Wikivoyage talk:Using talk pages

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

So, talk pages can really benefit from having the table of contents going, especially for long and disparate arguments.

I'd like to suggest using a section header:

==These are two cities==

These are actually two cities. --Somebody

    No they're not. --SomebodyElse

         Yes they are. --Somebody

to separate this stuff out, instead of the four-dash horizontal rules. This is also how the "Post a comment" feature works, so it'd be nice to be synched up. Any objections? --(WT-en) Evan 14:35, 21 Dec 2003 (PST)

Missing link to Other languages[edit]

There is a missing link for a City I am working on in the left column Other languages. How can I add this missing link ? Thanks —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) DBHS Cambodia‎ (talkcontribs)

Depending on the language you add [[Country code:Cityname]] to the buttom of the page, eg: [[fr:Cambodge]]. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 22:47, 15 December 2010 (EST)


I am a newer to wikivoyage. I like the style of WikiTravel. I know that Wiki is a part of so-called web 2.0. Therefore, I am not sure that whether I can read any new item in wikiTravel through RSS viewer. If yes, what is RSS URL for wikiTravel. Thanks!

You can find the RSS for changes to Wikivoyage here:
Enjoy, --(WT-en) Evan 10:34, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

A Free Overnight Option From Tokyo to Sapporo for Japan Rail Pass Holders[edit]

sorry I am new too. I read wiki about Sapporo and need to know this free overnight option because I plan to visit Sapporo in July. Would somebody explain to me how to get there "free overnight" from Tokyo to Sapporo in detail by using Japan Rail Pass? I got the timetable from Iko's place website, two express trains only run until midnight. Thaks for your help.


Hi there! I would be interested in this topic as well, I will travel soonish in around Tokyo and I need a free place to sleep. Any kind of help would be great! thanks, Roman —The preceding comment was added by Romanpeter12 (talkcontribs)

avatars/userpics for easier scanning?[edit]

I wonder why we haven't implement placing avatars (small pictures) next to user's comment in talk pages--similar to Livejournal's comments page: [1], or I believe it can make pages read much easier. Personally it takes extra effort to distinguish which phrase belong to which person, and where one comment ends and another starts.

It could look something like this: (assuming there's photos or user-chosen avatars instead of these pics--and of course we should allow only square, equal-sized images)

[[Image:St. Basil2.jpg|50px|left]]I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User1
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User2
Saddleback Pier.JPG
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User3
[[Image:St. Basil2.jpg|50px|left]]I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User1

I think we can implement it with a template call like {{user|DenisYurkin}} which can be invoked as a default signature. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:23, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I definitely support this idea. It would make reading long discussions a lot easier. (WT-en) Texugo 06:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Support. If we can get the layout to work properly. --(WT-en) Jonboy 15:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Do you mean we already have some problems, or you foresee some? What kind of problems, specifically? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I would love avatars. To me it just adds personality and can tell you about said person. I'd love that...for talk pages and on the users' page of course only. That would be funzies!!!! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:03, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Heinous signatures work too → – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 20:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I know what you mean ;) although I don't think they work with unlinked words plus avatars add more. Keep smiling, ee
It is possible, but doubtfully desirable. And you didn't finish that sentence, avatars add more.... ?? – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:08, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure that this is something that should necessarily be encouraged. They don't actually add content to the page, and for pages with lots of contributors, it would slow page load (the client has to load and render all of those images) and it might be extra work on the server transcluding templates, resizing images, sending out the extra stuff etc. (although I don't know a lot about the servers so I won't use that as an argument). Having said that, if people really wanted to do this, they could just do it, creating a template in their own userspace and transcluding it every time they make an edit in a discussion. Personally, I like the idea of using distinctive signatures better, it's more in line with the way discussions work here. (WT-en) JYolkowski 22:20, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Agreed on all points... I'm not coming out in full opposition quite yet, but I don't see a lot of added value, and it takes up a lot of space, and kinda distracts from the conversation. Custom signatures work well on Wikipedia, I'm in favor of those – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 22:29, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, what about if we just used an avatar in our user pages, not talk pages? It'd just be in one page, so itd be easier and it's possibly different than the picutre of yourself. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 13:47, 13 November 2008 (EST).
I'm gonna give you a do-over... think that one through again, and then I won't hold it against you when you want to delete it and start thinking before asking :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 04:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Talk notification suggestion[edit]

