This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Conclusions written, Radiant_* 10:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think the conclusions are acceptable. The main point is that there no longer is any general consensus to delete schools like there was a few months ago. With every single school vfd ending with a keep, or at least "no consensus", it should be obvious that nominating a school article for deletion will be fruitless, like it or not. Sjakkalle 11:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can say I don't like them, but I will follow the consensus. Much work has been put by many people on these guidelines, so this deserves my utmost respect and admiration. Sarg 19:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with the summary. In particular:
I think the summary doesn't really summarise anything that can be described as a consensus.
I have tolerated, and not objected to, Radiant's attempts to halt discussions of VfDs, mainly because they seemd to be doomed to failure as everyone was (rightly in my opinion) ignoring them. This should not be interpreted as agreement that this is the correct course of action, or even a particularly morally defensible one. I don't think it's right to try to halt discussion and if I thought it had a chance of succeeding I would object strongly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The compromise suggested on this project page is agreeable to me; granted, I have problems with some parts, but I feel that, if these suggestions are followed, no verifiable schools will have their information delted from Wikipedia and every secondary school has a chance to have its own article, with a little work.
I don't, however, plan to stop voting on school articles. If someone is foolish enough to VfD a verifiable article on a school rather than add to it or merge, then the VfD is going to be flooded with votes. I don't want to take the chance of the article being deleted because I didn't vote.
Good job on the compromise. Cheers--BaronLarf 15:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I just saw this page and thought to myself, wow, this page is amazing, considering everything that has happened in the past on these matters. I just want to say well done to everyone who contributed, and thank you. smoddy 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've put the notpolicy header on this, since there has been no formal vote of consensus on this supposed policy. RickK 19:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
If a lot of people agree to it and follow it, it'll be a guideline. We don't need a vote. I suggest we treat it as a guideline, and people who disagree with bits can discuss, edit, etc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are a large number of people who object to this "guideline" in toto. Let's have a vote. RickK 20:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if there were many objectors. We've been discussing this for weeks. A vote? No thanks. Very unwikilike. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So instead, we get the people who place schools on VfD being pointed to this page as if it were policy, and that doesn't solve the problem. There are lots of people who don't think that non-notable schools should have articles, and others who think that every single school in the world is notable, this doesn't solve that dichotomy. Just trying to claim that this page somehow solves the problem does not solve it. RickK 22:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with people calling it whatever they want. It's obviously a de facto guideline because a lot of people are now following it, but I'm not hung up on the word guideline, which is in the end just a name. Advice, suggestions, call it whatever you want. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tony, you said that as more people cite this page it becomes a guideline. My comment was, how do we make it NOT a guideline, since it's not proven that there is consensus to use it as a guideline. If there isn't a vote on the matter, how do those of us who disagree with it make our objections known, if it's given to us as a fait accompli that we have to live with this? Baronlarf calls this a "compromise", but what's the compromise? Those of us who don't think that every single school that ever existed is notable, have just been shouted down, and our objections ignored. RickK 04:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Although I agree with the compromise, I don't like calling it a guideline, either. A "guideline" draws a clear line even by it's very name. These are suggestions to avoid conflict. That's what the discussion was centered on, and they seem to be gaining some real traction in that use. Calling them "guidelines" or "semi-policy" or "proposed policy" won't help that goal. Regarding the merges, remember that someone has to do the actual work to accomplish this. Just do it and refer to this compromise and see if that's enough to defuse any tension. (Unfortunately, that means the person who wants to merge is usually going to have to research and create an article on a school district each time.) If refering to these suggestions isn't enough to defuse tension, we still have the ability to discuss things on a case by case basis. --Unfocused 05:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm seeing a few partial merges, and even one or two redirects without any attempt at merge. Those will either be reverted or properly merged by me, according to how much time I have to spare when I spot them. Usually they come through in batches so I just revert unless a clear good-faith attempt has been made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To answer RickK's question, which I still am not sure I fully understand: if you don't agree with a guideline, don't cite it. It's just a record of best practise based on experience, and not policy. The fewer people who cite WP:SCH, the less firm a guideline it is.
