Template talk:Archive request

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 22 § Template:Tpcleanup

I was BOLD, someone REVERTED, let's DISCUSS

Senator2029, why do you think that my change "broke" the auto-categorization? My change was intended to remove the categorization if |declined=yes. There is no reason for declined requests to archive need to be categorized in archival requests. I wouldn't be opposed to a Category:Declined archival requests or something of that sort in those cases. I wouldn't even be opposed to such a category being a sub-category of the main Category:Archive requests. What do you think of that? Technical 13 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't a request from folks to archive their talk page

I was just informed on my talk page that this template is used to request the owner of the talk page to archive it, and not a request to the readers of a talk page to archive it, at least when used on userpages. Can we add some wording to this template or the documentation for this template to clarify that somehow? Definitely don't want anyone else to make that mistake again. Zell Faze (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You should never modify (or archive) somebody else's user talk page, so I don't think that's necessary. I do, however, agree there are better templates to use for the purpose of communicating "your user talk page is getting long". This template remains excellent to use on non-personal talk pages, such as article talk pages. See my recent edits. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

75K

Let's modify the limits.

If the size is under 75K it is entirely okay per our own guideline. No need to say it's "long". It's 2020 now - 75K isn't anywhere near "long".

Whatchathink? CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Usage in user space

In the latter 2020 TfD there was a case made against using this template on user talk pages with {{Uw-archive}} or {{Please archive}} being more suitable. The requests for user pages also aren't actionable since that is the talk page owners choice. I therefore think it would be a good idea to remove them from the category through namespace detection. --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, CapnZapp, Gonnym, ProcrastinatingReader, and Sdkb: pings to TfD participants. --Trialpears (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sure. Surprised that the two user notices weren't sent to TfD as they are practically the same. --Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  Given the lack of opposition I've stopped categorization in user talk and non-talk pages. --Trialpears (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Template:Archiveme → Template:Archive request – The current title is suboptimal and at least should have a space, but really {{Archive request}} seems more suitable with it making the purpose more clear and doesn't anthropomorphize the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The title better describes it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – much clearer described purpose for the template with the rename. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

update

This template really needs an update.

Minimally, the documentation should no longer claim 75K is the limit of what the guidelines say - WP:TALKCOND/WP:TALKSIZE does not actually prescribe any specific size limit since March 2025 (discussion: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 17#Limit)

In addition to this, the various thresholds needs increasing in general.

CapnZapp (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on the above, as well as how Help:Archiving a talk page#Choosing a bot claims 512K is some threshold where larger pages "may cause accessibility problems for some devices", I have

• removed the 75K claim
• changed the threshold for the angry red border from 225K to 512K
• changed the threshold for the switch from "long" to "very long" from 150K to 225K

