Is it sensible to just archive this page en masse? There's a lot of crap that I've been trying to move around, but it's difficult and it might be why this page loads slow on my browser. By the way, I like the new "+" feature for Project pages that are not a part of talk pages. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:29, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Simply archive by year as we do with most other pages that grow large? Many of the entries in here are onceoff questions that don't really need to be copied into a specific location. --Nick 02:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)
I was about to sweep the Pub, but it seems there are many good topics brought up which haven't received comment and/or 1-2 comments were made, but it doesn't appear that any action was taken. I realize that it might take a while, but would some of you mind reading through all the old posts in the Pub & adding your comments or doing something. I'd hate to see good ideas get thrown in the archive and forgotten. AHeneen 21:40, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
We've been sweeping a lot of discussions into the pub cellar in the past year or so. It's still much better if we could sweep them into appropriate article talk pages instead, since that makes them easier to find or discover, but I realize that can be an arduous task if the page starts growing very long.
But can we try and consolidate the archives? I think it's ok for them to be long, and right now there are so many different archive pages that it can be tough to find even the discussions that I remember well. --PeterTalk 22:41, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
No response in about a year, and I'll take that as meaning no one really cares, certainly not enough to object, so I'll plunge forward. I'll also try and sift out the useful discussions and sweep them where they'll be useful as I do this. --PeterTalk 14:42, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
Whew, sifting through all the 2009 archives was a lot of work, but I think it's worth it to preserve all those useful discussions by bringing them to the light of day that is relevant policy/article talk pages. Maybe I'll tackle 2008 next week! --PeterTalk 18:15, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
Nice job on a very mind-numbing task. I agree that it's much more valuable to have discussions on the appropriate talk page rather than a catch-all archive and definitely appreciate the effort. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:31, 2 May 2010 (EDT)
So, the TP has been getting kinda crowded and messy. I'd really appreciate if we could all make an effort to clean up a bit by moving discussions to places more appropriate or deleting discussions that have reached their conclusions. It's a tedious job, but like most, it's easier if we do it together. --Evan 16:44, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Ugh, this place is getting messy and this is the one page I hate to attempt to organize. Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
How do you sweep the pub? What are the rules? Anything older than a certain date? There is stuff on here that is many, many months old. Where would be a "place more appropriate" to move the discussions to? Kire1975 01:54, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, I am using the Safari browser, from Apple, on my Windows Vista computer. For some reason the scroll bar on the right side of my edit screen isn't working properly, so the only way to get way down to the bottom of the screen is to grab some text and pull my cursor down to the bottom of the page. It gets really awkward. Cleaning up the pub could help me out with this problem. thanks, Kire1975 02:14, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
One more thing, when I click 'save" on the edit page, it takes a while to processs. Kire1975 04:31, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
That's a good question! Our archiving explanation at the top of this page has become very convoluted—I'm honestly not sure how to sweep the pub anymore. Can anyone explain the revised process? --PeterTalk 00:18, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I nominate receveli's "request for help" below to be swept out of the pub. the problem is solved. how is it done? the shared wikitravel pages has a pub cellar. Should we create something like that? Kire1975 22:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I have got the broom out today and swept out some of the older stuff. Mostly into the archive pages but, where relevant, into Talk Pages for the destination under discussion. Where I've done the latter I have marked the discussion as "Swept in from the travellers pub" Tarr3n 07:44, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
I've been thinking about the TP. It's not very accessible to people not used to the world of Wiki's, or computers at all. Wouldn't a more streamlined, "message board-ish" look be better? A lot of people I've been talking to who are of the globetrotting type think that Wikitravel is a great thing (often compared to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but with a user friendliness that's next to nothing. Making the Traveller's Pup - the place where most people look first - more accessible could generate a higher accessibility to the rest of the site. Just my $0.02. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
Hmmm, fresh idea's is always appreciated, but since we're a wiki, to me at least, it seems pretty natural that our communal area should be wikified too. I don't think we should be trying to make a Thorn Tree here - it's too massive to compete with, and being active over there myself, I'd hate it if we tried - it's really great at what it does. But could you maybe try to specify your idea a bit? --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 20:29, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
By "more accessible" do you mean easier to use, or easier to find? I'd agree with Sertmann that I'd prefer to see it stay a Wiki page, by if you mean it's difficult to find (which I think is a fair argument) I think something could/should be done about that. PerryPlanetTalk 20:43, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
We should keep in mind that the Pub is primarily for contributors, not users of the site. Perhaps we need a more visible place where users can ask questions in a less-complex way. LtPowers 12:50, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
This pub thing has to be a message board. If anyone wants to talk about the use of the message board they can do so on the message board itself. Using a wiki for discussion about anything, including a wiki, leads to a page like this which is all about why the pub doesnt work. Google groups will do. mark_c_lester 10:45, 3 July 2011 (BST)
No one checks Google Groups, in my experience. I agree that a message board format would be nice, but it has to be on-wiki. LtPowers 09:47, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
There are a few things that get posted in the pub that are really requests for comment, like the star noms. We don't traditionally archive the requests for comment, but remove them when the discussion is resolved, or the event is over. Is it reasonable to just delete similar items in the pub when the required period for the notice has expired? --inas 01:04, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
There is precedent for this at Wikitravel talk:Requests for comment#Archives?. If there are no objections, I'll make a similar note here, that sections that are merely pointers to discussions occurring elsewhere can be removed after two months. --inas 23:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
I reverted the change that got rid of suggestions to sweep to user talk pages, and to delete announcements referring elsewhere. I use both of those, but as always I prepared to listen to arguments as to why they should remain in the broom cupboard. --inas 02:42, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Although I find sweeping to user pages for simple questions a good idea, I'm not sure it works for anons.
