Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about IB Diploma Programme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archiving the talk page

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

As the debate about debate might become a lengthy debate, this is as good a time as any to introduce the subject of archiving.

Talkpages can be archived automatically using what's called a "bot". I'd like to propose adding an archive bot to these talk pages, but first some decisions need to be made in order to set the parameters for the bot.

How often to archive?
How many threads to leave on the page?
How to editors feel about leaving the page somewhat static during the "testing period"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the week
Depends on which threads are being responded to
If you decide on a set time period and number of threads to be archived but then ask everyone to leave the talk page as is, how can you determine if the settings would be useful?

ObserverNY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Given the volume and frequency of edits that we have here, plus the fact that new threads are started rapidly and older threads are fairly quickly abandoned, I think that we could archive any thread that hasn't had new additions made to it within about 14 days. Assuming that the traffic here will eventually slow down once most editors agree to the article's content and that things will therefore stabilize a bit, I would hope that we can later change whatever settings we use for the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The markup isn't thread specific. In other words we can decide to leave 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on threads on the page, but can't set the markup to archive threads with more activity than others.

As for usefulness, the only way is to test. If the page has a lot of activity during the testing period, and if the archiving doesn't work as expected, then messages would have to be retrieved and restored from history, which is easier with less rather than more activity on the talk page. 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the two week time period suggested by Cinchbug is reasonable. It seems to me that it makes more sense to archive the defunct/settled discussions than to archive the threads still open to active discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TK, at the moment, we have 18 separate threads on the page going back two weeks. Of these, only three are presently active. So I should think that if we set the bot to always retain at least, say, ten threads (or maybe a dozen?), then that should be sufficient. I assume that it would archive threads from the top of the page so that the threads on the bottom of the page (which are more likely to be recent and active) wouldn't be accidentally archived.

With regards to "how often to archive," I guess I misunderstood. Were you asking how frequently the bot should check the page to see if anything should be archived? If so, I would think that running it a couple of times per week would be fine, but it would probably be okay to run it daily--unless there's a down-side to this that I haven't considered.

Thanks for doing all the legwork on this stuff, by the way! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for looking into using a bot for archiving. Great idea, as long as the one we use doesn't archive to nowhere like what happened to TFOWR and TK!

La mome (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Slander! Slanders, ah tells ye! Seriously, though, I think it would be good if we could get someone like HA or Uncle G to either sanity-check our plans, or steer us towards an archiving expert who could implement archiving for us. I suspect it's a lot easier to set up than my/TK's experiences suggest, but it'll be easier to get it right first time than fix up any mess it makes... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a request on HA's page. I thing UG is MIA.

La mome (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PS-sorry I let the cat out of the bag regarding your bot issues.

La mome (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's bound to come out sooner or later when someone tries to use my "archives" and discovers that I use [1] instead ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoosh. Okay, first, MiszaBot runs once a day at a preset hour; you don't get to control that. What you do get to control is the maximum age of a thread (in this case, you guys said 14 days) and a minimum number of threads to keep on the page (you said 12). I think that 14 days would be fine, but you might have to tweak that if/when the editing picks up. Consider: in two days, this page has generated 50 responses and 20k of text, which is pretty staggering. 14 days of that kind of editing would be 280k, which is enormous. In that case, maybe something like 9 or 10 days would be better. And a dozen minimum threads is, well, a lot. Right now you have eighteen on here, so it seems like not a whole lot would get archived. I'd say maybe 8 or 9 as the minimum.

Anyway, what you guys have come up with is fine. Probably better than hand archiving... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HelloAnnyong for your prompt reply and advice. Should we go with 9 days and leaving 9 active threads? Who will set the bot? La mome (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more often. Four threads every 72 hrs seems reasonable. I'll have a look at the markup, and ask for help if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - I just made a comment on your talkpage to TFOWR that I really don't have a horse in this race, but I'm ponying up because there seems to be a disturbing "creep" in the definition of "reasonable" from 14 days, to 9 days to 3 days. After a review of what is on this talk page, I would compromise with LaMome's 9 day suggestion, but I think 3 days is unreasonably short. ObserverNY (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

*cough* 72h is three days. How about just 7 days? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! It's early! I need more coffee! hehehehe ... 7 days seems reasonable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

~~Truthkeeper - why does your html at the top of the page say old=72h? Nobody agreed to that. ObserverNY (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY~~

Would you like to do this? As it happens, I copied the markup as is from its home, then left a message for somebody to check the markup. If you look, you'll see I've changed to seven days. Also just to remind you, I've manually filled most of the seven archives, and often archived more frequently than once a week, but if everyone is fine with weekly then okay w/ me.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy, touchy touchy! I struck my comment and even labeled my strike in history with a happy face. Geez! ObserverNY (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you can strike the comment from my talk page as well? Somebody is carving time from elsewhere to make working on this article easier, and it's labeled diversionary. Yup, definitely touchy. Will be gone for some hours. Perhaps someone will swing by and have a look at the markup in the meantime. The biggest issue, as I see it, is setting the counters correctly, and whether or not they increment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But of course, if it upsets you, by all means. It never occurred to me that working on editing in Wikipedia held such deep emotional meaning to anyone. And I'm sorry, but it does seem diversionary to me. (And here I thought another Barn Star banner would make you happy). ObserverNY (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The markup has been fixed as I had the destination wrong, and we can assume that from now on archiving will be automatic. Thanks ObserverNY for the minor barnstar. Also, some of you may have seen on my talkpage that I'm needed to copyedit another article, so I'll be gone from here for some time. Not emotionally involved, simply trying to get things set up to leave. If I'm needed please leave me a message. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, TK! We all really appreciate it, and the Minor Barnstar from ObserverNY was a great idea and certainly well-deserved (many times over, in fact)! Thanks also to xeno^talk, who worked with TK to help iron out some of the bugs in our initial set-up of the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)