Forum:Notes at the top of every inactive / archived Yew Grove discussion

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Notes at the top of every inactive / archived Yew Grove discussion
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 July 2010 by Chicken7.

At the top of any Yew Grove discussion that has been inactive for a certain period of time, this message comes up:

Note: This topic has been unedited for x days. The discussion may be over. Do not add to the discussion unless it really needs a response.

The message is from Template:Forumheader. I don't understand why this is here. Users should not be discouraged from editing inactive but unarchived discussions, and these notices are only distracting on archives I'm pretty sure they used to be there - not anymore. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:54, February 17, 2010 (UTC). This note exists on the Central Wikia forums, but I don't believe that they use archives. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:52, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I've also discovered that the notes also add __NOEDITSECTION__. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:57, February 17, 2010 (UTC) EDIT: This was recently taken out. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Get rid of the notes at the top of inactive forum threads. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:52, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


Support as nominator. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:52, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment+Support I believe it is because not all wikis have an archive template, or a process to effectively close a forum topic. JLEDDHBucket detail.pngrwojy 01:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Also, they don't appear because all the topics were recently updated, 'edited', for a category change, I think. NTUTDHDBucket detail.pngrwojy 01:58, February 17, 2010 (UTC

Support see below - Per C Teng. ----LiquidTalk 02:00, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. The discussion should either be archived or re-visited, not just abandoned because of the template's instruction to do so.  Tien  02:02, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Full support - Definitely agree. Chicken7 >talk 04:47, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 04:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Tien. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:12, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I am concerned that threads just aren't being closed, and left open even when discussion is over even if there is no consensus. From a recent count, we have over 70 threads open and "active" in YG. Really??? We have 70 topics going on? Some of these (like half) I'm sure can be closed. These templates appear after a month of inactivity. It seems like we need a process to either revive or close discussions that have lapsed this long. If nothing's been added in a month, isn't time to make that call? Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 06:14, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - I too hate so many Y.G threads, but most of them have not met a consensus and discussion has just stopped. It isn't that they should be closed. If anything, we want to encourage people to revive them and reach some consensus on the discussion. I guess a lot of those topics should be closed on a basis of no consensus. What I'd like is for us to just close everything and start fresh on the Y.G, obviously never going to happen though. That way, we wouldn't have a build up of all those old threads that have since been forgotten. Chicken7 >talk 07:17, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
We could impose a limit on how long a discussion can be unedited before we close it, the 30-day timer in place can be easily changed to anything we want. Also, the text can easily be changed too, none of it is hardcoded. FZSWIEBucket detail.pngrwojy 07:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The note only appears after a whole month of inactivity.

I was under the impression that bumping old or inactive/dead threads is a breach of netiquette. I know a lot of forums consider this against their rules, and prohibit this. But we don't. The note only discourages people from posting...

Do not add to the discussion unless it really needs a response.

If it really needs a response, then they are welcome to post it. We should encourage threads to be recreated for dead topics, and discourage people wallowing/posting in the same old thread over and over with Support - per all.

We tend to close inactive threads after a month anyway. Threads that are open for more than a month either are:

  • Over but the consensus has not been put into effect. Should be left open until consensus is put into effect.
  • Dead and without any consensus. Should be closed and archived.

Besides, this note gives a good indication of how long the threads have been inactive.

@Rwojy: I've added a parameter called "lastedit" to fix that.   az talk   07:45, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Az scoot4.pngscooties 07:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


Support - Discussions are over when the topic is archived. Otherwise, these messages just scare people off. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:13, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have never actually posted on an old thread entirely because that template scares me off. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 04:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is main reason why I dislike Yew Grove. What do we do when topics die? (And what did we do when this topic died? Nothing!) When the discussion dies down, neutral admins should simply close these threads... Or, appropriate steps should be taken by the original proposer (or by her/his supporters) to modify the proposal. Or, he/she could simply request for closure on the basis of no consensus.

Reopening a dead thread is unnecessary and pointless unless there are new points to make. Take this thread for example. The previous two posts are simple supports, and no one has yet made any replies to my "oppose" post. To me, this thread didn't require a response, and yet there is a RfC for it.

I am now proposing a slight modification to the template as an alternative proposal...   az talk   21:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Az is right. --LiquidTalk 21:50, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Instead of removing the note, it could be simply rewritten as, either:

  1. Note: This topic has been unedited for x days. The discussion may be over.
  2. Note: This topic has been unedited for x days.

This note informs the user the thread is old, and probably requires closure. Nothing else. The so-called "scary" instructions has been removed.   az talk   21:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This looks better and is "more clean". I don't think we need the command.

Bonziiznob Talk

23:14, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - For reasons listed by others throughout the thread. I found some of the behavior switches that disabled one from editing sections or adding a new one to be silly and not helpful in the least bit, so I removed them. If we had those on this thread, it would never be closed with those switches hanging there unless an admin had a one terabite hard drive. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:43, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom- less scary. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:08, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - In my opinion, the first one looks like it could discourage users from adding to the discussion. It just sort of gives that impression to stay away. The second one just seems horribly random and unneeded. Who cares how long a thread has been unedited for O_o? I say we remove it all together. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 06:57, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, knowing how long threads have been inactive is quite useful to those who close the threads. C.ChiamTalk 07:28, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Can't you just look at the forum columns, though? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:19, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Caleb. I have found it quite handy when closing old threads the past few days. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:21, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, well I guess it could be useful in that sense. Changed to Neutral. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 18:34, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much Support 1 - 2 seems very useless (like Diriz said). I think the wording in 1 isn't perfect, but at least it's better than the current one. I would like to see a better one though. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:18, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1 - Per Oli   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:04, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative proposal

Another alternate proposal - Azliq's idea, only instead of just putting "The discussion may be over", put something like, "If you are an admin and believe that this discussion has reached consensus, make sure the policy/consensus is put into effect BEFORE archiving the discussion." White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:31, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This topic has been unedited for x days. If you are an admin and believe that this discussion has reached consensus, make sure the policy/consensus is put into effect BEFORE archiving the discussion.

Oppose - if an admin doesn't know this, they have no business closing discussions Wink --Aburnett(Talk) 14:11, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's happened a lot. See Forum:Archiving the Yew Grove. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:24, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think Aburnett is right. We do not need a shout-out to sysops, especially since there are only like 40 active ones right now. Sysops should know this already. --LiquidTalk 16:50, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Not all active admins close threads. The number is much smaller then 40. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 06:06, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Note that the consensus of Forum:Image Policy Follow-up was not acted out for months, until Gaz noticed it in the archives. So I think that that message I suggested should be included. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:59, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

ALSO look at Forum:Changes to quest articles#Cont. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:19, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The closing administrator is supposed to implement ALL necessary changes BEFORE closure. If the proposal was to add some category to 2000 pages, adding something to the Community noticeboard or asking someone on their talk page doesn't suffice. Once the pages have been categorised, only then should the thread be closed. Or else many things get put on the back burner. Just recently, some admins went on a closing spree, and although this is good to clear the YG, A LOT of those threads had to have action taken, but nothing happened. "There is consensus to implement the proposal" is what happened. I'd actually like to propose my 10 step archive guide, that all administrators MUST follow when archiving. I think the short, simple "Inactivity box" would be better, but all admins should take care when closing discussions. Chicken7 >talk 05:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

It was clear to me that you were referring to me closing this discussion. Sorry, but I think it is ridiculous to have to check every single article in the quest items category before closing it, especially when the proposal itself was to define with a quest item was. In my opinion, all the necessary changes (definitions at the article and the category, etc) have been made, and the changes to some of the incorrect infobox information can be changed over time. In any case, by your logic, we should leave Forum:Lifepoints -- deep breaths everyone! open indefinitely until Category:Pages to be checked for HP to LP conversion has been completely cleared out. C.ChiamTalk 12:47, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
No, I was actually referring to a number of threads by a number of admins. I actually forgot about that forum. Chicken7 >talk 21:20, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

<nowiki>{{RFC}}</nowiki> Ajraddatz Talk 19:42, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, the reason you all request for comment on Yew Grove pages is basically how you bump it. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:45, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
The template should not be used for that on the Yew Grove, per the reasons I left on Ajr's talk. There are more effective ways to bump threads than add templates. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

So.. any other comments? I still support my idea above. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:01, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I support changing the current message because it discourages editing. However I do not support any of the proposals to replace it. None of them look "right". I don't have any idea for a second third? alternative. Sorry 222 talk 07:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Notes at the top of every inactive / archived Yew Grove discussion. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

- Request closure - This doesn't look like it will ever pass. However most opinions support changing it, but they just don't like the proposals. 222 talk 08:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but we all don't like the current message, so can't the consensus be to remove that one? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
I like choice 1 of "alternative proposal" :P {{subst:Nosubst|User:Dave Lopo/Sig}} 21:34, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There was no opposition to #1 under the Alternative proposal, only support. There was rough consensus to change the message. The message has been changed in Template:Forumheader. Administrators should also take care to implement the proposal before closing the thread. Chicken7 >talk 00:06, July 7, 2010 (UTC)