Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/ArchivalArchive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notice of archiving

In 48 hours time, all of the threads on this page will have been inactive for a period of at least atwo weeks. That being the case, in 48 hours I will archive the entire current content of this page, listing them all as "inconclusive". Should any of the threads be "rekindled" prior to this time, I will leave it here, but if it turns out that it was an isolated comment, with no follow up, I will proceed to archiving the thread as well in a reasonable period of time (maybe a couple of days). Thanks, Redux 18:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was a post in the Anime and Manga proposal by User:Mitsukai earlier today. Please don't archive unless you're absolutely sure that a particular proposal is inactive. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. When the time comes, I will check the date of the last post in each and every thread. Any threads that show current discussion will not be archived. But notice the following (doesn't mean that this is happening in any thread, just an example): suppose that a thread had been inactive for two weeks, then someone posted there two or three days ago, but there wasn't a follow up: that's an inactive thread just the same. In order to stay here, a thread needs to be "actively active", pardon the pun. We must keep in mind that if a discussion is left here indefinitely, there will be scarce posts in them every now and then. But it doesn't [necessarily] make it an active discussion. Thanks, Redux 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT: To avoid leaving behind work that could take months to be noticed by uninvolved parties, I am inclined to take the following measure after archiving the inactive discussions: All the images that are linked there and nowhere else (meaning that they were uploaded with the sole purpose of being considered on this forum) would be deleted. If anyone opposes this measure, or would like to preserve any images on the servers for a little longer, please let me know on this thread. Thanks, Redux 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please allow a couple of weeks on the DYK thread. An updating admin, nixie and one of the artists are on a wiki break. I assure you that I'll delete the redundant images once the discussion is done. or better still, I'll move them to commons. --Gurubrahma 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Redux 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now archived all discussions that were inactive. I have kept here all discussions that showed current traffic. Redux 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts.

1. I think a month is a better indicator than a week, and if even one post appears, even unanswered, that should reset the timer. This is a volunteer effort after all.
2. I oppose deleting images. They're still referenced from the archive page. Therefore they are not unused. Why would you want to delete them in the first place? ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see:

1. Discussions are often abandoned around here, it's nothing new or rare. When a discussion is actually live, there's usually at least one post a day. I never said that a week is an absolute indicator that a discussion has been abandoned. There are other factors, such as users on Wikibreak, etc. The discussions archived this time around were mostly abandoned for a month, or almost that. In most cases, it is pretty clear when a discussion has been abandoned: the idea wasn't very good, and was met with a lot of resistance, being dropped altogether by the user who proposed it; discussions had been digressing from the original topic, and eventually people get tired of going around in circles and prefer to drop the whole thing. Except when the date of the last post is remarkably old, I analize the discussion carefully before archiving it. In some cases, if not most of them, I post in advance to let people know that the discussion is about to get archived, in case they might want to rekindle it (as it has happened to, well, all of the discussions that were kept this time: they had all stalled, but got going again when the possibility of archiving was presented).
2. There is no point in burdening our servers with images that were uploaded with the sole purpose of being considered as the image of an award, but were rejected. Those images are to be deleted, and if they aren't, it's because they went unnoticed. The archive page of a discussion forum such as this one is not the same as an article, or a live project page. Keep in mind that most of the images, if not all of them, used here are "brain storm images", put together by users when they were thinking of a possible appearance for an award. Once that idea gets rejected, the image has no use for Wikipedia (and it's usually only linked to the archived discussion where it was posted). Still, I would not delete them bluntly. Hence my notice in advance here. That's because the uploader, or someone else, might want to put them to some actual use — but I must say, that seldom happens, and if it doesn't, the images should be deleted. And that's not just my opinion, but rather a standard procedure: I've been contacted by Admins about deleting images that I had uploaded ages ago to submit as possible award images and that got rejected and ended up without purpose.

Redux 18:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think 48h of abandonship is not enough of a criterion to say the proposal is left "inconclusive". A fortnight would be better. Deryck C. 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was two days notice that all discussions abandoned for a fortnight. I think that's fair. evrik 15:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, Evrik. You're right: all of the discussions had been inactive for a period a lot longer than that (some for as long as a month). The 48-hour notice was a fair warning, in case any parties interested would like to rekindle any of the discussions — and it worked: three or four discussions, which had been inactive for 10 to 15 days actually got going again within that time; after I informed that the entire content of the page was pretty much eligible for archiving as "abandoned" — it was particularly striking that, until I posted this notice, there hadn't been new posts to this page (in any thread) for a week! Redux 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So what are we looking at, notifying people after two weeks of inactivity that you're going to close it in 48 hours unless there's an update? The way I'm reading this is that unless it's active every 48 hours, it's going to get canned in the next two days otherwise.--み使い Mitsukai 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see perhaps deleting multiple versions of very similar images that were not accepted for an award that did ultimately go forward but it is my view that some historical record will aid others in crafting images that gain acceptance, by seeing what was not accepted and why. For proposals that get archived (aside: 2 days of notice of no posts is way too short, and requiring not just a post but a followup is also too onerous... people have lives outside WP) I'm not sure I'd remove any of the images at all. What is it exactly that is being saved by deleting them? WP is not paper. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the shortness of notice. Otherwise, we're going to see a flood of posts like "We're working on it/We'll be back later/Someone's on a Wikibreak/Taking a breather etc. etc. etc.--み使い Mitsukai 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the criteria to archiving inactive discussions, so I'll try to make it clearer: I suppose the first step would be saying that there is in fact no absolute criterion for archiving a discussion. No discussions will ever get archived after just 48 hours of inactivity though. Here's how I usually proceed: when I notice a discussion that has been completely inactive for at least a week, I start suspecting that it might have been abandoned. From the moment I notice this, I monitor the discussion for another week or so. If it still remains inactive, I then post in it letting people know that the discussion is going to be archived after a period of time (usually 48 hours) if it still remains inactive. It's just a fair warning. By the time I give this "heads up", the discussion will have been inactive for at least 15 days — but it's usually even longer than that. Sometimes, discussions that had been inactive for "shorter periods" (10 to 15 days) get restarted when the possibility of archiving is presented. Other times, people do post saying stuff like we're about to get back into it, don't archive now. When that happens, I don't archive immediately, but I monitor the discussion for another period of time (usually no more than a week): if over this time the discussion does get restarted, fine; but if it turns out that it was just a manouver to avoid the immediate possibility of archiving, I archive the discussion after it has become clear that it is not going to be picked up again. Notice that I don't just look at timestamps, I read what was going on at the discussion, and usually the reason(s) why it was abandoned (and the fact that it was indeed abandoned) become rather clear: the idea was rejected by the majority; discussions became fruitless and ended up discarded; etc. For my part, no one needs to worry about the impromptu archiving of discussions. I'm rather careful about what's eligible for archiving, and I always give a fair warning of at least 48 hours.
About the images, does anyone else believes that the images uploaded with the sole purpose of being considered for an award, and that were rejected, should be preserved on our servers, being linked solely to the archive page where the old discussion(s) is(are)? Regards, Redux 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When I previously archived things, I never put up a notice. Instead, I directly closed the discussions which have been inactive for more than one month or requested by involved parties to close without prior notice. --Deryck C. 09:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)