top appears at the bottom of the previous section rather than at the top of the edited one because we will never need to remove or modify the header template of that section. --Saqib (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "who's going to edit the sections once it archived" -- precisely my point. LtPowers (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously no one. But as I said above, this idea was brought here just to change the look of the archive pages. Do you see any harm? --Saqib (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's another step in the archive process; it introduces another unneeded template that has to be kept track of; it increases the loading time of the page; and I don't think it adds anything to the aesthetics. LtPowers (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It takes only 35 bytes for both header and footer template in each section. Votes for undeletion loads fine for me even when I use a low speed Internet connection. --Saqib (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BUMP --Saqib (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the context of discussions which have been closed but are not going to be swept to an archive page in the immediate future, this is a useful way of identifying that a discussion has been closed. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any situation in which we close off discussion without archiving. LtPowers (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, take this page. Archived and on-going discussions take place on the same page. --Saqib (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the other archive pages are basically archive from top to bottom, and that page, little used though it is, should probably be archived in the same way. I don't see the point of having separate notices at the top and bottom of every subsection of any archive page. Texugo (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * LtPowers and Texugo: As far I know, I don't think you both guys ever bothered to archive the closed discussions (at-least not since early 2011) except LtPowers archived one VfD in November 2012 and two VfD's in January 2013 so I think if it wouldn't be fair if those who're currently actively doing archives join this discussion and give their remarks? --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have certainly done it before, though not recently, but I don't think it really matters who does the archiving. The point is that on any page which is all archives (which is standard for every page I know of except that undelete page), to mark every individual section as an archive is redundant for both the person archiving and to the reader. Texugo (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but do you think we should at-least use this template in Votes for undeletion page? --Saqib (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually I think we should archive the Votes for undeletion page just like we archive everything else, on its own subpage. Texugo (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then restart the discussion here under Archival section. --Saqib (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * LtPowers, if you see no good reason to add Archive top and Archive buttom to each archived Vfd, can it be placed on an archived page? See here for an example. --Saqib (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pretty new to Wikivoyage, but I think new one is better than current now. 레비 ReviDiscuss SUL Info 10:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I still don't see the point, Saqib. The entire page is an archive; why do we need a garish blue box to point that out?  LtPowers (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's distinguish ourself from WT. I'm sure the fresh look of archives will be appreciated. --Saqib (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't see the point, and I'm not sure "distinguishing ourselves from WT" should in itself be an argument for anything, since this argument could be used in favor of any proposal imaginable. Texugo (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)