On the distinction between a guideline and a "suggestion to avoid conflict", I don't see one. People should feel free to call it whatever they like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Policy described guidelines as "informal rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". I think this applies here. I'll restore it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh more like 80%. Feel free to edit it some more until you agree with it. I'm far from convinced that these suggestions do not command a thumping great, convincing consensus. They're just really observations of what we all know--that Wikipedia has shown itself historically to be extremely reluctant to delete schools but we can all live with the principle of merging stubs of negligible content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
if you don't agree with a guideline, don't cite it. So then, every time I see somebody cite it as if it were chiseled in stone on Mount Sinai, I should say, "This is not policy nor has it been proven to be consensus"? RickK 66.60.159.190 16:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Descriptions of this as a compromise are completely inaccurate. The total sum of the "compromise" made by school inclusionists is that they might follow WP policy and allow stubs to be merged. For those who feel that school subjects should be notable for inclusion as is required for nearly any other subject matter, what is required is nothing less than total surrender.
I think there are a significant number of wikipedians who are willing to avoid putting schools on VfD because they recognize the reality that in the current political environment, any verifiable school stub will be kept. This is a pragmatic view, not a philosophical one. I think that many of those same people would also be unwilling to agree to the principle that all schools are encyclopedically notable. This battle has been fought and will continue to be fought for a while over things such as masts, fancruft, blogs, etc. Taking an empirical view, I think the general trend has been towards greater inclusionism. I am very glad that WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:FICT were not decided today or I suspect that WP would be home for a lot more vanity. It seems to me that WP:FICT is already under seige.
Looking at Radiant!'s writeup, I think my only mojor concern is with the Notability section. I will consider how that might be edited to acknowledge the views of those who feel that schools do not deserve a blanket exemption from encyclopedic notability requirements. Others may object to other parts of the writeup.
There is another issue with the wording that points out the problem in saying that this is a consensus view. The 6th Rule of Thumb says we should all agree to disagree. I agree with that, but agree to disagree isn't language that sounds like it supports the consensus required to call this a guideline. That's why I think calling these suggestions is the most accurate description. Quale 16:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree to go along with Quale and Unfocused to agree to disagree, only so long as the inclusionists quit pointing to this page as if it were policy. So long as they continue to do so, I will continue to reject any such terminology or any terminology similar to that. I still think the notpolicy header should be on the article. RickK 66.60.159.190 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's claiming that this is policy. It's a guideline, a set of suggestions that there is wide agreement on and that have been found to be useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tony, I find your repeated tagging of these suggestions as a guideline to be obnoxious. I suspect that people tire of reminding you that you do not speak for all of wikipedia. If you want to persist, I ask that you call a vote. If your perception of widespread agreement is correct, the vote will pass and you will have what you want. Otherwise leave it as a proposal. Thank you. Quale 08:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I've had my last go and honestly I don't think it matters whether it's tagged or not. This page is obviously a guideline and is being widely used as such, but those who want to call it something else are welcome to do so. I'm not going to get into a sterile debate about it; in time it will be universally recognised as a guideline and I see no sense in hurrying along a process which is happening at its own pace. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So you came to this beneficence only after tagging it as a guideline 3 times, each time being told that it was inappropriate? That's not really what I would expect from someone who thinks it doesn't matter. Early in the discussion, before you first tagged it as a guideline, Radiance!, who wrote the summary, clearly stated that it was not and was not intended to be a guideline or policy. You flat out said that it is a guideline because you think there's consensus, and you repeated this over and over without any evidence at all. This is disputed by me and RickK, and that lead Unfocused to conclude that consensus is doubtful or at least uncertain. You continue to say it's a guideline, but as far as I can see on this talk page, you're the only one doing so and four wikipedians have registered the opposite view. If you were ever accused of arrogant disregard of opinions you don't agree with, this sort of behavior might be a clue why. Quale 07:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still do believe that it's a guideline but I dont have a problem with those who deny that it is. I'm happy to call it a whatever-it-is. The word used doesn't matter, the nature of the article is self-evident. We all know what it is. It's a whatever-it-is, which is widely cited and followed (perforce) as a result of the experience of seventy straight failed nominations for deletion of school articles in a row over the space of six weeks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I must also take issue with your claim that I've claimed that there's consensus in the absence of evidence. There is clearly a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Call the vote and put your money where your mouth is. I see no such evidence, and if you're so confident, you know how to prove it and end any questions. Quale 02:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The consensus has been established overwhelmingly by vote. Out of 75 deletion listings of school articles in May, 65 have been closed with a "keep" result so far, some of them by an overwhelming "keep" vote, which is very unusual on VfD. None of the school articles listed for deletion in May were deleted and the 7 discussions that are still awaiting closure all seem to be running overwhelming "keep" votes. Of the other three articles listed, two were withdrawn by the nominator and one, a school playing field, was turned into a merge & redirect.
