Template talk:Archives/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

An opportunity for doc clarification

Courtesy link: Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024 § Is minthreadsleft deprecated?

There is some understandable confusion in the role of the Miszabot/config in controlling the generation of Talk page archives on the one hand, and the role of the four deprecated bot notice params in generating the bot notice below the archive list on the other. This is exemplified by this discussion raised by Ivanvector. It may be worthwhile to mine that discussion for ideas on how to improve Template:Archives/doc so that this is clearer.

Ivanvector, I do spend a lot of time on documentation, and I am committed to getting this right so there is no confusion, but I might need your help. Sometimes, those of us who are too close to a template from long familiarity with it no longer see the pain points or missing or confused documentation as well as someone less familiar or new to it. So you can help out here by pointing out what areas don't make sense, or are vague, unclear, missing, or otherwise need attention; the linked discussion is a good start. Note that template doc pages are not protected the way some templates (like this one) are, so if you know what the doc page needs to say to be clearer, by all means just update it, rather than feel like you must explain it to someone else first. Where interaction with template writers is needed, there are several who do a great job and are willing to help out with documentation, Novem Linguae and Rjjiii come to mind, I count myself among them, and there are others. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

How about this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Are the points below correct:

When archiving with lowercase sigmabot III the config values are set by User:MiszaBot/config for backwards compatability with the older MiszaBot?
When archiving with ClueBot III the config values are set with User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis?
When manually archiving, |target= and |nobot=yes should be set with {{Archives}}? Does manually archiving include one click archiving?

If that's right, I'm thinking the "Archive bot config" section should explain those three config options at the beginning. People who need a different template should be pointed in that direction, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

~~yes, it is set by miszabot/config, but not really for compatibility with miszabot. More because all archive bots use it so it is the standard config template.~~ Yes. Sounds like they wanted to avoid editing thousands of talk pages when the talk page archive bot switched from MiszaBot to Lowercase sigmabot III.
~~no, cluebot also uses miszabot/config.~~ Yes.
i think nobot=yes tells template:archive to ignore the miszabot/config values, and miszabot/config will not be present on a page where only manual archiving is occurring. So in that situation nobots=yes should not be needed. Looks like Target is an optional parameter that just specifies the format of the archive links. If you are using the standard archive location of /Archive 1, you shouldn't need to specify this. Yes, all the advice here in number 3 should also apply to one click archivers.

Hope this helps! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I just now learned that ClueBot III uses a different config template, so I edited some of my answers above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That is helpful. I've looked more into this, and the documentation for |target= seems wrong. All the usages I saw were transcluded via User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn and pointed at an index. This is apparently used by User:Legobot when archiving?

Also, the deprecated parameter |age= is still used in a couple of conditional statements. Should "age" be taken out of these? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(aside) I'd be happy to help refresh the documentation, I do a bit of technical writing for a living, but today is my busy day in the office so I'll have to come back to this a bit later. I also would like to better understand how this all works so the initial discussion is helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the ways I learn about a template sometimes is by fixing up the documentation. This was the case for me with this template, whose parameter usage I really didn't understand (and I'm still not there 100%). Anyway, in trying to get a foothold, I took it from this to this (the Diff is long and messy; side-by-side is probably better) but please have a look and see if you think that is an improvement. That doesn't mean it is done, but for me, it was a minimal first step to get something comprehensible out there. It's very possible a completely different approach might be even better. Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Since there are a number of related templates (and info pages) all under the aegis of archiving, and since they have overlapping roles and even some common parameters, I wonder if they would all benefit from some centralized doc snippets that could be transcluded into each one to avoid duplicating parts of the story, kind of the way like {{csdoc}} serves as a repository of doc snippets for all of the CS1 citation templates.

And since we are listing or mention archiving bots, there is also Legobot task 15 which creates archive indexes; instructions at HBC Archive Indexerbot. Mathglot (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Inviting Sdkb and Trialpears to join in if they wish, based on this comment at an old Tfd about overhauling Talk archiving. Did that achieve the desired outcome, and did the doc page(s) keep up? Mathglot (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd have to do some reading in order to catch myself up on what's happening here enough to meaningfully contribute. From a broad perspective, I support having a non-zero minimum-threads-left default value on talk pages. When setting an archive-after-X-days value for talk pages, the main consideration most editors have is "what value of X will cause this talk page to neither balloon in size nor shrink to zero?" Setting a minimum number of threads to keep (or perhaps a maximum number of threads, after which the oldest will be archived if its last activity is at least Y days old) is a better way to achieve that, since it'll dynamically adjust the archive period as a talk page becomes more or less active over time. Letting all threads on a talk page get archived isn't normally desirable (unless it's manually confirmed that none of them hold any relevance anymore) — when people go to a talk page, they normally want to see the most recent discussions on the topic, and there shouldn't be an extra barrier of having to go into an archive to find them.

