Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change confirmed cases from 6 to 5 ^[1] Warhistorygamer (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. Yesterday, the WHO stated 5 confirmed cases. The UKHSA issued a statement today saying two Brits are confirmed infected, sources vary on whether the second was already included in yesterdays WHO number. I will change the article to reflect the uncertainty. Neiglass (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the respond but on google 3 hours ago ^[2] al jazeera claim 5 to be confirmed (the blue [1] thingy above the word ago) while cnn confirmed 5 cases 5 hours ago ^[3](the blue [2] thingy above the word ago) Warhistorygamer (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, no longer says 6 confirmed anywhere, only a sentence at the end of the outbreak section pointing out the uncertainty on whether the UKHSA report numbers were included in the WHO report. Should be satisfactory for now until we have more info from the WHO. Neiglass (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

also in the 2nd to last sentence in the (top) could you add as of 8th instead of 7th of may and please add (UTC) for clarification please Warhistorygamer (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The pronoun 'it/its' when referring to the ship should be replaced with the feminine pronoun 'she/her', as here:

Previously, it she had been docked at Praia, Cape Verde; [...]

Instead, it she intended to travel to Tenerife and have its her passengers depart there [...] ~2026-16890-72 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Changed per WP:SHE4SHIPS. Next time please request an edit request to get noticed quicker. Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Undone WP:SHE4SHIPS is explicit: Ships (military or private-sector) may be referred to by either neuter pronouns (it, its) or feminine pronouns (she, her). Both usages are acceptable […] As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason. The broader principle here is MOS:STYLEVAR. This should not have been changed from the original style used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myceteae (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change the suspected cases (3rd number down) in the Arabic translation of the article from 8 to 9 like the English version Warhistorygamer (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. If you are talking about making changes on the article on the Arabic Wikipedia, please go there. This talk page is only for the English Wikipedia article. Fortek67 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "Change unconfirmed cases in Singapore" -> Its been confirmed in Singapore both cases were tested negative. Sources: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/hantavirus-cruise-ship-mv-hondius-test-negative-quarantine-6109571 Alloylovessteel (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Diff Didn't cite the Al Jazeera source per WP:CRYSTAL because it says "Singapore has isolated and is testing two residents who were on board"–there is no confirmation of the result. Thank you for your suggestion. Fortek67 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "There are symptomatic patients in five countries, with confirmed cases in South Africa and Switzerland and unconfirmed cases in Saint Helena, the Netherlands, Spain, and France" to "There are symptomatic patients in six countries, with confirmed cases in South Africa and Switzerland and unconfirmed cases in Saint Helena, the Netherlands, Spain, and France"

Change made: Changing the number of countries from 5 to 6. Alloylovessteel (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

• 8 May: A Spanish passenger on the same flight as the second victim tests positive, making him the first affected person not to have been on the cruise.

To:

• 8 May: A Spanish passenger on the same flight as the second victim identified as a suspected case.

Reason: In-line citation does not appear to support claim that this individual tested positive (although this is based off my mediocre Spanish and automated translation). Additional source via Reuters reports it is a suspected case in Alicante rather than confirmed. Lukewarm-flapjack (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Made the edit. Still new to editing so I just gotta remember to be bold. Lukewarm-flapjack (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Please keep minds open for any of the following, in the title of the article.

• "Andes hantavirus"
• May 2026 outbreak (or whatever month that one of the passengers/crew died with "Andes virus" in their blood).

If anyone has ants in their pants, then please consider asking for a specific discussion to be opened on a specific date, say 3 days or seven into the future, or farther into time. (I am fine with a one-or-three week wait, for a new round of discussions.) ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Not needed; already WP:PRECISE. We might need "Andes hantavirus" in the title, as soon as the MV Hondius has an outbreak of Sin Nombre hantavirus, and at that point you can make your suggestion again. In other words, the current title is precise, without being too precise. See WP:OVERPRECISION. Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

... Hantavirus-associated cluster
... Hantavirus cluster. These could be on a future short-list, in regard to new title.--A more specific suggestion, might be premature. ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I object to the removal of section §International response from the article. At 20:00, 8 May 2026, User:Neiglass removed section International response from the article. This section was just added shortly prior, and was in the process of undergoing expansion. At last appearance, it looked like this:

The removal reason was:

The section does not add additional value, merely repeats information from lead and outbreak sections. It has listed the same source for every country, and has not consistent formatting. International response section is only useful once the outbreak spreads independently to countries and has different responses among all countries. Currently, the response is mostly unified and does not warrant a section detailing different responses.