Swept in from the pub:

I wonder if it wouldn't be productive to make a new user's first talk page notification somehow more obvious than just the little red dot. If you are a long time contributor, you've probably experienced many cases where a new user is contributing things which fall outside of our guidelines-- you revert their changes, they continue to add them, you leave a message on their talk page but they seem to never notice it. New users may not realize that we are an interactive community that works in real time, and may even be frustrated at seeing their contributions disappear, not having realized that an explanation was already given them. Anyone have any thoughts? (WT-en) Texugo 11:56, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes! I know this one firsthand and we should do something. After the first one it should just bee the nice red dot. That blatant thing should also say that there is a red dot. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:08, 1 December 2008 (EST).
I agree, this would be a really good idea. In the meantime (I'm assuming this isn't something that could get done right away as I assume it would require a software change), maybe we could add something to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation explaining what the red dot means? (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Good idea. Why don't we do what Wikipedia does, with that big, bold message at the top of the page? Doesn't get much more obvious than that. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Support. A full-width one-liner that is like confirmation of operation in GMail definitely attracts attention and serves the purpose. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:25, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yah! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:21, 3 December 2008 (EST).

I like the subtle red dot. Here are my steps for contacting users.
(1) Welcome or post message on the talk page - including anonymous talk pages.
(2) If the user is editing one page and you have reverted the edit more than once, add a note to the article talk page, especially if there is no talk page yet, telling everyone why the user's edit was reverted, with a link to the user's tak page.
(3) E-mail the user if they have enabled e-mail.
(4) Insert HTML comments in the page telling the user (and any other editor) to read their talk page. (View the source code of the Main Page for an example of how to use comments.)
(5) If the user persists in editing again, Insert a message directly on the article page telling the user to read their talk page. (This could be done with a vandalism template if need be).
(6) Keep reverting edits until the user pays attention or gets bored and stops.
(7) Ask an administrator to protect the affected pages, if this can be predicted , or,
(8) At last resort even block the user for a few minutes to an hour or so, so you can catch up with cleaning up their changes - serious vandalism only - as users sometimes will lose their temper and do stupid things as a reaction to being blocked.
- If they have not noticed by now they are either a bot or are ignoring you deliberately. In the case of spammers there is also the spam blacklist to cut the edit off at the knees, as it were. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Page discussions[edit]

swept from pub:

I'm seeing a quite a few discussions recently on additions/reversions taking place on user's talk pages. I think the regulars here (and others) should make an effort to make sure those conversations are moved to the appropriate article talk page. It allows all intersted people to contribute and it makes a record of the discussion for later reference, which is lost if the discussion is elsewhere. --(WT-en) inas 04:22, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Just to clarify, I typically put a note on a user's talk page when an edited is removed more than once in accordance with some policy, solely so they get the blinking talk page notification. If an edit falls into some grey policy area then I would usually discuss on the talk page. I think that's the correct approach - thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

It is best to keep conversations in the most relevant place, but lets be careful not to police others' discussions. If the discussion is on someone else's talk page, ask first if it's ok to move it before doing so, and then remember to leave a pointer to the page where the discussion was moved. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

template for inviting to discussion[edit]

Swept in from the pub & Template talk:QuestionOnYourEdit:

I frequently leave a question on article's Talk page challenging/asking questions on a recent edit of other user. In many cases I also leave a question on the user's talk page inviting him to discussion on the article's Talk.