In April, only 2 school articles were deleted out of 20 nominated for deletion. In March, only 6 out of 29 and in February only 12 out of 35.
This article simply reflects the facts on the ground. People contemplating listing school articles for deletion should be aware of the consensus on VfD and the relatively painless alternatives, and people making school articles should be aware of the most successful strategy for creating school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I class an "overwhelming keep vote" as one where the votes to keep exceed those to delete. The consensus is established by what Wikipedia will and won't do. The consensus at present is that Wikipedia won't delete school articles unless they're considered to be utterly beyond hope. No school article since April 22 has been considered to be that far gone, and only two school articles (out of 20 listed) were deleted in April.
I could go into detail, but the current prognosis for a school deletion listing is that it has an at least evens chance of keep votes exceeding deletes.
I have no idea what the term "calling you out" means.
If you claim that "articles aren't being closed with a keep result", I suggest that you visit the following article where I have catalogued all school VfDs going back to late January, recording the result in the closer's own words. If the closer said "no consensus" the words no consensus will appear. If he uses the word "keep", that appears there. If he uses the word "kept", that appears there. You will note that the words "no consensus" appear only twice in May, and six times in April. The word "keep" appears innumerable times.
This is not an argument about semantics so I accept your argument on consensus--there is no overwhelming consensus to keep individual articles. But at best that is an argument that only has partial relevance. In practice the consensus on Wikipedia is that we'll not delete without a rough consensus to delete. There are two consensuses there. By accepting the first consensus we arrive at the consensual result that school articles are virtually undeletable.
This is the reality. School articles are so difficult to delete that it's hardly worth bothering. This document simply signposts what should be done about school articles. No need for discussion, just merge. This has long been part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. It's just time we paid more attention to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You write: You're saying that 50% + 1 vote is "overwhelming"?
Yes, and thumpingly so. To delete, a rough consensus is required. Where most people vote to keep, this is an overwhelming rejection of the proposal to delete the article.
You write, how could that possibly lead anyone to conclude that there's a consensus that Radiant!'s suggestions are a Wikipedia guideline?
Now looking at your wording. You present a subtle change in argument. Supposedly I'm saying: "there's a consensus that Radiant!'s suggestions are a Wikipedia guideline". This is not my claim. It is my claim that WP:SCH (which you erroneously describe as "Radiant!'s suggestions") "illustrates standards or behaviors which many editors agree with in principle and generally follow." I quote from Template:Guideline. Note that some guidelines are considered controversial, for instance Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about. I consider that WP:SCH enjoys extremely wide support, and probably a consensus. By all Wikipedia standards, it is a guideline. However I'm not hung up on use of that word and we'll call it whatever you like. A rose smells just as sweet by another name.
It's pretty hard to argue with WP:SCH, when only two schools out of 20 listed were deleted in April and no schools out of 75 listed were deleted in May (the 5 pending discussions will clearly not close with delete). You yourself say you won't be listing schools for deletion and will "urge others to avoid making those nominations". In other words, you support WP:SCH even while you claim that you do not.
On your continued misrepresentation of the nature of WP:SCH, I would like to remind you that it's merely a summary of the results of a discussion that took place over two weeks involving separate proposals by at least ten different participants. You yourself participated in the discussion, repeatedly expressing the opinion (which enjoyed wide support) that a merge proposal was the only hope for agreement. Now you have the merge proposal and you claim you don't support it while simultaneously claiming that you do.
You write: VfDs don't have to be closed with "no consensus", so some admins use it, many don't. That doesn't make every article on VfD that is kept a consensus to keep. Absolutely. But this isn't what you said. You said that "articles aren't being closed with a keep result". I showed that an overwhelming majority are. The closers use those precise words "keep" or kept" in nearly every single case.
Again you use this odd and puzzling term "I call you out". What on earth does it mean? That you disagree with me? This is obvious, but why use this obscure and arcane language? Of course we disagree with one another. This is permitted, there's nothing wrong with it and we don't have to grope for our thesaurus when this happens.
