I've had an idea floating around for a while, spurred on by difficult attempts to find old threads for specific purposes. I propose that we index Yew Grove threads upon their archival. This would make it much easier to locate old threads which would otherwise be a lot more difficult to find, as threads would be grouped by category.
This is relatively simple to construct, needing an extra parameter in Forumheader to add the category. I think the following categories would be a good start.
- Policy - Policy related discussions e.g. consensus for a new policy, includes essays.
- Content - Discussions relating to changes in the mainspace e.g. new templates such as Drop tables or changes to infoboxes.
- User-related - Blocks, new usergroups, changes to usergroups includes nomination threads.
- Community - Community related threads.
- Discussion - Threads which are discussion-only. As Real put it "No proposal here, just talk about it" type-threads.
- Technical - Scary threads, these. (Complicated stuff like this)
- Miscellanious - Self-explanatory.
Support - I suggest a Discussion-only category as well, for the threads that say "No proposal here, just talk about it". User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:16, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh, yes. I've made half a dozen of those threads, how could I forget. 222 talk 08:24, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Would make it a bit easier to find threads when looking for them.08:41, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
Support - It'll make it much neater and much easier to find what you need after the bots roll through them - User:Pharos 5/Signatures/Official/iPhone 11:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Couldn't hurt. User:TyA/sig 06:13, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Support - And within those archives, will they be alphabetical or by date? I'll never remember what month/year Forum:Parsonsda gone Mad! was from, but I'll always remember the title (just for example). I'm a regular user and I approve this message.
- I would guess that they're still done alphabetically, like how they are in Category:Yew Grove, just with an extra category, or something...I don't know exactly how it works User:Real Not Pure/Signature
- It will be alphabetical, as the threads will be simply categorised and viewed on the category page. 222 talk 07:49, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Definitely, sucks having to find old threads.
- REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:52, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support - As long as I don't have to go back and recategorize all the old threads, I'm fine with it. (That's not really a condition, since no one, except maybe User:Psycho Robot, can force me to do anything.) However, I'd like to mention that I prefer the general categories mentioned over the specific ones Cook brought up. For example, desysop requests would have maybe four threads in it; affiliation requests perhaps five. General categories are nice because they narrow the searching field sufficiently, while too specific categories will make archiving a burden and result in unnecessary categorization conflicts. (Does Forum:Counter Vandalism Unit go in "Stupid discussions," "Counter vandalism," "Grammar", or "Oh my god is this really on the Yew Grove?") --LiquidTalk 02:40, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
- For something like a desysop thread, people will not want to look through all "user-related" threads. They'll be looking for desysop requests, right? We can have vague categories, but when we can we should be specific. ʞooɔ 05:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
Organization ftw!@ -
- REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:08, January 23, 2011 (UTC)