Help talk:Archiving a talk page/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Recent edits

There is a slight dispute as to the helpfulness of certain recent additions to the help page.[1],[2],[3]

Any input to resolve the issue and determine or establish consensus would be greatly appreciated. Things should be resolved!

See also this talk page thread for further information. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto-archive-box code added to this talk page

I am adding now the auto-archive-box code to this talk page. Here is the code:

{{archive box|auto=yes}}

It really is easy to use, and therefore we should be setting an example here on the talk page. Since it is the talk page for the help page for archiving talk pages. --Timeshifter 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit awkward. You re-reverted to your changes at 06:44, 19 September 2007, and you posted here in this new section only after I had reverted, posted to your talk page and finally put the thread above on this talk page.

As posted above, I dispute the usefulness of your edits and would welcome any opinions by other users. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not "re-revert". I undid your blanking of my significant recent edit. I undid it once. I have done other edits over many months to this article. No one else complained or demanded that I get their permission first, or that I go to the talk page first. Now that you have asked me to come to the talk page, I have done so, and you have complained about that, too. Instead of these WP:OWN comments please discuss issues. --Timeshifter 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let's stop with the "blanking" bit. What was done was not blanking, it was the removal of material from the article. Blanking has a whole 'nother meaning.

Second, while a mention of the auto-archive is useful, we don't need full examples on the page. I've cut down the section to a brief mention of the templates and the link to an example, which is all that's really necessary. This gives a link to a useful template, without overemphasizing it. -- Kesh 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's stop with the incivility and ordering around. You are confusing blanking with vandalism. Not all blanking is vandalism. Calling the removal of significant parts of an article "blanking" is not necessarily calling it vandalism. From Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.--Timeshifter 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, as I already said on my talk page, we should drop the "blanking" issue since it's not helpful here. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us move on...--Timeshifter 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archive box

Here is the current section below. Note that it is shorter:

Both {{archive box}} and {{archive box collapsible}} can automatically list links to archives. Instructions are on both of the template pages.

One example is {{archive box|auto=yes}}. It will automatically create an archive box of links to archives labeled "Archive 1", "Archive 2", etc.. For an example see Help talk:Archiving a talk page.

Archives with other names can be added as parameters. (See Talk:Iraq War for an example).

I think that is about as far as it can be cut down without becoming incomprehensible. --Timeshifter 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Instantly part-reverting was not a good idea. But I'll grant you the bonus of the more experienced user.

As far as the issue at hand goes, I do of course agree with Kesh's opinion and with his latest edit. I see no good reason for moving the mention of the auto=yes option into a subsection and expanding it with redundant explanations, when there are already links to the respective template pages mentioning the detailed and on-topic instructions included there.

Another, minor issue: The addition of explanatory template code to the Archive box section is simply ugly, in my opinion. It clutters up the section, it distracts new users who come here to gain a quick overview and it's fully redundant to the linked-to instructions on the template pages. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand the average user. They want the quick 411, not a tome. I have made it about as simple as it can get. If your method of linking to lengthy how-to pages was so good, then how come no auto-archive-box was used on this talk page until now?--Timeshifter 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because people don't like the auto-option? Also, you have made it far more complicated than necessary. I'm the one arguing against making this help page into a tome, you for some reason are the one who favours making it one. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They can't like it, or not like it, if they don't know about it. 3 paragraphs on the simplest talk archiving method is more important than the other lengthy material on the help page. Do you have something against simplicity? --Timeshifter 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just shortened it to 2 paragraphs by combining paragraphs. See below. -Unsigned

Both {{archive box}} and {{archive box collapsible}} can automatically list links to archives. Instructions are on both of the template pages.

One example is {{archive box|auto=yes}}. It will automatically create an archive box of links to archives labeled "Archive 1", "Archive 2", etc.. For an example see Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Archives with other names can be added as parameters. (See Talk:Iraq War for an example).

How is this "far more complicated than necessary"? Please ease up on the hyperbole. --Timeshifter 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have it your way. Your edits are downright unnecessary and do not improve the Help page in my opinion, but now it's up to others to weigh in, and if nobody does you will probably get away with this and can continue to claim that your edits usually stick. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth. It is not as if this is new information for this page because it was available up until 26 July 2007 as part of the "Cut and paste procedure" and while I agree it should not clutter up that section including the information in the new section is, in my opinion, better than leaving it out. I think that the current wording on this is now about right brief and to the point. As theses are parameters I do not use every day, having them available on this page is useful for me as it avoids having to click on the templates and sift through another page when all I want is an aide memoir. I am sure for others who like me only occasionally have to set up an archive box from scratch and basically know how to do it but have forgotten the specifics this is a useful edition. --PBS 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the input. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

chide Chad R. Chive

Is this grammar intentional?: "This index makes finding old discussions on a given topic easier, particularly in pages with many archives, on when the archives are of considerable size."? I can see, in the text, that some archives are designed in order to be difficult to be searched. It does seem that that is nearly, though not quite, as though someone had transferred it | them to their own individual machine. -Unsigned