This is not a valid reason to remove it. Without it, the article has three body sections, § Background, § Outbreak, and § Timeline, and two of the three are chronologically ordered (§Outbreak, and §Timeline), one being a very brief summary of the other.

The article should be expanded, with more attention to thematic issues, and not just a timeline-based play-by-play account. Thematic information and answers to questions of obvious interest to readers are very hard to come by, without detailed hunting through the day-by-day accounts, searching for and collating nuggets of information, such as:

• What countries are the passengers and crew from?
• Have passengers left the ship, and what countries are they in now?
• Are they just free to roam around, or are they hospitalized, or in lockdown or what?
• What countries did they go home to? Are they hospitalized, under house arrest, or free to roam about?
• What is each country doing with respect to official response to returned passengers or crew?
• Is there a worldwide monitoring system in place, or does every country just do whatever it wants?

About half of these questions are already answered in the removed section, and under planned expansion, more would have been.

• To the claim that it "does not add additional value, merely repeats information from lead and outbreak sections": That is not true; for example, there was no easily available list of precisely what countries had ill passengers or what was happening to them, nor which ones were caring for or monitoring possible contact transmission.
• To the claim that "International response section is only useful once the outbreak spreads independently to countries", that is not true; it is useful now, to answer the questions readers of this article undoubtedly have. One such might be: "Does my country have anyone repatriated from the cruise ship?" or, "Are there people passengers or crew from the ship who are ill in my country?" These questions are very difficult to find answers to in a solely timeline-based approach, but very easy in a thematic approach.
• To the claim that "It has listed the same source for every country...", that is basically true, but that is because you removed the section within a couple hours of when it began, while I was researching expansion. You have to start somewhere, and it is not unusual to start a section with one highly reliable source and then gather more sources as you drill down and expand. That process had already started with the U.S. entry which already had a second source, and the plan was to expand each country with additional sources. I hope the section will be restored and we can continue expanding other countries as well.
• To the claim that "Currently, the response is mostly unified and does not warrant a section detailing different responses", I totally disagree with both parts of that. The response is not "unified", it is *exactly the opposite*, with all the information being scattered among the different days, requiring a lot of hunt-and-peck to try to thread through the days and pick out a unified response. The article most definitely is in need of a section on international responses, because that is what is happening, that is what is being reported on, and not having it fails to tell the whole story and is a disservice to our readers.

Overall, the article body is currently basically two timelines, a bloated one (§ Outbreak) and a telegraphic one (§ Timeline). Maybe that is understandable for an article representing an ongoing current event, but there is more to the story now than just that. Unless you want to turn this into a List article, in which case keeping that structure might be justified, we should have thematic sections in the article, where covering important parts of the story by theme, rather than day-by-day, will make the overall story of the outbreak more comprehensible to our readers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, to the extent that it overlaps the Outbreak section, that is because the Outbreak section is organized as a detailed timeline and is full of bloat. The article would be much better if much of the information currently in the Outbreak section were moved to thematic sections, one of which is "International response".

In my opinion, having the "International response" section will much improve the article for our readers. Please restore it.

In the meantime, I have been researching another thematic topic, namely, what exactly is or was the health-care situation on-board, i.e., is there a medical facility on board? Is there a ship's doctor or nursing staff? What were or are they doing? Are they getting support from outside health authorities and how? And conversely, how are worldwide health-related agencies getting information about the medical situation on board? I am just about ready with the initial version of this section and I will be adding it soon. Hopefully, it will not be deleted because the first version has only one source. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree - Per Mathglot; no notes. This article would be better off with the removed section, even if it isn't perfect at the moment. Lukewarm-flapjack (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to put back the section that was removed. (The section/sections seems okay, as part of a work in progress.)--Also, please fix infobox: since no specific strain has been proved (onboard), then the infobox should not be pretending that a strain has been found. ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Would the article benefit from simply removing bloat from the outbreak section? I am not against the addition to the new section, but felt it to be rushed and of somewhat low quality.