I'd like to create a template for such invitations to discuss. What name would be best for such template? Maybe someone have a good text in hand for such a template. And--maybe any objections? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:12, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I plunged forward: now you can use Template:QuestionOnYourEdit: {{subst:QuestionOnYourEdit|articlename}}. Any comments would be appreciated. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:23, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I object on the grounds that any questions should be more personalized and we shouldn't use templates to interact with other users with the exception of a welcome message, which should be standard. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 13:04, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Me too – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:52, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I always place every bit of specifics of my question in article's talk page, and appeal to user's talk page only to make sure he won't miss the comment and to invite to discuss right there in the article's talk page. Am I only one practicing this pattern? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I think you are. For the most part, it's much easier to solicit a response from the user directly. If, however, it's an issue that requires greater community participation, then I'd mention it on the talk page, appropriate policy page, or travellers' pub. We also have to assume all users are new to wikis, so questioning an edit or explaining policy on their talk page is much more preferential than a new user receiving a message with the perceived message of: 'Hey, go to this page, because I don't like your edit and want to ask a question.' -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 16:03, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I have my reasons for preferring to discuss in the article's talk page:

  1. I can't be 100% sure I'm right in the comments I leave. When I leave a comment only on user's talk page, there's much less chances anyone else will verify whether I'm following the community policy and consensus.
  2. It is quite typical that I challenge edit of an experienced wikivoyager (or he challenges mine), in some cases on the edge of WT policies. Placing discussion on article's talk page, I also ask for opinions from other wikivoyagers.

Yes, there are simple cases when a newby posts an extlink or an apartment listing which doesn't meet our policy--in that cases I feel confident enough that any other pair of experienced WT eyes will say just the same as I did. I don't aim the above template for these cases--only for the former kind above. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

(WT-en) DenisYurkin, the template as it is written now doesn't really do anything for your second point, you need something like a 'request for participation in a discussion' for that. Your first point makes sense to me - if an edit is obviously gratuitous, one can revert it but marginal cases are probably better discussed on the article talk page because the user's talk page is useful only in the here and now. I don't see why a template, similar to the {{Template:Districts discussion}} can't be used here. I would rewrite it a bit "Hi (WT-en) Axolotl. I have a question about something you contributed to potrezbie and started a discusion in Talk:potrezbie. If you can, please take a look at the Talk:potrezbie page and leave you comments. Thanks!" But, I'm easy with the idea whatever the final text is. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the suggestion on improving, I edited text in the template.
PS. I'm not sure I understood what exactly you called my first point, and what my second point. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)
First point: I can't be 100% sure I'm right in the comments I leave. (I agree that almost everything is better discussed on the article talk page rather than on a user page.) Second Point: Placing discussion on article's talk page, I also ask for opinions from other wikivoyagers.
(which, on reflection, I think I misunderstood and confused with your invitations to discuss the redistricting of Barcelona. Sorry!) --(WT-en) Wandering 22:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I mentioned these two points as a response to proposal from Sapphire and cacahuate to comment on user talk pages most of the time. For the second point, the template also helps when someone edits an article and I am not entirely agree that the edit makes the article better. In such cases I normally leave a question on article's talk page before trying to change back anything in the article. So why do you think that it doesn't really do anything for second point? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So why do you think that it doesn't really do anything for second point? It does. Like I said: I think I misunderstood and confused with your invitations to discuss the redistricting of Barcelona. Sorry--(WT-en) Wandering 13:00, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Archiving the contents of user talk pages[edit]


Have a look at this history:

and this discussion:

