Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1732320-20160627020859/@comment-732150-20160627185711

Sajuuk, there's no such thing as an archiving policy. Archiving is only mentioned in the talk page policy, mentioning old and big, both of which you sometimes ignore.

For example, a while back you archived an admittedly enormous portion of Hagoromo's talk page, stuff about him having or not having Byakugan if I recall, but the discussions was still extremely fresh. Yes, archiving talkpages just for the sake of it is pointless. Having several small archives creates pointless fragmentation of previous discussions, making it that harder to find when necessary.

For example, if we simply archived stuff as soon as it became old, no matter the size, Asura's talk page would have a lot more than three archives (check the time jumps in the signatures of the last comments in each section of the first archive), meaning questions like the recent "Why do we call him Asura instead of Ashura?" would requiring going through many more potential pages to find an answer. Not archiving smaller talk pages also means questions like that are less likely to be asked, as the answer will be right there at the talk page instead of archived.

The fact is, talk pages are still the place to go for having discussions about stuff that affects article content. Having smaller stuff, even if old, readily available in the talk page right then and there when checking makes it easier to discover relevant discussions instead of digging through archives, the likelihood of them being required is besides the point. It's highly likely that I'll go around undoing and tinkering some of those article talk page archives.

And last but not least, I did mention that I was going to bring this up in your talk page. In fact, I was making the topic in your talk page to ask you about this when this thread came up, so I transplanted what I was writing there here, keep the topic in one place.