If we do add it back, we should have a clear goal: what do we want to communicate with it? International response to potential cases? I think the article would benefit greatly from having it focus on potential cases and responses (all the tests, people who were on the KLM flight etc), and removing bloat from the outbreak section on that as well. It has been bothering me how bloated it has become, but I have not gotten around to removing stuff.

Let me know if you agree. As a side note, I 100% agree that the article needs more sections. Neiglass (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

On the topic of the medical situation on board: I have found some Dutch language sources (government press releases) with details on that, that have barely been reported in the media. I will look for some in my browsing history. Neiglass (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Great. New section § On board health care and monitoring is available for that. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the section as per this conversation, but removed some points that felt out of place. This is not to say they do not belong there, but have (for now) tried to keep it thematically to the tracing and testing of suspected cases. Neiglass (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot I have tried getting it up to sufficient quality, but am still struggling and have no more time to work on it now. As per WP:ITNQUALITY I do not believe it to be sufficient for the front page of Wikipedia as is, and needs to be improved upon. You have still not answered my question on what your primary goal with the section is. Is it the status of patients?

I agree that every new section has to start somewhere, as per your earlier message here, but the quality expectation should be higher for an article that is on the Main page. A half-done draft should not be posted, and rather be worked on somewhere else before being posted.

I have bigger issues with the above section regarding the on-board medical state. Your source seems to be based on primary accounts Wikipedia:PRIMARY, with no other source.

I have removed part of the medical section which was solely based on primary account for now. Neiglass (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and I have to admit I didn't think about any main page issues, as I rarely if ever work on articles likely to be listed there. Remove what you need to; I am more used to working on gradual improvements to articles that don't have to appear to be perfect with every edit. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

(in reply to Neiglass @21:44; couldn't figure out the right reply point): Agree to more sections, and less bloat in section § Outbreak. Other than moving some of the #Outbreak content to more thematic sections, I am uncertain how best to deal with it; perhaps removal, as you say, but using what criteria? Another thing that bothers me about the #Outbreak section, is the disconnect between the section heading "Outbreak" and the chronological subsection headings. A corollary, less serious perhaps, but indicative, is that the section heading "Outbreak" fails MOS:NOBACKREF in a big way; after all, the entire article is about that. Another way to frame the issue is this: "What is the #Outbreak section really about?" Is it just about the *initial* outbreak? (Simple answer: no, based on going up to the present.) So, what unifies it, or is it just an unfocused, bloated timeline? If the latter, then we should ship some of its content off to the appropriate (new?) section(s), or trim them.220

As far as what new sections, to some extent that will be organic, but we can take some hints from other incidents (linked from the navbox, or past years' navboxes) like COVID-19 pandemic on Diamond Princess, or any of the articles {{Main}}-linked from COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships. Those are all mature articles, and this one still has its baby teeth so are not comparable, though they might be in the long run. Still, there might be some ideas to consider there.

Btw, your question is an important one for the article as a whole imho, and deserves its own treatment in a top-level section, rather than be relegated as an afterthought to this one. Shall we carry on in a new one? Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree on basically all of your points here. It's late here so this is going to be my last contribution of the day. Some quick thoughts before you are very welcome to start a new top-level section.

There is lots of potential for removal in outbreak. The last two days I have been adding events as they come, but many have been "closed" as uneventful. See suspected cases that turned out to be nothing. Lots of repetition too, such as Spain - Canary Islands conflict.

The problem with ongoing situations is that it's difficult to split those things off, due to being developing stories, and still closely linked to other happenings. Another editor attempted to split the outbreak section yesterday with no success, so we continued with the chrono format.

I suspect that some bloat will have to be tolerated, and then a major overhaul will be done once this outbreak near a conclusion (or escalation which probably leads to a new article).

No comment on section naming. Not an expert on that.

Sorry if my actions have been seen as destructive earlier. This article has had a lot of low quality edits the last days, and I am merely trying to maintain its present quality. I very welcome the new sections, it just has to be of a minimum quality standard very soon after posting. This article had 140 000 views yesterday.

Neiglass (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for the account and the guidance. Get some rest; you've got three hours. (Jk; ; sleep well!) Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Paraná confirm twos cases of hantavírus and investigate 11: G1, Metrópoles and Gazeta do Povo.