Mmmmmmmmm, well,......Much of this page seems poorly-worded, f/ someone who's simply attempting to learn the options f/ byte-activated archive. I have, as well, written about this on my discussionpage. Everything seems hidden in convoluted verbosity. Oy. Thank You, [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about manually archiving talk pages, rather than setting it up to be automatically done when it reaches a certain size or age. —Random832 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk page

Should I be archiving my user talk page or just deleting the old stuff that I dont want anymore?Grk1011 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally archiving is preferred, but there is no express prohibition of deleting. See the guidelines on talkpages, and User Pages. Looking at your current user talk page [4], I believe you could remove the fair use notifications and other bot notifications without issue.- Optigan13 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think archiving is a good idea. You can remove messages you don't like. The links provided by Optigan13 are useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive it. Blanking your talk page is actually prohibited. Tyciol (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Users are welcome to blank their talkpages. The only exceptions to this, are if an admin has placed an official warning, such as a block notice or sockpuppetry tag. In those cases, the information should be left on the page while it is active. But anything else is removable. --Elonka 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is highly debatable and I think the community needs to come up with a consensus on this. We far too often have a situation where a vandal or other problem user will automatically blank/revert any warnings. Yes I realize they're in the history but not everyone reads the history of a page when they check it, and not all histories are short, on high traffic talk pages it can be easy to hide content. If someone has hundreds of edits to their talk page going through the history you might miss the 5 blanked civil warnings they previously had and just leave them yet another short nice note, not realizing this is a long term problem. Yes I've seen editors who have been here for 2 years and have active talk pages but have serious civility issues. As an example--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving something behind when you archive

I'm not sure if this is recommended or not (can't see anything from a quick skim and don't remember this being on the page), but shouldn't people leave something behind when they archive? I always do and I find it annoying to see a blank page with no discussion only for there to be a large archive. Why not leave a little behind so as to allow current conversations to continue or at least let the reader see what has been recently the subject of discussion. Richard001 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just people not leaving anything behind that annoys me. It's also annoying when you ask a question or make a comment, then come back a few days later to find it archived before anyone has had a chance to respond to it. I think quite a bit should be left behind, perhaps we should even just be skimming the most recent stuff off to archives periodically. There's no need to have 'big bang' archiving where almost everything is dumped once and then a new archive created later. On my talk page I'm tending towards this - just moving the older stuff off as needed to an archive and only creating a new one when the old ones get quite big. With user talk pages it's really up to the "owner" how they archive it, but with other pages I think we should have a guideline that will avert the sort of annoying situations I describe above if followed. Richard001 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Formats of archive box

See village pump to discuss. I think there are too many archive box types. Some work some places, others don't. Timneu22 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: A template to ensure that links aren't broken when archiving

Many times, other discussions link to a particular section on a talk page. When the target section is archived this link is broken, and will remain broken unless someone manually changes it to target the archive page instead. To help alleviate this problem, I propose a template that could be added to target sections, visible only in the source text, which lists the links to that section. Then a bot (or someone) could update the links when the target section is archived. __meco (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea! Libcub (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive box collapsible

{{archive box collapsible}} appears to have stopped floating right during April Fool's Day and currently centres, thus squashing the contents table. I was hoping it would revert afterwards, but no luck. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive requests

Should we make a template to request a page be archived? It could go at the top of oversized talk pages. Sometimes I do it myself even for pages I don't have any involvement with, but other times I just don't have time and don't really feel it's my responsibility (why? because I take responsibility for looking after certain articles when I'm active here, and expect others to do so for articles that I don't). Richard001 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The template {{archiveme}} is now available. Richard001 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a useful template. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken?

As I just learned, and I believe confirmed by an admin, when I used "/Archive 1" to create an archive as a subpage below my user page, it infact created the page "/Archive 1" in the general project space. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Archives searching

Very long archives searching would come in handy. Propably more of a MediaWiki feature request??? Can someone put this forward where it belongs? Thanx!--Kozuch (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving

reinserting two comments that seem to have been removed through refactoring:[5]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The place to discuss changes to a page is on the talk page of the page to be changed not at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] because it is difficult to find the conversation once it is archived from that page. --PBS (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving (arb break 1)

surveys about a page should be carried out on the talk page of the article. There is not almost universal agreement for this. --PBS (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt consensus would change based on the venue. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is not a consensus. As the article makes clear there are advantages and disadvantages to both subpage archiving methods. Why do you favour forcing people to use one method over the other? --PBS (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be unanimous. There is no "forcing" being done here, but it's clear that these days, the majority of people do not like pagemove archiving. If a particular article calls for it, then it can be agreed upon on the talk page. All I know is that there was much dissent last time someone went on a spree of page-move archiving. The above discussion and the discouragement of pagemove archiving for articles is a result of that. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A consensus is not based on a poll and as such you have not gained a consensus, because those who disagreed with you did not come around to your point of view. Had any of the pages been archived before they were moved and archived? If so were they not covered by "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion.".

