Template talk:Hidden archive top/Archive 1

Refactoring?

I see no indication that the purpose of this template is covered by WP:REFACTOR & would request that it be returned to its previous state unless/until a WP:CONSENSUS has developed to change it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Firstly, please revert the change to "refactored" until there is a consensus to change it. Secondly, wrapping a discussion in this way is not refactoring. The archiving may be inappropriate or disputed, but so long as the text inside remains it has not been changed. If you dispute an archiving then discuss this with the editor who applied the template, and follow WP:DR if you cannot agree. PBS, who made this change, is involved in a dispute related to the use of this template, which makes the change doubly inappropriate to my mind. I do not support this change to long-standing and generally supported wording. Verbal chat

Template:Hidden archive top/doc was also altered. As it is not protected, I was able to revert it until a consensus can be formed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the change. I hope that consensus will be reached here or in some suitable venue before further changes are made. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Protonk. Personally I think that it falls more under WP:REFACTOR than WP:ARCHIVE. WP:ARCHIVE provides 2 mechanisms for archiving, 1. a proper subpage, 2. a link to an older version of the same page. Hatting discussion threads is certainly is not mentioned and would fly in the face of at least 1 of the rationales for archiving in the first place that is alleviating a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. Perhaps the proper thing to do is to change the wording to Hidden Content, this then allows the very handy 'hat' feature to be used without constraining or implying the type of information it contains. Unomi (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unomi has expressed my position on this. This template was brought to my notice by the way it has been used by Hrafn on talk:denialism. Not only has it been used to attempt to stifle debate, but it has also been used as an attack mechanism, because a biased comment has been used in the header of the template to put over one person's point of view. The reason why several years ago I included the wording in the lead of the refactoring guideline was to stop this type of behaviour as it is crazy to edit war over talk pages. This template is being used to refactor a page not to archive it and when an editor objects the refactoring should be reverted. It would help if it was made clear on this template that it is refactoring that is taking place so that there are no edit wars over its usage. -- PBS (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So what can we agree on? Can we consider Hidden Content to be a better description for how this template is actually used? I also agree that we may need to include the wording regarding refactoring, really it should not be necessary, impromptu archiving or refactoring or indeed cutting discussions short by any means may be disruptive, and should be undone if objections arise. Unomi (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) No PBS, it was not used to "stifle debate", but to 'stifle' disruptive WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT re-raising of a point on which it had just been made abundantly clear that the WP:CONSENSUS was against you. (ii) Category:Archival templates has many templates of this type (both hidden-contents & non-hidden), many of them explicitly calling themselves an 'archive'. As none of these templates link to WP:ARCHIVE, this usage can be considered an alternative usage rather than a false invocation of that guideline. Conversely the proposed change does explicitly link to WP:REFACTOR, but the template does not appear to be "a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning", or any alteration/"editing" of the contents of the template whatsoever. Rather it is a less radical approach (in that it involves hiding rather than deleting) to WP:TALK: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". If an explicit link to a guideline should be given in the template, I would suggest that it be the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in the conflict about one particular use of this template, and I don't even understand it. But I believe the change of wording was from a bad formulation to a bad formulation. The template is neither archiving (moving elsewhere) nor refactoring (changing appearance or structure) the text. It's hiding it. Yet "This discussion has been hidden." doesn't sound right, either. Not sure how to solve this problem. Hans Adler 21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How about, perhaps, "This discussion has been closed"? This would fit well with the next sentence, "Please do not modify it". I understand that "archiving" has a technical meaning (moving to an archive), but so does "refactoring", which essentially means modifying (or removing) comments, particularly when they are deemed offensive or incorrect or similar. Simply putting a discussion in a collapse box is hardly "refactoring". I don't know what other options there are. "This discussion has been collapsed to improve readability"? -- 89.52.189.11 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I would really like: "This discussion has collapsed. Please do not modify it." But I think the following is more realistic: "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." Hans Adler 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with collapsed, its a clear description of what has happened. or.. "This discussion has imploded" ;) Perhaps the real problem is that people use 'hat' for all kinds of things that they shouldn't ?

Sometimes they might really just want something like this
But This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. hat and hab are that much easier to remember?

Regardless, 'locking' a discussion prior to finding some resolution is a bad idea. "This discussion has been closed" is fine by me, preferably with usage directions that state it shouldn't be used disruptively. Unomi (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unomi and PBS. I've seen hatting used too often by some editors to control conversation and harass/suppress other editors in a discussion. No matter what it is called, it should not be done without the consent of editors being hatted. It should not be done on the whim of one editor over the protests of the hatted editors on a talk page. stmrlbs|talk 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that what is an attempt "to control conversation and harass/suppress other editors" or an attempt to control "disruptive WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT" is a matter for local consensus. Where the editor protests a consensus, the clear alternative is to delete the material entirely per WP:TALK. Regardless, the controlling guideline is WP:TALK, not WP:REFACTOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

and I would suggest that you read this part of WP:Talk WP:TALK#Others.27_comments stmrlbs|talk 04:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take note that I quoted from that section above, so have clearly read it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are using the "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" in a way it was never intended to be used, and as this template does not delete anything the bullet point quoted does not cover its usage. -- PBS (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that problems with abuse of the template (broadly construed) are solved by renaming the template. Obviously hat is used to improve readability and to suppress discussion when participants will want to continue. How you feel about that is your business, but it has nothing to do with the text in the template. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on both the archiving and refactoring policy pages, it says that both refactoring and archiving should only be done with consensus:

• WP:Archive Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in progress.
• wp:refactor Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

However, archiving - which implies physically moving text from one place to another - is not what the {{hat}} template really does. So, saying that the hatted text "has been archived" is not really describing the action of this template on the conversation that is hatted. stmrlbs|talk 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that description doesn't describe {{discussion top}} either. Or the XfD/DRV archiving templates. I think we are allowing the cart to lead the horse here. If we are worried that the semantics about archiving don't match our templates, then alter the semantics of archiving. It doesn't make sense to go about and fuss w/ templates when we are really just operating off a particular meaning which may not be appropriate. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is no indication that this template, and other similar ones in Category:Archival templates, are being used in the context of WP:ARCHIVE or WP:REFACTOR. Their usage is generally to indicate that a WP:CONSENSUS has been formed on an issue, and that it is time to move on (and in the context of {{hat}}, generally that further discussion is therefore "not relevant to improving the article"). If 'settled' or some other similar description is preferred to 'archived', then I would have no objection to this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, it might be appropriate to change the language of this template to something like:

• Default: "This issue has been settled. Please do not reopen it so soon without new information."
• With parameter: "This material is not considered to be relevant to improving the article. Please see <guideline> for why." Where <guideline> is the parameter and would be some guideline page such as WP:NOTAFORUM etc.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is far to easy for this template to be abused. To make a point I considered enclosing the last comment by User:Hrafn with:

This material is not considered to be relevant to improving the template. Please see WP:NPOV for why.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems to me that while there are genuine reasons for using it, there is also a temptation for editors to use it to stifle legitimate debate, particularly if it is used against inexperienced editors.

