Talk:Symbol/Archives/2018

Don't arbitrarily remove talk page content -- put thought into it.

Time-based automatic talk page archiving puts zero-thought into something that requires a little bit of thought by a participant. If you think a talk page needs culling, instead ask for someone with an interest in (and maybe a history on) the page to do it.

A "rule of thumb" such as given in WP:TALKCOND is only a rule of thumb. It's not a justification for black-and-white thinkers to go into action with a time-based or size-based absolute rule.

The size doesn't even come close to the 75K rule of thumb for size anyway (not that that really matters).

WP:TALKCOND doesn't even mention any time-based rules at all!

Content in an archive might be searchable, but so what? Everything is. It just doesn't work that way. Nobody cares and nobody looks at archives. I wouldn't have looked there were it not for the fact that there was absolutely nothing left in the talk page, and that it was so damned unusual.

66.31.54.242 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly normal for stale discussions on talk pages to be archived, even to the point of having no discussions left. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Surely. But not without at least a little bit of thought. All I'm asking is that it be reviewed by someone willing to put in a little effort -- and not to just implement a radical automated bot-wiping based on arbitrary time parameters that aren't even in WP:TALKCOND. But also if you will, no it's not perfectly normal for empty talk pages from bot-wiping to exist. It's actually very unusual. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw Purgy Purgatorio had a "minthreadsleft=n" idea that might be workable. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody" is a pretty big word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry man, hyperbole you know, a normal part colloquial English. Most people are able to readily sort it out. I should have considered my audience though. We(!) Wikipedians do tend to be more literal on average compared to "normal" people  :-) 66.31.54.242 (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This page needs serious work. Reiterated...

I reiterate that the page does still need some serious work -- as it was first indicated by CRJernigan in the original section named "This page needs serious work."

For example:
1) The particular selection of examples (such as much of the stuff from Campbell) amounts to an original thesis and is WP:OR.
2) It's got a whiff of overemphasis on esoteric mystical nonsense (actually it reeks), it's got issues with WP:NPOV.
3) Etc.
4) The talk page is under threat of being repeatedly decimated, making it awkward to find and refer to previous commenters such as the original section named "This page needs serious work."

66.31.54.242 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you need to refer to an archived discussion, you can always link it: Talk:Symbol/Archives/2013#This page needs serious work.. Archiving doesn't hamper finding or referring at all. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)