I noticed you changed archiving from 7 days to 60 days. [1] I had previously set it at 7 days as the WP:TALKSIZE is currently 400KB+, and ideally would be <75KB. [2] Effectively it was the first topic I was trying to archive asap. This could then be added as a hatnote background link, as naturally that topic is very important, but isn't being actively discussed anymore and thus belongs in the archives I beleive. I was going to return to 7 days but thought I'd contact you to avoid edit warring over archive configs :) CNC (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNC, Yes, and I appreciate the message, but that is an important page, with a lot of people not used to editing or viewing Wikipedia project pages coming by to view it and/or contribute, and I think all of the discussions should remain (i.e., I would prefer no archiving, or 365 day archiving). Personally, I think archiving purely due to size is a residue of the past (and autocollapse means it isn't an issue for mobile), but if we have to split the page up purely due to length, I'd rather we do a thematic split with tabs, something like the six tabs at the top of WP:VPP, for example, because then even users unaccustomed to coming to a page like that will be able to easily find related topics. At that point, if any one of them hits 400kb or whatever you think is generally too big, we can archive at that point, but at least it would give us some breathing room. We could either just boldly do a split like that to try it out, and/or shift this discussion to the page itself, and let the community decide; what do you think? Thanks again for raising this, Mathglot (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot sounds like a much better idea, the tabs concept. I had found the page slow to load, so while I don't know how easily accessible it is on mobile, on desktop there are loading issues (even if my laptop isn't the best either). Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the talk page per your suggestion, but otherwise I think crack on with a tab template, as you said this is a vast improvement to archiving. For now it seems only the first topic is in need to splitting off, as that is 62% of the page size at 277KB. CNC (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNC, I'm doing this in phases because of a possible moving target, and because it is easier that way. Phase one, splitting the content onto additional pages, is complete, and the wikicode of the page is down to 53kb (from 467kb). That's good as far as it goes, but transclusion of the material from the other pages still may make page rendering as long as it did before (possibly even slightly longer, while processing the transclusions; page loads for me in 2.270 sec, real time usage, 1.92 CPU, so I see no difference from before). Editing the page should be faster for everyone, as you only have to load a much smaller piece to edit. To speed actual full page rendering, phase two will bring in the page tabs, and that should fix the problem. That's next. If there are objections to the tabbed solution, we can just gracefully back off to where it is now, and at least editing will remain faster, even if the full page takes a while to render for some people.
The ongoing court case in India has resulted in large community discussion because of its implications on the encyclopedia. A page created on the lawsuit has been blanked and office-locked by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff. Meanwhile, certain editors of Asian News International have been notified that the WMF is prepared to disclose their personal information to the Delhi High Court. In response to the latter development, a large number of English Wikipedia editors have signed a petition to the WMF expressing concerns and emphasising the WMF's responsibility to protect editors.
Looks good, I'd run with that already. Others can always improve etc. I only found issues loading when editing, not when viewing, so the fact the page is as large to load to view isn't really a concern I had in the first place. CNC (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, why did you remove such large amounts of content? Did you move it elsewhere? Most of it was brought here by User:Cremastra and I was wondering it it was moved back. The edit summaries weren't helpful, they just said "refactoring", whatever that means. LizRead!Talk!03:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not one word has been removed from the rendered page; everything that was visible on the page before is still there. As to why refactor, ironically it was in order to stop archiving recent content from the page that had occurred previously because the page was so long; refactoring allows us to keep everything without having a very long page file. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather archive. Some of these conversations are barely tangential and of no real help to anyone coming in for actual current info or even history. I think that entire first huge section should be divided into its subsections so we can archive the ones that aren't important. Those were all started as separate questions under the general header, which is now its own page.
I also think not allowing anything to archive after a week and forcing everything to stay for two months is not helpful. Pin the important sections, but let the page archive the out of date ones after a week, for nav purposes. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the older conversations provide context and history, without which some of the newer ones don't make sense. I think some of them could be archived, for example, discussion of whether to create a petition and how to word it are now historical, and could be archived. But I would argue against archiving anything about the threats to Indian editors, and their response to events, even when those events are, or become older than a week; they should remain permanently. I think it would be a disservice to archive purely on a time basis and I'd rather keep it turned off and have it done on a case-by-case using 1-Click archiver when a human has evaluated the section for current topicality and relevance, rather than a bot. Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:Mathglot § Archiving