Help talk:Archiving a talk page

We are the only mainstream discussion platform where old posts have to be manually archived, and our archiving system will be inevitably confusing to new editors. The essay User:Trialpears/Archiving manifesto offers a kind of long-term roadmap to making the process less confusing, but I think even then it will present somewhat of a conceptual hurdle.

Last year, Mathglot initiated a conversation on Template talk:Archives about archiving documentation and raised the question, "How do we best document the various archiving templates, and the Help or info pages that deal with archiving, in order that it all be clear to users and not leave them confused?" I think that is still a relevant concern. I have gotten somewhat into the weeds on a lot of specific archiving issues (making {{archive}} auto-detect sequential and annual archives, cleaning up old archive templates, updating WP:OCA, proposing fixes at User talk:Elli/OneClickArchiver, cleaning up template documentation, revising the lead to this page, and linking this page from many pages of archive documentation). Going back to that broader discussion on the documentation though, Mathglot proposed "a pyramid with a brief intro at the top with links, and ensure that all of the pages contribute as part of an integrated whole, rather than as a set of unrelated one-man bands", and Valereee commented further down the page, "I've felt for a long time that Help:Archiving a talk page is much too long and involved for the average editor just trying to set up typical talk page archives. Help:Archiving (plain and simple) is plenty of information for such editors and probably needs to be where 99% of editors land when trying to find instructions. (Full disclosure: I created that one initially for my own use.)" I largely agree that the copy & paste page is what most editors will need, and that this page is rather technical. This page (since that discussion) now frontloads the copy & paste material, and, I think, for most readers the lead of this page will offer a general map of what is going on and what archiving is.

One thing, I think, is still missing, and a kind of introduction targeted more at a brand new user, which would be a part of that 'brief intro at the top'. I experimented with what it might look like added onto Help:Archiving (plain and simple) at User:Rjjiii/sandbox2^{(Permanent link)} but worried that any additions to that page could make it less useful, and honestly since a copy button has been added to the page, it could be shortened further to pare down the copying instructions.

And finally that kind of top-down pyramid kind of documentation remains undrafted. If someone does create more of an introduction to the process, the top of the pyramid, I think it would also be wise to think about where the existing links should point, with many of them currently pointing here, needing to point there, even if that slightly changes the meaning of WP:ARCHIVE, H:ARC, or Help:Archive. Help:Archiving, Help:Archive, and Help:Archives all now redirect here, to this page. Wikipedia:Archiving remains a disambiguation page.

I'd be interested to hear from others on where we should be heading, and what the next steps are. @Novem Linguae, Ivanvector, Sdkb, and CapnZapp: ← courtesy pings for editors involved in the previous discussion. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I personally think the minute we start adding to the plain and simple page, we make it more difficult for newer users and even simply less tech-savvy users. I don't think anyone needs to understand how to assess which bot is best at plain and simple; that's handled at length on Help:Archiving a talk page,, and anyone who wants that level of info knows where to find it. I don't think anyone needs an explanation of refactoring a talk page or even a link at plain and simple. I don't think people even really need an explanation of why we need to archive; no one is getting themselves to that page because they don't understand that. Let's KISS. The link at the bottom to the original Help:Archiving a talk page is plenty to point anyone who wants more info in the right direction. Valereee (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure the automatic archiving process can and will be be improved, but I don't think "new users find the process of setting up and maintaining automatic archiving difficult or confusing" is a problem that needs solving. Do users need to know the ins and outs of archiving already while they're still new? No. Do new users even need to setup archiving at all? Probably not, but if they do, we offer {{Setup auto archiving}}. Everything else can be handled by not-new users. Let's keep assuming any reader of the more involved help pages on archiving is not-new. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the entire reason I set up the plain and simple version was to give myself an easy place to go, and I figured others were in the same boat so moved it to WP space. And I wasn't by any means a new user, just not techy, which I think sometimes techy users don't understand: the banner saying "Are you new here?" wouldn't have applied to me. What it ought to say is "Find this page overwhelming? If you're a typical editor who just wants to set up a simple archives, you probably don't actually need to read this, just go to plain and simple instead." :D

All I wanted a solution for when I came into a not-that-heavily-used talk page, noticed that in the many years since it was created, there'd been 18 sections, some of which were 25 years old, and set up an archives to retain the history but make the page easier to read. That's all I wanted, and when I came to the help page for setting up an archive, what I got was every possible thing any techy editor would need or want to know when dealing with more complicated situations. Valereee (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I think Help:Archiving a talk page#Example with sequentially numbered archives is the most useful section of this help page. I often type WP:ARCHIVE, scroll down to there, and copy paste the code onto talk pages to set up archiving. Perhaps we could move it to the top to display it more prominently. No other ideas come to mind at the moment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So, first section would be what 99.999% of people were looking for (and probably what 99.999% of article talk pages need), and then the rest of the page is for tech discussion and special cases and why archive? That would work for me. We could even merge plain and simple here with a shortcut. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I set up a rough sandbox demo of how this might look. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I made a couple of suggested edits there, hope that's okay! Valereee (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