Not sure how much that speaks to the discussion here, but hope it's helpful for thinking about the direction we might want to take automatic talk page archiving overall. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'm looking at a bigger picture now; I'm less concerned about the highly localized minthreads issue, and more focused on the question: How do we best document the various archiving templates, and the Help or info pages that deal with archiving, in order that it all be clear to users and not leave them confused? (The minthreads issue is still important to resolve, but just part of the larger picture.) Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
True. The fact that there are various archiving templates in the first place is one big factor at the root. We should be continuing to pursue consolidation and simplification wherever possible — and that applies to documentation/help pages as much as to the templates themselves. Sdkb ^talk 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
A couple thoughts. Template:Automatic archive navigator was voted to merge into Template:Archive (not this template). That seems correct, and that merger would help some.
Help:Archiving a talk page can be the main page for this subject. Any archiving documentation can start off early with a hatnote or piped link (archive) to that page. The lead there should likely be rewritten. To me it seems more like an article (answering what an archive is) than a documentation page (answering how to fix or set up an archive). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this has already been brought up:

) the the four deprecated bot notice params were used to manually convey the parameter info from the archive bot template. This confusion suggests they should be removed altogether; perhaps deprecating them is counter-productive and they generating error messages ("unknown parameter") would be better?
) I believe manual archiving should be specifically noted as such. Meaning that when a page tells you it is automatically archived, that means manual archiving is neither needed nor appreciated. Just let the bot do its job. Manually archiving means acting against the consensus that is represented by the bot parameters: if the page's editors have agreed to archive 90 day old discussions (say) then manually archiving some after only a week would go against that. Perhaps |nobot=yes could be repurposed to actually mean what it says: that no bots are allowed to archive that page (suggesting either archiving should not happen at all or that editors handle archiving manually).
) the end goal is (or should be) identical functionality (archiving-wise) between Talk header and Archives. Not sure how complete that work is presently.
) as long as we have multiple bots capable of archiving, with different setup configs, let's not consolidate archiving instructions onto a single page. Having one page attempt to explain the basics intermingled with more than one set of technical instructions would be a mistake. The current setup, with one non-technical help page, and then one page for each bot, is much more functional. Of course, should Wiki ever feature only one bot with only one configuration, this no longer applies.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I support having a non-zero minimum-threads-left default value on talk pages. Yes. And this number should be no less than 4. Why 4? Because Wikipedia automatically eats the Table of Contents on any page with less than four sections. Arriving at a talk page with no TOC and perhaps no discussions can be desorientating once you get used to how things usually look like; it can give off the impression the page is defunct or unused. I'm not talking special cases here, but in general, archiving is done to trim the size of the talk page, there is usually no good reason to trim it below 4 discussions: that loads fast enough. Getting rid of old discussions are not worth the potential confusion brought on by a "naked" (TOC-less) talk page. This goes both for automatic archiving (with bot parameters without 4 threads left) and manual archiving. Just leave enough sections for the TOC to stick around without having to manually insert it. CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "let's not consolidate archiving instructions onto a single page", I agree but realize that it may sound like I mean something else. I think the lead section of Help:Archiving a talk page should contain clear links to:

