UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Administrative Archives
This is all a spin-off of a discussion that's been taking place on A/MR. I was in a bit of a rush, so I didn't thoroughly edit or proof this write-up, and I apologize if I've misstated anything or overlooked something obvious. Anyway, I welcome any constructive feedback or suggestions for how it should be reworked. We've already redone a few things, so I expect more changes will occur.
Also, as a quick note, when I say that this will replace the current system, I am indeed suggesting that we move/rename all of the relevant pages (and in the case of A/M, also break the cases up into individual pages, rather than having them stored by year). I expect that this would be a project that would take several days, if not weeks, so I'd imagine that we'd roll out the new system in phases, that way we never double-up on archives. For instance, A/BP could easily be changed to this system first, then we could move over A/DM and A/RE. A/M and A/PM will doubtless take the most time. All of the old pages would likely remain as redirects until we fix links (assuming we do so at all). —Aichon— 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. I fear no one really cares whether they are consistent or not. Well, I don't. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be for changes. I'd just prefer someone just do them without asking for approval. Dragons are a bit more fun to watch than rabbling. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not so much asking for approval as it is asking for if anyone has any better ideas before we go ahead with what we have. —Aichon— 14:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Page naming
On "Initial Proposal" point 2, you give an example of the page name Sysop Archives/Aichon/2010-05-06 Misconduct. I have a few questions about this system:
- I assume these would be at UDWiki:Sysop Archives/etc., right?
- What about cases (I'm thinking specifically A/M) where multiple sysops are involved? Would we have multiple pages, or redirects to one page?
- How about A/BP? Would they be filed under the winning candidate (e.g. Sysop Archives/Aichon/2012-10-21 Bureaucrat) or some other system?
- Do we use the British or American date system? We've been fighting British v American for years on this wiki *cough*Humo(u)r*cough*, and should probably pick a system which is neutral, like 2010-May-06. I know that would remove sortability by dates, but would be clearer and not subject to the cross-the-pond dispute.
Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- To quickly answer your questions:
- They'd be at UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/... since they're admin pages.
- For Misconduct archives involving multiple people, we'd keep multiple copies/pages, just as we do now.
- For A/BP, we would indeed file it under the winner's name.
- For the format, we use neither American or British. The YYYY-MM-DD format I used in my example is not tied to any culture or region. It's actually an ISO standard that was created specifically to be unambiguous and is in regular use in both American and British culture (particularly in engineering and computing, since it's sortable and follows a logical progression). By using four digits for the year, there's no doubt what those digits represent, and I tracked down a page that had a Microsoft employee talking about timestamps who mentioned that there are no known cultures that make use of a YYYY-DD-MM format, meaning that YYYY-MM-DD should be unambiguous for anyone using the archives.
- Good questions all around, and all were details that I had thought through but failed to include in my write-up, so thanks for bringing them up. —Aichon— 19:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