I suggests that should be added this information in the article. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Automatic translation of the article states "The municipalities of Paraná reinforced that the contamination of the patients has no relation to the confirmed cases on the cruise.". This article is about the outbreak that originated on the cruise. Neiglass (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hate to repeat myself, but you removed all of the initial content of section § On board health care and monitoring, with the edit summary "removed text with only primary source". This section previously told the story about the ship's doctor falling seriously ill and being quarantined, while a passenger who happens to be a doctor stepped in to fill the void, and ended up being the main medical resource on board for passengers and crew, as well as the contact person for national and international health organizations worldwide. I agree that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and likely is non-independent as well, as the reporter must have interviewed passenger Stephen Kornfeld for the story. However, it is backed by the rigorous editorial and fact-checking standards of the 169-year old publication The Atlantic. In my opinion, this use of a highly reliable source does not contravene WP:PRIMARY. Note in particular bullet one which says,

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

If you had simply removed the section, that would have been one thing, and we could debate the point. But before removing the previous account, you extended it in this edit, citing a press release by the tour operator Oceanwide Expeditions, keeping the PR while removing the content sourced to The Atlantic. That is a pretty poor trade-off in my book; out with the award-winning magazine noted for its investigative journalism, in with the press release. Can we restore the original content about the passenger who fell into the role of ship's doctor, at least until it is available elsewhere in additional sources? Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done I have added the most of the section back, while trying to add some more sources. As per WP:PRIMARY I have also removed some interpretation (or what can be interpreted as such), and tried to just state the facts.

The press release in the new section that was cited is only used for the nationalities. Everything else comes from the Dutch government report cited at the end of the paragraph. Neiglass (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Have no idea what this means:

"There are eight suspected cases, all eight by the World Health Organization, including five confirmed cases as of 8 May."

If you do, can you rewrite it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Be bold! Anyone should consider lifting that sentence, out of the article. Suggestion for edit comment: "Moved to talk page (already under discussion there)". ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Previously it said nine suspected cases, 8 by the WHO and 1 by the UK HSA. THe UK HSA part was removed from the lead in the meantime, leaving only the WHO statement. Neiglass (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The lede is contradicting itself about the position of the ship. Quote: The ship left for Tenerife on 6 May, but also: As of 8 May 2026, passengers are hospitalized in South Africa, the Netherlands, Germany, Saint Helena, Spain and Switzerland, while the ship is still in Cape Verdean territorial waters (my highlighting). Has it left for Tenerife three days ago but remains in Cape Verdean territory, or is this an error? Renerpho (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, error. Old news, and the date was just updated without updating the content. I have fixed it, good catch :-) Neiglass (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Renerpho (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Branching from a previous discussion with @Mathglot on 8 May 2026, 23:26 UTC.

The article has become bloated, with the "outbreak" section incredibly detailed. I think its hard to argue against the need for a more structured approach, which begs a number of questions.

1. What are the most important aspects in the current outbreak section which should be maintained?
2. What sections should be added?
3. What can be deleted from the outbreak section immediately?

Readability should be the number one priority. This is an ongoing virus outbreak, and plenty of people are probably visiting this page looking for the current status without wanting to read about political stand-off between Spain and the Canary Islands. The opposite also holds: some might visit the page and only want to read about that and not about the Singaporean suspected case. The page is so bloated currently that this is hard to do without having to read everything (or ctrl + f).

The difficulty stems from this being a developing story, with interconnected threads, which is why it is not directly comparable to articles such as COVID-19 pandemic on Diamond Princess, and the need to distinguish between resolved events/cases and unclear or ongoing things. Until recently, this was easiest done in a detailed timeline section.

Previously @Mathglot listed some good and important questions that the average visitor might want to have answered which should be kept in mind when proposing new sections. I will repeat them here:

• What countries are the passengers and crew from?
• Have passengers left the ship, and what countries are they in now?
• Are they just free to roam around, or are they hospitalized, or in lockdown or what?
• What countries did they go home to? Are they hospitalized, under house arrest, or free to roam about?
• What is each country doing with respect to official response to returned passengers or crew?
• Is there a worldwide monitoring system in place, or does every country just do whatever it wants?

