This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
(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:
Here is the current section below. Note that it is shorter:
{{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.I think that is about as far as it can be cut down without becoming incomprehensible. -- Timeshifter 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I just shortened it to 2 paragraphs by combining paragraphs. See below. -Unsigned
{{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)
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. -- PBS 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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. -Unsigned
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
Very long archives searching would come in handy. Propably more of a MediaWiki feature request??? Can someone put this forward where it belongs? Thanx!-- Kozuch ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
reinserting two comments that seem to have been removed through refactoring: [5]
The place to discuss changes to a page is on the talk page of the page to be changed not at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] because it is difficult to find the conversation once it is archived from that page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. |
The place to discuss changes to a page is on the talk page of the page to be changed not at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] because it is difficult to find the conversation once it is archived from that page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we begin to discourage pagemove archiving of article talk pages for a number of reasons
This proposal is related to several complaints with respect to pagemove archiving by Koavf ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) - I'm not faulting the user as both methods are currently deemed acceptable, but you can see the complaints on his talk page. xenocidic ( talk) 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
By all means advertise this discussion here, but the place to discuss changes to Help:Archiving a talk page is on the talk page Help talk:Archiving a talk page. For the record here, I disagree with xenocidic and think that moving is simpler and quicker than any other method. -- PBS ( talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My two cents As stated above, I am in favor of page-moving personally and I am basically indifferent to whichever method someone chooses to use. As WP:ARCHIVE explains, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. The only really novel points I have are these:
I doubt I have anything more to add, really, so I won't be watching this discussion. Thanks for inviting me, though. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Support I fully agree will all points made by Xenocidic in the initial proposal. The following talk page is an example of the mess that gets made with the history files Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus Archives 1 & 2 were cut and paste, archive 3 was move, archive 4&5 were cut and paste, archive 6 was move. With the help of an administrator we were above to revert archive #6, but to restore the rest of the history is a much bigger undertaking. Current policy states that this type of mixed archiving should not be done, yet most/many/some users do not take the time to check how the previous pages were archived as was the case with this page. Also I challenge the point that move archiving is easier as if it is done correctly, you still have to cut and paste the portions of the talk page that should not have been moved which includes all headers and any recent discussions. I am one of the 5 invitied by Xenocidic Dbiel ( Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This poll if that is what it is should take place on the talk page of the page under discussion not on another page. This is a well established principle which has been in effect for a long time. -- PBS ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
|
surveys about a page should be carried out on the talk page of the article. There is not almost universal agreement for this. -- PBS ( talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
<--Discussions should take place on the talk page of the page which is to be altered. It has nothing to do with low volume (one can always advertise the conversation elsewhere). This is a standard Wikipedia practice:
Consensus is not reached by an admin closing a discussion. Polls may be closed that way, but a discussion should not start with a poll --as you did in this case-- and a discussion is not closed by an admin.
How is it easier to search a history in one place than over several pages?
You still have not addressed the issue of the line in this guide that says "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." which according to the link you gave ( User talk:Koavf/Archive011#Archive - Moses) was breached "In addition, you have used the move method for Picasso archive 2, whereas archive 1 is cut and paste."
As to which method is preferred you are basing it on a very low sample. I prefer the move method with copy back but what I would not do is try to force my opinions on others. I monitor a lot of controversial pages where there is often a lack of good faith and the last think that is needed is arguments over whether the archive is a true copy. Take a look at Talk:Liancourt Rocks and tell me that the situation would have been better if archives 10 and 11 had been made using cut and past! It is no use arguing that one should accept good faith in areas which have strong national opinions such as those covered by:
etc.
Apart from the edit history (where you have not clearly explained how it is preferable to search through hundreds and hundreds of comments in one place rather over several pages, (are you for example using some sort of automated software to look for a specific comment?) what do you think are the other advantages of the cut and past method over the move method? -- PBS ( talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly commonly used. Still do not see why this help page should favour one method over another. Further assuming that the instructions are followed when moving a page and the comment "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." -- PBS ( talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Far to small a sample few to say "the majority seems to not like move-page". "... pagemove archiving for people who are just doing it because they are lazy" are you saying that page moving is easier than cut and past? -- PBS ( talk) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And your answer to my question is? -- PBS ( talk) 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Increasing transparency of cut-and-paste archiving by including permanent links was mentioned a few times in the previous discussion. My example is Talk:UCLA Taser incident, which I archived March 2008 to Talk:UCLA Taser incident/Archive 1. I included a permanent link under the {{aan}} template.
