FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Changes to forum archives
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

I have made some changes to the way we are archiving old forum threads. Instead of one archive for all old threads, each sub-forum (e.g. Wiki discussion) will have it's own archive linked at the bottom of the respective sub-forum list. I have also created support for "pinned" threads in each sub-forum. Details on each below:

Archived forumsEdit

To move a thread from the main forum list to the archived forum list, you only need to add the parameter |archived to the forum header template. Example:

{{Forumheader|Wiki discussion}}

Add:

{{Forumheader|Wiki discussion|archived}}

This will automatically move the archived thread to the correct category and the archived forum list for that sub-forum. You do not need to add the {{Archivedforum}} template, as the forumheader automatically adds it to archived forums.

Moving previously archived threadsEdit

I'll need some help moving the old threads that have already been archived into the existing "Forum Archives". There are about 900 or so of them. To do this, we'll need to make a few changes on each archived thread:

  • You will need to check the thread's history for User:Skire bot's edit to move the thread to the old archive. Click the diff link and check what the old forum header had for it's old parent sub-forum.
  • Check to make sure that the old parent sub-forum is the most applicable sub-forum to archive the thread to.
  • Place the proper (old) forum header back on the thread, with the added parameter |archived. See example above.
  • Leave the existing {{Archivedforum}} template at the top of the thread. This notice will remind readers that the thread is archived. When all the archived threads are moved to the new archives, I will remove the category link from that template and remove it from the forum index.

Sign here if you intend to help move threadsEdit

We got a bot making a run over the category. I've already moved all the policy and user rights votes. This should be the last of moving things to the new archives. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:06, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Work has been completed. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:58, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Comments/questions on archived threadsEdit

Why do you not revert the bot changes and move everything en masse? It would be a simple enough parameter to locate the archive bundles and restore them to their previous function. Makes more sense than going through each archived forum individually. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:29, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

It will take a human to check the old forum category to make sure it's the proper one. We *could* do it with a bot, but then we'd probably have some archived forums in the wrong cats. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 16:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
That is not what I am saying. A bot could easily check to see if a forum was archived by Skire's bot on certain dates. Those parameters could be used to revert said archived forums back into their previous state, and then we could move those en masse into their appropriate new archives. That way, less time is being used finding out which forums needs to be re-archived, meaning people can jump in more quickly to find out which forums do not actually belong in the archives/categories they were designated for originally. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:39, March 19, 2014 (UTC)


For example: we can find the date/time used to archive the wiki discussion forum archives specifically, revert those back into their original state, and move them into their appropriate new archive all at once. With those now contained and tagged, users can go ahead and tackle those without having to worry about sorting through everything at the same time. Allows our users to tackle each specific forum archive individually, with most forums now already in their proper new archive/categories, instead of checking each forum individually and moving them over individually. Seems to me that would save a ton of time. Yeah, you still have to manually check all 900+ forums. But you still save time but not having to move each forum one-by-one, and the archive process will already be about 80-90% complete. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:49, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Either way, and editor will have to check some 900 plus threads. It may be easier to check those threads in the forum list, though. I'll talk to one of the bot operators and see if they can program it to find the old forum header edits and revert them. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 16:50, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
One more note: Did we ever set a limit on how long a thread has to be inactive to get archived? Anyone remember? And if not, how long? 1 year? 6 months? 3 months? Suggestions/comments welcome. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:59, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

(I'd like some feedback on this one, folks. There's a real good reason to archive old threads, even in the game forums. Maintenance edits bump old threads up above actual recent ones. This makes our forums kinda suck. Folks see all these old threads at the top of the forums and miss the new ones. We need to archive these old threads so maintenance edits don't bump them. How long should we go? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:09, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

How large is the gap between maintenance edits typically? Is there even a trend in the gaps? If the latter is answered with, "Yes" then I'd say about... 2 months.
And despite my ignorance of bots, I think we may be able to revert the bot edits, then run another bot over the cats in such a way to add the proper archiving template. Or you know, I could just be ignorant :p --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:35, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
The gap is pretty small, right now. We've been doing a lot of redirect work (mostly J now), and that ends up with correcting links in old forums quite a bit. As far as trends, I'd say it's gonna be quite a while that we'll be working on these redirects. I personally think 2 months is a bit much, but for wiki discussion, votes and the DB, I think 3 isn't too much to consider. Most of those topics go dead well before that. As for the games forums, I think something a bit longer would be better. What we don't really want is an empty forum. Maybe 6 months/1 year? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:57, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
I concur with the votes and discussions but I am unsure about the game forums. I have no idea how long they last. I'd say six months though just to trim it down a bit. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:09, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Most forums have an average of 2 months since last edit for a cutout date. That's what I suggest. After that long the discussion has already inevitably died down and one would be better off starting another one.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 00:13, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Pinned forumsEdit

I've expanded the support for pinned threads, something I had added some time ago. Pinned threads will always show at the top of the forum list in their respective sub-forum. To pin a thread, simply add the parameter |pinned to the forum header template:

{{Forumheader|Wiki discussion}}

Add:

{{Forumheader|Wiki discussion|pinned}}

This will automatically move the pinned thread to the correct category and the top of the forum list for that sub-forum. Please get admin approval before pinning a thread. Only the absolutely most important threads should be pinned.

Comments/questions on pinned threadsEdit

I just found a way to make the pinned thread header on the forum list not show when the pinned category for that sub-forum is empty. You will only see the header now if there's actually a pinned thread. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:01, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines discussion boardEdit

This underused sub-forum has created some problems for me while creating archives and pinned threads. The reason, in a nutshell, is because this particular sub-forum does not use the standard forum templates, but rather specific ones imported here that do not work well with the other forum templates. Most of the threads in this sub could probably be placed in wiki discussion. The board's intent of being used to report issues to sysops has not been used. There are a few things we can do to correct this issue:

  • Remove the board, since it's not serving it designed function and move all existing threads to wiki discussion.
  • Replace the board's problematic templates with Nukapedia's standard forum templates.
  • Leave it as it is and live with the problems with it's functionality.

I'm inclined to go with #1 but in the event resistance to deletion is met, I'm afraid I'm not sure if I can offer aid on #2 and goodness knows I prefer to address problems sooner rather than later. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:35, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Policies and guidelines discussion boardEdit

I'm leaning towards deleting this forum and moving the threads to wiki discussion. Is there any objection? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:10, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

None from me. That's where I would've put this forum but that's only because I honestly have no idea what goes in the, "Policies and guidelines discussion board" that doesn't simply go in the, "Wiki discussion". --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:35, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, lets streamline it. Agent c (talk) 01:34, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the P&G DB was originally made for new users to have a way to easily get into contact with the Administration, as well as a place to hold mediation and ban disputes. I was originally fine with it becoming a part of the fora, but then it was gutted of nearly all the content I added to it, it was removed from the side-bar, and became treated as, just as mentioned here, almost identical to the wiki discussion forum.

As its original creator, I am perfectly fine with this forum being removed. But I have to say I am pretty disappointed with how it was treated and what it was converted into. I still strongly believe that there should be an easily-locatable place to allow users to get into touch with the general Administration, but I will leave that to everyone else now. I say finish it off as long as the forum remains in this current form. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:42, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+