Template talk:Noticeboard links
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noticeboard links template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Edit abuse?
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was moved to Template:Noticeboard links. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be done through Dispute resolution}})? It's kind of wordy, but...]
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)- WP:TFD explicitly says that templates should go through the regular requested-move process. @harej 17:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Ah, I see that now... well, uh, yea I'll stick with recommending {{Dispute resolution navbox}}.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that now... well, uh, yea I'll stick with recommending {{Dispute resolution navbox}}.
Since very few of these things are about dispute resolution, how about "Template:Noticeboard links"? @harej 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC) - Fine with me also. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 09:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Far more logical name than the current one. Jafeluv (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Noticeboard links are only one section of the navbox, the entire thing deals with dispute resolution. I think {{Dispute resolution links}} is good. -- Ϫ 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mind if this gets renamed, but I'm at a loss to see how the name of the template is terribly important. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Editprotected request
{{
I'd like to replace the link: [[Wikipedia:User Page Design Center/Help and collaboration/Help Requests|User page help]]
with the updated: [[Wikipedia:User page design center/Help and collaboration/Help requests|User page help]]
to bypass the redirect. Thanks. -- Ϫ 18:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. the "Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement" links have also been moved to different titles.
Add External links/Noticeboard
I suggest linking the new
]- I second this request. Would help to popularize the new board. ThemFromSpace 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree as well. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Added --Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for edit to fix AR link
{{
Replace: [[Wikipedia:Abuse reports|ISP reporting]]
With: [[Wikipedia:Abuse response|ISP reporting]]
If for some reason you are hesitant to do this edit please feel free to contact me or any of the other contacts listed on Wikipedia:Abuse response.Jamesofur (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Backlogs?
I saw a thread at
- Sounds like a job for a bot, although I wonder if the transclusion process would mean that the template updates on other pages immediately or later. If it's the latter, then it wouldn't help a great deal. I'd also be interested in bandwidth implications - AIV can go into and out of backlog several times an hour all day; that could mean a bot flagging and unflagging the AIV entry maybe 30+ times a day, with the transclusions all having to change as well. ⇨ 06:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)]
Unprotect, please
{{
I don't see any reason to have this be fully protected. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well it's fairly heavily transcluded, but I have reduced the protection as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Add a link to the Pending changes noticeboard?
Perhaps during the pending changes trial a link to the noticeboard for issues might be a good idea?.
Structure of template
User issues are placed third from the top, when they are in fact, the primary reason this site exists. This template needs to be redesigned for functionality and sorted appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still no response or action taken since my initial posting in 2011. The readability of the links in terms of locating and finding relevant information is less than zero. It needs to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
WTF
Seriously, can people stop messing around with the layout of this? Every day I come here and someone has moved everything around again. It's annoying and makes it difficult to find the links I'm looking for. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
More links!
What about adding
]Skip to bottom
Why does this template now transclude "Skip to bottom"? It messes up my UP layout so I'm removing this template from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targaryen (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
WQA may close
There is a proposal at
I've posted, at Template talk:Noticeboard links/Draft, a suggested revision. The aim is to get two reactions - (1) "It doesn't look all that much different", and (2) "I didn't realize we had a noticeboard/venue for that or that."
Suggestions (feel free to do directly to the draft) are welcome, of course. Here's what changed:
- In general: when there are multiple items associated with a particular type of link (for example, Village pump), the actual links are smaller and within a set of parentheses
- "Requests for closure" has been moved out of "Administrator", and is now a separate item (similar to how "Edit warring", another noticeboard, is handled). It is titled "Closure" (similar to other noticeboards, where "Request for" is not shown in the menu)/
- "Media copyright" is now in the second group ("Content"), rather than the first ("General"), and has been grouped with a similar item, "Copyright problems", in a new topic, "Copyrights".
- "Abuse response" has been retitled "reporting (with the "Abuse" topic) for clarity.
- The link to the main Arbitration Committee noticeboard has been retitled to make it clearer that only the Committee can post there; this is not a noticeboard for general posting by any editor.
- "Sanctions" is now "Article sanctions"; "Restrictions" is now "Editor restrictions"; the two are now not tied to each other. They have been moved to different places in the group, based on alphabetization.
- The "Help" link to Wikipedia:Questions has been removed; that page is not a noticeboard, it's a directory - the only one in the entire template. The topic has been retitled "Questions", following the name of the (no-longer-linked-to) directory page.
- "Resource Exchange" is now "Resource requests" ("Resource" isn't clear enough to stand on its own)
Group 4 has been sorted so that the Help- (Question-) related links are not at the end of the group.
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks very nice! I've moved the draft page to edit protected}} templates are set up expecting template drafts to be put there, which gives us a number of Handy Links that I quite like.) The one thing I don't agree with is the decreased size of the text in brackets - I think this makes it harder to read, and most of these links are ones that editors are likely to want to click on, so I don't see too much reason to make them less prominent than the other text. Other than that, I think it's a definite improvement. I've also created a test cases page for people who want to see the draft and the main template at the same time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)]
- Great proposal/draft, and I agree with Mr. Stradivarius' suggestion to remove the decreased sizing. I've done this to the sandbox version. I support this update. –Quiddity (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quick addendum: The only (Bracketed) group that currently has a wikilink as part of the name, is Village pump. We could remove the wikilink from that, so that the black font more clearly indicates that a group (...) is following? –Quiddity (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)]
- @Quiddity: - I think that's a good suggestion; I'll make that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Quick addendum: The only (Bracketed) group that currently has a wikilink as part of the name, is
- Great proposal/draft, and I agree with Mr. Stradivarius' suggestion to remove the decreased sizing. I've done this to the sandbox version. I support this update. –Quiddity (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support update as well--much clearer. Theopolisme (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any objections, so I've gone ahead and updated the template (with the normal-sized text). I've no objections if anyone else wants to tweak it later. — ♪ talk ♪ 07:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)]
- @Mr. Stradivarius on tour: - Thanks for implementing the change! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any objections, so I've gone ahead and updated the template (with the normal-sized text). I've no objections if anyone else wants to tweak it later. —
Changing template
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)
Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2014
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Template-protected edit request on 6 July 2014
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)
- 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)
Template revamp
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)
- 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)
- I've histmerged Anna Frodesiak into Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox. Huon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've histmerged Anna Frodesiak into Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox. Huon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@]
- Hi, Viriditas. I'm just starting to look into it now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Edit warring noticeboard
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)
- Hello? Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Kindzmarauli: I think the edit warring noticeboard is already in the template under "User conduct". Protonk (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh there it is. Nevermind LOL Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
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)
Drbogdan (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
Suggestion
How about adding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to the navbox? Seems to follow criteria for inclusion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2015
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)
Organization
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)
- 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)]
Why?
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)
- @open channel) 16:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)]
- 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)
- @open channel) 16:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)]
- 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)
- open channel) 20:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)]
- 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)
- 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)
- @
- 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)
Trim some links?
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)]
WP:CENT
@
- @b} 04:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)]
- Okay, and why should this be an exception to ]
- b} 05:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)]
- 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 ]
- I'm not? b} 05:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)]
- I'm not?
- 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 ]
- Okay, and why should this be an exception to ]
Inclusion of XRV in template
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
There does not seem to be consensus for inclusion of the link and so I am going to restore the
]Should we include WP:DFD in the template?
Should WP:TEA be included?
The Teahouse could be a good thing to include on here (potentially after the Village Pump)... Thoughts?
BhamBoi (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Has been since 2012 [2]. Cheers. 98.246.75.122 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
skip to TOC
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)