It would be great if these could all be generated by entering revision IDs and maybe page name into a template. I don't know whether these links can be adapted for incremental archives. Flatscan ( talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of such a template is more complicated than moving a page, for little gain. -- PBS ( talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The template posted on archive pages says: This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I would like to know what the ramifications of disobeying this guideline are, and situations where it might be appropriate. For example, when I look at some archived talk pages, they are a mess. I think the intention behind 'do not edit' is not so much to avoid editing, but to end the discussions there. As in, if someone wanted to give feedback, they can provide a link to the archived topic they are referring to and restart it. This is one of the reasons to not archive a topic until it has been around a while, and to not archive too frequently as archives should be somewhat sizeable before doing so.
I think users should be able to edit archives under the precident of Wikipedia:AGF. The intent being to delete space which clutters the page, to update links, to make the correspondance more understandable to readers, etc. Would anyone have any problems with this? Obviously it is good to watch for things like that, since you have to make sure users aren't adding comments, or deleting comments, or altering them. But under the proper context, it should be acceptable. To give an unbiased example, this talk page itself has archives, so I am going to go edit the first archive right now.
If someone likes, they can check the history for an example of the sort of edits I am talking about: cleanup which deletes spaces which aren't needed for user editing ease because it is no longer active, and also cleaning of users who spread their talk out too much by having their signature on a new line, or by making a new paragraph after only one sentence, that type of thing. Or minor stuff like template replacement for names which have changed, and to help bring up problems like having archives cluttered with two nearly-identical boxes which isn't really appropriate. Based upon people's feedback regarding this, we can then progress to edit the second archive, and archives on other talkpages, to clean them up without losing anything relevant. If this is not to people's satisfaction then I'll revert the changes. Tyciol ( talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I use the move procedure on my user talk page because it preserves the history. I just made {{
archiving}}
to warn people about not editing when I'm archiving (a la {{
inuse}}
). Does anyone find this useful? --
Thin
boy
00 @795, i.e. 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
(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:
Here is the current section below. Note that it is shorter:
{{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.I think that is about as far as it can be cut down without becoming incomprehensible. -- Timeshifter 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I just shortened it to 2 paragraphs by combining paragraphs. See below. -Unsigned
{{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)
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. -- PBS 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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. -Unsigned
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
Very long archives searching would come in handy. Propably more of a MediaWiki feature request??? Can someone put this forward where it belongs? Thanx!-- Kozuch ( talk) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
reinserting two comments that seem to have been removed through refactoring: [5]
The place to discuss changes to a page is on the talk page of the page to be changed not at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] because it is difficult to find the conversation once it is archived from that page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. |
The place to discuss changes to a page is on the talk page of the page to be changed not at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] because it is difficult to find the conversation once it is archived from that page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we begin to discourage pagemove archiving of article talk pages for a number of reasons
This proposal is related to several complaints with respect to pagemove archiving by Koavf ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) - I'm not faulting the user as both methods are currently deemed acceptable, but you can see the complaints on his talk page. xenocidic ( talk) 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
By all means advertise this discussion here, but the place to discuss changes to Help:Archiving a talk page is on the talk page Help talk:Archiving a talk page. For the record here, I disagree with xenocidic and think that moving is simpler and quicker than any other method. -- PBS ( talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
My two cents As stated above, I am in favor of page-moving personally and I am basically indifferent to whichever method someone chooses to use. As WP:ARCHIVE explains, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. The only really novel points I have are these:
I doubt I have anything more to add, really, so I won't be watching this discussion. Thanks for inviting me, though. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Support I fully agree will all points made by Xenocidic in the initial proposal. The following talk page is an example of the mess that gets made with the history files Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus Archives 1 & 2 were cut and paste, archive 3 was move, archive 4&5 were cut and paste, archive 6 was move. With the help of an administrator we were above to revert archive #6, but to restore the rest of the history is a much bigger undertaking. Current policy states that this type of mixed archiving should not be done, yet most/many/some users do not take the time to check how the previous pages were archived as was the case with this page. Also I challenge the point that move archiving is easier as if it is done correctly, you still have to cut and paste the portions of the talk page that should not have been moved which includes all headers and any recent discussions. I am one of the 5 invitied by Xenocidic Dbiel ( Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This poll if that is what it is should take place on the talk page of the page under discussion not on another page. This is a well established principle which has been in effect for a long time. -- PBS ( talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
|
surveys about a page should be carried out on the talk page of the article. There is not almost universal agreement for this. -- PBS ( talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
<--Discussions should take place on the talk page of the page which is to be altered. It has nothing to do with low volume (one can always advertise the conversation elsewhere). This is a standard Wikipedia practice:
Consensus is not reached by an admin closing a discussion. Polls may be closed that way, but a discussion should not start with a poll --as you did in this case-- and a discussion is not closed by an admin.
