• I like the approach of avoiding perma-deletion for these pages.
• The Curations/Rewrite team was originally created in part to handle -ARCs. This purview may have been removed through a proper staff process, but as far as I know, that's not the case (it would have needed to happen in the past 3 years).
• We do have precedent for returning certain positively rated -ARCs to SCP slots. In this case, typically we would choose the next open slot (even in a locked series) that has the article's number.
  • I'm not sure I'm necessarily suggesting this for any/all positively rated -ARCs; for example, I know that Kain did not want the Egg Walker to be returned to SCP status because it's not a "proper anomalous object" but rather an anomalous-tech construction. Indeed, if Kain were to edit this, it would probably be in-universe removed from SCP status too.
• SCP-049-ARC being a tale is sensible enough, because it's positively rated and therefore doesn't necessarily need archival protection. Though I do not have strong feelings here.

In terms of the benefits, the primary benefit is reducing the number of archived works that are in the category for no tangible historical/archival reason.

Almost all of the existing ARCs were at one point vetted for preservation for historical reasons. This isn't to say that I'd agree with the reasoning now for every article, mind. This reasoning also may not be reflected in the page's archival votes, because archival policy changed significantly over the years.

Notably, in 2011-2012, if you didn't vote for ARC based on liking something, Bright would potentially invalidate your vote and possibly even delete the article personally. So many of the ARC votes emphasize whether or not staff "liked" something. ARC re-vetting was done later across 2013-2016, and most (possibly all?) of the ARCs lacking any significance were removed then.

I can probably help identify the historical significance for most of the remaining ARCs, dubious or not.

Rewrite (now Curations) was intended to proceed with rewriting most of the -ARCs, carefully improving the quality of the remaining ones (regardless of rating — same initiative as was done with Series 1 upon creation of Rewrite), and considering the remainder for deletion. This project was dropped (despite staff promises not to!) in 2017 after Troy retired and I moved to Reserve.

Separately… again as we discussed on the side: as -ARCs have become such a big part of our history, even dubiously, it's occurred to me that it would be potentially fun to open up the -ARCs page for original contributions, with the suggestion of adding some kind of in-universe justification for why something might be -ARCed. Which don't have to be consistent or even within the same universe, like any SCP/Tale. Maybe one -ARC might be an item unwritten from reality that maybe never existed and either way can no longer be studied. Maybe another -ARC might be an item removed from SCP status deliberately that possibly shouldn't have been catalogued that way in the first place (like the Egg Walker). Maybe another has the Foundation put an indefinite hiatus on studying the objects due to an internal initiative and updating the associated documentation. Maybe another has no explanation at all, but the -ARC designation adds some particular framing to the article.

(Either way, you'd still want an internal staff designation for archived pages that are being preserved by staff.)

We initially wouldn't have considered something like this because our long-term goal was to get rid of the -ARC page entirely, ten years ago. But now I wonder if it's not an opportunity to open up another creative avenue for current writers.

Question wrt the rewritable category: this would be a stay of deletion. Is this deletion indefinite/until rewritten, or within a specific timeframe of 1-2 years for example?

Otherwise, supporting this proposal.

With that, a few pages I would like to point out:

These are great notes, I will move them to the protected section, and make a note that it has been changed accordingly.

trying to bypass it by relocating them into tales instead of SCP slots?

So this was not my intention with suggesting tales instead of SCP slots — rather, I was basing this off of suggestions that we currently give to authors who want to rewrite one of their old articles, but archive the previous versions. This has happened a number of times, most recently with [[SCP-907]]] and SCP-907-ARC, with staff having suggested that moving the old article to a tale, and appending -ARC to the title. In regards to them being moved to a current slot vs. into a tale, I am generally ambivalent, so whichever is preferred overall works for me, I just went with the option that doesn't require identifying new slots etc.

But we really should have a discussion of what exactly we want out of that category and what article is "historical" enough.