So are we agreed that whatever this is, that:

• 1) It is not archiving as understood by the use on Wikipedia and described in WP:ARCHIVE.

AND when it is used on a talk pages (not on Wikipedia namespace pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion review)

• 2a) Neutral comments: Any comment passed in as a parameter to the template must be a fair description of the contents (not a biased parting shot). -- to be specifically mentioned in the descriptive text of the template.
• 2b)OR Neutral comments: no free text parameters should be enabled, (because free text is open to abuse).
• 3) Consensus usage: Should its use be reversed, by one of the editors who's comment or comments is or are enclosed by this template, it should not be reinstated (as supported by the consensus clauses in the two guidelines WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR). -- to be specifically mentioned in the descriptive text of the template.

--PBS (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• (i) Given that WP:NPOV gives no instruction on what discussion is "relevant to improving" an article, your example would appear to be more of a non sequitor than 'abuse'. (ii) The "consensus clauses in the two guidelines WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR" are not relevant, as the usage of this template does not fall under the practices envisaged by either. In fact an argument could be made that WP:REFACTOR, as it is currently articulated, is no longer relevant as the practice of "editing … to improve readability while preserving meaning" has fallen out of use on article talk, and that it should simply redirect to WP:TALK#Others' comments, which articulates current good practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  Addendum: this is "archiving as understood by the use on Wikipedia" (see many examples of similar templates in Category:Archival templates for precedent), just not as "described in WP:ARCHIVE", a page that this template never referenced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if my reasons were correct or not, the point is that messages which put across one editors or group of editors point of view without a signature to show who made the observation, is inherently against consensus, if others who are party to a discussion disagree with it. Do you object to including wording that states that its usage should only be used when there is consensus for its use? -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) "Consensus"≠'no disagreement whatsoever', so I reject your first statement. (ii) Consensuses tend to be self-enforcing. If there is a consensus, then there will tend to be more editors willing to revert to enforce, or comment to add moral support to, the template. I therefore don't need a need for including explicit wording, but would not object strongly to its introduction. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I agree with your assessment. Hrafn keeps referring to WP:TALK#Others' comments, yet ignores the first sentence which says "The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outline below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Hiding another editor's comments from the discussion by hatting, and ignoring their protests is just another form of striking out their comments. stmrlbs|talk 02:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No Stmrlbs, it is you who "ignores" that "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is one of these "specific exceptions outline [sic] below" and that the the other editors' permission is not required for this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, you have argued that this template is used for archiving not deleting: "(Oh and an archiving-reason is not a comment, so does not require (nor normally includes) a signature.)" so are you now saying that using this template is not archiving but deleting? If not, then why quote a sentence from WP:TALK#Others' comments which is about deleting text and not archiving it? --PBS (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, PBS, I have not (as far as I can remember) made the argument "that this template is used for archiving not deleting". No, PBS, the quoted passage does not in any way, shape or form make that argument. No, PBS, I have not changed my argument that use of this template is a "a less radical approach" to the outright deletion envisaged under WP:TALK, and that whether it is considered to be deletion, 'archiving' or 'hiding-as-already-settled', it is sanctioned under that guideline. So no, PBS, I don't accept any premise or conclusion of your comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We are quickly moving into specifics of what brought this drama about, this is probably not the venue for it. But.. Denialism is clearly a neologism, whether that of itself is grounds for deletion is debatable, in this case probably not, but getting all worked up about mentioning that it is, at best, a recent addition to the English language is silly. Hatting an ongoing discussion about it, doubly so. Unomi (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) And how is re-raising the spectre of the article on Denialism not "moving into specifics of what brought this drama about", as well as veering decidedly off-topic. And (ii) NO the hatted section WAS NOT an "ongoing discussion" it was a WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of an issue that PBS had already raised the issue on Talk:Denialism#Not in the Oxford English Dictionary, the WP:CONSENSUS on that thread being strongly against him. I would further point out that this misrepresentation violates WP:TALK: "Do not misrepresent other people". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for stating what I apprehended to have happened, I am now on the talk page of Denialism and perhaps we can discuss in more detail. Unomi (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential for abuse

If you feel this template is prone to abuse then the venue you want is WP:TfD, where you may debate altering, renaming or deleting the template. Changing the text to read something else (By the way I can just add an argument to the template to include my own text) has nothing to do with the potential for abuse. Please keep these issues distinct. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the correct forum to debating changes to this template, whatever the reason for the changes. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But we can't motivate changes to the template with arguments that the template is inherently deleterious to discussion. I read many of the arguments above as calls to mark the template depreciated or delete it. They don't translate easily to a renaming or re-wording. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think that is fair, all we need to do is make it more clear that the template is not to be used disruptively and that should there be dissent the 'hatting' should be undone. Hatting is not a valid method for resolving content disputes or a constructive tool in dispute resolution, generally speaking. Unomi (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unomi. "hatting" is meant to be done with group agreement, not at the whim of one editor who decides that another editor's comments (usually of an opposing POV) "do not improve the discussion". The wording and intent of archiving, refactoring, and WP:talk is clear in that it says that this type of discussion formatting/editing/moving/control is supposed to be done with the permission of the editors involved. With consensus. Even right on this discussion board, people are calling in different parts of different policies to justify how they are using it, therefore, I think at least the part about editor consent should be made clear in the template to prevent abuse. And that can be done with the language in the template. something like "discussion closed with consent of participating editors" or something like that.stmrlbs|talk 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hold a pretty dim view of technical measures that prevent abuse, when no part of the measure actually prevents abuse. The discussion above is about rewording the text in the template when no arguments are added. That's it. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

of course, this will not prevent abuse. But it will help to clear up the consensus issue which is the way this template is abused the most. The template should clearly state what it does and for what purpose. I don't think a clearer explanation is a "technical" thing, anymore than putting time into making something more user friendly is "technical". It is a way to help people understand and use a tool in a better way. stmrlbs|talk 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Search problem with hatting