100% okay. There's a lot more room to experiment in a sandbox. A couple thoughts:

1. I like the idea of having this really short and clear definition up top as a lead. Since it is so brief, I wonder if it would be even clearer to combine the "nutshell" text with it? I find sometimes folks glaze over the nutshell banners a bit. Just as an example, in Larry Sanger's lengthy userspace essay, he laments that the NPOV policy should tell editors that "articles may not take sides on" polarized issues, seemingly skimming past the nutshell at the top which reads, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Whereas with lead sections, the opposite is almost true: a lot of folks will read just that bit.
2. In the "Unusual cases" section, that seems like a good place to include the manual archiving intro removed from the lead or something like it. My concern is that people will sometimes point to documentation as if it's policy (which it isn't and they shouldn't but they do) and this page shouldn't make it look like the various user talk pages and notice boards that are archived by hand are doing something inappropriate.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is what I mean with the nutshell comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARjjiii%2Fsandbox2&diff=1332262241&oldid=1332262137 That seems less cluttered to me. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The nutshell change is fine with me.

I'm not so worried about people pointing at documentation as if it were policy, for me that's a simple fix (just inform them how to determine whether something they're reading is policy), and one that most new editors will need to learn.

And in general I think adding extra words into any given section anywhere to explain that just because something isn't best practices doesn't mean it's necessarily inappropriate is just instruction creep. In this particular case, except in very unusual cases bot archiving with some set time length/# section left on page and anything that shouldn't be autoarchived simply pinned is the superior choice, so as long as we aren't saying "bot archiving is the only appropriate choice anywhere", I don't think it needs to be explained. If someone is arguing that doing a manual archive is against policy, they clearly haven't even read this page -- which has a "Manual archiving" section in the TOC -- so they won't have seen us telling them that manual archiving is also done. So those extra words? Wasted. Again, just my opinion. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm good with the sandbox version. If you see it as an improvement, I'm fine to move it to the live documentation page as is, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think go be bold and let's see what response we get! Valereee (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't the archive bot working? Can someone fix it, I didn't want to bugger up the code! Govvy (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd give it another day or so before concluding that the bot's not working. Until recently the page has had just three second-level threads, and the bot hasn't had a chance to complete a full run-through yet. I also checked whether the spam blacklist was the problem (though it shouldn't be these days), and that's not the case either. Graham87 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It did indeed end up archiving a discussion, but perhaps not the one you wanted. Graham87 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a new section for built-in archive box.

I find this especially useful to balance the section. Previously it came across as a bit lopsided, almost like an advertisement for Lowercase Sigmabot.

Now both columns contain one red section.

CapnZapp (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Please give the example pages a once over.

For instance, Talk:Telekinesis is described as having a simple archive box with a search field. It does not. Finding the archive section of the Talk header template can be non-trivial for newcomers. The description sounds like a talk page with a simple Archives template (or similar), and indeed when I look at how Talk:Telekinesis looked back in the day it indeed sported a much cleaner top, with much less info and only a simple Archive box.

On Talk:Jesus, somebody has deleted all the old topical archives as well as discussion summaries. This urge to remove such isn't just a thing of the past, look at Talk:Speed of light for a recent example. Instead you're met by a wall of numbers - Talk Header's listing hundreds of archives.

And so on. Hand picking three new examples that uphold the intended simplicity seems in order, since AFAIK nobody has bothered to replace these three examples since they were added... over twenty years ago.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp what are you thinking of as far as pages that would serve as good examples? Talk:United States is one the talk page for one of the most viewed articles and has a pretty typical set of bot-created, numbered archives. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are — Ideally examples are listed in order of complexity. The first example given should be an exceedingly simple (but still actual genuine) talk page. Archives is much simpler than Talk header, but Talk header has emerged as the new standard, so I think a page with that template needs to be showcased. Then as a second example, showcasing the alternative (meaning Archives). But again, the ideal would be one whose Talk header is as uncluttered as possible. More complex (and perhaps realistic, at least for high traffic pages) examples can also be given, of course (we could even retain the current three, if we make sure we describe them as they are in 2026 and not in 2007), but should not be the first ones given. CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

In the case of Talk:Jesus, the topical archives are still there, just after the admittedly long list of numbered archives. Graham87 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)