Forum:Revision links and RS:DDD

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Revision links and RS:DDD
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 November 2018 by IsobelJ.

So, we generally have a policy on here of not deleting discussions. Of course, not all discussions are relevant forever, so archiving discussions by moving them onto a separate page is considered to be fine.

There's a bit of an edge case though. The policy specifially allows "to archive it onto another page, but there must be an easily seen link to the archive from the page it was taken from", and that's how archiving is generally done.

Except for two places. RS:RfA and RS:WIKIAN. If someone is nominated for adminship, cratship or wikianship more than once, the discussion page is blanked and the old revision is directly linked (usually using external links, since wikia didn't have Special:PermanentLink).

Is this actually against DDD? I feel like it technically breaks the policy, but kind of follows it in spirit. But I also feel the policy could be clearer here.

So, I'm suggesting we change RS:DDD to state clearly that linking an old revision either is or is not equivalent to creating an archive page. Or state that it's acceptable in some contexts but not others, I guess. But it'd probably be for the better if we clarified it one way or another.

If we do allow it, it might also be worth discussing whether we allow external links, Special:PermanentLink, Special:Diff or all three.


I have no strong feelings one way or the other - -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Fendse Talk III The Spark.png- 19:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - So the practice for user discussions (which is not always followed by people who aren't aware of it), is to have all the discussion on the subpage with the user's name. For example, all RfA's or RfB's for User:Example will be at RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Example. This avoids having to add a (2) or a (3) or so on for each new discussion. This is theoretically supposed to be the case for anything related to users, such as requests for adminship, the title, clan chat ranks, and older discussions for defunct ranks such as chat moderator and forumadmin. In contrast, discussions pertaining to content, such as requests for deletion, featured images, merging, etc have all been on their own subpage with a (2) or (3) or whatever appended at the end, as necessary. I don't think there's any good reason for this difference other than it's just how things were done in the long long ago.

As far as the question about DDD, it doesn't violate anything since the links to the original discussion are at the top of any future discussion, and all the links in the archives are updated. --LiquidTalk 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Closed - while the discrepancy in how different user related discussions are archived is mildly irritating, it would seem that both ways comply with RS:DDD. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)