Another problem with hatting is that searching either with the wikipedia search or with google, will find text in the hatted section. But, when you display a page and look for the text using "find" (usually from the edit option from the navigation bar), the find will not find it on IE or Firefox. A reader can find the comment on a short page with perhaps one hatted discussion (if they open the hatted discussion), but a lot of people won't bother. On pages like those on the notice board, forget it - anything hatted is lost to most people. Perhaps this is why some editors are so eager to hat comments from editors with opposing POVs - I don't know. But I think that editors whose comments are being hatted should give consent knowing that their comments are going to be less accessible than everyone else's comments. stmrlbs|talk 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly I hat discussions when people refuse to stop or when drive-by comments will inflame the discussion more. It serves a purpose. I understand the complaints about shutting down discussion and what-not, but I think they are overblown. EVEN THEN, the opinions you or PBS or anyone else have about the propriety of the template are best offered at TFD, since it seems like you guys would rather the template be depreciated. If we have this discussion about POVs and censoring and what not all in the service of changing some text, it feels like jawing for no reason. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, since I'm one of those editors who likes to be aware of past discussions, I don't like the use of this template at all. If you want to archive a topic, move it to an archive page where a search will find it. Don't hide it where it can't be easily found. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, this is something that I really don't like about hatting. Once a conversation is hatted, the search may find it, but when the editor tries to find where it is on the page, a "find" won't find it unless they show every hidden archive on the page (and sometimes I think this is why some editors make a habit of hatting other editors comments who don't share their POV). At the very least, once a thread is archived (moved to an archive page), then the hatting should be removed. If there was a good test for the archival status of a page, then this could be done in the hatting macro. But I don't think pages are archived in a standard way. stmrlbs|talk 04:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be very nice to have a button that un-hats everything on a page. Perhaps this is feasible as an extension in monobook.js? Hans Adler 08:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, that would be nice. Especially on the Administrative Noticeboards. stmrlbs|talk 02:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me as a good TFD candidate

This template is self-defeating, since attempting to hide an old debate is simply going to make people curious about it and more likely to read it, wondering why someone would try to hide it. The crap discussion in question should simply be moved to an archive page and allowed to be forgotten. A quixotic "do not look at the man behind the curtain!" template seems to be a good WP:TFD candidate to me. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC) PS: Normally when I feel this way, I simply go file a TFD, but this thing's been around long enough I figure I might as well give people a chance to dissuade me, and it's (Western) New Year's Day, so I don't want to be unnecessarily irritating to anyone. (People got pissed at me for filing a Christmas-Day RFC about disputed guideline wording. I learn.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a heavily used (and heavily abused) template, and therefore probably wouldn't be deleted. It might be better addressed with RFC. It needs to be discussed, and the conditions under which it is used better defined. I also think it should be automatically removed, or made inoperative in archives. I think it is telling that there is resistance to even putting additional instructions for use. stmrlbs|talk 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How does this template differ in usage from {{collapse top}}? -- PBS (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential merge with Template:Collapse top

looking at the source for this template and for {{collapse top}}, I can't see much difference at all. perhaps a merge is in order? --Ludwigs2 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think that is a good idea as it move away from having the word archive in the name of a template which collapses text and does not archive it. -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} could someone add a {{mergeto}} template to this page, please? put the following at the top of the page: <noinclude>{{mergeto|Template:Collapse top}}</noinclude> --Ludwigs2 16:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am going to inform the editors over at Wikipedia:Deletion reviewd of this proposal as they may consider it desirable to keep this template. In which case we could instead add an instruction to the top of this template that it is not to be used on article talk pages but that {{cot}} should be used instead. -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'm interested to hear what they say. as far as I can see, the two templates are almost identical (the only differences are coloring and an additional line in HAT that can be easily added as an option in COT). I don't see a reason why a simple redirect wouldn't work, but there may be something I don't know. --Ludwigs2 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Template:DRV top uses its own code, so you don't need to consider it at all. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok so Wikipedia:Deletion review is not a problem.

I suggest that we wait for 7 from the placing of the merge templates at the top of hidden archive top and collapse top and if there is still a consensus make the change. However if that immediately puts the cat among the pigeons (as people often do not notice a change to templates until after the change is made because they do not put them on their watch lists), that we then revert out the change and discuss it further. If a week passes after the change before anyone objects, then we keep the change until we assess what the consensus is. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

sounds like a plan. in the meantime, I'll draft a sandbox version of the merge. I;ll post i here when I'm done. --Ludwigs2 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a question, as long as we're doing revisions. do we want to continue using the TABLE structure or switch over to a DIV format. I'm easy either way. DIVs are clearer and more stylish, but cause occasional problems in some odd circumstances (when there's an indented div-based template, to be specific - tidy generates a spurious closing div tag that mucks things up). what do you think? --Ludwigs2 03:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I finished the simple revision - it's at {{Collapse_top/sandbox}}. it should handle the parameters from both templates. the only thing the might be an issue is the default The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. row in the Hidden Archive template that I've incorporated as an option in the revised template. as it stands, if someone has specified a custom line for that the custom line will be shown, but the default line will currently never get shown. our options are:

1. to forget about the default warning and bite the bullet on old uses of the template (they will lose the warning line if anyone goes back and looks)
2. have {{hat}} be a call to {{cot}} rather than a simple redirect, so that we can retain the use of the default warning line.
3. get a bot to go through and do some direct modifications

I'm also unclear about whether we want the default line to show up in all cases unless it is explicitly excluded, or vice versa.

at any rate, if we can decide these last details we can go ahead and do the merge. thoughts? --Ludwigs2 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please add a brief description to your {{Collapse_top/sandbox}} with a description of the parameters?

I say redirect and loose the warning, or people will continue using this template with all the problems it has as described higher up this page. In most cases the use of this template will be on long since archived pages so it does not matter and for those that are on the current pages then it is probably better that archive is not mentioned (for the reasons mentioned above). If you think it better that it is then allow an editor to set it with a flag parameter but do not set it on by default.-- PBS (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

alright, I've added a blurb about the parameters, and I've added in a 'warning' parameter which can be set to display the warning line. I'll go ahead and call for the protected edit now, it's really a minor transition, and it shouldn't cause any headaches.

{{editprotected}} A few edits need to be done to merge {{Hidden archive top}} into {{Collapse top}} per the discussion in this section.

