My point with "relevant" and "trash" was that if we are able define in what case we should use larger archives. Currently it is a matter of taste and sometimes small edit warring about the auto-archiving configurations. But I hope we are able to sugest a recommandation. – xeno talk 15:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) WP:ANI and other admin pages are special cases. As an example, WP:ANI uses 600kb as the archivesize because otherwise we would have so many archives it would be pretty unmanageable. Can we found a recommended one archive size fits all? Or is there differences? - Kslotte ( talk) 14:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Not really, I don't think. If's not subject to removal per WP:TPG, it should be archived in the usual way. If something is irrelevant, it should simply be removed. Are we able to find some suitable size value? - Kslotte ( talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) How do you propose separating "relevant" from "trash"? I think that's ill-advised. I see that 150KB and above are huge pages where navigation becomes hard on devices with a slow internet connection. 150KB for discussion more categorized as trash.What should the archive page size be? We should give some guideline. would be a short-term solution, while mw:LiquidThreads would be a long-term solution. That is due to that the MediaWiki subpage feature is not enabled in those namespaces. Several of the archive templates do not work properly in the namespaces "Category talk" and "Help talk". Here's why, and where anyone interested can read more: I don't intend to change any of their looks, I am just going to fix several bugs and do other code improvements. I am planning to rework some of the archive templates.
This is just a heads-up for any template programmers that are interested in archive boxes.
0 kommentar(er)
