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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Two different, yet similar, archive bots. Why?? One uses hours, one days; one gives max size as xxK, one spells out max as xx,000; one has a counter parameter, one does not; one says "algo", one says "age. Really, is there any sense to all this? For the non-bot educated editor who sees problems, what is the best way to solve the problems? I raise this because in looking at templates on the article talk pages I see conflicting info as to what bot is in use. Come on, bot-wizards, fix this and give regular users a unified, user-friendly archive template. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I just did 2 times. [1] [2] Because the archive header tells not to edit content and there are many pages like these that have errors. So there are no issues? Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A point of debate came up between myself and Technical 13 regarding the optimal size of a talk page archive. While the page does list the ideal size for the talk page, it does not enumerate the ideal size of a talk page archive. A quick tour of several pages revealed configuration for archive sizes from 100k to 700k. So that we can have a codified answer, what do people think is a reasonable size for the archives of a talk page before whatever archiving process is being used spills into the next archive. Hasteur ( talk) 18:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}}
MiszaBot ClueBot III |maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchsize=100000
Description: The target maximum size of the archive in bytes before %%i (see format) is incremented. If 0, this is disabled. In general, this parameter is used for numbered archives, but not for archives organized by date. This is not a hard limit. Resulting archive page sizes will almost always exceed this number, perhaps by a great amount. Each time ClueBot III runs on a page it archives all threads that are old enough to qualify for archiving into a single file. If you have maxarchsize=100000 with a current archive file size of 90k and it ends up that there are 60 threads to archive with a total size of 250k, then the current archive will be extended to 340k despite of [ sic] the 100k limit.
According to
WP:TALKCOND: "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." That's everything in my notes on this topic. FWIW: My browser does not like archives greater than 500K.
Cheers.
—Telpardec
TALK 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
. . (42,256 bytes), reading from the page information page (append
&action=info
to any page URL), or using the {{PAGESIZE}}
(which is expensive only when using it to find the size of a page you are not on)
mw:Help:Magic words#PAGESIZE. You can find the post template inclusion size in the preprocessor report which is hidden in a comment in the page source or in the Parser profiling data: section of any page in edit mode. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)After noting the archiving behaviour of ClueBot III above, I came across a talk page where archiving was recently activated and 22 sections with 141,601 bytes were archived at once by lowercase sigmabot III, which spread the sections across 3 filenames, instead of 1 big one like ClueBot. FYI. —Telpardec TALK 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Official closing was requested at WP:AN, and since this was listed at WP:CENT, it ought "formally" to be closed...but as that's not normal for this kind of page, I figured a statement here ought to work, without the formal "this is an archive; do not modify" warning atop the big box. This is quite clearly a no-consensus situation: after rereading everything, I can't see anything that would attract substantial agreement, aside from Beeblebrox's obvious point that one editor ought not to be making major changes alone. Nyttend ( talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above closed without consensus a couple of months ago, but I think we as a community can do better. Andy mentioned above that we are in no danger of running out of subpages. This is of course true, but it is easier to search fewer, larger archives than a multitude of smaller ones. That is the primary argument in favor of maximizing archive size - archives function better as archives when they are less fragmented.
Talk page archives not routinely accessed the way talk pages are, so a larger loading delay is acceptable. We still need the archives to be visible to all editors, of course - but since they are intended to be static, their editability is not a priority.
I suggest we confine our discussion to "vanilla" talk pages; there will be exceptions such as ANI archives that need not be considered in this edit page. Additionally, this is a discussion about updating the recommended settings on our Help page - the settings will not be binding if local talk page consensuses prefer other settings.
For reference, I created example subpages of (roughly) 127kB, 255kB, 512kB, and 1024kB. They all load in less than a second for me. I have seen various claims that pages above a certain size "cause trouble" for some browsers or connections; is there any actual evidence that this has been studied? The server sometimes hiccups, so simply experiencing an isolated occurrence of load failure is not a particularly strong argument.
Based on the above, I think the "default" automatic archival threshold at which to stop adding new threads and move to the next subpage should be 400kB. By contrast, Google tells me that the average website is over 1600kB. VQuakr ( talk) 07:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext size | Webpage size | Difference |
---|---|---|
Average page size according to Goggle |
1600kB (1.56 MB) | |
127kB | 2100kB (2.05MB) | 1973kB (1.93MB) |
255kB | 2228kB (2.17MB) | 1973kB (1.93MB) |
512kB | 2488kB (2.42MB) | 1976kB (1.93MB) |
1024kB | 3028kB (2.95MB) | 2004kB (1.96MB) |
Could anyone advise how this page can be autoarchived? This would not be a time-based archive, but should be activated by the addition of the {{ done}} template within a section (as things should remain listed until they have been closed). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For beginners, on the Help page go to "Cut and paste procedure" near the beginning and follow the instructions underneath in the box headed "Simplified procedure for archiving". This is the easiest way. All the other instructions are very confusing and hard to understand, IMO. ~ P123ct1 ( talk) 08:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi kikichugirl.
Actually, I tried to create a page for company. I'm completely new to wiki. But i have followed some of instructions. Im little confused of my page getting deleted. Can you please role back my page again? Is their any issue for me to create same page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vthink developer ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the information about Legobot archive indexing be removed from the page? According to User:Legobot page, the indexing function is inactive ("Replacement for User:HBC Archive Indexerbot -Inactive"). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)In the history of the article:
From the lead of this page:
The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.
The arguments presented in the section " when to archive pages" in WP:TALK are as valid for archived pages as they are for talk pages. There is an additional point to those mentioned in that section: Have you tried reading a 400k page on a phone? -- PBS ( talk) 07:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to put automatic archiving with bots on a talk page that is already being archived manually? The talk page I am interested in archive with a bot is this one.-- Forich ( talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the " Example pages" section of this article:
Talk:Jesus has a mixture of numbered and topical archives. It also includes a summary of recently archived discussions.
I wanted to see this mixture. Maybe I'm wrong, but the mixture seems to no longer exist. At present, its Archives consist of "Index" and numbers 1-125.
Would you please update "Help:Archiving a talk page" to include an article that has "a mixture of numbered and topical archives" and an archive box? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer ( talk) 13:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Could anyone find out why my User talk:Chicbyaccident doesn't seem to archive properly, and if possible activate the function? Thank you! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
How can I display an Archive index in my talkheader like that is seen on this talk page? I have been trying some stuff but I can't figure it out. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have the same question. Would like to set up an archive in the header the same way, but everything I try creates a box on the right side. 1305cj ( talk) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to work, or will it be done later? -- .jsWP: [ democracy needed 01:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@ .js: What exactly do you want to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any plausible reason to not have links to all archives available on the page that was archived? The language in this help page and WP:TALK only suggests it, and I don't think there's any other policy or guideline or anything of the sort that discusses it. I am aware that generally this information is available in the edit history (unless it's manually archived via cut-and-paste move with no edit summary or something) and the content that's been archived is definitely still available, but for ease of access and (potentially) transparency for those who don't want to go digging through diffs, they should be explicitly linked from something like {{ archives}}, correct? This is partly in response to the #Need new example page thread above, but I think it's probably worth discussion as an issue on its own. ansh 666 23:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
For those of us who don't like the Extended Watchlist and don't hide bots, every bot edit pings everyone who has the page in their watchlist. Given that archiving is never urgent, wouldn't a higher minthreadstoarchive default be better, so that the bot doesn't clutter up watchlists as often? Is there any significant downside? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a point to setting to to 2 because as Rolf H Nelson wrote 'Many people are likely to just copy the given example, so the example should obviously contain "best practices".' I set it to two as it is a compromise and presumably the default is the "best practice". If it is not the best practice then the default ought to be changes. -- PBS ( talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Automatic archiving was enabled for Talk:Scranton general strike quite some time ago, to the point that 20 archives have been created by sigmabot. Unfortunately there was no archive box created, so there are no links to any of the archived versions. To make matters worse, there was an intervening name change.
So all in all, I have no idea how to untangle the mess of archives. Does it have to be done manually? Would doing it manually mess up the bot somehow? TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I just tried to make a new archive page, doing it myself and not using a bot, I edited User talk:Govvy/archive bit, but it's not showing on my other pages. But for some reason, I can't see page 5 of what I just done in the other pages. I am not sure what went wrong. Govvy ( talk) 16:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone said my archive was a mess and I am not really sure what's going on with it. It's not correctly displaying my archives. -- Jennica✿ / talk 20:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Lowercase Sigmabot III and ClueBot III do an excellent job, especially for user talk pages, however for more project-oriented venues I sometimes want a template-based archiving system. Basically these options:
I probably wouldn't use this at WP:PERM, since the format of the archives is a little different, but I would love to have the above functionality at WP:EF/R. It seems this might be helpful for other venues with similar processes. The idea is some admin notation template is what causes it to archive, but we don't want it to archive immediately, which is the only way to do with with ClueBot III.
With all features enabled, the config might look like:
{{User:MusikBot/Archive | age = 24 <!-- wait 24 hours --> | template_1_name = <nowiki>{{done}},{{EFR|done}}</nowiki> | template_1_location = Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Done/%Y/%M | template_2_name = <nowiki>{{not done}},{{EFR|denied}},{{EFR|impossible}}</nowiki> | template_2_location = Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Denied/%Y/%M | archive_now = <nowiki>{{archive now}}</nowiki> <!-- bot will archive only if template_1 or template_2 is in the discussion --> }}
There will of course be good documentation, especially with the date formatting.
What do people think of this? I basically have the code already since MusikBot does this very similarly at WP:PERM, I'd just need to generalize the functionality and offer the config options. Is this helpful? Too confusing? Maybe it's better to write bot tasks for each venue as needed? — MusikAnimal talk 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I believe auto-archiving, and even manually archiving Talk pages, is generally a BAD IDEA except maybe in the most extreme cases.
Few really want to have to search a closed Archive that cannot be commented on or link to a locked discussion in the main section. It is wonderful to have a substantial Outline / Contents at the start, to quickly see what topics have been discussed. Archiving basically destroys that ease of use, and other conveniences that facilitate Talk. More about what happens when archiving occurs is mentioned here (especially near the bottom).
How does one turn OFF auto-archiving (auto-archive, autoarchive)?
How does one modify an archive-bot's activity? For example: how long it waits till it archives part of a Talk page; or other timing, such as when it thinks a Talk page is "too long" (for a size of 75K is outdated in a time of faster mobile and computer connections).
Misty MH ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I was stumped for around ten minutes regarding what the grey shading indicated in the index: Talk:India/Archive index. After the sorting it by replies, the arbitrary rows having it confused me. What on earth did it signify? I thought, whether the discussion was "successful" or something?! Then I realised, it was probably purely cosmetic in nature, added to each alternative row, quite obvious when you view it without sorting it. Not really helpful for the index in that case. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 08:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please check my implementation at Talk:Tesla Model S, and my talk page, the latter hasn't been archived since August 24th. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the point of keeping old versions of archive files? It seems to me an immense waste of disk storage. All the text is contained in the most recent version. Either the archive files should not have a history (that is, no old versions), or else the bots should create a new archive number each time they toss a bunch of discussions into an archive, so there would only be one version of each number. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 10:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This may interest many of you. Please comment. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute with DanielPenfield over whether (and how) old discussion should be archived on a page that is far smaller than what I see as the common size for archiving talk page discussions. Please comment at Talk:Triangular trade#Archiving of 12 year old discussions. Graham 87 10:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
An ip pointed it out: Talk:Scott_Baio#Archive_box. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Being a newer user I have been reading many of these very helpful articles such as this one. This is a little thing, but I did notice it. When following the instructions and examples of creating an archive page it is done with a space ( /Archive 1 ) which I followed. Sometime later the system or some process changed the space to an _ underscore. This has happened all four times I created an archive for a talk page. I do not know if this is an error or not, but is it acceptable to use ( /Archive_1 ) to begin with or best to let it do its thing? Darryl.P.Pike ( talk) 15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
On 1 July 2018 I made
two substansive changes to the section "Automated archival" by altering the parameters to {{
Archives}}
:
auto=yes
to auto=long
bot=bot name
About 8 hours later user:Graham87 edited my change: keeping the bot=addition but reverting auto=long back to auto=yes, and also changed two items that had not been changed by me. Graham87 changed the template from Archives to "archive box" and also removed search=yes. with a editorial comment of "the archive box template is mor common in my experience ... and it tends to be used like this"
Today (8 July) I have
reverted all the changes apart from the addition of bot=bot name
.
user:Graham87 in response to your editorial comment. Just because something has been done one way in the past, that is no reason to include less than best practice on a help page, particularly with templates as template functionality changes, and their use may require different parameters depending on circumstances.
@
user:Graham87 what is the advantage/disadvantage in this case of using {{
Archive box}}
over {{
Archives}}
(I was surprised that one is not a redirect of the other—{{
Archive box}}
is a wrapper around {{
Archives}}
)
As an example of changing functionality of templates: By default the search parameter was set to search=no
is the default now search=yes
and is that stable? If so then I think we should remove that parameter.
I think that there is a clear advantage of using auto=long
over auto=yes
as it is much easier to click on the longer name than just the number. It may be that with very big archives that using just the number is preferable, but usually when the auto-archiving is being set up we are talking about only a couple of pages at most. If sometime in the future there are dozens of pages then the parameter can be changed to auto=yes
, but as these examples can be cut and pasted when setting up the initial archiving auto=long
is preferable for the reason I have given.
-- PBS ( talk) 08:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
archives}}
then {{
archive box}}
, it appears that we can drop all but the bot parameter and let the rest revert to their default setting. If {{
archive box}}
is used then the auto parameter is required. --
PBS (
talk) 08:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
auto
parameter is given the default is to use long until the number of archives are greater than 36. I suggest that we go with the default and simply include a bot parameter. --
PBS (
talk) 13:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)I tried to follow the step by step instructions for archiving and they did not work for me. There are some assumptions made in the instructions and it is not clear to me. Probably WP changes over time and the exact icon is no longer there. Maybe the writer assumes more knowledge of WP than an irregular contributor. I created an "Archive 1" page and guess what? It's been created before.... AND deleted. Obviously people have been following those same instructions with the same wrong results. Here are my questions.
With the above ambiguity, we have not been able to archive a page. I'm just talking my own talk: page, not a general use one. Kristinwt ( talk) 00:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
See diff. Please explain the edit summary: "that doesn't actually work". Are you sure? User:MiszaBot says it is deactivated. User:Σ operates User:lowercase sigmabot III.
User:JJMC89 and User:Σ. If we are not using MiszaBot, then let us not use that name. It is confusing. Please tell me what name to use if the name "Lowercase sigmabot III" does not work in the archiving template. See diff. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Broken section links to talk pages are a bête noire of mine. One example where they often need to be manually fixed is in {{ oldmoves}} templates ( example), but they come up in lots of other contexts as well. Has the possibility ever been discussed of adding a link-fixing step to the archive bots? I'm imagining it would look like this:
I can see a couple possible objections:
If these are seen as serious issues, maybe the fixes could be limited to the (much rarer) cases of links that appear in non-talk namespaces (e.g. policy/guideline pages, help pages, essays), or in talk page headers.
There's also a technical issue which I hope is surmountable: false positives on old discussion links. e.g. a particular talk page may have had multiple discussions with a section heading like "Requested move". When the bot archives a recent "Requested move" section, ideally it shouldn't "fix" a Talk:Foo#Requested_move link from 2012 that was intended to point to an earlier discussion that was archived long ago. Simplest solution I can think of: just don't touch ambiguous section links. There's also some stuff you could do to try to resolve the ambiguity based on the date the link was introduced and the dates at which various sections were archived, but that could be a lot of fiddly work.
Thoughts? I wouldn't be surprised if this had been discussed before, but this was the only relevant discussion I could find (and it's very old and very brief). Colin M ( talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Such as "minimumage"Or, better yet, "minimum-age". I was staring at your comment for a few seconds wondering what exactly "mumage" is and whether it is some fancy French term for mummification. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 18:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The manual archiving instructions seem to take it for granted that if you want to archive something, you need to create a new archive page each time. Do we want to encourage that? The bots will repeatedly add to the same archive page until it gets "big enough", then create an n+1th page. I would think it would make sense for manual archivers to do the same thing? (But then I wonder if fully manual archiving is done much at all in this day and age.) Colin M ( talk) 23:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I just archived Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and ran into an issue when saving the new archive. The talk page had a blacklisted link and I was therefore unable to save the new page. I got around that by placing 'nowiki' on the link, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines as to whether the offending link should just be removed or some other solution. (posted at the spam talkpage as well) Hydromania ( talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like talk archives are not supposed to be edited ( Template:Talk archive says "Do not edit this page"). However, what about the case where I have a talk page with many closed discussions, and I want to move them to an archive page progressively (not in one single edit)? Is it OK to move discussions to one common archive page in multiple edits, or is there some reason why this is a bad idea? -- a3nm ( talk) 10:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hiya, Under "Automated Archiving" the limitations of Cluebot III mentions that it is "Not suitable for pages linked to by a huge number of other pages (for performance reasons)" However it doesn't give a sense of scale. I am pretty new to working with wikipedia and would benefit from some scale, perhaps someone with more knowledge on the topic could amend the page. Most appreciated, Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 22:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC) P. S. If curious, the page I'm considering this for is Tempe, Arizona
ClueBot III and Lowercase sigmabot III, the two bots in current use for automated talk page archiving.
ClueBot III | lowercase sigmabot III | |
---|---|---|
Number of talk pages in use on. | 8,000 | 26,000 |
Index of archives? | Yes | requires additional bot |
Automatically repair links to discussions when archiving? | Yes ( example) | No |
From the history of the Cluebot III page it looks like it was started in 2007. That is a long time. I would think it would have caught up with Miszabot/Sigmabot by now since it has the advantage of automatically repairing incoming links to threads as they are archived.
But some of the parameter names on both bots are baffling for the average Wikipedia editor. In the future I suggest using long parameter names with dashes between the words. And more intuitive values. For example; from
Current parameter names {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=2 | format= %%i }} |
More understandable parameter names {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | minimum-age-before-archiving=90 days | archive-prefix={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive | archive-number-start=1 | maximum-archive-size=75000 | archive-header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minimum-number-of-threads-to-keep=5 | minimum-number-of-threads-to-archive=2 | archive-name-format=%%i }} |
I think this would increase the number of talk pages using Cluebot III archiving. The same is true for the parameter names for Lowercase sigmabot III.
And hours is not intuitive for the age parameter in Cluebot III. Days would be a lot better. As in Lowercase sigmabot III.
An all-around better bot would be nice. Maybe someone can create it. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone able to fix the archiving on the article? There seems to be two search features on the talk page when we only need one. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The talk page is getting a bit long there, was wondering if anyone can setup the archive bot for it, I'm a bit weary of doing it myself as I've often messed up adding archive bots to talk pages. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Automatic archive not working there. Can someone fix this? Shadow4dark ( talk) 09:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to know that when a talk page may be archived by simply moving it to archive, then why there's a need to use any bot? Is using bot better than moving process and which bot runs swiftly? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 12:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Some time ago, I tried to set up automatic archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan. Before that, I think it was manually archived, as can be seen from edit histories of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan/Archive 5 and back. But it seems that I messed by the auto archiving badly and now Lowercasesigmabot archives everything to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan/Archive 69 (nice. that's a silver lining at least) instead of starting from Archive 6. Archive 69 also doesn't appear in the archive box on the page. Can this be fixed please? Thanks and regards, TryKid dubious – discuss 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
At Talk:Aam Aadmi Party, the most recently archived discussions appear on the Archive 1 page. The problem is that there are also pages for Archive 2, Archive 3, and Archive 4, all of which contain discussions that are older than the newest discussions on Archive 1. Should anything be done about this? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The 14's in /info/en/?search=Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Archive_notice_banner should be replaced with 90's to match the age specified in the other examples on the page.
Also all three examples use {{ User:MiszaBot/config}}. Any suggestions on a usage of {{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} to refer to?
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 00:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Some archive links seem to be buried or surrounded by quite a bit of boxes on a talk page. What is the guidance for placement on the page? Why don't the archives appear directly above the contents box of the current talk page sections? 173.90.75.20 ( talk) 06:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
edits that are deleted after one year may be confirmed, and can be used by the user itself-- Hacker-index ( talk) 13:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Quisqualis I saw you reverted my edit and I thought I would elaborate on my rationale so we may reach a consensus. Looking at the transclusion counts for these userboxes these are very unpopular even though they are displayed on a prominent page. By my count they have 1, 2 and ~25 actual usages. This seems to me like compelling evidence that they aren't considered important for most users. Removing them from this page also won't make them unfindable as they still are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Miscellaneous where most people looking for userboxes look. I also think that making our help pages as concise and quick to use as possible should be a priority for which this section does not help. -- Trialpears ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I added the archive bot right, there is already Talk:Everton F.C./Archive 1 and instead of archiving to archive2 page, it created Talk:Everton F.C./Archive 15 and dumped everything in there, I think I did it wrong, can anyone fix it for me. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 14:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
counter
parameter in the archiving instructions. --
John of Reading (
talk) 14:39, 11 March 2021 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Two different, yet similar, archive bots. Why?? One uses hours, one days; one gives max size as xxK, one spells out max as xx,000; one has a counter parameter, one does not; one says "algo", one says "age. Really, is there any sense to all this? For the non-bot educated editor who sees problems, what is the best way to solve the problems? I raise this because in looking at templates on the article talk pages I see conflicting info as to what bot is in use. Come on, bot-wizards, fix this and give regular users a unified, user-friendly archive template. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I just did 2 times. [1] [2] Because the archive header tells not to edit content and there are many pages like these that have errors. So there are no issues? Thanks OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A point of debate came up between myself and Technical 13 regarding the optimal size of a talk page archive. While the page does list the ideal size for the talk page, it does not enumerate the ideal size of a talk page archive. A quick tour of several pages revealed configuration for archive sizes from 100k to 700k. So that we can have a codified answer, what do people think is a reasonable size for the archives of a talk page before whatever archiving process is being used spills into the next archive. Hasteur ( talk) 18:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}}
MiszaBot ClueBot III |maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchsize=100000
Description: The target maximum size of the archive in bytes before %%i (see format) is incremented. If 0, this is disabled. In general, this parameter is used for numbered archives, but not for archives organized by date. This is not a hard limit. Resulting archive page sizes will almost always exceed this number, perhaps by a great amount. Each time ClueBot III runs on a page it archives all threads that are old enough to qualify for archiving into a single file. If you have maxarchsize=100000 with a current archive file size of 90k and it ends up that there are 60 threads to archive with a total size of 250k, then the current archive will be extended to 340k despite of [ sic] the 100k limit.
According to
WP:TALKCOND: "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." That's everything in my notes on this topic. FWIW: My browser does not like archives greater than 500K.
Cheers.
—Telpardec
TALK 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
. . (42,256 bytes), reading from the page information page (append
&action=info
to any page URL), or using the {{PAGESIZE}}
(which is expensive only when using it to find the size of a page you are not on)
mw:Help:Magic words#PAGESIZE. You can find the post template inclusion size in the preprocessor report which is hidden in a comment in the page source or in the Parser profiling data: section of any page in edit mode. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)After noting the archiving behaviour of ClueBot III above, I came across a talk page where archiving was recently activated and 22 sections with 141,601 bytes were archived at once by lowercase sigmabot III, which spread the sections across 3 filenames, instead of 1 big one like ClueBot. FYI. —Telpardec TALK 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Official closing was requested at WP:AN, and since this was listed at WP:CENT, it ought "formally" to be closed...but as that's not normal for this kind of page, I figured a statement here ought to work, without the formal "this is an archive; do not modify" warning atop the big box. This is quite clearly a no-consensus situation: after rereading everything, I can't see anything that would attract substantial agreement, aside from Beeblebrox's obvious point that one editor ought not to be making major changes alone. Nyttend ( talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above closed without consensus a couple of months ago, but I think we as a community can do better. Andy mentioned above that we are in no danger of running out of subpages. This is of course true, but it is easier to search fewer, larger archives than a multitude of smaller ones. That is the primary argument in favor of maximizing archive size - archives function better as archives when they are less fragmented.
Talk page archives not routinely accessed the way talk pages are, so a larger loading delay is acceptable. We still need the archives to be visible to all editors, of course - but since they are intended to be static, their editability is not a priority.
I suggest we confine our discussion to "vanilla" talk pages; there will be exceptions such as ANI archives that need not be considered in this edit page. Additionally, this is a discussion about updating the recommended settings on our Help page - the settings will not be binding if local talk page consensuses prefer other settings.
For reference, I created example subpages of (roughly) 127kB, 255kB, 512kB, and 1024kB. They all load in less than a second for me. I have seen various claims that pages above a certain size "cause trouble" for some browsers or connections; is there any actual evidence that this has been studied? The server sometimes hiccups, so simply experiencing an isolated occurrence of load failure is not a particularly strong argument.
Based on the above, I think the "default" automatic archival threshold at which to stop adding new threads and move to the next subpage should be 400kB. By contrast, Google tells me that the average website is over 1600kB. VQuakr ( talk) 07:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext size | Webpage size | Difference |
---|---|---|
Average page size according to Goggle |
1600kB (1.56 MB) | |
127kB | 2100kB (2.05MB) | 1973kB (1.93MB) |
255kB | 2228kB (2.17MB) | 1973kB (1.93MB) |
512kB | 2488kB (2.42MB) | 1976kB (1.93MB) |
1024kB | 3028kB (2.95MB) | 2004kB (1.96MB) |
Could anyone advise how this page can be autoarchived? This would not be a time-based archive, but should be activated by the addition of the {{ done}} template within a section (as things should remain listed until they have been closed). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For beginners, on the Help page go to "Cut and paste procedure" near the beginning and follow the instructions underneath in the box headed "Simplified procedure for archiving". This is the easiest way. All the other instructions are very confusing and hard to understand, IMO. ~ P123ct1 ( talk) 08:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi kikichugirl.
Actually, I tried to create a page for company. I'm completely new to wiki. But i have followed some of instructions. Im little confused of my page getting deleted. Can you please role back my page again? Is their any issue for me to create same page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vthink developer ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't the information about Legobot archive indexing be removed from the page? According to User:Legobot page, the indexing function is inactive ("Replacement for User:HBC Archive Indexerbot -Inactive"). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)In the history of the article:
From the lead of this page:
The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.
The arguments presented in the section " when to archive pages" in WP:TALK are as valid for archived pages as they are for talk pages. There is an additional point to those mentioned in that section: Have you tried reading a 400k page on a phone? -- PBS ( talk) 07:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to put automatic archiving with bots on a talk page that is already being archived manually? The talk page I am interested in archive with a bot is this one.-- Forich ( talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the " Example pages" section of this article:
Talk:Jesus has a mixture of numbered and topical archives. It also includes a summary of recently archived discussions.
I wanted to see this mixture. Maybe I'm wrong, but the mixture seems to no longer exist. At present, its Archives consist of "Index" and numbers 1-125.
Would you please update "Help:Archiving a talk page" to include an article that has "a mixture of numbered and topical archives" and an archive box? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer ( talk) 13:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Could anyone find out why my User talk:Chicbyaccident doesn't seem to archive properly, and if possible activate the function? Thank you! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
How can I display an Archive index in my talkheader like that is seen on this talk page? I have been trying some stuff but I can't figure it out. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have the same question. Would like to set up an archive in the header the same way, but everything I try creates a box on the right side. 1305cj ( talk) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to work, or will it be done later? -- .jsWP: [ democracy needed 01:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@ .js: What exactly do you want to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any plausible reason to not have links to all archives available on the page that was archived? The language in this help page and WP:TALK only suggests it, and I don't think there's any other policy or guideline or anything of the sort that discusses it. I am aware that generally this information is available in the edit history (unless it's manually archived via cut-and-paste move with no edit summary or something) and the content that's been archived is definitely still available, but for ease of access and (potentially) transparency for those who don't want to go digging through diffs, they should be explicitly linked from something like {{ archives}}, correct? This is partly in response to the #Need new example page thread above, but I think it's probably worth discussion as an issue on its own. ansh 666 23:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
For those of us who don't like the Extended Watchlist and don't hide bots, every bot edit pings everyone who has the page in their watchlist. Given that archiving is never urgent, wouldn't a higher minthreadstoarchive default be better, so that the bot doesn't clutter up watchlists as often? Is there any significant downside? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a point to setting to to 2 because as Rolf H Nelson wrote 'Many people are likely to just copy the given example, so the example should obviously contain "best practices".' I set it to two as it is a compromise and presumably the default is the "best practice". If it is not the best practice then the default ought to be changes. -- PBS ( talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Automatic archiving was enabled for Talk:Scranton general strike quite some time ago, to the point that 20 archives have been created by sigmabot. Unfortunately there was no archive box created, so there are no links to any of the archived versions. To make matters worse, there was an intervening name change.
So all in all, I have no idea how to untangle the mess of archives. Does it have to be done manually? Would doing it manually mess up the bot somehow? TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I just tried to make a new archive page, doing it myself and not using a bot, I edited User talk:Govvy/archive bit, but it's not showing on my other pages. But for some reason, I can't see page 5 of what I just done in the other pages. I am not sure what went wrong. Govvy ( talk) 16:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone said my archive was a mess and I am not really sure what's going on with it. It's not correctly displaying my archives. -- Jennica✿ / talk 20:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Lowercase Sigmabot III and ClueBot III do an excellent job, especially for user talk pages, however for more project-oriented venues I sometimes want a template-based archiving system. Basically these options:
I probably wouldn't use this at WP:PERM, since the format of the archives is a little different, but I would love to have the above functionality at WP:EF/R. It seems this might be helpful for other venues with similar processes. The idea is some admin notation template is what causes it to archive, but we don't want it to archive immediately, which is the only way to do with with ClueBot III.
With all features enabled, the config might look like:
{{User:MusikBot/Archive | age = 24 <!-- wait 24 hours --> | template_1_name = <nowiki>{{done}},{{EFR|done}}</nowiki> | template_1_location = Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Done/%Y/%M | template_2_name = <nowiki>{{not done}},{{EFR|denied}},{{EFR|impossible}}</nowiki> | template_2_location = Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Denied/%Y/%M | archive_now = <nowiki>{{archive now}}</nowiki> <!-- bot will archive only if template_1 or template_2 is in the discussion --> }}
There will of course be good documentation, especially with the date formatting.
What do people think of this? I basically have the code already since MusikBot does this very similarly at WP:PERM, I'd just need to generalize the functionality and offer the config options. Is this helpful? Too confusing? Maybe it's better to write bot tasks for each venue as needed? — MusikAnimal talk 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I believe auto-archiving, and even manually archiving Talk pages, is generally a BAD IDEA except maybe in the most extreme cases.
Few really want to have to search a closed Archive that cannot be commented on or link to a locked discussion in the main section. It is wonderful to have a substantial Outline / Contents at the start, to quickly see what topics have been discussed. Archiving basically destroys that ease of use, and other conveniences that facilitate Talk. More about what happens when archiving occurs is mentioned here (especially near the bottom).
How does one turn OFF auto-archiving (auto-archive, autoarchive)?
How does one modify an archive-bot's activity? For example: how long it waits till it archives part of a Talk page; or other timing, such as when it thinks a Talk page is "too long" (for a size of 75K is outdated in a time of faster mobile and computer connections).
