Template talk:Noticeboard links/Archive 1

Not just admins

I've just reverted this template because the version that was displaying made it appear as though these areas "belonged" to Wikipedia adminstrators. This is in fact very incorrect. By all means edit for formatting but do be sure to not limit the target "audience" for the template. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should make anybody believe that it is admin-only. Plus it looks more organized when it's on two lines. Hbdragon88 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboards

Shouldn't we add a link to WP:RNB? They can and are used to report some abuses (usually content disputs, sometimes quite ugly, on regional-interest topics).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FURG

Does the link to AN/FURG really belong? That page is a fork with little traffic, and missing rationales aren't "abuse." See the brief conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG#List of U.S. state tartans (its brevity is evidence of the lack of traffic. . .). Chick Bowen 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Does anyone object if I add a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? It has existed since 25 May. Explanation of this noticeboard's history and justification is at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive13#A_reliable_source_committee? and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Reliability_noticeboard. EdJohnston 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about abuse, though. Chick Bowen 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the top row deals with editing abuse. --Edokter (Talk) 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Add link to protection-requests?

Should the "Editing abuse" line contain a link to WP:RFP? DMacks 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Please comment on the proposed change to this template here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there are 2 supports at Talk:AN, so I'm gonna do it. Feel free to revert me if I missed something or did something wrong. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Completed. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this template should only address edit abuse; it was created to make it easier for users trying to report abuse to find the correct page, since there was a lot of posting on wrong pages. That said, I don't object to your particular change. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:35:18, 06 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry it closed so quickly then, but glad you don't object. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard

John Reaves has just removed the Fiction Noticeboard from the template, but I've just promptly restored it. I've done this as it is a noticeboard just like this rest of the noticeboards (e.g. RS, ANI, AN), it doesn't matter whether its two years or two weeks old it should still be there. Removing it in my view, and it could mean that it could get forgotten about again. Other opinions welcome. D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it's yet to prove its worth, but whatever. John Reaves 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Added • Report spam

An obvious problem, we've all seen spam, but few know that there is a place to report spamming violations. Unlike concerns above, this has proved its worth to the project.--Hu12 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats' noticeboard?

Seems an obvious omission. Should be linked under the noticeboard section, but doesn't look like it will currently fit. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:BN appears to lack a navigational header at the moment. I'll crosspost this to WT:BN. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what it should fit on... I already have two lines on my 1024 display. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose I have widescreen. But maybe the noticeboard section should be divvied up in twain? ~Eliz81^(C) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No matter how you format it, it will always suck on someone's screen. — Edokter • Talk • 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say add BN, only because at this point a single-line noticeboard is pretty much worthless. If we added BN, I'd say it should be an autoformated 2 lines in this order Line 1 AN, ANI, BN, BLPN, RSN, COIN, Line 2 ArbcomE, NPOV, Fringe, OR, Fict, BON. That would seem to be an order-of-importance listing to me. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible ordering to me. I support making the change. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree--Hu12 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got something to do at work tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted as crats don't prefer BN being here. Doesn't make 2 rows worth it then. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the RfA template over at WT:BN as a sensible alternative, since it already links WP:BN anyway. ~Eliz81^(C) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing abuse -> admin intervention

How about we change "Editing abuse" to "Admin intervention"? Seems more appropriate to me, at least. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, never thought of it that way. But wouldn't having the title of the line be Admin Intervention and then having AIV on that line be confusing? And non-admins can intervene in things like ISP reporting, SSP, and checkuser to basically the same (minus blocking) degree as non-admins. Still edit abuse seems unnecessarily vague. MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser noticeboard link

Just noticed a link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard was added recently; at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard#Folding I've suggested we consider merging said noticeboard to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. Regardless of that discussion's outcome, currently this template already links to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, which in turn links to the clerk noticeboard on both its front page and talk page (if memory serves). Is this additional link needed for such a low-traffic noticeboard, given this template's increasing crowding troubles? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty low-volume noticeboard, so I think it can be removed. The checkusers were never consulted either, and it is getting crowded. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say clerk noticeboards like this and IP reporting and Arbcom are too specialized to warrant sitewide attention, unless the clerks/owners desire it. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding WP:DR to the Edit Abuse section of the template? or WP:RFAR? MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU Clerk noticeboard was added by a Crat, so it might be worth asking him why he added it. MBisanz ^talk 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in the interest of keeping everybody on the same page, the link was removed and the noticeboard has been merged to WT:RFCU. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to WP:Copyright problems added