How is it easier to search a history in one place than over several pages?
You still have not addressed the issue of the line in this guide that says "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." which according to the link you gave ( User talk:Koavf/Archive011#Archive - Moses) was breached "In addition, you have used the move method for Picasso archive 2, whereas archive 1 is cut and paste."
As to which method is preferred you are basing it on a very low sample. I prefer the move method with copy back but what I would not do is try to force my opinions on others. I monitor a lot of controversial pages where there is often a lack of good faith and the last think that is needed is arguments over whether the archive is a true copy. Take a look at Talk:Liancourt Rocks and tell me that the situation would have been better if archives 10 and 11 had been made using cut and past! It is no use arguing that one should accept good faith in areas which have strong national opinions such as those covered by:
etc.
Apart from the edit history (where you have not clearly explained how it is preferable to search through hundreds and hundreds of comments in one place rather over several pages, (are you for example using some sort of automated software to look for a specific comment?) what do you think are the other advantages of the cut and past method over the move method? -- PBS ( talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly commonly used. Still do not see why this help page should favour one method over another. Further assuming that the instructions are followed when moving a page and the comment "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." -- PBS ( talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Far to small a sample few to say "the majority seems to not like move-page". "... pagemove archiving for people who are just doing it because they are lazy" are you saying that page moving is easier than cut and past? -- PBS ( talk) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And your answer to my question is? -- PBS ( talk) 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Increasing transparency of cut-and-paste archiving by including permanent links was mentioned a few times in the previous discussion. My example is Talk:UCLA Taser incident, which I archived March 2008 to Talk:UCLA Taser incident/Archive 1. I included a permanent link under the {{aan}} template.
It would be great if these could all be generated by entering revision IDs and maybe page name into a template. I don't know whether these links can be adapted for incremental archives. Flatscan ( talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of such a template is more complicated than moving a page, for little gain. -- PBS ( talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The template posted on archive pages says: This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I would like to know what the ramifications of disobeying this guideline are, and situations where it might be appropriate. For example, when I look at some archived talk pages, they are a mess. I think the intention behind 'do not edit' is not so much to avoid editing, but to end the discussions there. As in, if someone wanted to give feedback, they can provide a link to the archived topic they are referring to and restart it. This is one of the reasons to not archive a topic until it has been around a while, and to not archive too frequently as archives should be somewhat sizeable before doing so.
I think users should be able to edit archives under the precident of Wikipedia:AGF. The intent being to delete space which clutters the page, to update links, to make the correspondance more understandable to readers, etc. Would anyone have any problems with this? Obviously it is good to watch for things like that, since you have to make sure users aren't adding comments, or deleting comments, or altering them. But under the proper context, it should be acceptable. To give an unbiased example, this talk page itself has archives, so I am going to go edit the first archive right now.
If someone likes, they can check the history for an example of the sort of edits I am talking about: cleanup which deletes spaces which aren't needed for user editing ease because it is no longer active, and also cleaning of users who spread their talk out too much by having their signature on a new line, or by making a new paragraph after only one sentence, that type of thing. Or minor stuff like template replacement for names which have changed, and to help bring up problems like having archives cluttered with two nearly-identical boxes which isn't really appropriate. Based upon people's feedback regarding this, we can then progress to edit the second archive, and archives on other talkpages, to clean them up without losing anything relevant. If this is not to people's satisfaction then I'll revert the changes. Tyciol ( talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I use the move procedure on my user talk page because it preserves the history. I just made {{
archiving}}
to warn people about not editing when I'm archiving (a la {{
inuse}}
). Does anyone find this useful? --
Thin
boy
00 @795, i.e. 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |