Archives
1, 2

Contents 1 Moved archive note 2 Propose a two week or so time limit 3 Formal vote (sic) 4 Drop archiving? 5 ANI discussion

[edit] Moved archive note

In case there's some objection, I'm starting a thread regarding these two edits, in which I've moved the note suggesting archival of inactive discussions to the "core" template; if it's kept in the content, itself, it will still be displayed in "compact" mode, which seems undesired to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Propose a two week or so time limit

I wonder if we can't let discussions be archived after two weeks or less? when most regulars would likely have seen the template a few times. It seems to be getting awfully long and my hunch is that it's becoming noise and ignored a bit. Thoughts? Other ideas? -- Banjeboi 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking very anecdotally, I currently see eight entries from July, and eight from August (16 total); how many entries is too many? I'd personally say five or fewer is on the low side, and ten or more is getting to be on the high side. Timing entries is simple -- so it could work, certainly -- but I'm not sure if it's ideal. Just brainstorming other ideas: some more aggressive management and culling of old discussion, multiple levels of subscription with a default setting that trims to just a few entries, a more newsletter-based format that sends a smaller number of links more often, and so on. I've always been a big fan of this effort, and I think it'll be great if we can keep it running smoothly. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would ditch the ones from July then unless there is compelling reason not to. If we could auto age off anything too old keeping a minimum it would seems to be more friendly. I think it's overwhelming to have too many but what exactly is too many is certainly subjective. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. I agree that the Template seems to be approaching the point of being unmanageably and unreadably long. On the other hand, I like to do a lot of pondering before votes and some discussions, so if they're still live, it's nice to have access to them. (It's going to take me some time, for example, to assimilate the one about correct titles for Ireland's island and state, given the long arguments and many choices.) —— Shakescene (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's a sign of an exceptional discussion that would linger? -- Banjeboi 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Formal vote (sic)

If Wikipedia is not a democracy, why are we advertising something as a "formal vote"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That particular poll is binding for the next two years, which is about the level of a formal vote (compare board and arbcom elections). I wouldn't push that, as it's a tender area to begin with, as it has already been to ArbCom. Let it chill. --Izno (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Drop archiving?

Could we drop the rather tedious archive requirement? This list is always too long, and does anybody go to the cent archive to check old discussions anyway? As more people learn about this template we will either have to set requirements before adding something, or make it easy to remove old or unimportant topics. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the archiving as possibly helpful although it's just a start compared with how many community discussions should be listed there but aren't. Maybe there's another solution like adding a template at each discussion compelling editors there to add a note to the list. And possible we can list the removed items until they are archived? -- Banjeboi 05:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ANI discussion

Just a quick note, the "Wikipedia Forever" discussion entry is currently being, er, discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advice please. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)