• the contents of {{Collapse_top/sandbox}} should be copied into {{Collapse_top}}. the Parameters section in the noinclude block should be excluded, but the standard {{documentation}} template should be added, as is obvious.
• {{Hidden archive top}} should be redirected to {{Collapse top}} with an appropriate Redirect by Merge template
• {{Hidden archive bottom}} should be redirected to {{Collapse bottom}} with an appropriate Redirect by Merge template
• the 'merge from' template (obviously) should be removed

Did I foret anything? I'll update the docs once the merge is done. --Ludwigs2 06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 all done I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why was this done? You've changed it from brown to green? And made it more obtrusive with the garish colour and outline? Reverted... –xeno^talk 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • errr... it was done because the two templates are almost entirely identical (with the exception of details like coloration). if you like we can AWB through the HAT tags and change the coloration - or are you arguing that there's a particular need for two templates that do exactly the same thing? --Ludwigs2 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm arguing that {{hat}} looks much better than {{collapse top}} and that "coloration" is not some trivial element that it should just be combined to give people no variety of choice. And forcing people who preferred the brown to now use {hat|color=brown) or whatever doesn't seem particularly convenient. It seems like you're trying to solve a behaviour issue (trying to archive discussion by collapsing it) by removing a line from a template? That's not going to work. But if you think it will, then hat should call collapse top and supply the original colour, size, and lack of outline. –xeno^talk 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<--xeno Where has it been used that you think that the colour is too garish? -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the brown is preferable to the green anywhere - especially as the point of the template is to not draw attention to the conversation. We are not so wanting for templatespace as to only ever have 1 choice for collapsing. Are you going to take away {{divhide}} now too? –xeno^talk 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

this is an easy change to make. if there's consensus for it, we can change the look of the template to be whatever. I happen to prefer green to brown, but maybe we could compromise on the default at a kind of greenish-kahki color? the border I'm ambivalent on -that can stay or go. The main issue for me is that there's no need for two mostly identical templates.--Ludwigs2 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think combining them into some brown-green poo colour is going to satisfy anyone. Are we running out of templatespace? Why can't we keep them both? Are you going to get rid of {{divhide}} too? It's a nice light blue. –xeno^talk 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I may do that, yes - I'll have to look at it. The problem with having multiple templates with the same function is that breeds confusion and makes revisions far more complicated - essentially the same problem we have with POV-forks in article space. Now I've read the rest of this page, and I understand that there's some political gambit getting played out here (this template was written to close/semi-refactor particular debates with an appearance of authority). I have no opinion about that (mostly because I am not at all shy about simply removing the template when it's misapplied, and I encourage others to do it as well) - you'll see that I've kept the warning in as an option. To the extent that COT and HAT share the purpose of tucking away extended material and making pages easier to read, it's a very useful template, and we only need one. to the extent that HAT is used to try to intimidate newbies into shutting up, it's faintly disgusting - if that were the only thing it were used for I'd start a TfD on it right now.

If you like we can start an RfC on the merger and get some outside opinions, but I hope we can resolve this through discussion instead. I don't see any decent reason not to merge, frankly, but I'm open to the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And in turn, I see no reasons to merge. The reasons not to merge are as follows: 1) variety is the spice of life (you like green, I like brown, some like blue) 2) we are not running out of template space.

If you want {{hat}} to call collapse top as a meta-template to keep the code bases the same, that's fine by me as long as there is no visual change. (I don't care if the "do not modify" line gets lost in the process). –xeno^talk 20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if others agree - not perfect, but nothing in life ever is. are there any objections? --Ludwigs2 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect it. The whole point is that this template is flawed from the name down.It does not do what is on the box it does not archive anything it simply hides text, and it is abused. If user:xeno wants brown then I say set the merged template to brown as default and make green a default colour. -- PBS (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you show me some examples of this "abuse". And will removing a line from the templates really accomplish anything? Behavioural issues don't get solved by changing a template name or removing a line about not editing the section. What's more - changing this now retroactively removes the warning from wherever it was originally - often intentionally - placed in the past if the template was not subst'd. –xeno^talk 04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And though I stand firmly on neither side, this change under the auspice of a "merge due to similar source codes" really seems to be an inappropriate way to wedge through one view in the the ongoing dispute above. (Though I understand this was not Ludwig's intention)–xeno^talk 04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

just as an aside, and a 'fair disclosure' moment, let me say that I am not unaware of the dispute - I've had this template used on my own statements before, which is where I've learned to simply remove it where it's misapplied. however, I do recognize that there are times it's useful: I've used it myself to control senseless arguments, and allowed it to stand where people have rightfully hidden something stupid that I've said. What I'd like to see eventually is a template which does just that - hides and controls discussions that are stupid and off-topic, without impinging on the free expression of meaningful ideas. For instance, if we changed the default warning line to say something like "This text is argumentative, and has been hidden to promote calm and reasoned discussion. Please leave it be." then I think I would support using it more generally. we could even set up a simple switch - one option for hiding argumentative debates, one for hiding extended content, one for hiding closed debates, etc., and we could wrap a number of current templates into one consistent one.

really, I agree with both of you - I see the usefulness and I see the potential for abuse - and I think we can create a template that satisfies both sides. should I whip up a sandbox for a multi-use template? --Ludwigs2 05:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your suggestion is no better (maybe even a bit worse - it accuses participants of being argumentative, uncalm, and irrational) than the fairly firm but neutral language that is used now. But I am willing to entertain other suggestions. What is not going to change is people using collapse boxes to end debates that have outlived their usefulness. PBS seems to want to get rid of this practice altogether, and I don't think that simply stripping a line from this box is going to accomplish that, nor do I think it's a good idea generally. –xeno^talk 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

merge discussion: arbitrary break

(outdent)

ok, it seems we have two separate issues here:

1. misuse because of the name and the pseudo-authoritative language.
2. presentation details.

can we possibly agree on the second, first, and then have a more detailed discussion about the pros and cons of the authoritative bit? I'll make sections --Ludwigs2 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2,I have removed the section headings. There is no point in starting a new sections yet. But I have no problem discussing the abuse of this template first.

user:xeno There is no ongoing dispute User:Hrafn was a frequent user and a proponent for the use of this template, but (s)he has not edited Wikipedia for over three months. So AFAICT there is not dispute over its abuse. Clearly we can not delete it, it has been widely used. Merging it is the best alternative.

It does not take long to find abuse (or to keep it neutral the use of this template to close off a discussion where others object it being used that way). Looking through the list of links to the template the third one from the top Talk:British Isles, has this reversal from January of this year. One is almost guaranteed that the use of "British Isles" will bring heated discussions to the talk page and this template a very useful club in such discussions (note the use of the title added to the template to add a parting shot to support a pov). --PBS (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because your dispute partner is on a break doesn't mean you can close the dispute in your favour. Admins use this template appropriately all the time. Removing it from our toolset is just going to make it harder to bring closure to intractable disputes.

Based on your contributions and distribution of administrative actions, it is clear you do not spend much time at the dramaboards (less than 100 edits at ANI over 3 years) or involve yourself that often with user disputes (not that there's anything wrong with that). So I don't think you understand how useful and effective this template is when used appropriately.

