Help talk:Archiving a talk page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Recent edits

There is a slight dispute as to the helpfulness of certain recent additions to the help page.[1],[2],[3]

Any input to resolve the issue and determine or establish consensus would be greatly appreciated. Things should be resolved!

See also this talk page thread for further information. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-archive-box code added to this talk page

I am adding now the auto-archive-box code to this talk page. Here is the code:

{{archive box|auto=yes}}

It really is easy to use, and therefore we should be setting an example here on the talk page. Since it is the talk page for the help page for archiving talk pages. --Timeshifter 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit awkward. You re-reverted to your changes at 06:44, 19 September 2007, and you posted here in this new section only after I had reverted, posted to your talk page and finally put the thread above on this talk page.
As posted above, I dispute the usefulness of your edits and would welcome any opinions by other users. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not "re-revert". I undid your blanking of my significant recent edit. I undid it once. I have done other edits over many months to this article. No one else complained or demanded that I get their permission first, or that I go to the talk page first. Now that you have asked me to come to the talk page, I have done so, and you have complained about that, too. Instead of these WP:OWN comments please discuss issues. --Timeshifter 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
First, let's stop with the "blanking" bit. What was done was not blanking, it was the removal of material from the article. Blanking has a whole 'nother meaning.
Second, while a mention of the auto-archive is useful, we don't need full examples on the page. I've cut down the section to a brief mention of the templates and the link to an example, which is all that's really necessary. This gives a link to a useful template, without overemphasizing it. -- Kesh 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's stop with the incivility and ordering around. You are confusing blanking with vandalism. Not all blanking is vandalism. Calling the removal of significant parts of an article "blanking" is not necessarily calling it vandalism. From Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism:

Blanking
Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.--Timeshifter 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, as I already said on my talk page, we should drop the "blanking" issue since it's not helpful here. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Let us move on...--Timeshifter 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic archive box

Here is the current section below. Note that it is shorter:

Both {{archive box}} and {{archive box collapsible}} can automatically list links to archives. Instructions are on both of the template pages.
One example is {{archive box|auto=yes}}. It will automatically create an archive box of links to archives labeled "Archive 1", "Archive 2", etc.. For an example see Help talk:Archiving a talk page.
Archives with other names can be added as parameters. (See Talk:Iraq War for an example).

I think that is about as far as it can be cut down without becoming incomprehensible. --Timeshifter 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Instantly part-reverting was not a good idea. But I'll grant you the bonus of the more experienced user.
As far as the issue at hand goes, I do of course agree with Kesh's opinion and with his latest edit. I see no good reason for moving the mention of the auto=yes option into a subsection and expanding it with redundant explanations, when there are already links to the respective template pages mentioning the detailed and on-topic instructions included there.
Another, minor issue: The addition of explanatory template code to the Archive box section is simply ugly, in my opinion. It clutters up the section, it distracts new users who come here to gain a quick overview and it's fully redundant to the linked-to instructions on the template pages. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think you understand the average user. They want the quick 411, not a tome. I have made it about as simple as it can get. If your method of linking to lengthy how-to pages was so good, then how come no auto-archive-box was used on this talk page until now?--Timeshifter 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because people don't like the auto-option? Also, you have made it far more complicated than necessary. I'm the one arguing against making this help page into a tome, you for some reason are the one who favours making it one. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They can't like it, or not like it, if they don't know about it. 3 paragraphs on the simplest talk archiving method is more important than the other lengthy material on the help page. Do you have something against simplicity? --Timeshifter 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I just shortened it to 2 paragraphs by combining paragraphs. See below.

Both {{archive box}} and {{archive box collapsible}} can automatically list links to archives. Instructions are on both of the template pages.
One example is {{archive box|auto=yes}}. It will automatically create an archive box of links to archives labeled "Archive 1", "Archive 2", etc.. For an example see Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Archives with other names can be added as parameters. (See Talk:Iraq War for an example).

