UESPWiki:Archive/CP Archiving-Subpaging

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Archiving/Subpaging

Prior archive: Subpaging.

Following was moved from separate "Community Portal into small pieces", since it essentially re-proposed "Community Portal Subpaging". --Wrye 18:09, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Now I'd like to suggest breaking this page up. It is over 80 kilobytes in size, so it would be in order. Several subpages that are parallel to each other would work. --FMan | Talk | contribs 11:09, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Would make sense, it's currently huge and only the bottom topics seem active Jadrax 11:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)

I didn't check since this suggestion came to me when I was already editing a section of the page and didn't see it as a whole at the time. That appears to be true except for one topic in the middle, so in fact archiving would be the preferred action to cut the current size - someone just needs to do it. :) --FMan | Talk (contribs) 12:02, 18 January 2007 (EST)

So this page would be more like a forum and the pages would be more like threads. Sounds neat! --Aristeo | Talk 13:23, 18 January 2007 (EST)

This page was somewhat overdue for archiving, so I've gone ahead and archived the older, resolved topics. But there have been a number of important issues brought up on the Community Portal over the last couple months, which I felt it would possibly be premature to archive. So the resulting page is still somewhat lengthy. A couple of these topics are possible candidates for subpaging, in that they are issues that have come up a few times, in particular:

No Spoiler Warnings

Mod Info in Articles

Or if the community feels that those topics are sufficiently resolved, another option would be to try to create a guideline page summarizing the discussion (at which point it could be archived). I'm leaning towards the latter: I think these are topics that warrant guidelines. Unless someone else would like to tackle writing up a guideline, I'm willing to take it on... but it will be a few weeks before I have the chance. --Nephele 16:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Good deal. I'd suggest subpaging the Mod Info in Articles. I don't think that we reached a resolution, and it will probably need a guideline at some point. --Wrye 20:25, 18 January 2007 (EST)

---

Re Aristeo's recent changes to status of subpage topics. I don't think that Complete is a good designation for most of those. Inactive is probably better. Part of the notion of the subpages is that they're likely to be open for a long time, though going through varying periods of activity and inactivity. E.g. it's possible that anonymous editing will come up again (relatively new users sometimes have pro/con things to say about it). Likewise, "Copyright" and "Curing Stupidity" are perennial topics -- I would rate these as "Inactive". Principles Controversy is certainly not complete since Nephele is still working on guidelines, AFAIK (so it should be "Active"). --Wrye 18:20, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Other page maintenance noes. I've added a 'Contents header to make it easier to edit the subpage listing without having to edit the whole page. I've forced a break == both at the bottom to keep the text from getting to crunched.

Also I've cleared out a couple of headers that have been subpaged. --Wrye 18:35, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I changed "resolved" to "complete", because not everything here is a dispute. Complete seemed to be a better term.

Also, what is the criteria that you use for rating the activity of pages? --Aristeo | Talk 21:22, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I agree that "Complete" makes better sense when there's no dispute or question to be resolved -- however, most topics here involve one or the other of those. E.g., there was certainly a dispute over whether Anonymous Editing should be allowed and about Copyright Issues. Dispute doesn't necessarily mean a knock down, drag out fight -- it just means that there was a disagreement.

As for when I would say "Inactive", my rough rule of thumb would be no discussion for three weeks -- unless someone objected, in which case I would keep it "Active" for longer.

BTW, I've archived some of the older subpaging discussion and retitled and moved this section to the top since it's "Meta" -- i.e., about the page itself. --Wrye 15:51, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Archived. --Wrye 00:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)