As to your example of abuse - I went to User_talk:Phoenix79, but I did not find any discussions about his alleged inappropriate use of the template. Again - you cannot solve a behaviour issue via technical means - at least not effectively. And because some users use tools inappropriate doesn't mean you should take them away from all users. –xeno^talk 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've invited opinions from users at WP:AN and WP:VPP. –xeno^talk 14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm possibly missing something, but PBS, was this diff that you linked meant to be an example of abuse? If so, I'll point out that approx. 3 revisions later it was restored by a member on the opposite side of the dispute and thereafter left in place. It was, in fact, the removal that was invalid. On topic, I see no reason for the change whatsoever, although if someone feels the need, I am fine with consolidating the code to a single place. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

well, we all seem to agree that a closure template is both used and useful. we are disagreeing on language issues and the potential for abuse, which I think are valid concerns. I agree that the template name Hidden archive is misleading, since it's not actually archiving any material, and I think the warning language is a bit strong as well (and yeah, the language I gave above probably wasn't the greatest either). I'm going to write a quick sandbox so we have something concrete to examine, and then we can haggle over neutral phrasing. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Just because your dispute partner is on a break doesn't mean you can close the dispute in your favour." You can not mean that! If you did if one person objects to some thing and then leaves the project then that objection binds other editors for ever more.

"Admins use this template appropriately all the time. Removing it from our toolset is just going to make it harder to bring closure to intractable disputes. In which case they can use {{collapse top}} (that does not imply "archiving" which this action is not). Have you ever used this template and reverted a revert to keep it on a page?

User:Ale_jrb as it is an example taken from the list of links of course the last exit will be a restore! But that is not the point. Edit warring on the talk page is dumb, and if someone objects to refactoring of a page it should not be done. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that just because he left doesn't mean the arguments he was advancing are unsound and that we can now close it in your favour without further consensus gathering (iirc he wasn't the only one arguing against you).

I disagree on the by-and-large semantical point that using one of these to wrap up a conversation is not "archiving". It most definitely is archiving. You're committing the thread into a form wherein it should not be modified. It is 'archived' in one sense and will ultimately be capital-A Archived by a bot sooner or later. In any case, this is really such a minor point of contention as to almost have no bearing on the conversation.

And when admins use the hat template they aren't just collapsing the thread. They are attempting to put an end to it and no further statements should be made in the collapsed section. Similar to {{archive top}}. (Which also doesn't "archive" it in the WP:ARCHIVE sense, but it still used on a regular basis).

I don't care what it's called. Move the code into {{hat}} for all I care. I always thought of it like putting a hat on the thread and didn't even know that it stood for something. –xeno^talk 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not proposing to move it to anything just redirect it to another template that does the same thing with a less controversial title (or acronym) and as I said if you want brown as the default colour I have no problems with that, although I personally prefer the green colour -- they are both eye candy. (The colour chosen ought be one with a shade that colour blind people can notice). -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't quite do the same thing - the merge target does not display the warning not to modify it (except by explicit parameter). –xeno^talk 20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that collapse top is deficient for not having that as a default? What purpose does "The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it." It introduces the word archive, which it does not do, it says "Please" and it has no authority (it is not a guideline) and as such it is just instruction creep. AFAICT by implication you are suggesting that we should have a template for every possible combination of flags that can be set. Why is it a problem to set that flag if you think it is needed? -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above rejection of this silly argument that it does not "archive" the discussion. It most certainly does archive it, though it doesn't necessarily WP:ARCHIVE it. See also {{archive top}} which is similar.

No, there is really no reason to get rid of this template. You don't like it because you feel it was misused by a few individuals, but the vast majority of administrators who use this template use it appropriate- to archive (preserve in its current state so it is not modified further) and end a thread which has outlived its purpose or is generating more heat than light.

This template has existed this way and been used in this manner for over 3 years. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we can just ends its life without consensus to do so.

If your only argument is that it doesn't "archive" it in the WP:ARCHIVE sense, the word "archived" can be replaced with "closed". –xeno^talk 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ... I don't like this template because I find the language officious and presumptive - it effectively implies that one editor can act as the voice of wikipedia to tell another editor to stuff a sock in it. I am willing to compromise on this a bit, and working on a compromise at that, and I would like you both to drop the old squabble and work with me, before I decide to 'archive' your posts myself. ok? --Ludwigs2 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And this practice has been in use for years, as have templates such as {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} used in a similar manner. This long-standing practice cannot be terminated by a few people who agree with eachother on a poorly watched/trafficked template talk page. Start an RFC on the process generally, advertise it widely, and we'll see what the community thinks. –xeno^talk 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, don't pull that crap on me. the fact that fraternities hazed people for hundreds of years (with a relatively low incidence of mortality) is not an argument that they should be allowed to continue doing so. the template is officious, tendentious, and clearly misses the point of AGF. The only reason we would need an RfC here is if you're going to make a big stink over a point that's not worth making a big stink over. no one is trying to take your toy away; I just want to make it a bit less scuzzy. Now are you going to force me to waste the time of a whole lot of people debating this? --Ludwigs2 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it." does not strike me as "scuzzy" and the template is appropriately used very, very, often by administrators who work at the noticeboards. Can you suggest something less "scuzzy"? How about "This discussion has been closed. Further discussion should take place elsewhere." ? –xeno^talk 15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, it's scuzzy because it is used by any number of people to assert improper authority. you know it's true, I know it's true, that's the bulk of all the complaints you find on this page, and that's what the template was designed for in the first place. collapse top is perfectly serviceable, and with the extra parameter will mimic the behavior of this one; we don't need a separate template just so some frustrated editors can exercise bad judgement. --Ludwigs2 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again - you cannot solve a behaviour issue effectively through technical means. If they are asserting improper authority, take it up with them directly. Removing this template from the administrative toolset (forcing us to remember to use an extra parameter??? won't those abusive users just do the same?) because a handful of users use it inappropriate simply isn't a good idea. As an aside, it's disappointing that you concealed your true feelings about this template and tried to have it merged under the auspices of technical reasons. –xeno^talk 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

no, I cannot solve behavior using technical means, but I can remove unnecessary tools that encourage bad behavior - again, what is your problem with this? are you worried that you won't be able to remember the extra parameter? I think that you are so wrapped up in whatever pissy dispute you had going at the top of this page that you can't think straight. It's just pure ego: you don't want this template merged because having the template merged (even though the merge I'm proposing wouldn't make one damned bit of difference in the long run) would make you feel like you've lost some stupid argument you shouldn't have been having in the first place. get over it. if you want to go tilting at windmills, at least pick attractive and interesting windmills to tilt at.

God damn but I am sick of dealing with wikipedians who edit from their testes. This is a non-issue, don't turn it into world war III. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requiring an extra parameter just makes it more complicated to use (for no good reason) and also breaks the existing uses.

If it is a non-issue, then we can agree to close this section as N Not merged. Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

fine, we'll do an RfC. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• So long as I can still use {{hat}} and {{hab}} when collapsing discussions, I don't care either way. Those two templates are succinct and easy to type. AGK 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: merge with Template:Collapse top?

