Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Discussion"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Deletion policy on user talks: re, close)
(Let's rename?: re)
Line 62: Line 62:
  
 
::Mmm, forgot to mention [[Help:Style/White space]] as a candidate for renaming — [[User:Blackx|blackx]] ([[User_talk:Blackx|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Blackx|contribs]]) 09:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 
::Mmm, forgot to mention [[Help:Style/White space]] as a candidate for renaming — [[User:Blackx|blackx]] ([[User_talk:Blackx|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Blackx|contribs]]) 09:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::I've proposed an idea for [[Help talk:Style#Titles: singular or plural?]]: if agreed upon, I'm in favor of renaming this page and [[Help:Template]]; I'm against renaming [[Help:Style/White space]] because I perceive "white space" as uncountable (the "space" in general, not the class of the single space characters). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:42, 26 December 2014

Deletion policy

Currently our policy for closed discussions is to delete them after a while. The advantage is that it's very easy to do, but on the other hand it makes it much harder to retrieve old important discussions that for example justified some decisions in the past. In fact, I can remember (briefly) discussing this very policy a long time ago somewhere, but I'm not even attempting to look for it, as it would probably take me half an hour...

Wikipedia uses another policy: they archive old discussions in Archive subpages, so that they'll always appear e.g. in search results. I'd like to discuss (more than propose) here whether such policy would better suit our wiki as well.

We may even create an "Archive" namespace and use its talk pages as archives, so as to allow better filtering the searches.

Finally, I think that I could automate the process of moving a closed discussion to an Archive page with Wiki Monkey, if we found that the added manual work is the only disadvantage.

-- Kynikos (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem of the archive-by-moving method is that it is necessary to update all links to the archived discussion. Therefore the archiving process would be practically limited to using a bot.
Personally, I find the archive scheme used on Wikipedia rather disorganized - IMO the "Archive" namespace would be better than subpages of the talkpage. They also have some archiving templates to ease browsing of large archives (I found one with ~120 pages), not sure if we need this. But wikipedia:Template:Hidden_archive_top certainly looks interesting, maybe we can just archive-by-hiding and leave the discussion in the original place (possibly moving to the top)? This way we would not have to update the links...
If we agree on some archiving method, shall we archive all discussions or only the relevant (missing definition) and delete the others?
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't require updating the links to archived discussions: if, after following a link to a talk page, the section is not found, a user should be aware of the fact that the discussion may have been archived, so (s)he should look in the appropriate Archive page, just like now (s)he's forced to look in the history. In fact, we're not currently requiring updating links to deleted discussions either.
I haven't tested wikipedia:Template:Hidden_archive_top, I don't really think its javascript is installed in our wiki, however such a system would indeed clean up the html talk page, but it would leave the source text too messy, which is something I wouldn't like.
Only archiving "relevant" discussions would be ideal, the problem is indeed defining "relevant" so well and briefly that it doesn't take 10 minutes to a user to understand whether to delete or archive a discussion (most likely ending up choosing the third option "give up").
-- Kynikos (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
From my own experience, I rarely have to dig into talk page history. So I just wonder if archiving history is really worth the effort?
However, if you do think it is needed and could be done through a bot, you have my +1 here.
--Fengchao (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep this on hold, meanwhile of course the current policy (just delete) remains enforced. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion policy on user talks

Is it ok to remove closed discussions on a talk page of another user? I saw this may be perceived negatively by the users. — blackx (talk|contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, discussions in User talk pages should be closed and deleted by the User only, unless (s)he explicitly states otherwise. Where would you add this note? -- Kynikos (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I would add this note at the end of last paragraph in #User talk pages section. Something like:
Also please do not delete closed discussions on a user's talk pages without permission.
blackx (talk|contribs) 16:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I like it, go for it.
Then there's a very related tip: one thing that I do when adding a comment in a User talk page but I don't necessarily expect an answer, is adding it with an already stricken heading, so that User can just delete it after reading it without the fear of being seen as rude for not replying. Maybe we can add this too somehow? -- Kynikos (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm, but what preventing him to just say "ok, closed" and close the discussion by itself? I think that closing a discussion you just started is forcing other user not to continue discussion, even if he has some questions or it simply disagree with you. Would you to provide some example, maybe I just not clearly understand what kind of discussion we are talking about? — blackx (talk|contribs) 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Never mind :) It can be useful maybe if you want to thank somebody for something they've done or similar, but it's indeed useless in this guide.
Please just add the note you proposed above, which is instead important, and then close this discussion, cheers.
-- Kynikos (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, done.
But I still don't clearly understand what about closing:
I completely agree, discussions in User talk pages should be closed and deleted by the User only, unless (s)he explicitly states otherwise...
I think discussions in user talks may be closed with the reason specified in last reply freely as in regular talk pages. Or it should be also avoided? — blackx (talk|contribs) 04:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right again, sorry for my quick replies, the note you added is exactly what we needed, thank you :) There's no chance that simply closing a discussion in somebody else's talk page can be considered impolite. Closing. -- Kynikos (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's rename?

As I already mentioned in Help_talk:Category#Does this page need to be improved?, we could move this page to Help:Discussions, i.e. use a plural form. It sounds better (in Russian too :) and will be more consistent with other ArchWiki pages (it seems there're much more pages where nouns in titles is in plural than in singular form). Same proposal for Help:Template. — blackx (talk|contribs) 06:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is related to Help_talk:Style#Titles:_singular_or_plural.3F, which I think should be resolved first, there are no guidelines on this subject yet, even for regular pages. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm, thanks for pointing this out Lahwaacz! In this case let's wait until that discussion will be finished. — blackx (talk|contribs) 08:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, forgot to mention Help:Style/White space as a candidate for renaming — blackx (talk|contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed an idea for Help talk:Style#Titles: singular or plural?: if agreed upon, I'm in favor of renaming this page and Help:Template; I'm against renaming Help:Style/White space because I perceive "white space" as uncountable (the "space" in general, not the class of the single space characters). -- Kynikos (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)