Take for example, this edit . I would normally just move that edit to the user's page. For an anon, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
So, the question arises, once we have made sure that the question is fully answered in the help files, should we just remove such a question after a reasonable period. I personally can't see the need to archive it. --inas 21:53, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
It's certainly not of any terrible importance, but we might as well sweep something like that to the pub cellar, I think. --PeterTalk 22:09, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
I agree; one never knows when it might come in handy. LtPowers 08:08, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
If you just throw every piece of junk in the cellar, thinking one day it may be useful, when you actually go looking for the useful tool in the cellar, you can't find it for the junk. Keeping an answer to a very simple question already fully addressed in our doco, just makes the place look messy. --inas 23:53, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Actually, I think the main purpose of the cellar is to have a place to toss junk. Useful discussions should be moved only to the appropriate talk pages. If you delete someone's question, they may wonder what happened to it in the future. Again, archiving these types of Q&As is a minor issue, but it seems OK to me to toss it in the cellar.
And re: finding useful discussions: it should be much easier as we consolidate the archives by year to just find what you are looking for via ctrl+f. --PeterTalk 16:59, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
Ah, sorry. It's obviously more complicated than I thought! I'll move that one for a start. --SaxonWarrior 15:24, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, please take a look over the "Please sweep the pub" section at the top of this page. When everything gets tossed in the cellar, useful stuff gets lost. I've been working on cleaning up the cellar, and that's a very lonely and demanding task that gets even more daunting when more stuff gets tossed down the stairs! ;) --PeterTalk 21:38, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
I know the pub gets overly long quickly, but I'm a little worried that some relevant discussions have wound up in the cellar a little too quickly (even though, at present, there is not a better talk page to put them on), e.g., notices and pointers regarding tech problems, proposed features, and answers to relatively common questions. People may forget what was said, and be a bit confused not to find the discussion there anymore, and lack the familiarity with our site to quickly find them swept off somewhere without a notice left. Also, new talk pages may emerge, especially for new "meta-issues," to which discussions may be "sweepable" in the future.
I am not proposing that we have a list of pointers to swept discussions—that would simply be too much to ask of our pub sweepers. I think we might benefit from having a specified amount of time that discussions should remain in the pub. A certain amount should be left up to janitor's discretion (for really basic detritus), but in general, two month old discussions should not be swept, I think. How about a "four month old+" sweeping rule? --PeterTalk 16:26, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, there is already a "3-month-old+" sweeping rule listed on the project page: "three months after the last comment in that discussion". That's what I was following yesterday. Are you saying that's too short then? texugo 17:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Oh, I haven't followed who was sweeping what. I just noticed discussions in the cellar started in March, which presumably shouldn't have been swept under the the "last comment" rule that I apparently never noticed (or don't remember authoring...). --PeterTalk 18:07, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
I think three months without a comment is too long and unless someone objects, I intend to change the two relevant phrases in the heading to these:
"Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it will get too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (ie dormant for a month or more) that could or should be moved to another page, please do so, and note there that it has been swept in from the pub."
"Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Wikitravel:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, leave it alone — it's better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place." --118dot93dot73dot30 23:47, 18 March 2013 (EDT)