Forum:Do we need to auto-lock old forum threads?

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Do we need to auto-lock old forum threads?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6071 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Title says it all. If people really need to revive old topics, they could still do an (appropriately deliniated) include at the end of the page. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. —Braydie 07:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but the way the forum tags are set up now, the act of locking them would bring them back to the front of the forum index. If you can do it without bumping the topic, then do it. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Could we make a new tag, say ForumheaderArchive that would put the old thread into a separate bin? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, then just lock them all from there. How long do you think there should be no posts on a thread before it is moved to the archive and locked? —Braydie 08:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere from 2 weeks to a month. I'm kinda leaning towards a month, myself. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 08:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say after a month archive. I'm a bit sick of seeing morons reply to a 2 month old forum posts. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02/28 01:49

As soon as wikia decide we're ready to upgrade, it shouldn't be a problem to get the forumheader template to display a large warning if the page hasn't been edited for a certain amount of time. We need parser functions that are only in the newer versions to be able to do that, see. That'd be better than locking them all and/or moving them all to an archive forum. Hurry up, wikia. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:25, 20 Feb 2007

/me throws stuff at sannse. Knowing she has no control over it. —Braydie 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

/me picks stuff up, sets it back on desk, and organizes it just so.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Score: -1

• For Good idea. There are so many old forum topics and I can't be bothered to look through many pages just to see them all. I also think that the village dump needs a good, thorough cleaning. --General Insineratehymn 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Against Just discourage it and if an admin sees no reason for it to be resurrected then they should lock it.--Scott 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Against...how often does it happen? Exempting Hrodulf's updating spree it's happened, what, twice since man colonized the moon? Just give a heads up to people that do it unnecessarily, not to. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What about now?

Topics over a week old now display a message saying they are so. Go to an old topic to see it.

It could be any time, not just a week, so if you think a different time would be better, feel free. Though ironically, the message didn't stop me bumping this topic. My bad. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:15, 21 Mar 2007

Shouldn't it say that the topic has been dormant or unedited for a week, not that it is a week old? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. And ditto what Isra said. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)