Forum:Stop editing archives/archive

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Stop editing archives/archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 October 2010 by Calebchiam.

This is mostly aimed at Yew Grove archives. Often I or others go to review one, it has been closed but now it is lost in the massive archive list becase somoene or some AWB has edited it to fix a dot or a space. This is pointless. Once a discussion is archived, it doesn't matter if it has this extra space or dot or a sig not in a template. But it makes an extreme hassle to find the thread because it is no longer recent. In fact, recent ones are likely now to be at the end since it is more likely they have no problems. These pointless fixes are doing more harm than good. Stop it please.-- Degen says Unban TLUL  02:24, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - Per I hate red links, and untemplated sigs can cause red links. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:25, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Bad reason. Only general maintenance should be allowed. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I find this a huge pain. I asked Ajr about this, and if we could change the "Last edited by" column to exclude bots. He said no, so I'd say this is the next best thing. On another point, I think signatures should NOT be edited. Chances are, the signatures then were different from the signatures now. The fact that signature code was added means that the user acknowledges the fact that the signature will stay that way, and so it should stay unchanged. If the signature template is modified, the integrity of the discussion archive is compromised. --LiquidTalk 02:27, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - These edits are usually for maintenance that improves the quality of the wiki by removing red-links that ought to be removed. Red-links do not benefit in anyway. If there is an old thread to search for, just search it in the box on the Yew Grove, it actually works. 222 talk 02:29, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Weak oppose - It's maintenance and needs to be done. Maintenance edit should not change a "dot or a space", only fix what is broken. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:29, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Where's Psycho, he was the one doing this. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:57, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Well I know RyanBot was changing ryans sig to get rid of wanted pages after his name change. But yeah, who cares about grammar and spaces after it's archived - [Pharos] iPhone Edit02:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oopsies, blame the iphone - [Pharos] 02:37, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Especially when it isn't needed. Oh my goodness! An untemplated sig! The world is about to explode. Why not fix redlinks when needed only, instead of fixing something that isn't broken and causing inconvenience for everyone else. Also, in regards to signature template changes; why? Whyyyyyyyy? Seriously. It's OK if you have two signature templates in that case. Heck, you could even just transclude one onto the other, instead of disrupting the YG archives. Like Evil said, fix what is broken. So few things are actual broken that if people actually followed that, we wouldn't have a problem. ajr 02:39, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Only like big things should be fixed, small things should be left alone. It should be done by users, not bots. HaloTalk 02:49, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference if it is done by users instead of bots. It will still be through AWB unless you expect users to find and replace lines of text in 10-100 of pages. 222 talk 03:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
They shouldn't need to replace lines of text. Maybe change an image or something, but no reason to change "lines of text". HaloTalk 05:17, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't meant to be taken literally. Changing an image still involves changing lines of text anyway. 222 talk 06:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well it should only be a few characters between File: and .png/gif/jpeg/svg/etc. HaloTalk 17:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Halo. Only fix what really needs to be fixed. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Half support - Any redlinks should be aloud to be fixed, but no grammer/depreciated html, ect. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:53, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Ajr. Jack

Comment - Or we change the settings so shows topics most recently created, not last edited. Mark (talk) 16:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

If we did that, then the old but heavily commented topics wouldn't show up. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
You can view the Archive category for that. With last edit they don't show up either. Mark (talk) 18:24, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. bad_fetustalk 17:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Archives are archives, they should not be edited, and should be kept in the same state as when they were archived. --Callofduty4 18:23, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that sometimes things will need to be edited. The most obvious example being an File:RuneScape Monster Image Black Demon.png getting moved to File:Black Demon.png because that's shorter. The page will need to be edited to reflect that. You know that right? Because you sound like we should full-protect and not let anyone edit at all. HaloTalk 18:27, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Making the old file name redirect to the new file will negate the need for any extra editing. --Callofduty4 18:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Files don't actually work like that. All links must be replaced, and the redirects suppressed. HaloTalk 18:34, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
That's weird, I literally just moved a file on another wiki without suppressing the redirect, and the image still shows up on the page. --Callofduty4 18:43, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Simple.   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:25, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are times when images and templates need to be changed to avoid pages clogged with redlinks. It's absurd to disallow this. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:11, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Everything but removing spaces and adding caps and stuff like that shouldn't be removed, and I never see anyone editing to fix stuff like that on an archive or open forum for that matter. Mr. Anura 20:15, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Believe it or not, some of these archive edits are actually meaningful. For example, my HTML tidying bot went through and fixed all the deprecated HTML on all the archives. If I hadn't done that, eventually the HTML either wouldn't show up or wouldn't show up properly for everyone. The mere suggestion that it's "pointless" is ridiculous and insulting to the efforts of those of us who have taken it upon ourselves to keep the entire wiki tidy. I will take this opportunity to point out the lovely search feature that allows you to easily find any archived Yew Grove discussions. The order of the threads in the archives is irrelevant. Andrew talk 21:15, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the search feature, its useful but it does have it limitations. Also, people can fail to see the importance of maintenance sometimes. 222 talk 22:18, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
We could sometimes just leave maintenance undone, and then whenever someone goes searching through our archives in a few years, sees a bunch of red links + some code that does display properly. :D svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If it's just to fix a space or a dot, then yes, it's unnecessary. Tweaking a comment or a vote is even more of a no-no. However, red links are a different story.  Tien  23:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - It doesn't matter if an archive is edited to fix a dot or space or an untemplated signature, or an image, or anything. It doesn't change the content of an archive, nor does it negatively impact any aspect of the wiki. I see no positive impact for this rule, its just more red tape and useless regulation. An archive is a preservation of discusson, not a preservation of the dumb signatures people use, or they weird ways they formatted the discussion. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:53, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

The reason you must have not bothered reading is so they stay in a fairly chronological order , to make it easier to fin recently archived threads so we can look up points that may need clarification.--Degenret01 20:05, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
And the counterargument you must not have bothered reading mentions the Yew Grove search feature. Even if you don't know the exact title of a proposal, they're still pretty easy to find using key words. Andrew talk 20:19, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
I read that, i just don't think its important enough to warrant not doing maintenance edits on archives to remove images, template sigs, etc. Perhaps there is a bipartate solution wherein bot edits would not affect the chronological edit order, however if that can't be done, then I still strongly oppose. The current archive setup is not working for us and that needs to be fixed. Stopping bot edits does not fix that, it just hides the issue. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:20, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There is one upside to bots surfacing old threads: some of those old threads are a pretty interesting read (Except for Archives 1-infinity, because they are not organised). 222 talk 23:41, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Stop editing archives/archive. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:30, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Maintenance edits will still be allowed for Yew Grove discussions, although minor edits (e.g. fixing spaces/dots) should generally be avoided. C.ChiamTalk 13:26, October 23, 2010 (UTC)