Correction on my comment, it was lost between 1.0.x and 1.5

@test works as described

@rdeutz do you think this should also be applied to the archive module?

@test ok

Please use tabs instead of spaces for the new field in the xml

@rdeutz
While we are here, what do you think if was added:

<?php if (empty($this->items)) : ?>
            <div class="alert alert-no-items">
                <?php echo JText::_('JGLOBAL_NO_MATCHING_RESULTS'); ?>
            </div>
    <?php else : ?>
    <?php foreach ($this->items as $i => $item) : ?>
[...]
    <?php endforeach; ?>
    <?php endif; ?>

etc.

As I explained in great detail yesterday in the JBS chat, this PR is a bad idea for a series of reasons. This does not solve the routing issue that we have, it does not give the archive view a proper purpose and thus it rather encourages people to use this useless view, making the transition to 4.0 that much harder when we drop this view. Please don't merge this.

@Hackwar for those not in the JBS chat and to keep the conversation in one place that is archived and searchable please explain the problem here

I will try.

The archive view is an obsolete view, similar to the featured and the categories view. While the categories view can be completely replaced by a specific configuration of the category view, the archive and featured views are both waiting to be replaced by a multi-category implementation. Considering the different issues that we have with the archive view right now, I simply don't want to encourage people to use this view more than necessary, otherwise making the transition from 3.x to 4.0 so much harder for them.
To explain the issues that we have with the archive view: Right now the links to content items in the archive view do not point to the menu item of the archive view, but to the menu item where the content item was originally located. This is something that we logically can't change, even with a multi-category-implementation, and by making the archive view more attractive, this will be the next request by people. So I rather want to slowly fade the archive view from existence than to throw more at it.

This is the attempt of compressing the long discussion into a short text.

Setting to needs review so the PLT and CMS maintainers can make a decision. The code is tested and works as intended

I agree with Hackwar. Do not add funcionaliy here. Why not add a filter on archived categories/articles in the normal views? I guess the models allow it out of the box.

Did you test the SEO links from the Archived articles module with this PR implemented?
See also #7771

Closing this for 2 reasons:
1) I agree with Hannes assessment
2) I think this feature is not needed - if only 1 person has asked for it in the 10 years since 1.5 came out it clearly is obsolete