Dispute over whether to merge {{Hidden archive top}} - HAT - and {{Collapse top}} - COT. The templates are identical, except for minor style issues (coloration, bordering) and the inclusion of a warning line in HAT requesting the collapsed section not be modified. The merged version would include a parameter allowing for the inclusion of a warning line. The dispute stems from the rather troubled political history of the HAT template. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Argument in favor of merger: The templates are technically identical: a merger would sacrifice none of the functionality of either template, and would obviate the political nuttiness that seems to follow the HAT template. Further, the merge could be expanded to cover the other archival templates (such as {{Archive top}} and {{Discussion top}}), which would create a consistent, standardized look across different uses, and allow for the addition of a one or two new features I have in mind. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Argument opposing merger: Proponents of merger are attempting to solve a purported behavioural issue by technical means (see lengthy discussion above). This template is used appropriately day-in-day-out by administrators to end unconstructive discussions. Merging it with another template will break existing uses and force administrators to have to remember to add a parameter for a warning line for no good reason - there is no dearth of template space such that it should be merged and made more complicated. –xeno^talk 16:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. No technical function is gained by merging the two, as we would have to keep the redirects around anyway. Therefore, we must look at the behavioral effects of such a change. I agree with Xeno's reasoning in that regard. NW (Talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Correction: I just came here to make a merger (I've been fixing up a number of templates lately), and walked into a pissing match. Granting that I happen to think this template is a bit pointed, please don't place that as my reason. I simply see no reason for a fork of {{cot}}. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This template predates {{cot}}, so calling it a "fork" is disingenuous at best. Perhaps you would like to merge cot here, and add a warning=no option. But no, that's no good either: it would break existing usages of cot. The simple fact is that these template serve different and distinct purposes (hat to collapse content to end unproductive discussions, cot to collapse extended content for greater usability) and no good reason for a merger has been presented. –xeno^talk 17:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • sorry, I had no idea hat preceded cot. However, my reason for wanting a merger is clear - same purpose, same structure, same template. technical problems can be solved easily (you know that as well as I do); this dispute is an ego-dispute, nothing more. If this were any other template, no one would think twice about the merger. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Did you completely ignore what I wrote? These templates have different and distinct purposes. –xeno^talk 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
          • lol - I read what you wrote, I just think it's silly. the templates have one (tangible) purpose - to collapse a block of text so that it is out of the way. there are different reasons to collapse blocks of text, yes. what's your point? the raison de etre of templates is to have a single design for multiple purposes. look, the only reason you're insisting on a different template (IMO) is that it's become a symbol in some silly dispute you've been having for the last however many years. I don't care about the dispute, and the minute you remove the dispute as a valid reason for maintaining a separate template, you have no reason left for maintaining a separate template (except, of course, historical usage issues, which can be addressed in a number of different ways). as I said above, GOI... --Ludwigs2 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
            • No, they have distinct purposes. I will explain. {{hat}} is to cease a discussion and collapse it - to put an end to an unconstructive debate. {{cot}} is to collapse content - not necessarily a discussion - it could be a list of articles, users, a proposed edit, some code, etc. The reason to collapse the content is so as to not take up needless vertical space on a page for folks who might not necessarily need to peer inside the collapsed section. Separate, distinct purposes. The {{hat}} requires verbiage to enforce its purpose. The {{cot}} does not. People can often edit within a {{cot}}'ed section - to add information, remove information, annote information, without fear of reprisal.
            • Despite your continued attempt to cast aspersions on my motives or emotional state, I am not a long-term participant in the above dispute - in fact, I came here only after I noticed sections that had been {{hat}}ted peculiarly turned green and lost the warning not to modify the debate. I simply believe that there is no good reason to merge these templates. We are not running out of template space. There is no pressing need to have only a single template and force people to use parameters to achieve a desired effect.
            • This RFC was filed to gather outside opinions. There is no point in us continuing to argue back and forth the same points. Can we agree to disagree at let others chime in before we scare them off? Thank you, –xeno^talk 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
              • agreed. I'd even suggest applying COT (or HAT) to the above discussion, since it does stray off topic. shall we? --Ludwigs2 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
                • I thought about it (it would just be such delicious irony), but I think it does sum up the above lengthy debate we had rather well. Up to you. –xeno^talk 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • I'm good either way (it's a bit more heated than I'd like, but I can live with that). If you don't think it's a distraction, which would be my main worry, then that's fine. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of a merge. For the reasons I have previously given. -- PBS (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise discussion: delineating appropriate usage of the template

• I'm in favour of a merge. For the reasons I have previously given. But as there is disagreement lets see if we can salami slice it. Xeno do you object to This wording which has been added to this template "This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."? -- PBS (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm fine with something along those lines, but I don't think it's quite covered by the refactoring guideline. Something like "This template should only be used by disinterested parties to end a clearly unconstructive discussion; it should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors in the dispute." –xeno^talk 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  Clearly this is a form of refactoring; are you suggesting that it isn't? per wp:refactor, refactoring "include[s] removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information". Collapsing text alters the presentation of information, and moreover has the intention of altering the presentation of information; it's a bit stronger than striking out text (strike out), and a bit weaker than removing text entirely, and both those are considered to be refactoring. The problem I'd have with your wording is that it's too easy to scam: who is a 'disinterested' party, what constitutes 'clearly unconstructive'? The refactoring guideline spells things out nicely, why try to nickel and dime it? --Ludwigs2 15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  My concern is that "Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning." While one purpose of using hat is to improve readability, the main goal is to end a discussion - so it's not really just refactoring and refactorial isn't the justifying guideline. The word "collapse" doesn't appear on the page. However, I suppose this could be solved by changing the page. –xeno^talk 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've taken the liberty of splitting Philips' statement so that the 'opinion' part of it stays in the above section and is duplicated here. please undo that if you think it was inappropriate

