Template talk:Archive top
Rather than have:
repeated before and after, I propose changing this and Template:Archive bottom so that
appears above, and
- mmmm... the template is not carefully crafted for the actual usage, which is closing individual discussions on a discussion page, such as WV:RFD. The page is archived later, if no objection appears to the close. In fact, users have not uncommonly reverted closes made with this template.
- The red warning language makes it appear that it is a Terrible Thing (Strictly Forbidden!) to discuss the topic more. It is not; however, a close is an opinion by a user that a discussion is adequately complete, and that further discussion is likely a waste of time. It's ad hoc, normally, it has not been discussed. (Sometimes there is discussion, a user makes a comment as "Proposed close," in which case an actual close is pursuant to that request. However, bottom line, users are allowed to revert closes. If the close has a reason given, that should be converted to a comment, but users reverting closes often don't pay attention to such niceties. So any user can restore the closing comment. It then stands as a close opinion,and then consensus will appear later. So the template is functionally used, not to archive a discussion, per se, but to announce that it is ready for archiving. I do a lot of our archiving, and I'll generally wait for 10 days before actually moving the discussion to the archive. It is then that restoring it on the noticeboard is disruptive.
- So there should be better instructions about user options, and when and how to exercise them. I want to allow 10 days for objection to the close before making the more drastic archiving action. I think of people with a work week and then 3 more days.... A new discussion can always be started with reference to the old. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to yank the text from Template:Archive bottom. It is utterly useless. For a user to edit the section, they will click on the edit link at the top or on the section header. They will then not see the bottom text. And it's ugly. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This already improves the display of the WV:Requests for Deletion/Archives. All that redundant space and red, not helpful. We could remove more.--Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)