Template talk:Do not archive until

Is there an opposite?
I'd quite like it if when a discussion is finished (often, sadly, with an indefinite block) one could stick a this is done template on the end so that it gets archived earlier rather than later. Any such template being planned? Implementation in MiszaBot? —Tom Morris (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ClueBot III supports but I'm not aware of a similar solution for MiszaBot. I also noticed Femto Bot archives Rich Farmbrough's talk page sections when a -- is added at the end of the section. In most cases though, it is going to be better to apply Discussion top and Discussion bottom templates and let the normal archiving take place. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, Tothwolf. +1 for implementing this more widely.  I sought to archive this topic I started. --Elvey (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarify end
It would be useful to know whether "200 days" means 200 days from the timestamp when the template was added or 200 days after the date when the thread would normally be archived (on a "90 day" archive page, might be "290 days"). – czar   01:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, neither is correct so that is why your preferred phrasings are not used. Example:

A page is archived every 90 days. On day 50 you add DNAU 200 days = the day 250 is written into the hidden HTML. When will it be archived?


 * On day 90 the bot will not archive the section because it's not day 250 yet.
 * On day 180 the bot will not archive the section because it's not day 250 yet.
 * On day 270 the bot WILL archive the section (assuming no other circumstances) because day 250 has passed.

So in this case DNAU 200 days happened to work out to saying "do not archive until after 220 days". We add the template on day 50 and our wish is fulfilled on day 270. So, 220 days in the future.

This is why we can't say the section will be archived 200 days from the day it was added. And we can't say 200 days after the archival interval either. The parameter (200 in this example) simply is not directly related to any relevant other parameter - it does not mean "after precisely 200 days", and it is not related to the archival cycle (90, 180, 270, 360...) either.

What we can and do say is "Since not all pages are archived daily, the parameter should be read as the minimum number of days before thread is archived". The exact number of days relies on circumstances out of our control. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Spell it out for non-programmers
Hi. I just tried to use this template. Even after clicking on the substituted link, it was still not remotely clear what I was actually supposed to type into the thread. I thought I was supposed to write brackets DNAU|November 12, 2015 end brackets. Fortunately, some other users fixed it, but this page could stand to be more direct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that already back in 2015 the documentation used subst only clearly stating how to use the template right at the top of the page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Which timestamp do the bots look at?
Do they look at the ordinary human readable timestamp in the hidden comment, or at the epoch timestamp, the number at the end of ?

I ask because I saw a user change the normal timestamp to tonight, and I wonder if that will have any effect? (I already changed the attached epoch timestamp to today, so it won't work as an experiment unless I change that back.)

I realize the straightforward solution is to either simply delete the "Do not archive" code, or re-subst the template with the desired time, so this is mainly out of curiosity. --Pipetricker (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot III normally uses the revision history to determine when the content was changed, and goes off of that. If it is going to archive the section, and sees it's User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil template, it will see if the current time is past the epoch.  This was added because people wanted to push off archival by ClueBot III but couldn't do it with timestamps normally because ClueBot III completely ignores timestamps and instead works based off revision history.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * reads the human-readable string. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 02:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple DoNotArchiveUntil strings
,, :

What happens if you, for example, bump a talk section and then bump it again.

Can you have multiple hidden HTML strings in any order within a single thread; do all tools sort this out correctly?

Or does the latest/lowest one need to be furthest in time?

Or will the tools simply find one such string, and then stop looking?

Questions questions :-) CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Automatic expired pin removal
When the do not archive until has expired, is this template automatically removed (either as part of its own function, or by an archive bot), or will it still be visible in the source when the section is archived? &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 06:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The template does not render any visible text. If you're thinking of the wrappers that do add visible text (Bump and Pin Section), yes, they're archived along with the section they're in. CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

drastic change 18 september
Everyone should be aware that during the period from 18 september 2021 until 3 december, this template did not work as you would expect (using default settings). Instead of semi-permanently keeping your section from being archived, it would only keep it from being archived for a considerably shorter time (one year or less).

Now then, I am not able to ascertain the usages this template have seen during this period, so I am unable to send those users a reminder to double-check their work.

CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've now had to deal with this multiple times. It is strictly inappropriate for the default to be 10 years. Most pins, if they are necessary, should probably be in the 1-month timeframe. It is a significant nuisance for page watchers to see a section that will not archive in any reasonable time, when the users of this template likely intend a much smaller timeframe (say, 1 month, as I originally suggested 2 years ago). Which is why I think the default should be 1 month; people should explicitly opt in to any longer time period. If the use of the template needs to be longer, it probably shouldn't be hosted on the page it's on (e.g. the discussion should be on a subpage or in someone's working space). Izno (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)