Misty MH ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I was stumped for around ten minutes regarding what the grey shading indicated in the index: Talk:India/Archive index. After the sorting it by replies, the arbitrary rows having it confused me. What on earth did it signify? I thought, whether the discussion was "successful" or something?! Then I realised, it was probably purely cosmetic in nature, added to each alternative row, quite obvious when you view it without sorting it. Not really helpful for the index in that case. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 08:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please check my implementation at Talk:Tesla Model S, and my talk page, the latter hasn't been archived since August 24th. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the point of keeping old versions of archive files? It seems to me an immense waste of disk storage. All the text is contained in the most recent version. Either the archive files should not have a history (that is, no old versions), or else the bots should create a new archive number each time they toss a bunch of discussions into an archive, so there would only be one version of each number. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 10:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This may interest many of you. Please comment. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute with DanielPenfield over whether (and how) old discussion should be archived on a page that is far smaller than what I see as the common size for archiving talk page discussions. Please comment at Talk:Triangular trade#Archiving of 12 year old discussions. Graham 87 10:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
An ip pointed it out: Talk:Scott_Baio#Archive_box. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Being a newer user I have been reading many of these very helpful articles such as this one. This is a little thing, but I did notice it. When following the instructions and examples of creating an archive page it is done with a space ( /Archive 1 ) which I followed. Sometime later the system or some process changed the space to an _ underscore. This has happened all four times I created an archive for a talk page. I do not know if this is an error or not, but is it acceptable to use ( /Archive_1 ) to begin with or best to let it do its thing? Darryl.P.Pike ( talk) 15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
On 1 July 2018 I made
two substansive changes to the section "Automated archival" by altering the parameters to {{
Archives}}
:
auto=yes
to auto=long
bot=bot name
About 8 hours later user:Graham87 edited my change: keeping the bot=addition but reverting auto=long back to auto=yes, and also changed two items that had not been changed by me. Graham87 changed the template from Archives to "archive box" and also removed search=yes. with a editorial comment of "the archive box template is mor common in my experience ... and it tends to be used like this"
Today (8 July) I have
reverted all the changes apart from the addition of bot=bot name
.
user:Graham87 in response to your editorial comment. Just because something has been done one way in the past, that is no reason to include less than best practice on a help page, particularly with templates as template functionality changes, and their use may require different parameters depending on circumstances.
@
user:Graham87 what is the advantage/disadvantage in this case of using {{
Archive box}}
over {{
Archives}}
(I was surprised that one is not a redirect of the other—{{
Archive box}}
is a wrapper around {{
Archives}}
)
As an example of changing functionality of templates: By default the search parameter was set to search=no
is the default now search=yes
and is that stable? If so then I think we should remove that parameter.
I think that there is a clear advantage of using auto=long
over auto=yes
as it is much easier to click on the longer name than just the number. It may be that with very big archives that using just the number is preferable, but usually when the auto-archiving is being set up we are talking about only a couple of pages at most. If sometime in the future there are dozens of pages then the parameter can be changed to auto=yes
, but as these examples can be cut and pasted when setting up the initial archiving auto=long
is preferable for the reason I have given.
-- PBS ( talk) 08:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
archives}}
then {{
archive box}}
, it appears that we can drop all but the bot parameter and let the rest revert to their default setting. If {{
archive box}}
is used then the auto parameter is required. --
PBS (
talk) 08:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
auto
parameter is given the default is to use long until the number of archives are greater than 36. I suggest that we go with the default and simply include a bot parameter. --
PBS (
talk) 13:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)I tried to follow the step by step instructions for archiving and they did not work for me. There are some assumptions made in the instructions and it is not clear to me. Probably WP changes over time and the exact icon is no longer there. Maybe the writer assumes more knowledge of WP than an irregular contributor. I created an "Archive 1" page and guess what? It's been created before.... AND deleted. Obviously people have been following those same instructions with the same wrong results. Here are my questions.
With the above ambiguity, we have not been able to archive a page. I'm just talking my own talk: page, not a general use one. Kristinwt ( talk) 00:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
See diff. Please explain the edit summary: "that doesn't actually work". Are you sure? User:MiszaBot says it is deactivated. User:Σ operates User:lowercase sigmabot III.
User:JJMC89 and User:Σ. If we are not using MiszaBot, then let us not use that name. It is confusing. Please tell me what name to use if the name "Lowercase sigmabot III" does not work in the archiving template. See diff. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 01:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Broken section links to talk pages are a bête noire of mine. One example where they often need to be manually fixed is in {{ oldmoves}} templates ( example), but they come up in lots of other contexts as well. Has the possibility ever been discussed of adding a link-fixing step to the archive bots? I'm imagining it would look like this:
I can see a couple possible objections:
If these are seen as serious issues, maybe the fixes could be limited to the (much rarer) cases of links that appear in non-talk namespaces (e.g. policy/guideline pages, help pages, essays), or in talk page headers.
There's also a technical issue which I hope is surmountable: false positives on old discussion links. e.g. a particular talk page may have had multiple discussions with a section heading like "Requested move". When the bot archives a recent "Requested move" section, ideally it shouldn't "fix" a Talk:Foo#Requested_move link from 2012 that was intended to point to an earlier discussion that was archived long ago. Simplest solution I can think of: just don't touch ambiguous section links. There's also some stuff you could do to try to resolve the ambiguity based on the date the link was introduced and the dates at which various sections were archived, but that could be a lot of fiddly work.