How is this "far more complicated than necessary"? Please ease up on the hyperbole. --Timeshifter 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have it your way. Your edits are downright unnecessary and do not improve the Help page in my opinion, but now it's up to others to weigh in, and if nobody does you will probably get away with this and can continue to claim that your edits usually stick. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth. It is not as if this is new information for this page because it was available up until 26 July 2007 as part of the "Cut and paste procedure" and while I agree it should not clutter up that section including the information in the new section is, in my opinion, better than leaving it out. I think that the current wording on this is now about right brief and to the point. As theses are parameters I do not use every day, having them available on this page is useful for me as it avoids having to click on the templates and sift through another page when all I want is an aide memoir. I am sure for others who like me only occasionally have to set up an archive box from scratch and basically know how to do it but have forgotten the specifics this is a useful edition. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the input. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chide Chad R. Chive

Is this grammar intentional?:

"This index makes finding old discussions on a given topic easier, particularly in pages with many archives, on when the archives are of considerable size."?

I can see, in the text, that some archives are designed in order to be difficult to be searched. It does seem that that is nearly, though not quite, as though someone had transferred it | them to their own individual machine.

Mmmmmmmmm, well,......

Much of this page seems poorly-worded, f/ someone who's simply attempting to learn the options f/ byte-activated archive. I have, as well, written about this on my discussionpage. Everything seems hidden in convoluted verbosity.

Oy.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about manually archiving talk pages, rather than setting it up to be automatically done when it reaches a certain size or age. —Random832 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk page

Should i be archiving my user talk page or just deleting the old stuff that i dont want anymore?Grk1011 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally archiving is preferred, but there is no express prohibition of deleting. See the guidelines on talkpages, and User Pages. Looking at your current user talk page[4], I believe you could remove the fair use notifications and other bot notifications without issue.- Optigan13 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think archiving is a good idea. You can remove messages you don't like. The links provided by Optigan13 are useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i==Leaving something behind when you archive== I'm not sure if this is recommended or not (can't see anything from a quick skim and don't remember this being on the page), but shouldn't people leave something behind when they archive? I always do and I find it annoying to see a blank page with no discussion only for there to be a large archive. Why not leave a little behind so as to allow current conversations to continue or at least let the reader see what has been recently the subject of discussion. Richard001 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just people not leaving anything behind that annoys me. It's also annoying when you ask a question or make a comment, then come back a few days later to find it archived before anyone has had a chance to respond to it. I think quite a bit should be left behind, perhaps we should even just be skimming the most recent stuff off to archives periodically. There's no need to have 'big bang' archiving where almost everything is dumped once and then a new archive created later. On my talk page I'm tending towards this - just moving the older stuff off as needed to an archive and only creating a new one when the old ones get quite big. With user talk pages it's really up to the "owner" how they archive it, but with other pages I think we should have a guideline that will avert the sort of annoying situations I describe above if followed. Richard001 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formats of archive box

See village pump to discuss. I think there are too many archive box types. Some work some places, others don't. Timneu22 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: A template to ensure that links aren't broken when archiving

Many times, other discussions link to a particular section on a talk page. When the target section is archived this link is broken, and will remain broken unless someone manually changes it to target the archive page instead.

To help alleviate this problem, I propose a template that could be added to target sections, visible only in the source text, which lists the links to that section. Then a bot (or someone) could update the links when the target section is archived. __meco (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea! Libcub (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive box collapsible

{{archive box collapsible}} appears to have stopped floating right during April Fool's Day and currently centres, thus squashing the contents table. I was hoping it would revert afterwards, but no luck. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive requests

Should we make a template to request a page be archived? It could go at the top of oversized talk pages. Sometimes I do it myself even for pages I don't have any involvement with, but other times I just don't have time and don't really feel it's my responsibility (why? because I take responsibility for looking after certain articles when I'm active here, and expect others to do so for articles that I don't). Richard001 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The template {{archiveme}} is now available. Richard001 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a useful template. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken?

As I just learned, and I believe confirmed by an admin, when I used "/Archive 1" to create an archive as a subpage below my user page, it infact created the page "/Archive 1" in the general project space. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)