There are several methods for archiving a talk page, however it is widely preferred to use the "cut and paste" method described below, which retains the talk page history in a single location. Do not use "move page" archiving for article talk pages unless there is a countervailing consensus on that article's talk page that it would be more appropriate.

particularly "Do not use "move page" archiving for article talk pages unless" seems like forceful words to me, and you have not explained why you want to force people to use the cut and past method. --PBS (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are free to suggest a less "forceful" paragraph, but as far as I can see, consensus is that it should be discouraged. If consensus required unanimous approval, nothing would ever get done around here. As for why - the main rationale seems to be to keep the page history in place for ease of reference (with a side order of not stifling discussion and the fact that there's no need to completely harvest a take page when archiving). Hows this? –xeno (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimous approval, but it does require that the parties agree to differ and I do not agree with the changes, and I have made that clear from the start of this process where instead of discussing the problem on this talk page and asking others to participate in other forum you held a poll in another place without a discussion and then declared a consensus had been reached. That is not how a consensus is built.

Sorry I am confused, are you now agreeing that the current wording forceful or do the quotes imply something else? Please explain why it is better to keep the history of a page in one place, rather than keeping the edit history with the text.

What is wrong with the other wording and the statement "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion."." --PBS (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why having a discussion here (a seemingly very-low-traffic'd help talk page, since we've just been talking to each other this whole time) versus at the village pump would change the resultant consensus. Seems like process wonkery to me. As for why the history should remain in place - because that's where the comments were written, and because it's far easier to find a comment that you wrote by searching a single history, rather than searching through numerous different archive histories. I've modified the wording, is it acceptable? As for your last paragraph, what is wrong with that - is that most people (these days) prefer c&p archiving and object to pagemove archiving. See the several threads that begin at User talk:Koavf/Archive011#Archive - Moses. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate forum to evaluate whether the discussion followed procedural norms? How was the closure by (apparently uninvolved) admin User:Sam solicited? Flatscan (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First question - dunno. Second question User talk:Sam/Archive 11#Your determination is requested. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think it makes more sense to evaluate the first discussion – specifically whether the conclusion should stand – separate from the archiving issue. Mixing the two together confuses things. Flatscan (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<--Discussions should take place on the talk page of the page which is to be altered. It has nothing to do with low volume (one can always advertise the conversation elsewhere). This is a standard Wikipedia practice:

• "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources" (Wikipedia:Talk page)
• "Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums." (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
• "Updates to a policy or guideline page are typically discussed on the associated talk page, but it is acceptable to edit them directly."(Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)
• "Amendments to a proposal should be discussed on its talk page (not on a new page) but it is generally acceptable to edit a proposal to improve it."(Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)

Consensus is not reached by an admin closing a discussion. Polls may be closed that way, but a discussion should not start with a poll --as you did in this case-- and a discussion is not closed by an admin.

How is it easier to search a history in one place than over several pages?

You still have not addressed the issue of the line in this guide that says "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." which according to the link you gave (User talk:Koavf/Archive011#Archive - Moses) was breached "In addition, you have used the move method for Picasso archive 2, whereas archive 1 is cut and paste."

As to which method is preferred you are basing it on a very low sample. I prefer the move method with copy back but what I would not do is try to force my opinions on others. I monitor a lot of controversial pages where there is often a lack of good faith and the last think that is needed is arguments over whether the archive is a true copy. Take a look at Talk:Liancourt Rocks and tell me that the situation would have been better if archives 10 and 11 had been made using cut and past! It is no use arguing that one should accept good faith in areas which have strong national opinions such as those covered by:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia Balkans warring.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren Eastern Europe.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine Ireland.

etc.

Apart from the edit history (where you have not clearly explained how it is preferable to search through hundreds and hundreds of comments in one place rather over several pages, (are you for example using some sort of automated software to look for a specific comment?) what do you think are the other advantages of the cut and past method over the move method? --PBS (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Open history to 500 revisions. Ctrl-F. Search for your name. I've named all the other advantages in the discussion above. As far as those statements you provided as to the venue for this discussion. I still don't see that as particularly compelling that the decision reached here is any less valid. –xeno (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• WikiBlame seems to work on a single history. I haven't used it much myself, but I've seen it mentioned often.
• {{talkarchivehist}} is intended to increase the transparency of cut-and-paste archives. Any changes to the archive will show in one of the two diffs: original → initial archive → current archive. It's discussed briefly in the section immediately below.

Flatscan (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly commonly used. Still do not see why this help page should favour one method over another. Further assuming that the instructions are followed when moving a page and the comment "Whichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two may cause confusion." --PBS (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority seems to not like move-page archiving whether it is used initially or mid-swing. If there's a good reason to use it, then by all means mention it on the talk page and see if anyone disagrees, if not, then go for it. The current version allows for that while discouraging pagemove archiving for people who are just doing it because they are lazy. –xeno (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Far to small a sample few to say "the majority seems to not like move-page". "... pagemove archiving for people who are just doing it because they are lazy" are you saying that page moving is easier than cut and past? --PBS (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a bigger sample than it would've been had the discussion been here. Feel free to seek a larger sample. –xeno (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And your answer to my question is? --PBS (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove archiving is a a lazy way to do something wrong. –xeno (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is easier to archive a page using page move then it should be encouraged not discouraged, as it is better to spend effort developing the content of articles than archiving talk pages. However how do you come to the conclusion that it is an easier method, as it seems to me moving the page and then copying and pasting back relevant information is about the same as cut and pasting old information. --PBS (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste archiving: Increasing transparency

Increasing transparency of cut-and-paste archiving by including permanent links was mentioned a few times in the previous discussion. My example is Talk:UCLA Taser incident, which I archived March 2008 to Talk:UCLA Taser incident/Archive 1. I included a permanent link under the {{aan}} template.

• Permanent link
• &offset= history link, the archived revision is the first link. I converted the local timestamp to UTC and entered it directly into the URL.
• cross-page diff, between the base Talk page and the archive, demonstrates that they are identical, aside from the headers

It would be great if these could all be generated by entering revision IDs and maybe page name into a template. I don't know whether these links can be adapted for incremental archives. Flatscan (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote Template:Talkarchivehist and applied it to Talk:UCLA Taser incident/Archive 1. Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work. –xenocidic (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of such a template is more complicated than moving a page, for little gain. --PBS (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried it, it was very simple, and move page archiving pisses people off. –xeno (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Edit

The template posted on archive pages says: 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. I would like to know what the ramifications of disobeying this guideline are, and situations where it might be appropriate. For example, when I look at some archived talk pages, they are a mess. I think the intention behind 'do not edit' is not so much to avoid editing, but to end the discussions there. As in, if someone wanted to give feedback, they can provide a link to the archived topic they are referring to and restart it. This is one of the reasons to not archive a topic until it has been around a while, and to not archive too frequently as archives should be somewhat sizeable before doing so.

I think users should be able to edit archives under the precident of Wikipedia:AGF. The intent being to delete space which clutters the page, to update links, to make the correspondance more understandable to readers, etc. Would anyone have any problems with this? Obviously it is good to watch for things like that, since you have to make sure users aren't adding comments, or deleting comments, or altering them. But under the proper context, it should be acceptable. To give an unbiased example, this talk page itself has archives, so I am going to go edit the first archive right now.

I have reverted your changes to the archive which can be seen as WP:POINT. I do not think refactoring archived pages is a good idea. --PBS (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone likes, they can check the history for an example of the sort of edits I am talking about: cleanup which deletes spaces which aren't needed for user editing ease because it is no longer active, and also cleaning of users who spread their talk out too much by having their signature on a new line, or by making a new paragraph after only one sentence, that type of thing. Or minor stuff like template replacement for names which have changed, and to help bring up problems like having archives cluttered with two nearly-identical boxes which isn't really appropriate. Based upon people's feedback regarding this, we can then progress to edit the second archive, and archives on other talkpages, to clean them up without losing anything relevant. If this is not to people's satisfaction then I'll revert the changes. Tyciol (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How does one judge what is or is not relevant to everyone else. Please do not refactor archives pages, as most people do not have them on their watch lists and may be unaware that you are doing it and might well object if they knew you were. I for one would, as I think archive pages are just that -- archived.

One other point, please do not remove the space at the start and end of section headers on talk pages as they are automatically added when one clicks on the new section tab, (as is the blank line at the start of a section) -- if anything all section headers on talk pages should have spaces and a blank line at the start of the section, but it is really not worth making changes to talk pages to "fix" such minor matters particularly as it can cause very large diffs.--PBS (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

inuse like template for archival

I use the move procedure on my user talk page because it preserves the history. I just made {{archiving}} to warn people about not editing when I'm archiving (a la {{inuse}}). Does anyone find this useful? --Thinboy00 @795, i.e. 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it...I tend to use one of the auto-archivers; but have recently needed this template (or a derivitive for "redacting/summarizing")...I thought you should be appreciated. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6