You are not logged in.
According to Help:Discussion:
Exhausted discussions can be deleted one week or more after striking.
However, in most wikis (including Wikipedia), closed discussions would be archived rather than deleted, which would be useful in the future. So why did ArchWiki choose to delete them?
Offline
You still have the version history if you care about a past discussion. I don't particularly see the point of keeping an explicit archive to be honest.
Offline
I read this as "deleted from the active version", because the version history is effectively an archive. In that sense, nothing is ever deleted, unless somebody actively deletes the history. Has it ever been an issue, that a discussion has popped up multiple times, because people didn't check or didn't have an easy way of checking the history?
EDIT: It even says so right in the next paragraph:
When closing or deleting multiple discussions on a page, make one edit per discussion; closing or deleting multiple discussions simultaneously is discouraged. Also remember to include the title of the discussion in the edit summary, which will help retrieving the deleted discussion from history. Editing a section instead of the whole page by clicking on the section's edit link will enter the title automatically, otherwise it should be entered manually.
Last edited by Awebb (2024-09-27 12:21:58)
Offline
You still have the version history if you care about a past discussion. I don't particularly see the point of keeping an explicit archive to be honest.
Version history can't be easily searched, however.
Offline
So why did ArchWiki choose to delete them?
See the relevant discussion on the wiki.
Last edited by lahwaacz (2024-09-28 16:52:37)
Offline
See the relevant discussion on the wiki.
Sorry, I forgot to check the talk page.
Should we restart that discussion?
Offline
lahwaacz wrote:See the relevant discussion on the wiki.
Sorry, I forgot to check the talk page.
Should we restart that discussion?
I'd say if you have anything new to add besides "let's talk about this again", then restarting the discussion should be the right course of action.
Offline