  My suggestion was that the intention of HAT is to refactor text; I'm not overly concerned with the literal reading of the refactoring page but rather with the goal it is trying to achieve. (I just noticed the page still isn't at guideline level - have to start an RfC on that: I'll update the page while I'm at it, just to be clear). And yes, I know that part of the political problem with this template it that people like Hrafn have explicitly argued that it is not covered by wp:refactor (see the first line of the top section of this page here) in order to have greater latitude in hiding text they dislike on talk pages. I'f you'd care to debate the issue, we can, but it seems like a no-brainer to me: rendering text unreadable is refactoring, and setting it to 'display:none;' inside a table cell is rendering it unreadable. I don't object to refactoring text as a rule, obviously, but it is a fairly drama-prone interpersonal act that should be approached with circumspection. --Ludwigs2 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  So the best way forward is to massage WP:REFACTOR until it clearly describes the {{hat}} / {{archive top}}) practice as it is used today. –xeno^talk 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  well, I boldly went and made some expansive revisions over at refactor, and started and RfC on guidelining it. take a look, and let's talk about how best to massage it - and please, no 'happy ending' jokes. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  It is its use this template to end a discussion when there is not consent to end a discussion that I object to. If an editor does not wish to continue with a discussion they are free to stop and to suggest to everyone else that they stop. But using this template aggressively is counter productive as it does not help build a consensus. I am sure that all three of us have been around long enough to see long rambling posts from some editor/troll who fills up talk pages with repeated posts. But this type of template does not stop such behaviour, and archiving a section after a time is usually a better way to deal with such postings. There should be a blanket rule that if an editor alters the appearance of another editors posting to a talk page and that editor reverses it then that should be an end to it. It is stupid to edit war over talk page content. I inserted that rule into the refactoring page some years ago and AFAICT it stopped that sort of edit warring over refactoring completely. I think that the aggressive use of this template is detrimental to the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with you that this template should not be used by any of the impassioned parties in the thread (excepting perhaps those who were there only as disinterested mediators). However, this template is also used by uninvolved administrators at WP:ANI and the like, quite often, to end conversations that have degenerated into mere sniping back and forth among the participants.

  I understand that this template is used inappropriately at times. Do you understand that it is used appropriately at times? Working together to delineate appropriate usage should be our goal here. –xeno^talk 13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yes/No. I am not convinced that this template helps in such circumstances and if it does then the reversal of its use would fall under administrative sanctions like disruption. But its use normally should not be be re-applied if editors reverse its usage. If you really think it useful for pages like ANI -- I would have thought {{archive top}} more useful because it does not hide content from searches -- then I suggest that we modify it so that it can not be used on talk pages and keep {{collapse top}} with a strong comment not to use it if any editor object to its use, for use on talk pages. --PBS (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  well, like any other tool, if it is used in a way that makes things better, it's a good thing, but if it's used in a way that inflames tempers it's a bad thing. My problem with HAT is that - granting the usefulness of the idea - this tempalte is constructed (and habitually used by some editors) in such a way that it is perceived as a snub. There is no surer way to make a talk page worse than to take something an already hot-under-the-collar editor wrote and hide it away with an officious-sounding warning about not editing further. HAT is an excellent tool for spawning edit wars on talk pages, if that's the goal your after, but aside from that it doesn't have any advantages over COT. --Ludwigs2 15:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that if someone unhats a thread, the same editor who originally hatted it should generally not edit war to re-hat it. –xeno^talk 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  What do you think of the idea of modifying this template so it will not work on talk pages so that its use can be restricted to pages like ANI? -- PBS (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm still concerned about existing uses which will need some default text. What about making the default verbiage in ns:1 something like "This discussion has been collapsed."? (with no byline) (with parameters to allow the original usage) –xeno^talk 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

<--I've been looking through mediawiki: Help:Magic words and as a template does not hold state, unless we are willing to go through all of the previous usages, so yes I like what I think is your idea, but perhaps we can simplify it by calling {{collapse top}} if {{Hidden archive top}} is called from a talk page, but not if it is called from a Wikipedia project page? -- PBS (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I still say it would be much simpler to have a single template with a parameter that determines appearance. you guys are talking about going to extreme programming lengths to maintain a template name. not a function, or a purpose, but a 'name'. --Ludwigs2 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the main point of contention is the word "archive" in this template's name, let's move it to {{hat}} and leave a redirect behind. Everyone calls it by using {{hat}} anyway.

Unless we pass the parameters, that still breaks existing uses. And I think it would be somewhat confusing to have this template turn green in talk space but brown everywhere else. The RFCtag above seems to have all the attractive qualities of a common ground slug; perhaps TFD might be a better place to get opinions from other than the three of us. –xeno^talk 16:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

that is a non-issue: this template never appears in article space, anything that gets broken is easy to fix with AWB, and editors will adapt to any temporary inconvenience.

the RfC is only a few days old, but Im beginning to think (from some of your comments) that maybe what we need is a discussion over on Pump (policy) about the use of collapsing as a tool more generally. what do you say we cancel the RfC, and start up a free-for-all pump debate about when, where, how, why, and etc. collapsing should be used as a tool to control discussions? we can throw in the merger idea as a side topic and see what comes of it. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, if you think it'll get more people to chime in. –xeno^talk 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

opened at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#collapsing_discussion_text. I hope I put it in a nice neutral manner. if not, let me know or add clarifying comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No one other than us seems to care - leading me to believe that the status quo is working fine. If you disagree, let's go to TFD. –xeno^talk 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the status quo is not working fine, for two reasons. Wording that includes archiving is not appropriate for a process that does not archive and the template is used to abuse. There is also a valid programmers argument that duplicated code is a undesirable as it leads to twice the maintenance load and potentially doubles the number of bugs.-- PBS (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already above countered your argument that this template "does not archive". It does. For clarify, I have changed the word "archived" to "closed" [1]. The template being "abused" is a user-conduct issue. I have updated the documentation to reflect that it should not be used by involved parties [2]. This is a simple template with minimal maintenance load and there is little chance of a bug. See also Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. –xeno^talk 23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PBS. This template needs better wording - it does not "archive" in the way that most people understand archiving. I also think there should be a parameter which says who hatted the discussion, so that the name of the editor doing the hatting is displayed along with the notice. Wikipedia is the only place that I know of that allows one editor to just remove another editor's comments on whim from a discussion. stmrlbs|talk 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I still find this argument uncompelling - people understand the template just fine. The discussion should not be modified or continued, but is left on the page in a solid-state form (in a sense - archived) for posterity. I've changed it to say "closed" [3].

Including the user who hatted the template is only possible with subst'ing or user input - this template is usually transcluded. –xeno^talk 23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

you might not find the argument compelling, but evidently others do find the term "archiving" for hiding a conversation misleading. Closed is better - but still not really describing what this template does. "This template has been closed" makes it sound like a group decision based on consensus, when in most cases, it is an action taken by one editor, usually without discussion. It should indicate who closed the discussion - perhaps displaying "this discussion has been closed by xxxx". And yes, I realize that the Wikipedia template language does not have an "editor variable", but there is no reason this can't be something put in as a parameter by the hatting editor or another editor. stmrlbs|talk 00:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done [4] –xeno^talk 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno. :) stmrlbs|talk 01:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be expanded when page is archived

I see no reason that the collapsing should remain after the page has been archived, such as seen at Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1. Could this be expanded again somehow, without losing the initial text box? __meco (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that changing the behaviour in non-intuitive ways is a good idea; but I think that some kind of custom css or js could be devised if you wanted to do this personally. I know there is a very simple .css hack that will always expand these things. –xeno^talk 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is the searchability of archived discussion pages. __meco (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggestion at the bottom of Template talk:Hidden archive top#Search problem with hatting is probably the best bet. Requested here. –xeno^talk 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Solution at Wikipedia:Expand Hidden Templates. For a CSS hack, the following should do it:

