Help talk:Archiving

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a good idea. When I first started and wanted to get the random stuff off of my talk page I couldnt figure out how to archive on my own I had to ask somebody.--DrogoBoffin 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask permission, I apologize. Do you mind if I add to this page to help you finish it sooner and take away some of the trouble. Again I apologize--DrogoBoffin 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is fine, anyone can add to it if they want (or clean it up even lol) feel free, I am going to be um... busy tommrow so I wont be working on it tommrow; if u want to it is fine :o) --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say just add it to the help section as I don't think a guideline on archiving is really needed. — Eloc 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though I just spent some time rewriting it, I actually think I agree with Eloc: it seems more of a help document than a guideline. Or at the very least the help section should get a link to it, as its multipurpose. — THARKUN User Tharkun sig.png 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could put this at something like Help:Archiving and have a link to it from Help:Contents? — Eloc 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I would like to point that, as of right now, there is nothing in the wiki that regulates the archiving process on articles outside the User: namespace (which led a couple of days ago to: [1] [2] and [3] to name an example i was involved in). As such, i would like to see this developed further until it could reach a guideline level, which can be applyied not only to archiving pages for users, but all along the wiki.--Fighterdoken 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to re-work this so that it covers both the User talk namespace and the Talk namespace, that seems like a pretty good idea :o) --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is more a help page, not a guideline. There are no specific rules how to archive a page, as long as the contents exist somewhere. poke | talk 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you kinda gave a rule already, "the content has to exist somewhere", which i would assume is "somewhere else than in the edit history". Also, i think the "there has to be a link to the archive" is another rule we usually enforce even if the page is not in the User namespace. I am not sure if there are others, but the thing is that if i can't really point other thing than talk pages with admin comments when a user asks about this, which is kinda weird...--Fighterdoken 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also like the idea of having a guideline like what is here. It can be cleaned up and fixed in a few places, but it looks good. I may edit if I find time somewhere. Calor Talk 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I support guideline. I've been looking for something like this for a while. With this, everyone will be able to help archive long discussion pages. Mohnzh say what? 16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

my rewrite[edit]

Hey SP, I went through and fixed some typos and generally tried to clean it up. In doing so, however, I noticed that in fact there's a fair bit of repetition. I tried to remove most of it, generally with the practice of moving things to the "General Notes" section when they seemed general and duplicated (since a lot of those Don'ts and Notes were said elsewhere). If you prefer the older version, feel free to (selectively, or totally) revert.
And as an FYI: I dropped the line about "dos and don'ts" because there was just a heading for don'ts. I know the first half of the article is Dos, but it just didn't work in my head. I don't see how archives are used to get to know someone, so I nixed that line.
And lastly, some of the actual mechanics of archiving might be nice to explain.. like where the move button is (ok, maybe not that simple, but..) or how you create a new page if you want to copy-paste. Those sections just say to do it and seem comparatively brief.. though that's partly due to my reformatting.
Anyway, hopefully that is of some help. — THARKUN User Tharkun sig.png 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I merged the two how-to section and made a bigger change to reflect the current trend and to remove redundancies (mostly because they're already covered in the two linked policies). Of course, feel free to revert or re-insert and bring up things for discussion if you feel I removed things that should be mentioned.
As for where to put this, I think it should go into the GWW namespace and have links to it from the help namespace. -- User Sig.png 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why GWW namespace? I think it has more style of a help page. poke | talk 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say, because none bothers to read the help pages, not even admins XD. At least in GWW some (bored) people may take a look at it from time on time. --Fighterdoken 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think many people bother reading the GWW namespace either :D anyway, I have a new suggestion below, which is to split this page into two. -- User Sig.png 07:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking Pretty Good[edit]

I think its ready to go public, and you should know what I mean.--DrogoBoffin 08:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope not yet I am still not sure if this needs to be a Guideline or needs to be put into the help section. I might ask some more admins to input on it --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It feels like both actually, so I suppose sticking it in one namespace or the other is ok. I'm thinking of an alternative in mind though. Perhaps the section on the actual guidelines can be merged into Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages (and subsequently moving it away from being a formatting guideline and "official-ising" it). And we move the how-to section into the Help namespace, possibly Help:Editing, or we could split it up and update/restructure Help:Contents. -- User Sig.png 07:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This looks good as an guideline. The first section is more a help section than a guideline, but seeing how guidelines can be edited much easier than policies, that should be ok. It is an advantage to have everything together on one page instead of having to send users to two different places when they want to archive. --Xeeron 09:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why a guideline?[edit]