I think the idea that someone can remove all content from their user talk page and put it in an archive, especially when the content is not even a month old, is absurd. What is your opinion about this? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:22, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Why do you feel it is absurd? Obviously, the archive ought to be linked from the talk page, but as long as that is done, I don't see the problem. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:03, 27 February 2012 (EST)
First, I didn't see a link. Second, there has to be a minimum amount of time before it makes sense to archive discussion, especially when the discussion consisted of two posts by others telling the user in question not to tout. Do you really think it makes sense to archive discussion in user talk pages that's less than a month old? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:05, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Plenty of policy discussions about this, without much consensus, but with a fairly strict status quo practice of letting users do almost whatever they want with their own userspace. Guidance for users is at Project:Using_talk_pages#Etiquette, but etiquette is not something policed. We do have a consensus to remove content from non-contributing users talk pages, and remove some extreme content (especially hate speech, promotion of illegal activities like prostitution, or threats). But we have not been able to build a consensus to police users' removal of good faith comments by other Wikivoyagers (I think we should). For archiving, though, I think we shouldn't get too much in the business of policing userspace.
FWIW, I would support adding a note to the etiquette section, noting that it's best to wait until the page has grown long before archiving, and that such archives be clearly linked from the user's main talk page, so that everything is easy to find. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:55, 28 February 2012 (EST)
I have added this note. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Revisiting this topic with two suggested policy changes:

A) It is not OK to remove comments on discussion pages that were made in good faith, including those made to user talk pages, with one exception: comments may be removed by their author if no one has yet responded to them.

B) Archives may not be orphaned. I.e., they must be linked on the page from which the content was archived.

Do either of these seem reasonable? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Both of those sound reasonable to me. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 23:10, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
I'm mildly uncomfortable with adding "must archive" rules for user talk pages, but I don't have a good suggestion for an alternative. Wikipedia's policy on the matter is:
"Archiving one's own user talk page is optional; some users simply blank the page, as the history is kept available for future reference, but this is not considered the best practice (as it makes things more difficult to find and link)"
Is there a way to word this guideline so that archiving of user talk pages is not a hard-and-fast rule, but something that is strongly suggested and may be required in cases where there is concern that deleting discussions may lead to confusion or additional work for other editors (example: as came up with User:(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast some time ago)? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Order in the house[edit]

Swept from the pub:

Given the growing mess of the post code debate, I think it's time to reflect on discussion posting policy, which, I think, is to put new comments to the bottom of a discussion, rather than inserting them into different parts of the thread. It makes for easier reading, avoids comments being slipped in unnoticed and avoids the train wreck of a thread that we're now looking at.

If it's not policy, then I'd like to propose it as such. (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

Which post are you referring to? --Saqib (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
Distinguish ourselves from WT? (WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
You may not have noticed that I already apologised on your own Talk page over an hour ago, Anthony.
Here is a page that you may want to contribute to: Wikivoyage:Using_talk_pages#Etiquette --W. Franke-mailtalk 00:12, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
It's not personal. That debate is simply hard to follow with interstitial comments breaking up previous posts. I'm getting lost. Maybe we should assign postal zones to it to aid navigation.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
As the primary "offender" in that debate I would like to point out that if there is a policy on that matter, I am unaware of it. As I am trying to get our policies sorted and referenced from a directory list, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me if it does exist, so I can add it to the list. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 00:33, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
My mistake. I conflated the guidance to put new questions to the bottom of the page with how to comment on existing posts. That said, I would like to propose a policy about the setting out of comments so that they are consistently presented in a clear, chronological order that is easy to follow - as exemplified by this string - and not as in the above post code jumble.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
Go ahead. If you can come up with a workable system it will be useful. Discussions sometimes get complex beacause someone brings up more than one point at a time and things generally go off the rails at that point.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:02, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
Yes, it would be really great if you could contribute your thoughts at: Wikivoyage:Using_talk_pages#Etiquette
I think we also need at least a default policy about where one replies to comments left on one's user talk page; some respond on the same page (which I marginally prefer) and some separate the thread (of what may only be a question and an answer) by responding on their interlocutors' pages(s). --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:57, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
Noone else seems to share my dislike of inserted comments, so I'll happily put up with them. This can be sent to the archive soon.(WV-en) Travelpleb (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

Rename to Using Article Discussion pages[edit]