I've just added a link to WP:CV to this template. It is a suitable addition to the "Editing abuse" section and placing the link in this template should help reduce the 2-month backlog currently there. - 52 Pickup (deal) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say this, but we need to watch out that this template does not become overcrowded. — Edokter • Talk • 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I felt that WP:CV really needed to go here. If the template does get too overcrowded, a redesign might be needed later on. 52 Pickup (deal) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree its becoming unwieldy. I almost regret adding the top line to it. Would anyone object to killing the Site Directory and Village Pump links? And maybe breaking tradition and moving some of the less-used Edit Abuse pages to the top bar? MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New design

Not to be a party-pooper, but I'm not wild about the new design. It's lost the navbox feel. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost that feel a long time ago. Its good, just not the subcat in edit abuse line. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, just a bit too big (margin)..IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the edit abuse requests, we prob should now include medcomm, rfar, rfc, 3o, and medcab. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not liking the borders either. They make the template look too... clunky. I've removed the width parameter so that it's not quite as tall, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullets

Can we have some opinions on small vs. normal bullets? In my view (IE6), the small bullets are but single-pixel dots, which make it hard to tell the links apart. — Edokter • Talk • 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be  Fixed now. The small bullets have been upped to standard size. Anthøny 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that, but this wasn't quite a matter of "fixing" it, I was actually asking for opinions on wether they should be small or large. — Edokter • Talk • 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it is fine as it is. Anthøny 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As they now are is great. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird. On IE6 here (Windows XP PC, 21"ish screen at 1152 by 864) the bullets appear the same somewhat "pushy" size as they do in Firefox 2. Okay, not quite Wikipedia's greatest problem, but distracting nonetheless (and not just in this template). I've never seen bold middots rendered as single pixels, even on a laptop. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain now that 95% of admins and 99% of non-admins never even look at the this thing. If we did the changes to the mainpage we've done over the last couple of months here, heads would roll. The downside is with only a handful of us, we can't test changes as well. Is there some sort of thing that can test a wikipedia page under multiple scenarios (like a W3C compliance tool). MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. To be honest, the template is fine as it is now, and there is no point in bartering over frivolities—we'll never get any use out of the template itself :) This would probably be an appropriate time to say "move along folks". Regards, Anthøny 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yead, bold middots do tend to show as single pixels, especially with the reduced font-size within the box. — Edokter • Talk • 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Oversight

Resolved

 – Link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight added. Anthøny 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We occasionally have someone request the deletion of one or more revisions, for which they are directed to Oversight. One such editor today suggested that we add Requests for Oversight to the editabuselinks template. I thought I'd start a discussion on the matter, as - though it's not as frequently used as items such as Checkuser and the like - it's probably a worthwhile addition. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done by AGK here. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) I forgot to annotate this thread, noting that I'd made the change, but yes, all done. Anthøny 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I went ahead and added this page to Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution. I also recommend adding a link to WP:DR somewhere in the template. --Elonka 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Converting to Navbox?

{{editprotect}} I think this should be a fairly uncontroversial edit. It doesnt really change anything just puts the information into the {{Navbox}} template. The code (without all the noninclude). can be found just below — chandler — 14:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The only differences I immediately notice are the loss of the "editabuselinks" id (could wrap it in a div, if that's important) and a slight change in the shade of blue displayed (not that I'll argue over that, it simply is). Inclined to do this one, but leaving this open for a bit, in case there's any substantial feedback incoming. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks the same, simpler code. I'll change it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the template

{{editprotect}}

Two suggestions for the "General help" row of links in the template:

• Add a link called Editor's index at the end of the row

• Change the displayed name of the first link from "General assistance" to "Help desk".

