Template talk:Noticeboard links

Right now, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abuse response, there is a conversation on eliminating the Abuse listing on this template since that project appears to be inactive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the bottom of the template, it says that for users using Twinkle to file reports on other users, Twinkle will "automagically" handle the diffs for them. I believe that there is a typo, and so "automagically" should be changed to "automatically." LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There is no such text in this template. On what page did you see the text "Twinkle will automagically handle the diffs"? SiBr₄ (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it – it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Header, which is only semi-protected. The text was added by AzaToth here.

BTW, it appears "automagically" is actually an existing word, though it's probably a typo in this case. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tyop _→AzaToth 12:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently the link for "paid editing" goes to Wikiproject Cooperation. I think that it is more useful for paid editors that it go to the link at the COI page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I oppose this change until a wider community consensus is reached. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above Structure of template and a request at my talk page, I have created the following draft of the template:

Direct link: Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox

Please help to improve this template. Once it looks as good as it is going to get, someone should type 'Done!' at the bottom of this thread, and then, if there are no objections after a week, we can swap it in as the new version. Any objections to this plan? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally designed for admins. It has grown since that time but has not had a major update reflecting this change. The template does not invite the general community to participate. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've histmerged Anna Frodesiak into Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox. Huon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Hi, Viriditas. I'm just starting to look into it now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question, but are you talking about this navbox linking to other navboxes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a stupid question. No, I'm not exactly talking about it linking to other navboxes, but rather having relevant links act as an intuitive menu interface. New users looking for help aren't going to need links to admin-related boards, and admins aren't going to be looking for new user help pages, etc. I guess a good way to start is to address my concerns about the "Other" category up above. I don't think questions about editor assistance, help desk, new articles, new editors, and the Teahouse are "Other" nor should they buried at the bottom of a template. At the very least, these topics fall under the category of general assistance, and should be listed at the very top. Unless of course we want to continue alienating our editorial base and preaching to the choir. At some point, the sound of our own voices will become an echo chamber. Again, this problem arises because the noticeboards were originally designed for power users (aka admins). We need to start designing this site for the general user, and that begins here. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main noticeboard listings under Help lists the edit warring noticeboard along with AN and AN/I. Should this be added? Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindzmarauli: I think the edit warring noticeboard is already in the template under "User conduct". Protonk (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there it is. Nevermind LOL Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add following brief Code at the top of the template source code =>

| basestyle = text-align: center;

Reason: to "center" group titles - seems more regular and better than present (default?) right-justify unevenness to group titles.

Thanks in any case of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is the default style for navboxes. Why should this one be any different? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edokter - Thank you *very much* for your comments - no problem whatsoever - however, "centering" group titles seems more regular and better than present unevenness in group titles - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to the navbox? Seems to follow criteria for inclusion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a link to

[[Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen|History merges]] (immediately after

Done I agree about the protection as well, so I left a message on Xaosflux's talk page. Semi-protection should be enough for our purposes here, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reduced edit protection to autoconfirmed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The categories that the noticeboards are put into seem rather arbitrary in some circumstances... especially with regards to the "General" vs. the "Other" category, as well as other examples in the general/other category that should probably be in the page handling and/or the user conduct sections. Does anybody have any ideas for a more coherent organization that actually makes sense? Kharkiv07 (T) 13:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I noticed this when adding

EFN, I had basically no idea which category to put it in based on the current categorisation. It ended up little more than an educated guess so I'm supportive of reorganising. Sam Walton (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mlpearc would you like to explain why you reverted me here [1] ? Just general c/e, nothing very controversial I thought. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

open channel) 16:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

OK could you more specific about which changes you are opposed to? Maybe there can be a compromise we can come to. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

open channel) 16:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Mlpearc OK well the way consensus is meant to work is that well-reasoned arguments are made for and against changes to whatever. I feel that "I think you should ask the users of this template" is hardly a well reasoned argument. Were discussing it, you're unhappy, I'm asking why, and you're saying it should be discussed. In other words no progress is being made. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

open channel) 20:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Mlpearc I take by your responses that you have no personal objections to the edit, but feel that others may not like change. Is this correct? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think some links are not used very often and could be moved to a collapsed section (or removed entirely). In particular,

These links seem appropriate for the template's purpose, and many have existed on it for quite some time.

WP:SPLICE seem best described as 'noticeboards' as they give notice and discuss changes. I see no point in removing any of them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

b} 04:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, and why should this be an exception to

WP:BIDI? --Bsherr (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

b} 05:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, that part I got from your earlier edit summary. I'm asking why you are asserting that the navbox shouldn't then be on

WP:IAR. --Bsherr (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not?

b} 05:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

While Administrator Action Review (XRV) is a new forum, the idea, as approved in the RfC establishing it, is to have a forum parallel to DRV and MRV. As neither of those forums are listed on this template I would suggest it should also not be listed. My removal, following discussion at XRV about it, was reverted by Headbomb so I posting here for more discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, is there a reason why the board is listed inside the administrator brackets when it's specifically not solely intended for sysops? I imagine it might be more suited to be in the "User conduct" area, since reports concern a user's use of tools. Best, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffer headbomb moved it there as an attempted compromise. But again we don't consider evaluating a deletion close or move close user conduct so I don't think we should consider this a conduct forum. Best,@Giraffer Barkeep49 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it is beneficial to have it there in some sense, especially because it is a general functionality, as opposed to MRV or DRV. It also will help in a practical sense, giving additional awareness of it. However, I'm not sure where exactly within the template is the best place for it Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think making it about the editor rather than the decision will make for a less healthy XRV culture. The focus on decision rather than editor at DRV and MRV doesn't mean editors don't get discussed but it does mean that it gets pushed back on and weighted appropriately by the closers. Given the already present concerns about XRV being RFC/U 2, I think it important to set expectations in a way that's good for our community's overall health from the start. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that administrative action review is more akin to move review and deletion review, rather than a general noticeboard. Based on this I don't think it's a good fit for this template. I do think there may be an issue with how to get the uninitiated to know where to raise a question about the wide variety of administrative actions covered by the page. (Deletion review, in contrast, is easily referred to from the deletion process pages.) But I don't think a simple link in this template will help, as it won't be able to provide appropriate context to understand when it applies. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV doesn't explore administrator conduct, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth was very heavily attended by deletion review regulars, and for good reason. I would see XRV's role as similar: it would review individual decisions and not conduct, but it might identify a pattern of problematic behaviour that could be raised elsewhere. I agree that it shouldn't be listed inside the administrator brackets for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be consensus for inclusion of the link and so I am going to restore the

• Wikipedia:Teahouse

BhamBoi (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has been since 2012 [2]. Cheers. 98.246.75.122 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, maybe I need to get my vision checked! BhamBoi (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inpage link -skip to TOC- in the right hand top corner works in Vector 2010 but not in Vector 2022. Uwappa (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@Uwappa sorry, rabbit hole was deeper! I left a note at Template_talk:Skip_to_bottom#TOC_Useless_with_vector-2022. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, cancelled question here. Thank you. Uwappa (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]