Help talk:Archiving a talk page
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archiving a talk page page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Help:Archiving a talk page. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
When to archive a talk page
[edit]So I've recently been having this very strange interaction with JayBeeEll, now ending with [1] - it's a talk page that is over 30 KB long and has a thread from 10 years ago, but this user doesn't want to let me enable archiving that. Is this normal? Am I crazy? :D --Joy (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Um, no, that's not what's happening. You want to archive all discussions except the most recent. JayBeeEll wants to archive all discussions except the most recent five (which is the default). Just leaving one does seem over-aggressive. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- So there's 15 threads there now. Leaving up to 5 will leave discussions from mid-2020 there, which is already 4 years ago. Are these actually relevant? What's the aggressive part? --Joy (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- 5 is pretty typical, even when there are years-old threads. It lets people easily see if what they came in to discuss has been discussed recently -- whatever that means for that talk page -- and whether new threads even typically receive any responses. I recently came into a talk with a concern about something and saw there'd been a discussion three years earlier, so I knew who to ping. I'll even manually archive newer discussions to prevent the archiving of older ones if the older ones seem more helpful. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Danbloch and Valereee. Archiving has a benefit as the solution of a particular problem (the unnavigability of large talk-pages) but it also has costs (it makes it hard to see past discussions and the conclusions that they reached). Fast (90 days on lightly-used pages) or aggressive (leaving only 0 or 1 threads) archiving settings increase the costs without providing any extra benefit. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm sympathetic to these general arguments, but I feel like you didn't actually have a look at the context of this particular Talk:Jon Entine page... even once the bot archives the 10-year-old threads, and even if we let it archive the 4-year-old threads, it's still going to take 7 PageDowns to get to the discussion from March last year. That talk page already provides so much context that it's actually borderline unwelcoming. --Joy (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, I looked at it. I'd say the answer is set up typical archiving (generally I default to 90 days and 5 threads kept), then manually archive any threads you think are not worth keeping. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I'm sympathetic to these general arguments, but I feel like you didn't actually have a look at the context of this particular Talk:Jon Entine page... even once the bot archives the 10-year-old threads, and even if we let it archive the 4-year-old threads, it's still going to take 7 PageDowns to get to the discussion from March last year. That talk page already provides so much context that it's actually borderline unwelcoming. --Joy (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Danbloch and Valereee. Archiving has a benefit as the solution of a particular problem (the unnavigability of large talk-pages) but it also has costs (it makes it hard to see past discussions and the conclusions that they reached). Fast (90 days on lightly-used pages) or aggressive (leaving only 0 or 1 threads) archiving settings increase the costs without providing any extra benefit. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- 5 is pretty typical, even when there are years-old threads. It lets people easily see if what they came in to discuss has been discussed recently -- whatever that means for that talk page -- and whether new threads even typically receive any responses. I recently came into a talk with a concern about something and saw there'd been a discussion three years earlier, so I knew who to ping. I'll even manually archive newer discussions to prevent the archiving of older ones if the older ones seem more helpful. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- So there's 15 threads there now. Leaving up to 5 will leave discussions from mid-2020 there, which is already 4 years ago. Are these actually relevant? What's the aggressive part? --Joy (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Updates
[edit]Based on discussions at Template talk:Archives, I plan to update this page soon. Feel free to join in the conversation there or to offer any feedback on things that should be fixed. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Merging two different archiving styles?
[edit]The Amanita Muscaria Talk page has two archive methods—traditional numbered archives, and a CluBot III archive since 2020. Shouldn't these two be merged, and if so, how is this done? — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, they should, and I've gone and done this. The page receives far too little traffic for date-based archives (they mostly only contained one section each), so I cut-and-pasted all the text from the newer archives into Talk:Amanita muscaria/Archive 3 (except for the October 2022 archive, which only contained an earlier version of the section in the June 2023 archive). I switched the archiving bot over to Lowercase sigmabot III because that's just easier at this point, but automated archiving probably won't be needed there again for a while yet. I also attended to a broken link anchor notice on that talk page and, as an admin, deleted the useless ClueBot indexing subpages. Graham87 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge subpages?
[edit]This template currently uses several subpages:
- Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures
- Help:Archiving a talk page/Manual archiving
- Help:Archiving a talk page/Naming
Would there be any objection to merging all of these onto a single subpage like:
Help:Archiving a talk page/Details
I think that would make the content easier to access, Rjjiii (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problems here, as the creator of the first subpage as a result of this RFC. Graham87 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Can someone merge the tiny archive pages at Special:Prefixindex/Talk:J.G. Wentworth/ together? This page is not active enough to need yearly archive pages, archiving just 2 or 3 threads per archived year of 1 or 2 posts on each thread, with many years of no threads whatsoever.
-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. The user who set up this archiving system did so on many hundreds or thousands of pages in such a disruptive manner that I got them indefinitely topic-banned from doing so. Graham87 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Can someone merge the tiny by year talk archives for this page Special:Prefixindex/Talk:Predictive analytics/ into regular serial archives? There's not much to archive in each year. and the last archive year is 2018. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm on it. Graham87 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done; same as previous section ... and I switched the archiving bot because it's easier. As I'm no longer an admin, I'll have to tag the remaining indexing pages with {{Db-g6}} rather than deleting them myself. Honestly I've encountered so many of these situations that I usually ignore them these days unless they're really egregious. The user I mentioned above is by no means the only person to use date-based archives incorrectly; they're just by far the most prolific. Graham87 (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)