Thoughts? I wouldn't be surprised if this had been discussed before, but this was the only relevant discussion I could find (and it's very old and very brief). Colin M ( talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Such as "minimumage"Or, better yet, "minimum-age". I was staring at your comment for a few seconds wondering what exactly "mumage" is and whether it is some fancy French term for mummification. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 18:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The manual archiving instructions seem to take it for granted that if you want to archive something, you need to create a new archive page each time. Do we want to encourage that? The bots will repeatedly add to the same archive page until it gets "big enough", then create an n+1th page. I would think it would make sense for manual archivers to do the same thing? (But then I wonder if fully manual archiving is done much at all in this day and age.) Colin M ( talk) 23:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I just archived Talk:U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and ran into an issue when saving the new archive. The talk page had a blacklisted link and I was therefore unable to save the new page. I got around that by placing 'nowiki' on the link, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines as to whether the offending link should just be removed or some other solution. (posted at the spam talkpage as well) Hydromania ( talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like talk archives are not supposed to be edited ( Template:Talk archive says "Do not edit this page"). However, what about the case where I have a talk page with many closed discussions, and I want to move them to an archive page progressively (not in one single edit)? Is it OK to move discussions to one common archive page in multiple edits, or is there some reason why this is a bad idea? -- a3nm ( talk) 10:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hiya, Under "Automated Archiving" the limitations of Cluebot III mentions that it is "Not suitable for pages linked to by a huge number of other pages (for performance reasons)" However it doesn't give a sense of scale. I am pretty new to working with wikipedia and would benefit from some scale, perhaps someone with more knowledge on the topic could amend the page. Most appreciated, Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 22:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC) P. S. If curious, the page I'm considering this for is Tempe, Arizona
ClueBot III and Lowercase sigmabot III, the two bots in current use for automated talk page archiving.
ClueBot III | lowercase sigmabot III | |
---|---|---|
Number of talk pages in use on. | 8,000 | 26,000 |
Index of archives? | Yes | requires additional bot |
Automatically repair links to discussions when archiving? | Yes ( example) | No |
From the history of the Cluebot III page it looks like it was started in 2007. That is a long time. I would think it would have caught up with Miszabot/Sigmabot by now since it has the advantage of automatically repairing incoming links to threads as they are archived.
But some of the parameter names on both bots are baffling for the average Wikipedia editor. In the future I suggest using long parameter names with dashes between the words. And more intuitive values. For example; from
Current parameter names {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=2 | format= %%i }} |
More understandable parameter names {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | minimum-age-before-archiving=90 days | archive-prefix={{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive | archive-number-start=1 | maximum-archive-size=75000 | archive-header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minimum-number-of-threads-to-keep=5 | minimum-number-of-threads-to-archive=2 | archive-name-format=%%i }} |
I think this would increase the number of talk pages using Cluebot III archiving. The same is true for the parameter names for Lowercase sigmabot III.
And hours is not intuitive for the age parameter in Cluebot III. Days would be a lot better. As in Lowercase sigmabot III.
An all-around better bot would be nice. Maybe someone can create it. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 09:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone able to fix the archiving on the article? There seems to be two search features on the talk page when we only need one. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The talk page is getting a bit long there, was wondering if anyone can setup the archive bot for it, I'm a bit weary of doing it myself as I've often messed up adding archive bots to talk pages. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Automatic archive not working there. Can someone fix this? Shadow4dark ( talk) 09:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to know that when a talk page may be archived by simply moving it to archive, then why there's a need to use any bot? Is using bot better than moving process and which bot runs swiftly? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 12:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Some time ago, I tried to set up automatic archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan. Before that, I think it was manually archived, as can be seen from edit histories of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan/Archive 5 and back. But it seems that I messed by the auto archiving badly and now Lowercasesigmabot archives everything to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bhutan/Archive 69 (nice. that's a silver lining at least) instead of starting from Archive 6. Archive 69 also doesn't appear in the archive box on the page. Can this be fixed please? Thanks and regards, TryKid dubious – discuss 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
At Talk:Aam Aadmi Party, the most recently archived discussions appear on the Archive 1 page. The problem is that there are also pages for Archive 2, Archive 3, and Archive 4, all of which contain discussions that are older than the newest discussions on Archive 1. Should anything be done about this? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The 14's in /info/en/?search=Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Archive_notice_banner should be replaced with 90's to match the age specified in the other examples on the page.
Also all three examples use {{ User:MiszaBot/config}}. Any suggestions on a usage of {{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} to refer to?
-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 00:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Some archive links seem to be buried or surrounded by quite a bit of boxes on a talk page. What is the guidance for placement on the page? Why don't the archives appear directly above the contents box of the current talk page sections? 173.90.75.20 ( talk) 06:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
edits that are deleted after one year may be confirmed, and can be used by the user itself-- Hacker-index ( talk) 13:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Quisqualis I saw you reverted my edit and I thought I would elaborate on my rationale so we may reach a consensus. Looking at the transclusion counts for these userboxes these are very unpopular even though they are displayed on a prominent page. By my count they have 1, 2 and ~25 actual usages. This seems to me like compelling evidence that they aren't considered important for most users. Removing them from this page also won't make them unfindable as they still are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Miscellaneous where most people looking for userboxes look. I also think that making our help pages as concise and quick to use as possible should be a priority for which this section does not help. -- Trialpears ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I added the archive bot right, there is already Talk:Everton F.C./Archive 1 and instead of archiving to archive2 page, it created Talk:Everton F.C./Archive 15 and dumped everything in there, I think I did it wrong, can anyone fix it for me. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 14:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
counter
parameter in the archiving instructions. --
John of Reading (
talk) 14:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)