I don't quite understand why this should be a guideline. Why not just a help article? If it was a help article, more new member would view it and as a guideline. — Eloc 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read above, I am thinking about having it as both a help article and a guideline (per --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 16:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Although, I'm generally opposed to most "guidelines" as unnecessary, I can see this as being useful in getting more talk pages archived that need it due to long, old and currently meaningless discussions. However, I would remove the bullet that states: "Personal attacks can be removed without archiving as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks." While correct, I do not see this as something that someone doing archiving should be concerned with. Personal attacts to be removed per the policy would have already been removed and it wouldn't be good for someone doing archiving to be deciding not to archive something because they read it as a personal attack. So, without that line, I support. -- Inspired to ____ 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't fully read this yet but I agree with Inspired in regards to taking out that bullet about NPA removal since if it was a problem when it was written it would of most likely already been removed before archiving time. --Kakarot Talk 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It is there as a reminder, and I don't plan on changing it; unless most agree or you provide me with a better reason :P Sorry --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I'm afraid I must oppose this, its simply not a good idea to have a guideline that people can point to when deleting something from several months ago and say this said they could because it was a "personal attack". And, without someone actually going and reading that policy which says: "For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted. However, deletion should be rare, limited to situations where the comments pose an ongoing threat to a user such as revealing personal information in the attack." So what do you mean, reminder. Its not as if we want to encourage anyone to delete personal attacks, its just that they can be deleted. -- Inspired to ____ 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a good reason for the removal of such line is "It's already covered by GWW:NPA". Maybe a small note at the botton that points something like "1.- Some policies may allow users to not archive certain content under certain conditions.". That, or just removing it alltogether, because as it was pointed above, conflictive content is usually removed before it is archived (or while archiving, but ruled by the policy that allowed it).--Fighterdoken 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That is why this is a proposed guideline and not a policy, it cannot be enforced. Someone cannot point to this and say that, this is to inform people of how to go about archiving and imo that includes what to do with a situation like that. If you would like I could add a note saying a sysop should be contacted first, since they should be. --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please understand I was not asking you to change anything, I realize this is not your proposal to edit. If I wanted to change it I would have, the purpose once something is proposed should be to discuss to see if this proposal should be implemented with or without any changes. If you believe that by being the initial author of something that gives you any more say over the form it or the discussion takes, I suggest you are mistaken. Also, by making actual changes to a proposal midway through a discussion there is no way to know if anyone who previously indicated support would support the new version. Actually, I believe the edit you made changes this from being a point which can cause problems to one that is now false since I don't believe an admin needs to be contacted if it is the user's own talk page. Finally, are you seriously arguing this should be implemented by saying what amounts to, what it says doesn't really matter because it can't be enforced? -- Inspired to ____ 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What? Just because I do not agree with what you are saying, does not mean I think I have more of a say. An admin should be contacted, if you believe that a comment should be removed; if not then we will have ppl just removing comments when they feel like it. A minor edit like that is not going to change someones view on the entire guideline, nothing has really changed abotu the guideline as a whole. --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You suggest "minor edit" as if it was a typo or something. Am I mistaking in thinking you made the edit because you thought it might be significant enough address a concern expressed above? -- Inspired to ____ 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding "contact an admin" is not a major change, since that is what we currently do if we feel something needs to be removed. --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "currently done", the "Don't archive active discussions" may need to be reworded, since we usually do it all the time (specially true for Anet people).--Fighterdoken 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Does not apply, tech. Gaile is and admin ( I assume thats who ur refering to) --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does, we don't make exceptions here. Also, in order to avoid problems (specially from people wiki-lawyering) is better if we are "specific enough" or "not specific at all" about it. I think leaving only the "don't keep discussions going in the archive, if one archived topic is raised from the dead, bring it back to the talk page" section should be enough, since users all along the wiki would be violating that point (even you each time you rage-quit).--Fighterdoken 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Gaile is technically not an administrator, nor are any ArenaNet members. She is an ArenaNetLiaison. Regardless, since when are admins exempt from normal rules? --Pling! \ Brains12 \ Talk 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire guideline should be "what we currently do." This is exactly why I'm generally opposed to guidelines and this was one that I tried to support because I could see people looking at it and doing more of something that is useful although done already. This proposal is way too much of a waste of time spent to get a whole lot of nothing. -- Inspired to ____ 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think it's a waste of time, you are welcome to not waste your time reviewing it or the talk page. Some of us still think it's needed for at least allowing it to be pointed at when people start not-archiving stuff from main article talk pages because they "don't like it".--Fighterdoken 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