While staff maintains the ability to archive an article

This is only de jure true (at least, in the way that we never officially had a discussion on ending this ability), we only have the practical ability when it comes to old guides and staff pages, as the way ARC gets voted on in the olden days is in the article comments, which would instantly get me crucified by stormbreath if I tried to pull that shit today.

the general sentiment is that we should be trying to handle the -ARCs and reduce how many are within that category, rather than add more to them.

I'm not sure if this is the actual sentiment? We don't have any actual problem with adding outdated staff pages to it, and with regards to literature content, this is only true in the sense that we've introduced unarchival vote, and 049-ARC is a whole 'nother can of worms.

As I've expressed before, the ARC is flawed and should no longer be put to practice for non-staff pages, it doesn't change the fact that whatever's there have been archived, and the ideal should not be to ensure we have less of them than before, save truly egregious cases like the Gay Bomb or the now-deleted Decomm articles.

With that, a few pages I would like to point out:

• Archived Incident 076-2 682 - This is the earliest surviving tale on Wikidot, dating back to a little after the opening of the site (perhaps the earliest tale period, but this is unconfirmed, since it's possible there are contemporaries that have since been deleted. We don't know because we didn't record it :P)
• SCP-1023-ARC - The reasoning for its archival still appears to be intact, and it actually appears to be a survivor of the Mass Edit (removed from listing, but possibly not deleted due to the aforementioned ARC-ing reason.) Coincidentally, this also makes it the only surviving instance of 4-digit SCPs that predates Series II.
• SCP-234-ARC - Not due to content, but this one is interesting due to sitting at a chronological intersection of being referenced for both ARC-ing and decommissioning in the comments, concrete insight into how the process worked (which is admittedly not that rigorous or procedural.)
• Shoulda' Stayed in Dubai - surprisingly enough, have historical relevance in relation to Fishmonger, and is possibly the only Fishmonger-adjacent material onsite (maybe, needs more research.)

There are possibly more, but I can't look into it indepth right now. That said, if you have to remove them, I'd much prefer unlisting overall.

Move Positively Rated ARCs to the Tales Category

On another note, this interacts weirdly with Unarchival policy, because the action itself necessitates the vote, but it's also trying to bypass it by relocating them into tales instead of SCP slots?

I think it would be useful to help clarify -ARCs as holding significant historical importance while also not just outright deleting -ARCs made for no historical purpose, and rather allowing them to survive on the wiki with new life (either as rewrites or tales).

What is this?

This is a discussion thread regarding handling ARCs through the Rewrite Sub-team, and what we need to do to readjust the -ARC category.

The ARC category has long been an outlier; some articles have been archived for clear historical purposes, while others languish in the negatives, despite having been rewritten successfully. From discussions within staff, there has been a general sentiment that, yes, while there are a handful of articles that we do want to preserve for archival and/or historical reasons, that does not apply to each article listed as an ARC.

In addition, ARCs were intended to be rewritten, as per the Rewrite Guide, it says:

Q.) Can I rewrite an -ARC article?
A.) Sure! In that case, once the rewrite gets to a high enough rating, the original will be unlisted!

However, none of the -ARCs have been tagged as 'rewritable', nor does it seem like we want to unlist some of the highly rated or important articles; unfortunately, due to the tangled web of policy, it has been difficult to find any other context for this rule. As such, addressing the -ARC problem is a multi-layered conversation.

Why is this an issue?

Currently, we do not allow any new articles to be archived. While staff maintains the ability to archive an article, the general sentiment is that we should be trying to handle the -ARCs and reduce how many are within that category, rather than add more to them. The goal is not to remove the category, rather, to ensure that only works that are 'archived' are done so for a historical or archival purpose.

However, due to the complexity, and confusion regarding which staff team has purview over -ARCs, progress has slowed. As well, -ARCs themselves are referenced in some staff policy documentation, but not much; this issue needs to be addressed both in process, and in content.