I'd like to propose renaming this article to Using Article Discussion pages and then developing a separate page called Using User Talk pages because

a) for a long while the relevant MediaWiki tab at the top of each article page has been labelled "Discussion"

b) there are subtle but important distinctions between the purpose and practical guidelines for use of Article Discussion and User Talk pages. -- Alice 03:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Using discussion pages would work, or better yet, Wikivoyage:Discussion pages. We don't need to be so wordy. --Peter Talk 02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Old User sandbox articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

There are a number of old user sandbox articles around, for example:

Just wondering if it would be better to redirect them to the matching article? Or would it be better to delete them? Or should they just be left alone? -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In the past we've generally left them alone unless they are having some effect on mainspace - for example, if the article contains a category or broken image that causes it to show up on a maintenance page, in which case the page may be edited to remove the offending category or image. Is there a specific reason why we would now need to redirect one of these articles? If not, I'd suggest they are harmless enough to be left alone. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just thinking that someone might come across them and read them rather than finding the main article and because the sandbox is old, it could have some obsolete information in it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
How about adding a disclaimerbox at the top of each page. In this case I think it really is a disclaimer, so that one should be appropriate. 10:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
If the user has migrated here, ask them to deal with it. Otherwise, I'd say delete. Pashley (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
One other option I forgot to mention could be to just blank the page, so the history would still be available for everyone to see if needed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think it's a problem: why would users find a page like that rather than the article? However, if needed, let's just blank and not delete. I would prefer to be wary of actually deleting any user space stuff without the user being involved, unless we really have to. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we could just put {{user page}} on them and forget about it. The chance of someone "happening across" them is very very low, I believe. You would have to put at least "User:Name/S..." in the search box to even see them there, so the only way you could come across them is by following a link from that user's user page or a very old discussion, because they shouldn't be linked to from anywhere else. I think the probability of anyone confusing them with real pages is very low, and with the {{user page}} template, practically 0%. Texugo (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That would do it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged a few today in the A-J range. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion times and warnings to editors[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there an acceptable time for discussion? We have a user that appears to think writing on a talk page and then making the edits proposed a few hours later is adequate time for response and discussion. Surly for discussions such as change of region boundaries we should allow at least 24 hours to allow people on all timezones (or because they are not always online) to respond? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always revert and say "hey, I don't agree, let's discuss first". I guess this is the correct application of plunging forward. The less rules we have that stifle creativity, the better. Thanks to the purposes of the wiki engine, we can always revert changes we find inappropriate, so no harm is done if somebody plungers forward. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think an appropriate amount of time would depend on the subject and how controversial & significant the changes are. I think region boundaries is something that should wait for a couple days before making changes, unless several others support the changes before then. AHeneen (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a basic question of etiquette, of which I think most Wikivoyagers understand but isn't codified anywhere (to my knowledge)
The person in question should be reminded that it may take interested parties a few days to see their proposal, and that there is no harm to wait before implementing their proposal, if accepted by the community --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Be fair, assume good faith. You might have asked me about it before making a scene in the pub — this was not a case of a user overeagerly pushing a change through. It was just a simple misunderstanding, and if I was overeager, I was only overeager in thinking that you had already agreed by making the proposal in the first place. You proposed ABC, I thought I restated ABC and added DEFG, then the only other dissenting user in the conversation agreed with the ABC part, so I made the change for only that part of the proposal that I thought we were all in agreement. Your immediately previous post had indicated to me that you now understood why we can't allow overlap, so I didn't realize your understanding of ABC had the unspoken implication of unprecedentedly displaying the wrong state for cities 70+ km from the state border. Texugo (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Actualy, now that I look at it again, you yourself wrote "Glad we could agree on the mountain regions" before I made the changes, clearly appearing to endorse my rewording, so I don't really even understand what is meant by your complaint above. I clearly had good reason to think everyone was in agreement. Texugo (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the kind of misunderstandings that must be allowed to happen all the time, if we are to keep "plunge forward" as the norm. As to the original question, I often write at the talk page at the same time as I do a change, if it is something easily reverted, where I think I must explain the change. For changes that affect many articles or that might invite further more complicated changes, one should wait some days, and often invite discussion on a more watched page if it seems like nobody noticed the proposal. --LPfi (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Should article discussion pages be archived and, if so, when?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

At the discussion page for Karachi there was a brief discussion about if and when the discussion pages of articles should be archived. Although there were only two participants, they seemed to conclude that it was only necessary to archive discussion pages when they became very long and unwieldy.