.collapsed tr:nth-child(3) { display: block; }

Gary King (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not the type of solution I'm looking for. I want collapsed sections to be ubiquitously expanded when archived. __meco (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

nominated for deletion

{{editprotected}} I nominated this for deletion, based on discussion here and my own observations of abuse, Please link to the deletion discussion on the template page, I can't as it's protected Triona (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, open one day, closed the next. Not enough time for anyone but the regulars who check Wikipedia several times a day to comment. stmrlbs|talk 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bit skanky, that. even I missed it, and I check the RSS fairly frequently. should we try again? --Ludwigs2 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the AfD closure notice on this page, since the discussion period was far too brief (less than 24 hr). Please note that if anyone tries to reassert the notice, I will seek clarification at VP (policy) about the minimum time needed for a valid review and debate period. We do not (per wp:BEANS) want to give the impression that AfD's can be won by quickly stuffing the ballot-box and declaring an early victory. That kind of example would prove disastrous. --Ludwigs2 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is over, so what sense does it make to remove the pointer? Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome (or the process) shouldn't impact a purely navigational template. You guys can send it to DRV if you really felt the discussion was flawed. My suspicion is that a DRV will overturn the decision and relist the template and a second deletion discussion will play out in a similar manner as the first (abeit with a longer timeline). But the choice is yours. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, I use this template all the time myself, but I understand (and sympathize) with those people who dislike it. I wouldn't mind seeing it go, but I don't really have an opinion on it either way. I just don't want to see this sub-optimal discussion used to claim that this template has already survived an AfD, because the whole procedure looks (as I said) tres skanky for a template that we all know is contentious. If Triona or stmrllbs wants to open a new AfD, let's all chill back and take the time for a proper discussion. okie dokie? --Ludwigs2 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats a decision better left to future visitors of this talk page. The TfD happened and hasn't been overturned, so people should be given a convenience link to the discussion in order to judge for themselves how well or poorlythe debate progressed. Besides, there isn't a greater precedent value if the debate is linked on the talk page. If you really think the debate was so foreshortened as to be inappropriate, you need to go to DRV. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the link but clarified the discussion ran for ~17 hours. –xeno^talk 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

works for me. if the issue comes up in the future, we can dismiss this AfD as meaningless then. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken, or...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeSperrazza&oldid=405742860#Thanks_for_tiger_balm

I can't tell if this template is just broken or something else odd is going on at that page. The section after the {{hat}}'d section is being included in the collapsed area, which seems wrong. FYI FWIW :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs an indentation parameter

This template should have a parameter for indentation, taking a numerical value, akin to the {{Outdent}} template. When a minor part of a thread is hidden, such as at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Influence of Wikipedia section. If this isn't implemented there will remain a greater risk that discussions aren't perceived as flowing across the hidden portion, with the increased risk of people making non-standard formatting tweaks to ensure readers' attention. __meco (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Font size

If I expand a hatted section, then the previously-hidden text is shown at less than 100% of the default font size. Why? I've explicitly chosen to see it, so I want it a size that's comfortable to read. Can we fix this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 25 July 2014

The #Font_size problem mentioned above is due to class=Navbox in the template, which includes a font-size:88% assignment. (10-point becomes barely readable 8-point) The fix is to cancel that class parameter by adding font-size:100% to the style following the class.

Another thing included in class=navbox is text-align:center, which was counter-acted by a text-align:left style on the 1st line, which made it necessary to add text-align:center to the 3rd and 5th lines. The left-align is not needed until the end, so the fix is to move it to the end and eliminate the 2 text-align:center assignments.

A third thing lacking from the template is background color for the archived text to provide a visual clue for readers scrolling up from below that they have entered an uncollapsed archive section. The fix is to add a lighter version of the archive top color to the main text area.

All these changes have been made in the template sandbox version and are ready to be copied into the template to replace the present version. See also testcases for comparison and Old vs. New diff.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  08:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hatting should be used if and only if the section does not WP:FOC

I am dismayed by the usual (yet reasonable) practice that when administrator comes in and resolve a problem, the discussion is hatted in a way that it makes the talk looks less painful, but we forget that it also makes the resolution less obvious. The decision maybe correct at times, for example, a troll jumps in a random talk page and talk things that does not focus on content, then it is ok for admin or editor to hat the discussion. But, if the troll comes and talks "nonsense" or made suggestion that is "disruptive", as long as it does focus on content, the discussion, even if closed or resolved, should not be hatted, because the resolution should be arguably more obvious than the others so we(random editors, readers..) can judge, the usual practice is very contrary to the open collaboration that I expected. Thanks --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I will give it a week from now, and proceed if there is no disagreement or whatsoever. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with what? You haven't explained what change you are proposing. In any case, I don't think this is the appropriate place to have this discussion. Very few people will be watching this page, and template documentation is neither policy nor a guideline. You would probably do better to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines - though personally, I don't see what the problem is. Neither 'nonsense' nor 'disruption' can be on-topic, by definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with what? You haven't explained what change you are proposing.

Is the title missing or you can't read the title? It is funny that you asked. For changes, we will see or you can revert it, or we can discuss now, or I can propose one, or maybe you can propose one too! There is no need to be defective.

Very few people will be watching this page, and template documentation is neither policy nor a guideline.

Maybe, that's very relevant to the discussion.

Neither 'nonsense' nor 'disruption' can be on-topic, by definition.

It subjects to the editors.. notice that you used the quotes just as I did as well :) --14.198.220.253 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• If off-topic content (or whatever the appropriate term for the case might be--"ranting", often) is hatted, then typically there is no "resolution" that needs explaining. The hatting is the solution. RfCs and disputes are typically handled differently, with the "Template:Archive top" gadget or something similar. So, I don't see a problem for which a solution is proposed. Don't know if that makes me defective. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the tone but your comment I think is constructive.

"If off-topic content (or whatever the appropriate term for the case might be--"ranting", often) is hatted, then typically there is no "resolution" that needs explaining. The hatting is the solution."

That's correct.

"RfCs and disputes are typically handled differently, with the "Template:Archive top" gadget or something similar."

It is probably the current state. To clarify, or again as the title said, the suggestion is (loosely) that given the talk which does FOC, RfCs and disputes should not be hatted i.e. no need to handle differently. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevant RfD

Relisted Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#Template:Cop

An RfD is being held that may affect templates similar to this one (which uses {{hat}}): See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15#Template:Cop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Do not include main section headers: including main headers will disrupt archiving bots."

Template:Archive top has the following instruction:

"Do not include main section headers: including main headers will disrupt archiving bots."

Should this template also have that instruction? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)