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I think the links were agreed on some time ago, so it would be best to get more opinions before modifying them. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just randomly added them some time ago on my own, so no real "consensus" needed, since that part is really just my ideas that no one else reverted. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was no consensus to add them, then  Done. I like the idea of WP:EIW being linked from this template, as it seems appropriate. Thanks to both, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration; as others have pointed out, one of the gratifications of participating in Wikipedia is the preference to avoid bureaucractic processes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPA has been marked as historical

{{editprotected}}

Can someone please remove the link ('community assitance') from this template. - Icewedge (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin's noticeboard?

{{editprotected}}

Shouldn't it be "Admins' noticeboard? (note the apostrophe) Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout not logical - reorganize into these categories (??)

Dear all, I have pasted this from here, but I realise we started the conversation in the wrong place: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reorganise header

To me, the relationship of the headings does not reflect what I look for when I come to look at it. I would put long term abuse, checkuser and suspected sockpuppet pages next to each other, as they are similar in scope. I am also thinking that a single salmon-pink line for contentious subjects - Wikipedia:General sanctions (not currently listed, and I had no idea this page existed until yesterday), Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log next to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and cultural/ethnic noticeboard. I thought highlighting them as they are some of the most troublesome areas and could do with more eyes.

OR, RS, FRINGE, copyvios, NPOV and fiction could go together too.

Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Would there be a way of coding it so backlogged pages get autoflagged red or orange or something? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That header's very busy and I just skimmed it, pretending I didn't know where to take stuff. You're right, it's not very clear to a newcomer, or logical. Needs fixing. Do a draft and let's see? As for color coding backlogs, our parser functions are not very good at counting or tallying (this just came up on WT:DYK which has just switched to bot driven promotion, no more irregular gapping... the desire there was to show if the work ahead buckets were in danger of running out so the next update would be starved)... but bots can do this and make notes somewhere on a page, which then can be used in tests to decide what color things should be. Hope that's helpful. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Right then, I am useless at layout, but have some wiki-chums who I am sure can help out on that score.

Proposed layout

• Category 1 - Trouble areas (or more euphemistically, contentious areas??...or think of another name) - in salmon pink.

In it: General sanctions • BLP noticeboard • BLP enforcement log • Ethnic and cultural conflicts

• Category 2 - Other content Issues

Spam • Copyright violations •Conflict of interest Fiction • Fringe theories • Neutral point of view • Original research • Reliable sources

• Category 3 - User Issues

Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets Checkuser Oversight Long term abuse • ISP reporting

• category 4 - dispute resolution

Edit warring (3RR) • ArbCom enforcement  • Requests for Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment •

• category 5 - general

Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • Editor assistance • Page protection • Wikiquette alerts  •Bot noticeboard

Comments

All comments invited, the idea is that similar things are near each other. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat 1: "areas likely to be of long term concern" ?? What determine what goes in 1 vs 2 (I can make a case that Fringe Theories belongs in 1, or conversly I could make a case that Ethnic belongs in 2) Cat 4 the order ought to roughly mimic the dispute resolution process... RfC, Med, RfAr, AE and move 3RR elsewhere... like to cat 3 maybe? Also maybe WQA belongs in with Cat 4 ? Just some ideas to mull. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I suppose 1 and 2 could be the same really, makes sense. I will try a mockup below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave a general comment here for now. I like the layout of the "alternate" board below much better than the current abuselinks layout. Still some to go but it is a big improvement. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sample navebox then

OK folks, where I am, WP pages are reloading insanely slowly. For layout, can someone who is good at these things centre-align the RHS links, and make row 2 (trouble areas) orange or salmon pink or some sort of alert colour. Add other ideas below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What is RHS? If that's just all the links, this navbox does not look right with center-aligned links. A great deal of white space. The idea above made sense to me, to have five groups, with one containing the most contentious areas together. Spam and fiction aren't contentious. BLP issues, perhaps NPOV also, is contentious. Also, splitting them up, preventing any one group from taking more than one line, would improve the overall look of the box as well. I do not, however, know how to put it with a colored background with-out editing the navbox code, which would change all navboxes. لennavecia 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RHS = acronym for right-hand side (column in this case), ok I will have a move around of topiclinks and see if we can get 'em more even. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Next navbox

