Do not add to it unless it really needs to be reopened. Consider creating a brand new forum instead.
Note:This forum was separated from the over-crowded and long-ignored Forum:Forum and Poll Rules Updates. It used to be its own section within that forum.
Considering Discussions Inactive
We should also discuss how long we should wait before considering a discussion "inactive". I've seen plenty of forums/talk pages survive a long time in the category, even when no posts have been made. Galaxy 9000 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should we should make discussions inactive based solely on how long they've been inactive. They should stay listed as active until it is resolved. I know it leads to the list of discussions becoming quite long, but I think that acts as a motivator for people to make sure things get resolved.
And to clarify it's one thing to call a discussion inactive when there's been a proposed solution, moderate agreement, and no posts against it for several days, and another thing to call a discussion inactive because nobody's posted on it for a few weeks. The first example is ok in my book, the latter is not. JustSomeDude... Talk | 23:27, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
"Active" means that it is getting posts at least once a way. Leaving forums and talk pages in the category that are inactive just clogs everything up.
They're not archived, and can still remain as stickies on the forum itself, but calling them active is just stupid. Galaxy 9000 23:30, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
If you have a problem with calling them "active" then let's just change the name of the category/template so that it accurately reflects the purpose they were created for. Something like "Discussions in need of Closure" or something along those lines. JustSomeDude... Talk | 23:34, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
Or we could just leave them at the top of the forum, unarchived, as we used to do, where people will go to look for them if they're interested. As I said before, we do not need more clutter. If there's a forum that people don't care about, it isn't going to matter what we do. It means it's time to move on to bigger and more active things, and if the discussion picks up again sometime later, then the template can return to the talk page or forum. Galaxy 9000 00:02, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, if there has been no input for a month, the discussion should be considered inactive. If it really needs resolution, then those interested in this resolution have to either post something new (no mere "bumps") or start a poll. sff9 15:12, December 7, 2013
Yeah, I agree with Sff. Galaxy 9000 05:28, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
Kill the category -__-',Most of the time people dont post on the forum because they've already posted what they wanted to and there's still no closure and are probably waitin' for a poll(eg:Site Affiliations forum),I agree with JSD on this one.--Roa[T]{MH,R!,-05:48,1/7/2014-}
Bump. This needs to be resolved. Forum should only be closed after 1 month of inactivity. Galaxy 9000 23:10, January 31, 2014 (UTC)
This is awkward, but I think that now that Gal has left there is no argue here. There is no point in keeping this active imo.Vaztalk 22:32,2/17/2014
I still hold my opinion that we should keep all unresolved discussions "active", or at least change the name of the template/category. Hard to close a forum that only 3 active users have posted on. JustSomeDude... Talk | 23:32, February 17, 2014 (UTC)