Talk:Norway Debate

Archiving

There is no need to archive this page. Please see WP:ARCHIVE and WP:TALKCOND for the relevant guidelines. Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is every need to archive the page. It included discussions that were twelve to fifteen years old and no longer have any relevance. If there any discussions from the last year or so that you think should be retained, just move them out of the archive to restore them. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop downplaying the fact you acted without consensus. Stop suggesting other editors should do work caused by you - having to pull back discussions from archive would not be needed if you did not archive them against consensus in the first place, so this argument comes across as dismissive, as it puts the onus on others, even where you are the cause. Stop trying to sneak in configuration changes without adequate edit summaries, and without achieving consensus first. I'll repeat this advice on your talk page for future reference. CapnZapp (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I have better things to do than argue about something so utterly trivial. If you dislike archiving so much, I suggest you open an RfC. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 08:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I decided to take another look at this and I'm restoring the settings made in this edit. Do NOT accuse me of "acting without consensus" when the truth of the matter is that you are edit warring – and not for the first time, as I can see on your talk page. Where is your consensus for changing the settings, then? I created the automatic archiving per WP:BOLD and you have agreed that it is needed so, unless Kablammo can gain a consensus for their view, the bot will continue to visit. What is happening here is that, as usual, you are insisting that you and you alone are right, but your contention that we must always retain the last four discussions in case we lose the TOC is total bollocks. If there are less than four discussion on the page, we don't need a TOC. If a fourth one is created, the TOC is auto-generated.

As for other editors "having to pull back discussions from archive", that happens often across all projects. I've done it myself. If a discussion is complete, it is archived. If someone needs to revive a year later, they restore it. If that is too much of a problem for you, then perhaps you are on the wrong site?

I think I would like an explanation of Stop trying to sneak in configuration changes without adequate edit summaries, and without achieving consensus first. Let's see if you can explain such crap on an edit-by-edit basis. Also, edit summaries are not mandatory. And, "for future reference", stay away from my talk page. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed automatic archiving from the page. It is clear you have failed to achieve consensus for your particular implementation, not that you appear particularly interested in achieving any in the first place. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the archiving because, per WP:ARCHIVE, The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. Archiving is a standard process that doesn't need a consensus in itself. Attempts have been made to agree about the parameters but these have been frustrated by your insistence on preserving the TOC, which is absurd. While I have tried to compromise on parameter values, you have insisted that your strange idea about the TOC is non-negotiable and you are edit warring. Now, because someone opposes your insistence, you think you can just remove the auto archive altogether despite the fact that it has been functioning. Your claims that I need consensus are hypocritical because you obviously believe that you can do whatever you like. I can only agree with User:Darkwarriorblake, who added You don't know what you're doing to your talk page, and the various others who have complained there about your behaviour.

I suggest you raise your WP:POINT at the project talk pages and see if anyone is interested. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 15:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And you are wrong again. You agreed that auto-archiving should be in the article and, as the bot has run, it is now established. The dispute is about the minthreadsleft variable and whether the parameter should be 1 (in which I have compromised from my preference of 0) or 4 as you insist there must always be a TOC. The onus is on you to gain consensus for your parameter because you changed it (B) from 1 to 4 and I (R) reverted you. So, you must (D) discuss and seek approval for 4. I contend that 4 is both unnecessary and illogical because no one needs a TOC when there are only 1, 2 or 3 threads and TOC is auto-generated when a 4th thread is commenced.

If you remove the auto-archive again, I will take you to ANI. So, please explain why you believe minthreadsleft=4 is preferable to minthreadsleft=1. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You have reverted to your settings three times during the same 24 hour period, User:No Great Shaker: [1], [2] and [3]. I am sorry your rage blinded you to the bright-line rule we call 3RR, so I will simply hope you manage to self-restore the page before an admin inevitably blocks you. You really should have heeded your own advice from earlier: Frankly, I have better things to do than argue about something so utterly trivial. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)