Forum:Indexing the Yew Grove archives

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Indexing the Yew Grove archives
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 February 2011 by Liquidhelium.

I've had an idea floating around for a while, spurred on by difficult attempts to find old threads for specific purposes. I propose that we index Yew Grove threads upon their archival. This would make it much easier to locate old threads which would otherwise be a lot more difficult to find, as threads would be grouped by category.

This is relatively simple to construct, needing an extra parameter in Forumheader to add the category. I think the following categories would be a good start.

  • Policy - Policy related discussions e.g. consensus for a new policy, includes essays.
  • Content - Discussions relating to changes in the mainspace e.g. new templates such as Drop tables or changes to infoboxes.
  • User-related - Blocks, new usergroups, changes to usergroups includes nomination threads.
  • Community - Community related threads.
  • Discussion - Threads which are discussion-only. As Real put it "No proposal here, just talk about it" type-threads.
  • Technical - Scary threads, these. (Complicated stuff like this)
  • Miscellanious - Self-explanatory.

If there's are other categories that I haven't covered, feel free to suggest them. Discuss, 222 talk 03:25, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


Support - As nom. 222 talk 03:25, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I suggest a Discussion-only category as well, for the threads that say "No proposal here, just talk about it". Real Mad 08:16, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. I've made half a dozen of those threads, how could I forget. 222 talk 08:24, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Would make it a bit easier to find threads when looking for them. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:41, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - per above; much more organized. --AzurisProblem, wiki? 09:37, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It'll make it much neater and much easier to find what you need after the bots roll through them - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 11:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Couldn't hurt. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:13, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yep. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:46, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - And within those archives, will they be alphabetical or by date? I'll never remember what month/year Forum:Parsonsda gone Mad! was from, but I'll always remember the title (just for example). I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:50, January 19, 2011 (UTC) 

I would guess that they're still done alphabetically, like how they are in Category:Yew Grove, just with an extra category, or something...I don't know exactly how it works Real Crazy iPhone Edit
It will be alphabetical, as the threads will be simply categorised and viewed on the category page. 222 talk 07:49, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Definitely, sucks having to find old threads. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:52, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support - But I would like much more specific categories (such as desysop requests, affiliation requests, et cetera.) ʞooɔ 08:10, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Conditional support - As long as I don't have to go back and recategorize all the old threads, I'm fine with it. (That's not really a condition, since no one, except maybe User:Psycho Robot, can force me to do anything.) However, I'd like to mention that I prefer the general categories mentioned over the specific ones Cook brought up. For example, desysop requests would have maybe four threads in it; affiliation requests perhaps five. General categories are nice because they narrow the searching field sufficiently, while too specific categories will make archiving a burden and result in unnecessary categorization conflicts. (Does Forum:Counter Vandalism Unit go in "Stupid discussions," "Counter vandalism," "Grammar", or "Oh my god is this really on the Yew Grove?") --LiquidTalk 02:40, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

For something like a desysop thread, people will not want to look through all "user-related" threads. They'll be looking for desysop requests, right? We can have vague categories, but when we can we should be specific. ʞooɔ 05:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
These categories should only be a general index of threads, the search function should still be used. 222 talk 07:04, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Organization [email protected] - Matt (t) 03:08, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - We'll implement the idea, though once again I have no idea how to do the coding, so it's Gareth to the rescue. --LiquidTalk 03:12, February 10, 2011 (UTC)