The current Help:Archiving a talk page lead is over 250 words with no links to any of those. The lead does contain links to Help:Using talk pages, Help:Page history, WP:BLANKING, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages which don't really cover archiving. When it comes to one click archiving, the main page is not linked and the two linked scripts appear to be defunct. I think much of the current lead would make more sense in a "When to archive" section. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't favor "consolidat[ing] archiving instructions onto a single page" but rather have a pyramid with a brief intro at the top with links, and ensure that all of the pages contribute as part of an integrated whole, rather than as a set of unrelated one-man bands. On top of it all, would sit one page, Help:Archiving (currently a disambig page), with a *brief* intro to everything Archive related, and with links to all the more specific pages that describe different bots, different archiving methods, and templates, and would address questions like the interaction between them, such as your point about manual archiving not interfering with automatic archiving. We don't really have a page like that now.
Help:Archiving a talk page is the closest, and kind of performs that function, but it is way too long, and goes into way too much detail about the individual archiving methods for a top-level page. I think we could create a page (or strip that one down) with five sections (taken from the seven on that page), including: Manual archiving, Automatic archiving, Templates, Archive indexing, and Archive searching (not a fan of repeating the word 'Archiving' in every one, but can deal with that later) and a lead-off Intro section, and move out all the examples and detailed stuff (like Technical Overview) into other pages. The top level Help page should be a short and sweet intro, quickly lead the user through the available choices, and get them to the right detail page as quickly as possible, where they can find the technical info they need to do what they want. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Even with ideal documentation, a system with a ton of different archiving methods is inherently complex (and thus inherently confusing). We only need as many archiving methods as there are foundationally different use cases. I'd argue that we need only one. Sdkb ^talk 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but can we agree that that would be o/t as far as improving current doc is concerned? Reducing to one bot would be a heavy lift, and could stymie doc improvement efforts. Mathglot (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I've started updating Help:Archiving a talk page and will loop back around to this page. Help:Archiving was previously a redirect to Help:Archiving a talk page for over ten years. It would make a lot of sense to move Help:Archiving a talk page to Help:Archiving. The structure of the page though is that the sections have subpages that go into greater detail. So all of those also need to be moved. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly valid approach. I had envisioned a slightly different one, expanding the redirect as top article into a brief intro with summary sections of the main alternatives in summary style. It sounds like your approach may end up at pretty much the same result via a different path, renaming the long page, cutting it back significantly, and moving detail into specific pages; do I understand you correctly? I'm happy to help, but don't want to increase the likelihood of edit conflicts; either lmk when you hit a stopping point, or consider use of {{in use}} for major re-orgs. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm at a stopping point for a bit. Feel free to change/fix anything that I've done there. Going forward I'll use {{in use}} since so many folks are involved now.

And yes, that's mostly what I'm thinking. One note though, I've only used the subpages approach because Help:Archiving a talk page already used that method. If it would work better to have a that material somewhere else, I don't have any objections. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I could think of a good reason why it would be good to have two bots, and that’s so we have one in reserve in case something happens with the other one. Anyone who is aware of what's happened with the page views graphs on article talk pages knows what I’m talking about. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've felt for a long time that Help:Archiving a talk page is much too long and involved for the average editor just trying to set up typical talk page archives. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) is plenty of information for such editors and probably needs to be where 99% of editors land when trying to find instructions. (Full disclosure: I created that one initially for my own use.) Valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also thought it is much too long, and it sounds like there is at least a kernel of agreement about that. It also sounds like there might be agreement to call the initial landing page Help:Archiving (the current disambig page) or Help:Archives (currently a redirect) and that whatever it contains, it should be short and simple, with links elsewhere for the gory details; do I have that right so far? This conceptualization reminds me somewhat of a WP:BCA, and that could be a useful abstraction here as we move forward. We should certainly take another look at '(plain and simple)' and see whether the content there could be moved to or mined for the initial page in combination with the modifications Rjjiii is making to the current one, but it sounds like we are generally in agreement, and generally on the right track. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

it should be short and simple, with links elsewhere for the gory details; do I have that right so far?. Absolutely! Even at the plain and simple page we've seen people want to add extra bits (like what the template renders as in code once expanded) that they, as someone comfortable with templates, thought seemed obviously helpful. And I'm like, no one using this cut-paste job understands what "format = %%i" means. If they do, or they want to understand, Help:Archiving a talk page is that way. :D

I actually had opened a discussion here about moving Help:Archiving (plain and simple) to Help:Archiving and moving Help:Archiving a talk page to Help:Archiving (technical), which those who commented approved of. I just wasn't sure at the time that I could make that move without screwing it up. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, there's {{beginner version}} to help point folks toward the simplification. Sdkb ^talk 03:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's helpful, thanks! lol...I bet I've started archives at 100+ talk pages. I doubt I'll ever be moving on from the beginner version. :D Valereee (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I use Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Example_with_sequentially_numbered_archives all the time to copy the miszabot config, so let's be careful to not damage/rewrite/delete that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any intent to remove the highly useful copy-paste model code snippets, just to come up with a rational organization of the articles and sections, so that everything cam be found more easily by a reader interested in archiving. That code is not going away; at worst (best?

) it will be easier to find. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)