You write: you admit that there is no overwhelming consensus to keep school articles
Clearly this is incorrect. 95 schools listed for deletion in April and May. Only 2 deleted. That's an utterly overwhelming consensus to keep school articles.
You write: I will not be pleased if school inclusionists try to dictate WP policy.
I agree with you absolutely on this.
You write: the requirement for consensus that makes it hard to create guidelines might be awkward for you if you actually felt the need to apply the same consensus standard to conclude that WP:SCH is accepted as a guideline.
We already have consensus. We have a consensus that articles are not to be deleted unless they raise a rough consensus to delete. The result of some 95 listings for deletion in April and May is that schools are deletable only in exceedingly rare cases (2 out of 90 closed discussions so far, headed for 2 out of 95).
You seem to be saying that somehow WP:SCH is some shopping list flung together and imposed in the absence of consensus. I believe this is absolutely unsustainable. You present no credible evidence, only an argument based on what looks like vote lawyering, in the teeth of overwhelming statistical evidence that shows that WP:SCH accurately represents best practise, and in spite of your own agreement that school deletions are a lost cause and your personal commitment to urge others to refrain from listing schools for deletion.
I removed a phrase from your edit that seemed to suggest in extremely strong terms that I was being dishonest. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone works on Kadoori Agricultural High School someone will put it on VfD. If you look at the article you will see why it really needs help. It is so bad that I have no idea where to merge it! Vegaswikian 23:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why does it need work more than any other? Yitzhak Rabin is an alumnus, it's the undeletable stub, if that claim is verifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is this being discussed here? This is not the "let's make sure that all school articles pass VfD" page. RickK 00:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, of course that is precisely the purpose of the page--to ensure that such school articles as are made on Wikipedia are of sufficient quality as to not require deletion in the consensus opinion of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I did make some regrettable statements expressing my extreme bemusement at the continued nominations, which I have come to regard as doomed. Although this was based on firm evidence, some of my comments were not helpful and only served to raise the emotional temperature. I have withdrawn them and apologised.
On the idea that I have hijacked this article and turned it into a "Let's make sure every school that has ever existed have an article" page, clearly that's incorrect because if I believed this and acted on it then I'd delete the suggestions on merging. I am not so radical a mergist as Radiant!, but I am a member of that group and would far rather see a few redirects to one substantial article on a school district than a bunch of withered stubs and not article on the district. Of course I do still observe that successful deletions of school articles are becoming rarer than hen's teeth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zen Master inserted a ((proposed)) template with the edit summary "this can't be anything more than a {proposed} policy without a vote, can it?".
Well obviously a policy can (and many of our policies did) emerge without a vote, but that misses the point by a mile. I've heard nobody suggest that this should be a policy. It isn't policy material.
Also it isn't really a proposed whatever-it-is. It's just whatever-it-is. A summary of a discussion we had over a couple of weeks. There is broad and very widespread agreement over the summary. It is cited a lot as jolly good advice. Please let's not pretend that it's a proposal, it's just a summary. I'd call it a guideline but understand that this may upset some people so I'll say it's a whatever-it-is and lots of people think it contains some jolly good ideas. It isn't a proposal and it isn't intended to have any teeth. The advice it contains is supposed to be self-evidently good advice, born or experience, and I think it does a very good job of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I dunno. I thought I'd start out with thingumajig for work my way up. ;)
Seriously, there are a lot of raw nerves around, and saying that this is a proposed anything would only upset people. It isn't policy, it isn't anything frightening, it has no teeth, it's just a bunch of what a lot of people agree are jolly good ideas. So I'd like to lay off the templates and see if this whatever-it-is remains popular and widely cited and followed. If it is, it really doesn't matter what it's called, it'll have proven useful. If it isn't well it's best forgotten. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's change it from "Do not nominate schools for deletion" to "think twice before nominating schools..." That should be easier for everyone to live with, and feel less oppressive to school deletionists. Kappa 23:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer if this page stayed neutral in the debate between 'all stubs will organically grow' and 'stubs are not helpful'. Neither has been empirically proven, so I see no reason why NPOV shouldn't apply here, thus imho we should avoid terms like 'most', 'every' or 'rarely' related to either group. Radiant_* 12:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well none of the edits on this page have come close to saying that all stubs will organically grow, but I think the presumption that they're useless flies in the face of the facts. The current version gives some random articles that I selected using WikiWax. Well over half the articles I found had grown substantially from very short stubs. The reason many short stubs appear on VfD is that they're nominated for deletion very early in their lives, usually within a few weeks and sometimes within the first day. Significant organic growth in general takes place on timescales of months, six months being a typical period from initial creation. Often school articles are listed for deletion long before this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a strong minority against stubs, which doesn't bother me much because if someone VfDs a stub it just gets a quickie expansion and is usually kept anyway. Recommending larger articles earlier is not something I'm wildly enthusiastic about--it's a Wiki, we should use bluelink placeholders in preference to redlinks because then we can spot and correct namespace collisions quicker. I can live with it though as the final effect is not significantly differen. Stub articles capable of quick expansion still won't get deleted, stubs not VfD'd will still grow organically and soon there will be so many school articles that the rate of creation will exceed the rate at which they can reasonably be listed on VfD. In fact I suspect this point has already been reached. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My ideal article on a British school tells me where it's located, what kind of school it is, the name of the local education authority, where the latest inspection report is, and possibly the school website's URL. Some editors might regard that as stubby--some might even regard it as inadequate--but this information alone would permit me to find more about the school quickly.