Solution(s):

To address the -ARC articles, the first step is confirming that Curations/Rewrite has purview regarding how we want to rewrite the negatively rated -ARC pages. The confusion surrounding this is due to previous issues which lost the curations policies; as VC of Curations, I have been going through with the teams and recreating our policy trees, based on what we do as best practices, and what we can find from pages on both wikis.

Once that it confirmed, the next step is to begin to handle the -ARCs. There is not a single solution that works for all pages under that category, so I propose the following:

Archived Guides, Essays, and Administrative Pages — Nothing Changes

For any archived page, within the category covering guides, essays and administrative pages, nothing will be done, and those pages will stay archived.

Pages Archived for Specific Archival/Historical Purposes — Nothing Changes

For any page that has a proved historical or archival purpose, those will stay archived. The determination of what pages constitute having a valid archival/historical purpose is determined on a case by case basis, but generally requires that the page be significant to the history of the SCP EN Wiki in one way or another. Part of this discussion is also intended to identify any pages that have such archival or historical significance, so that they can remain archived.

Move Positively Rated ARCs to the Tales Category

Of the archived pages that remain, the next step is to take all stable, positively rated -ARCs, and make them into tales, removing the 'archived' tag.¹ If we are not concerned that a piece will enter deletions, that will not be included in this move. For safety, that threshold has been initially set at +30. This would include the following -ARC pages:

When a page has been moved into the tale slot, the information box at the top of the page will be removed. In the event that it contains relevant information, it will be ported to the comments of the page. Otherwise, the page will remain as is.

Tag the Remaining Archived Pages as 'rewritable'

The remain pages are below a safe, stable threshold, and range in rating from within deletions range, to low positives. These pages will maintain their 'archived' tag, such that they are excluded from the standard deletions process. These pages will be tagged 'rewritable', and will follow standard rewrite process. At the conclusion of a successful rewrite, once the new article is posted and stable, these pages will be unlisted, as per Rewrite policy. This includes the following pages:

With all of those pages having been moved and or tagged, all ARCs will either have a specific reasoning for their archival status, or will be integrated into the Rewrite system, as intended based on remaining documentation. I believe that this will best address the gap within policy regarding purview over -ARCs, as well as ensuring that the only pages remaining in this category have notable and distinct significance.

Benefits/Concerns:

In terms of the benefits, the primary benefit is reducing the number of archived works that are in the category for no tangible historical/archival reason. When you explore the category, it is not clear why a page has been archived, nor why it should remain as such. Based on the information we have at the moment, and the belief that non-archival pages should go through the rewrite process, this is the clearest path towards the resolution.

In terms of concerns, the largest potential issue is that a piece which has significant historical benefit would be lost. However, due to the fact that there are no plans to immediately delete a page, rather, they must go through the standard rewrite process before being unlisted, in addition to one of the topics of this discussion being determining if there are any other 'archived' pages that have historical or archival significance, I believe that this risk will be sufficiently mitigated.

The final benefit towards this realignment of the Archived category will allow staff to vote to move new pages into the Archived category, if it would be unlisted or deleted due to a Rewrite or through standard deletions process; by focusing on removing pieces that do not have historical or archival significance, we will be able to evaluate more clearly on a case by case basis what constitutes a page that we deem as having archival or historical significance.

What Would Need to Be Done?:

In terms of work that would need to be done following this adjustment of status, the majority would be handled by Curations, potentially in conjunction with MAST:

Other than that, the only other aspect of this proposal would be the rewrites of the remaining archived pages, which will be handled by the full userbase through the standard rewrite process, which we feel is a reasonable level of work to address the bloat of the category. Other than that, no additional labor by staff would be required.

I want to note that I am putting this proposal forward as the Vice Captain of Curations. I have Uncle Nicolini's support, as the Subteam Captain of Rewrite, as well as Riemann's support as the Captain of Curations.

Discussion will be open for a week, to discuss the proposal, and to raise any reasons that a page should be considered 'Archival or Historical'. Following the week, the proposal will be put to a vote.

Edit 1: Updated re: EstrellaYoshte's notes on other significant works.