I'll update the documentation now (so if you revert or contest, please don't forget to synch the doc) CapnZapp (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• CapnZapp, added back in 2014; maybe times have changed? In any case, I see no consensus to increase the default threshold. As I've said before, I feel even 150k is too high. But we should also consider that the primary talk page has different needs from archives - it's much more useful to see fewer, more recent discussions on talk pages. Per BRD I've reverted your change. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Qwerfjkl, first off, "I see no consensus" is a weak argument. Your revert is what breaks consensus. Nobody else had said anything. Thus, it is a circular argument: "I'm reverting you because I'm reverting you". Do you see? For example, "I disagree" would be a much more direct and honest argument. Now the argument is no longer that you're reverting me out of the procedural grounds I haven't achieved consensus... which you're the one contesting. You linked to BRD yourself, you understand how things work. Now then, can I ask why and how you disagree? You seem to reference earlier discussions, maybe it's best to add a link to where you earlier said "even 150k is too high" so we can centralize and see which opinion carries the day? As a sidenote: I don't understand why you linked to that 2014 diff? What is the significance of that? As far as I can see you linked to an edit by an unrelated editor changing an example of how to set up automatic archiving. That's a help page, not a policy or guideline page - not even an essay. In short, it's not where anyone would look for prescriptive guidance. Also, relevant guidelines (WP:TALKCOND/WP:TALKSIZE) have changed in the meanwhile. I am genuinely curious; I might have missed something. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I though my disagreement was obvious; perhaps I could have conveyed that better, but that was why I reverted it. The previous discussion I'm referring to is Template talk:Setup auto archiving#Default archive size. The diff is when the phrase Each individual archive should not be larger than 512kB, because this may cause accessibility problems for some devices. was added to the page, because you referenced that in your second comment (so it is odd that you say it's not where anyone would look for prescriptive guidance); my point was that it was 11 years ago, and consensus can change, as you seem to say here. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I only saw the initial changes in the diff (changing the example from 100K to 400K), I didn't think to scroll down. But now I'm wondering. I don't disagree with Each individual archive should not be larger than 512kB, because this may cause accessibility problems for some devices. Why did you revert me if you too agree? I changed the threshold for making the template angry red to precisely this number because I think we should reserve angry red coloring for sizes that causes real problems, and I wanted to avoid the template giving off "HERE IS AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM" vibes just because someone's talk exceeds a moderate 225K. That felt much more appropriate as the "long"/"very long" cutoff. Remember, the original impetus for my update is that 75K no longer is part of any guidelines. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp, because 512k may cause problems, but it may also be the case that, say, 225k can cause problems. The real issue here is that it is not really possible to determine what issues other people potentially experience at various different sizes, and indeed, because of the variety in the different devices people use to view Wikipedia, I doubt there's any one size that causes a problem - moreso, as the size of the page increases, more and more people will experience issues viewing, editing the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. The guidance is Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. It appears you're arguing this template should adhere to the limits instituted over ten years ago, User:Qwerfjkl. (For context: In 2014, "long" changed to "very long" when > 75K. Also that year, the color became red when > 150K, and pages > 250K was placed in "admin backlog.") I have a hard time believing these (to me very small) page lengths can cause widespread issues in 2025. Also, remember the alternate approach (to placing this template), which is to... simply set up automatic archiving right away, or first post a non-template message suggesting the very same. Or, you know, one click archive (especially suitable for talk pages that grew in the past but no longer do so). To me, the main use of this template is for talk pages that a) aren't in the user talk space, b) have become very long, c) problematically so, and where d) you can't achieve easy consensus to simply get rid of the problem (by archiving). Activating angry red already at 225K feels entirely inappropriate in 2025, and to my mind should be reserved for only truly long talk pages causing actual reported problems. I used the only source of a related discussion when I updated this to 512K. And characterizing a 76K page "very" long feels entirely out of place today. Again, we used to prescribe archiving when length exceeded 75K, but you know what? We no longer do! With such small thresholds I would be embarrassed to use this, so I thought to improve Wikipedia by changing the limits to more reasonable numbers (for a template you place to indicate an issue you can't trivially solve by instead placing {{Setup auto archiving}} or somesuch). I guess your opposition will keep this template in the mid 2010s for another couple of years. Oh well. CapnZapp (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

CapnZapp, re "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections." It appears you're arguing this template should adhere to the limits instituted over ten years ago - neither of those have changed. Large talk pages can be difficult to read because of the volume of text to navigate, not because of technical limitations - similarly, even today many areas have very poor internet connection.
the main use of this template is for talk pages that a) aren't in the user talk space, b) have become very long, c) problematically so, and where d) you can't achieve easy consensus to simply get rid of the problem (by archiving) I agree with this (in fact it's probably the only reasonable use of the template), except of course that c) is subjective as discussed ad nauseam. Though maybe WP:Closure requests is a better place to ask people to close discussions?
we used to prescribe archiving when length exceeded 75K, but you know what? We no longer do! Only because we don't prescribe anything - the discussion that lead to the removal of that phrase didn't conclude on what size is too long.
In any case, I don't feel strongly enough about this, so feel free to reïmplement your changes if you must. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, noted. After ten days no further comments or objections have materialized, so I'm bringing back the new thresholds. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

recent RFC

A very open-ended question: should the following RFC impact this template?

RFC: Recommended maximum talk page size

CapnZapp (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)