Usually when I edit an article for the first time, I check its discussion page first to see if there is any guidance regarding language variety, 12 or 24h clock, currency notation or other sensitive issues where I might edit against an established consensus. This is less quick and easy if I have to open each of a series of archives. Because discussion pages usually have a table of contents and the sections are typically arranged in chronological order, I think archiving discussion pages should be a rare event instigated only by necessity.

An opposing viewpoint is that closed discussions from previous years should be archived and is exemplified here. --W. Frankemailtalk 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did some archiving for legacy WT discussions on very long talk pages (basically anything not concluded before 2013). This was because it would be unlikely that a discussion not concluded on WT would continue on WV after the move, and a very long page may be off-putting to a new user. Do remember that some articles have nearly 10 years of discussions built up, and in any case the material is still available on the archive page.
I would still take archiving on a case by case basis, but perhaps it would be good to agree on topics such as Regions and Date/Time that should remain on the talk page indefinately. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why we need the legacy WT discussions because we're not WT. We're Wikivoyage, an entirely separate project. In many cases, opinions expressed are from contributors who are no longer part of either project, having left years ago, and are largely irrelevant today. K7L (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Archives Because the content that we have here is a product of those discussions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't want to go off-topic with WT archiving. The original question from User:W. Frank was around archiving guidance, and if perhaps we should be careful not to archive topics that are fundamental to defining an article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Over at Rational Wiki, they use a program on many pages that automatically archives any topic that has had no contributions in a fixed time period. I think some of their time periods are a bit too short — they go as low as 48 hours for busy pages like their pub — but other than that it seems to work very well. Pashley (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blanking user talk pages[edit]

The subject of users blanking their own talk page has come up a few times in the past without any clear resolution, and we currently have a re-occurrence with User talk:Void burn. Wikipedia's policy on the matter is that they frown on blanking talk pages but don't disallow it - see w:WP:BLANKING. While our "etiquette" section notes that archiving is preferred, we also state that a user can (within reason) control his own userspace. Yes, it's annoying to lose an immediate record of discussions with a user, particularly when it's a difficult user, but forcing someone to keep discussions on their own page that they don't want to be there seems overbearing. There are obviously differing opinions on the matter, but in the case of the edit war over Void burn's talk page, in lieu of clear guidance against allowing someone to blank a talk page I've reverted the latest revert and left the talk page blank as the user apparently wants it to be. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we prefer if they leave convos around, but edit warring to enforce it is just silly. Powers (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive bots for some pages?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

If you look at. e.g. Talk:USA, you'll see that the talk page is rather full of discussions and people tend to open new discussions even if a previous discussion on the same topic stalled. Maybe we should introduce bots that archive some talk pages for discussions that last had activity several years ago. Maybe a two year timeframe would be good? And we could tell the bot to only archive certain pages, because many talk pages only contain one or two discussions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. I did a good deal of archiving after the WT migration, but the main problem around newer discussions is that once archived they are effectively hidden.
It would be good to formulate a strategy that would preserve 'strategic' conversations on the main talk page (i.e. cities, region divisions, etc) ad infinitum and archive 'tactical' conversations (i.e. 'where do I put X?') in an archive after 2 years. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A bot is already running here to perform archiving - see Special:Contributions/ArchiverBot. In the past people have opposed auto-archiving for all but a handful of pages, but the functionality you want exists today just by adding Template:Auto archiving to any page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add it to Talk:USA and Talk:Germany Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Those pages only get a new thread every couple of months each. Manual archiving should be sufficient. In fact, I'll archive the USA page now. Powers (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)