First, as was pointed out above this isn't a policy and thus can't be enforced. Second, just tell them what they should and shouldn't do. Putting the way things should be done into "written" guidelines actually accomplishes very little if there's consensus on how things should be done, and can actually make things worse if they're vague, misleading or just plain wrong. Finally, fortunately not only those who think something should be done get a say in if it is done. -- Inspired to ____ 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we DO enforce guidelines, GWW:GUILDS being the first one that comes to my mind (which is vague enough to allow customization, but still includes "musts"). (added) Actually, as you point, putting the way things should be done written accomplish little right now, because we all know the concensus about it. But this will not be true in one week/month/year (and yes, it has happened before, even with sysops ignoring the concensus), so it's better to have it written so, if the concensus changes at some point, we have references to work over with, instead of, let's say, know it because "we decided it on IRC".--Fighterdoken 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what I mean by enforce is block a user for not following it. @ Fighterdoken & Brains, misunderstood :P. @ Inspired, if you think it is pointless don't comment on it --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 22:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ow, i see what the problem may be then. Enforcing has to be put in context. By example, we wouldn't ban a user for not following GWW:GUILDS, but we would tag the page for cleanup, delete it or revert it. In the same way, this archiving guideline would not be enforced in a "do it!" way, but in a "do it, or we will do it anyways" way.--Fighterdoken 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Eggsactly (lol eggs) --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is decided on IRC, apart from perhaps whether we will do Eternal Grove hard mode with Tanetris, or go with Wyn and do Boreas Seabed instead. Turns out we did the latter. Hence Tanetris' withdrawal. Sour grapes if ever I saw them. --Pling! \ Brains12 \ Talk 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he was just using it as an example --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 22:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, GWW:GUILDS is an excellent example of where a guideline is needed because that is a situation where there is a large number of otherwise noneditors who would normally not be creating pages outside of the user space doing so, so it's put into a written guideline (same with the user space, but I would argue less importantly). Now, my question is: where is the mass of otherwise noneditors who are archiving outside of the user space?
Better to have it in writing so if consensus changes what?
Well, actually better to not have it in writing so if consensus changes you don't need to get a change proposal approved to keep up with consensus.
Sorry, this is moving away from this specific proposal, but we could have hundreds of written guidelines for how things are done, that does not mean that we should have them. -- Inspired to ____ 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, if concensus changes is quite easy to change the guideline, so that is not really a problem. In any case, you raise a good question by putting numbers into the discussion.
Since most of the archival process in main articles is done by users familiar with the way the wiki works, it wouldn't make much sense to have it, but this guideline is not intended only to cover those, but also the archiving talk pages on the userspace. It could make sense to merge this with GWW:USER, but since talk-page archiving is a process not limited to userspace only, this being a guideline on it's own has its merits also. It allows a easy-to-point guide to users trying to archive, while also it allows to regulate main-space archiving which, currently, is on a limbo.--Fighterdoken 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just go with Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages then for the whole lot, instead of focusing solely on arhiving? --Pling! \ Brains12 \ Talk 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It probably would be the best course of action (as in, merge), but not the quicker one. Is a lot easier to get a single-topic guideline working (that can later be merged into something else) that trying to gather concensus on something like "talk pages". I mean, it took us what, a year and a half? to aprove formatting:locations.--Fighterdoken 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And your point is...? :P --Pling! \ Brains12 \ Talk 23:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Dang, beaten. I wouldn't oppose to splitting this into Help:Archiving and GWW:Talk pages if SP wants to do the dirty job XD.--Fighterdoken 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is what I will do; I will merge this with the talk page guideline adn then move this to Help:Archiving. That will make everyone happy! :D --Shadowphoenix Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-; 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Somethings messed up with my archive box, can someone help?--Unendingfear User Unendingfear Crane.jpg 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed; you didn't close the table. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Skill Functionality Changes[edit]

When a skill's functionality changes, would it be a good idea to archive all the discussion that related to the old functionality? Random Weird Guy 19:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to tbh; talk pages move on to different subjects all the time (whether they're about skills, items, guilds, users, whatever), but they're still generally only archived when the page gets long. pling User Pling sig.png 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)