For some more thoughts and details, I refer back the previous conversation on this talk page. Neiglass (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

it says close proximity, should say proximity as that already signifies close Xanderburnette (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Neiglass (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

... in the last sentence of the lead: "There have been three deaths, two of which _has_ been confirmed as caused by the Andes virus." ~2026-23037-46 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your request! Fortek67 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out how the dead person managed to cross the airport into another airplane, to then once again be seated with the living passengers. Thank you. ~2026-24738-83 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Background section under the Hantavirus subsection, please change:

was responsible for the outbreak.^[1]

to:

was responsible for the outbreak.^[1][2]

Rationale: supplementary citation to a chronological record of the outbreak that aggregates sources from WHO DON599/600, ECDC, Africa CDC, NICD, and the Swiss FOPH press release into a single timeline view, useful as a supporting reference for the ANDV confirmation. Micky Dollimore (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your website. Day Creature (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

COI disclosure: I am the operator of HantaCount. Per WP:COI I am not editing the article directly and am leaving this here for independent review.

I would like to suggest the following addition to the External links section:

• "HantaCount — live multilingual tracker (English, Spanish, Turkish, Arabic, Dutch)" (Open dataset, CC-BY-4.0). HantaCount. Retrieved 2026-05-09.

Why this may be useful per WP:EL:

• Multilingual coverage (EN/ES/TR/AR/NL) that none of the current external links provide.
• Open data under Creative Commons CC-BY-4.0 — bulk JSON (/api/cases) and CSV

(/api/cases.csv) downloads, plus daily snapshot archive.

• Per-country sub-pages for each of the affected countries listed in the article body.
• Citation block with APA, MLA, Chicago and BibTeX formats — useful for researchers citing daily counts.
• Editorial transparency — named editor + medical reviewer, sources for every data point linked back to WHO

DON-599, ECDC RRA, CDC and national agencies already cited in this article.

How it differs from existing externals:

• The current HantavirusMap link is English-only and does not provide bulk download.
• VesselFinder covers ship position, not case data.
• The WHO DON-599 link is the primary source but is a single point-in-time bulletin (4 May 2026) without

ongoing aggregation.

I am happy to take any feedback on framing, and to wait for an independent editor to make the call. I will not add this myself. Adilbalci (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Reply - i am guessing that it is not a wiki-notable source. Do not link, is what i feel about this. ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, at least for now. The first link to HantavirusMap really doesn't differ much from what you want to be added. It is available in several languages, (switchable at the top) however I'm not sure if you can download it in bulk or not. More people would have to look into this in my opinion, adding external links just like that may be controversial. You can always re-open this edit request by changing the answered parameter. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

"Thank you for the detailed review. One distinction worth noting: HantaCount provides bulk data downloads (CC-BY-4.0 JSON/CSV at /api/cases), a daily snapshot archive, and structured citation blocks (BibTeX/APA/MLA) — features

▎ HantavirusMap does not offer according to my review. I'll leave this open for further community input and won't push further. Appreciate the time." Adilbalci (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I propose we set the auto-archiving period to 3 days of inactivity. There has been some back and forth about this, so I'm starting a discussion here, after having discussed on user talk pages with @Mathglot and @Fortek67 This should be monitored closely and adjusted higher as soon as activity starts to slow down. My rationale for proposing 3 days is twofold:

1. The talk page is bloated with numerous new posts being added every day. The sheer number of posts makes it difficult to navigate. There are many duplicate discussions. Some older posts remain active while some newer posts are quickly resolved, so just scrolling to the bottom is inadequate. ETA: The talk page is also slow to load and to save replies, which is a result of the page size. 19:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
2. This is a breaking news story where the relevant facts are changing rapidly, sometimes by the hour. Any thread that has not had a response in a few days is likely resolved, irrelevant, or has been missed and is not likely to be addressed now.

Editors may manually archive or unarchive individual posts per editorial discretion. I would generally not archive a post that is less than 24 hours old. I have pinned the requested move so it will remain on the active talk page for a period of no less than 30 days, since this issue is likely to come up again. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support - what should be the approximent maximum amount of archived discussions per archived page? E.g. Archive1.

Fortek67 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Good question. I would go with the default page size but I defer to others who are more knowledgeable about archive size issues. It is always nice when the archive is navigable but they always end up being somewhat of a jumbled mess on pages like this where there is a period of high activity. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)