Danged if I know whish heading to put spam in...top one I guess.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated

Cooee, anyone out there think this box is a good idea and change for the better now? If not, let me know why not.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Without yet commenting on anything else, I really don't see why you've highlighted the 'contentious areas' row (or why you've used that hiddeous orange, but I suppose that bit's more personal preference). _TalkIslander 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, may be a bit loud :) My idea is as follows (the orange mimics the orange bar of a new message and so catches the reader's attention, oh well, may not necessarily need to be orange I guess, a pink will do. Anyway, the idea is that it highlights areas which can always do with more eyes, BLPs and other areas listed. This came about as part of questions raised on WP's BLP policy. I felt the main problem was not the policy but the application of such, and hence even a simple step such as highlighting links may be helpful. If even a couple more admins a day chip in, this may be of use in some of these difficult areas. My other issue was the navbox doesn't have things one would expect to be next to each other next to each other, so I tried to tweak it thus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate (easier on the eyes...)

I was happy with the existing version of Editabuselinks. The colored highlighting strikes me as unnecessary. How was it determined that ANI does not get included in the 'contentious areas' section? I assume that this reform of Editabuselinks is intended to help people who are not too familiar with our system, but I don't see how these changes make it any better. In general, sending a random newcomer over to WP:Editor assistance/Requests if they are having a dispute is probably the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ed. Also, it strikes me that this is a very good way of highlighting all the worse things about Wikipedia - is that really what we want to do? _TalkIslander 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your points with the highlighting, but aren't the places this board is seen is by editors who may be looking what to do about a problem, not necessarily "wikitourists"? I would be happy to stick AN/I in there too. The other idea of the rearrangement is that I found it frustrating (given there are quite a lot of links) that similar links one may be looking for are not near each other (eg SSP and checkuser, biographies and BLP sanctions,) and the General sanctions isn't even there. Essentially, you come to the board with a problem and maybe a bit unclear what to do about it, rather than with an action in mind (as the current categories on the left are) and then look to see where to go. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't contentious areas just be "content noticeboards" or something like that? Those boards are almost all part of the dispute resolution chain and so can be contentious, but that wouldn't be the first word I would use to describe them. Further, I think the highlighting is going to be reverted in a few days after it goes live. I can't see it being a good idea. Protonk (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, is RFAR the final step in DR or outside the DR chain? /em goes to check... Protonk (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Last step. Protonk (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I just stuck contentious there as a working adjective - waasn't sure what to call it and all input welcome...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok. I would say (given the space available) just "Content". And I would move general sanctions to "General" and consider removing entirely the BLP sanction log (It's pretty low traffic and can probably be subordinated to BLP or BLPN). Protonk (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Love it. Now if I only could stop the inevitable dozens of clicks I will make to AN3 and WQA out of motor memory... Protonk (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK then...anyone else have a comment? I suspect it may be good to get a couple of more "ayes"... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My only objection would be to some overcapitalization; I'd prefer "User issues", "Dispute resolution", and "Requests for arbitration" (whether "Informal" should remain majusculed is a closer question, and probably no one but I cares to think). Otherwise it seems fine, and most probably a nice improvement over the current version. Joe 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, capitals wasn't a strong feeling one way or t'other for me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I've removed the All Caps in some links. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, how many tentative positives do you reckon I/we should wait for before replacing it? No-one seems unhappy so far (well, once I removed the brown/orange bit)... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Separators

The main differences are in the dashes (—) for all the AN items (WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AE), as they are all AN items. Not too controversial, right? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look consistent. Plus, they are seperate boards, each with different purposes. — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about the arrangement in the preceding section? Any more convnenient? I don't mind if you say no, just only a few have commented thus far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The dashes seem unusual. Since this template gets tweaked a lot, the dashes will probably disappear in the next tweak unless the motivation for their presence is made very clear. With regard to the section names, isn't this back to the way it was on 14 November? That seemed OK to me. I think it's better to use the term 'Noticeboards' rather than a more generic term like 'Dispute resolution,' which I think is Casliber's proposal. Most everything in the template has something to do with dispute resolution. The template is more of a memory aid for frequent users than a guide for newbies. (For example, you heard of a noticeboard once, but forgot its name). EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New header

ZOMG! Casilber you doomed us all! Just dropped by to thank you for being bold and making that change. As promised, I first noticed it when I ended up clicking on AN3 instead of AN. But good job. Looks great and no complaints yet. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, now to try and figure out the BLP thing.... (groan) I left a note with Ral as my other idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New contributor's talk page being neglected again!

Please bear with me in case this starts off sounding off-topic: Until half a year ago, the Village Pump had 5 sub-pages, and one of those had the Editabuselinks template at the top. Then it was decided that this particular page was redundant (being similar to the Help desk), and was removed. This was the page that contained Editabuselinks, and once that page was gone, there were no longer any Village Pump related pages pointing to New contributors' help page, which I thought was a shame, as this page is actively used, but might not remain so if it's being hidden. Why would we want to hide it?

Furthermore, I think the template should be somewhere on the Village Pump, possibly on the index page. The Pump is for anyone interested in what goes on "behind the scenes" at Wikipedia, and it's nice to let those people in on what goes on regarding administration. Long ago, before I got my Wikipedia account, I tried to learn what Wikipedia is about, and how it works, before becoming a contributor, and the Abuselinks was a great introduction to all that. It's another thing that should not be hidden.

At the time, I complained about this situation on the Village Pump page, but nobody wanted to address it. As a "temporary" solution (until someone wakes up and realizes the importance of putting Abuselinks and a link to New Contributors back in the Village Pump), I put the Editabuselinks template on my user page, and I often use it as a fast way of getting into New Contributors.

Now the link been removed from the template! This was done last week, and the edit summary says, "reorg for convenience - positive vibe and no real opposition on talk". There does not appear to be any discussion of removal of links on this talk page, so possibly the omission was an accident. On the other hand, I do see that a case could be made for exluding that link from this template. But in that case, I would like to re-open the problem of New Contributors page not getting an even break, and links to it continually being removed from highly visible areas. I also think it's in your interest to get this template back on the Village Pump page. And if you don't want the New Contributors link on the template, maybe you could make a plea for putting it somewhere else on the Pump index page. Thanks for your consideration of this request. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it was an accident and have no knowledge of the history above. Feel free to readd miscellaneous links seen as necessary. I mainly reorganized it so things were next to each other for convenience. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I don't have authority to edit the template, so I'll have to request that you or another admin review what needs to be changed, and make the edit. Looking at old and new versions, I see all the links in the entire top line (labelled "general help") have been removed: Help desk, Site directory, Editor's index, Image and media copyright, Userpage help, New user help. In the second line, another link has been removed: BLP sanctions logging. I also notice that the first 2 sections of the current version are called "Admins' noticeboard" and "BLP noticeboard", yet there is another section called "Noticeboards", where one might expect to find those two links. Sorry to say, I think this still needs some work, and perhaps the old version should be restored for the time being. Another thing: on other permenantly protected templates that I've seen, there is a big box at the top of the talk page explaining the situation, and giving direction on how to request an edit; see here for an example. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Placement of AN and ANI

There is no perfect way for organizing these discussion places into groups, but on 15 November at least everything that was called a noticeboard was in the 'Noticeboard' section. Now I see that AN and ANI have become 'General.' Seems to me they should go back in the Noticeboard section. I actually use this template for navigation, to save keystrokes, so for me the sequence 'Noticeboards -> AN' is logical. The word 'General' is not in its name. The 'Bot noticeboard' should also go in the Noticeboard section, which is where it was originally placed in November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. About the only thing AN/I has in common with the other noticeboards is its name. I think the arrangement of this template is always a work in progress, so I'm sure we can figure something out. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that the removal of 7 links from the template is apparently an oversight! Shouldn't that be corrected right away? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Righty-ho - will have a looky. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, readded now. Any other links should be there? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The old one (pre December) had a "BLP sanctions logging" link; I'm not sure if that should be retained. Also, there is a dot missing between "New User Help" and "Editor Assistance"; a "nowrap end" appears in its place. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does the header (i.e. this template) look different on WP:AN compared to WP:ANI? D.M.N. (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The font of the current page changes (black text instead of blue) which is just enough to make the line a little wider, forcing a page break. It's not a problem, because it can happen anywhere on any line depending on user's screen width. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha! clever ain't it? Just gives a little sponteneity to the thing... XD Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New noticeboard

So how shall we account for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard? MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the Noticeboards section? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does ArbCom want to be added? We once added the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard and they weren't too happy about it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be added to the Noticeboards section. I'm fine with that, but you should really ask the Arbitrators. :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea, from my point of view, we are trying to promote the profile of the board. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm not hearing any objections to adding Arbcom, but what about Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard? MBisanz ^talk 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. ~~~~. oh, er..... - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. WP:CSD#42 maybe? </joke> MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition

{{editprotected}} Any possibility of adding Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English to the content section?, like this:

Its a page that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention as it needs, and it fits in with the other pages in the content section--94.192.72.3 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. I believe you are misinterpreting the purpose of this template. JPG-GR (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am. Just like spam, and copyvio in particular, pnt is a board where problem articles are listed/discussed--94.192.72.3 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing translation are not really considered "problematic". — Edokter • Talk • 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on what definition? They are unreadable by the majority of people and a very often they turn out to be copyvio's or original research. Surely the whole point of this part of the template is that if a person has a problem with article content, it has links to the different places they could take it, be it OR, a fringe theory, or spam, etc. How is translation different?--94.192.72.3 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This was me by the way. And I still think it should be added--Jac16888^Talk 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} Add WP:NPOVN to the list of noticeboards ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already there. — Edokter • Talk • 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Title bar?

This template needs a title bar. -Stevertigo 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? To state the name of the template (to make it easier to find), or to show the v/d/e links? Those are just for convenience, and the name can be found by editing any article containing the template. I have never seen a requirement that all templates must have a title bar, and infoboxes at the right of articles do not have it. The title of this template is a little awkward and confusing, so I can understand why we may not wish to display it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Links

I've made two changes - the "arbcom noticeboard" recently added, is not really an "edit abuse" link and is more "arbcom statements for the community", removed it for now, as most places where "edit abuse links" are relevant, this noticeboard is not adding much. Also improved placement of RFAR.

Will try to figure a better way to organize these, as many others above have done, but for now those changes might be an improvement. (Example: BLP noticeboard is "content" but NPOV noticeboard is "noticeboards".) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The template could be named better; it has evolved (I think) into a de facto navigational template for most things bureaucratic. Maybe it should be named admins'-little-helper or something. I thought (well, think) having the arbcom noticeboard was a good thing there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean...help desk? and user page help? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Two different takes then. Is this a "helper for admins", in which case "user page help" is off but AC/N is on. Or is it "abuse links help", in which case it has to serve users seeking help on a wide range of issues. In any event, try this?:

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

MUCH better. I was going to try to eliminate the wikilinked "arbcom" bit (no real need, and it was confusing for a bit). Though I don't think we need to rename the template. Protonk (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, net positive :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove "user page help". It is like some of the other help pages: help desk, new user help, and should go in the top section with those others. I am concerned that these pages are not as visible as they should be at Wikipedia, and some people may be linking to them regularly from this box. If certain links are removed, it could impact how easy they are to find, and activity could drop. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many project pages that are useful to various users, and need awareness and traffic. But a link header for links related to abuse only tangentially touches on help as it is - user page help is quite a bit outside that. It's not really a "catch-all" for any useful page.

What might work better would be a "help pages" template with other help pages listed, or a "new users help" links template, and show that one where needed. But "page X needs more visibility" isn't really a reason to include it in an abuse links template unless it's actually pertinent to abuse. Some of the other links could perhaps be moved to "general help links" as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability noticeboard

Can we have WP:Notability/Noticeboard under Content? I think it would fit nicely. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been significantly discussed or endorsed for creation, I'd suggest discussing the use of this noticeboard at WT:N. Cenarium (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)