Template talk:Archive request

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 2020 September 30, see discussion.
No consensus, 2020 July 21, see discussion.
Keep, 31 August 2012, see discussion.

I was BOLD, someone REVERTED, let's DISCUSS

Senator2029, why do you think that my change "broke" the auto-categorization? My change was intended to remove the categorization if |declined=yes. There is no reason for declined requests to archive need to be categorized in archival requests. I wouldn't be opposed to a Category:Declined archival requests or something of that sort in those cases. I wouldn't even be opposed to such a category being a sub-category of the main Category:Archive requests. What do you think of that? Technical 13 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this isn't a request from folks to archive their talk page

I was just informed on my talk page that this template is used to request the owner of the talk page to archive it, and not a request to the readers of a talk page to archive it, at least when used on userpages. Can we add some wording to this template or the documentation for this template to clarify that somehow? Definitely don't want anyone else to make that mistake again. Zell Faze (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should never modify (or archive) somebody else's user talk page, so I don't think that's necessary. I do, however, agree there are better templates to use for the purpose of communicating "your user talk page is getting long". This template remains excellent to use on non-personal talk pages, such as article talk pages. See my recent edits. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

75K

Let's modify the limits.

If the size is under 75K it is entirely okay per our own guideline. No need to say it's "long". It's 2020 now - 75K isn't anywhere near "long".

Whatchathink? CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in user space

In the latter 2020 TfD there was a case made against using this template on user talk pages with {{Uw-archive}} or {{Please archive}} being more suitable. The requests for user pages also aren't actionable since that is the talk page owners choice. I therefore think it would be a good idea to remove them from the category through namespace detection. --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, CapnZapp, Gonnym, ProcrastinatingReader, and Sdkb: pings to TfD participants. --Trialpears (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Surprised that the two user notices weren't sent to TfD as they are practically the same. --Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of opposition I've stopped categorization in user talk and non-talk pages. --Trialpears (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archiveme → Template:Archive request – The current title is suboptimal and at least should have a space, but really {{Archive request}} seems more suitable with it making the purpose more clear and doesn't anthropomorphize the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The title better describes it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – much clearer described purpose for the template with the rename. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.