Wikivoyage talk:User rights nominations/Archives
Warning
"WARNING: This page is 33 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." Should we make a second Administrator nominations archives to prevent browsers from being unable to read this? (WT-en) Sapphire 19:45, 28 March 2006 (EST)
- I can't find the discussion right now, but there has been some talk about removing that warning. We have a LOT of pages that are longer than 32kb. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:04, 28 March 2006 (EST)
Page appearance
Do you guys would like the idea of changing the look of this page. Please have a look here for an example. I've borrowed it from WN. I would like to propose the same change for VfD archive pages as well. See this for example. --Saqib (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Splitting up this archive
This page has gotten very unwieldy in recent years with the page size now sitting at 708,721 bytes, meaning it takes quite a long time to load on many browsers and on mobile. A few ways we can split it up:
- By user, where each user has their own archive page (a similar model is used on Wikibooks – see b:WB:RFA)
- By year (or several years)
- By user right type (admin, bureaucrat, interface admin, checkuser, oversight, desysop, etc.)
Any other ideas? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see this as something that requires discussion. Go ahead and do it if you think it's important. I don't, though, because archives are rarely necessary to look at, and they're also easily searchable. If you are going to split up the archive, I think that chronological order is best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a good idea as it does take a long time to load. Splitting it b user right type could lead to the same problem with admins, which is the most common type. We usually split archives by date, so I'd go year-by-year. That seems simplest. Ground Zero (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I could alternatively see doing a mixture of both, since there are not many requests for CU/OS/bureaucrat compared to admin, while the page for admins can be split further. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like more work without any additional benefit. Keeping it simple is always a good way to go. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- By year sounds reasonable. By user right request type is also ok. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. There are a few more things that I'd like to do with the formatting and the like, but it's getting late and lack the energy to continue. Don't I just love my new recent Xtools stats... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- With this all said, Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives/2013 is over 200k bytes. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- By year sounds reasonable. By user right request type is also ok. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like more work without any additional benefit. Keeping it simple is always a good way to go. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I could alternatively see doing a mixture of both, since there are not many requests for CU/OS/bureaucrat compared to admin, while the page for admins can be split further. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a good idea as it does take a long time to load. Splitting it b user right type could lead to the same problem with admins, which is the most common type. We usually split archives by date, so I'd go year-by-year. That seems simplest. Ground Zero (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Well done, SHB! I wouldn't worry about the 2013 page. it's unlikely that it is accessed very often. Ground Zero (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- One final thing: I've created {{URNArchive}} which in many ways is supposed to mirror {{deletion archive}}. I've already implemented this on the 2003, 2004 and 2005 pages – are there any objections before I roll it out elsewhere (will write out documentation)? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- No objection from me.Ground Zero (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I think that's all that needs to be done? I might be wrong. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)