A few of us have worked on the school districts system for the United States in an organized, hierarchical way because that's a particularly effective way to start improving school articles. Information can be placed at a level in the hierarchy that is comfortable for the consensus, and calls for outright deletion are unlikely to prevail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I quite like seeing school articles with worthwhile information in. However, I believe when Jimbo OK'd school articles in principle, he did mention as long as they're not mass-inserting a ton of one line stubs. [1] . Well, there seems to be a ton of one line stubs on schools being mass-inserted at the moment, and every one is put up for VfD by the same people (today it's been Dunc-something or other), then the same people vote to 'keep' every time, (Tony Sidaway, Kappa et al). And most of the time, these articles remain as stubs (or merely have a template added; this in itself does not stop them being a stub).
I'm not sure if this is the right place for a proposal (please, if it's not, someone feel free to transpose it), but perhaps there needs to be some sort of intermediate 'expand this school article' flag on articles such as school stubs, and if they're not expanded beyond one line spammy stubs (as 90% of them remain) within 7 days, they then get deleted? Proto 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence for the mass insertion of stubs. I'm not seeing that. Although we're getting mass nominations of school articles for deletion (Neutrality accounted for the vast bulk of all nominations for May in a three-day binge) the articles themselves, where stubs, are not all by the same author. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also this whole "expand in seven days or else" attitude is nonsense. Significant organic growth can typically take six months. We can afford to give articles decades to mature. When people say "these article remain as stubs" they're talking about articles that don't get edited for a month or so. That's utterly unrealistic. Examining older school articles shows that they do indeed grow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is just Radiant's attempt to make his point of view authoritative. There is no consensus that merging is a good idea. It is Radiant's personal hobbyhorse. It is not the option that is chosen in votes for deletion. CalJW 05:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not simply Radiant's "personal hobbyhorse". I disagree with Radiant frequently, yet I chose to participate here during the earlier parts of the discussions. Several others, myself included, helped develop the current page in cooperation. Please join the conversation instead of attacking the results so far. Also, go ahead and edit the main article page. The results of our earlier discussion are valuable, but they're not sacred. Comment here on the talk page why, and accept that you'll be reverted or re-edited frequently on such a contentious issue. Let's all see everyone else's proposals. Most of all, maintain patience, good faith, and participate. If we do this, we'll find a way to get along, or at least continue in 'polite disagreement'. (It's much better than the alternatives.) --Unfocused 06:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How can this project improve the quality of wikipedia when some are not willing to work towards a consensus? Voting keep, on poor quality articles lowers the quality of the entire wikipedia project. Those votes are not harmless. If you care about this effort, then either vote to delete articles that basically say nothing after they have been around for 30 days. After all, no body cared enough to expand the nothingness that was there, so starting from scratch might be better.
I'll add that cleaning up is not easy. I worked on one article yesterday that wound up as a dba page and move, a major rewrite of another dab page, a major expansion of a school district article and some other work. While some here are trying to reach a consensus, others appear to be fighting it. We need to be a part of the solution and not the problem! Vegaswikian 18:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a load of garbage this page has turned into. Tony, it's pretty hard to assume good faith when you and your inclusionist cohorts are trying to hijack this page into a "how to keep all schoolcruft" and then keep trying to claim that the discussion is closed. RickK 06:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |