This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Noticeboard links template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
The result of the move request was moved to Template:Noticeboard links. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Editabuselinks → ? — I'm not sure what to call this template, but considering that it includes links to generic help boards such as "requests for feedback", I think that a more inclusive name is in order. @ harej 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since very few of these things are about dispute resolution, how about "Template:Noticeboard links"? @ harej 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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. -- œ ™ 18:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. the "Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement" links have also been moved to different titles.
I suggest linking the new Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard in the Content section. (Noticeboard has been discussed/approved at WT:EL). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Added -- Hu12 ( talk) 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} As part of the total revamp of the old Abuse Report system we have moved and renamed the project to Wikipedia:Abuse response. As part of the last stage of the rename the main page was recently moved. While there is a redirect from the old Wikipedia:Abuse report main page we are trying to change all the links we can. Since this high visibility template links to the abuse response system we were wondering if you could make the following change:
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)
I saw a thread at WP:ANI that had a suggestion to have an indicator on this template for backlogs. Is this feasible? N/ A 0 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
sudo}}
I don't see any reason to have this be fully protected. Thanks. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 19:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps during the pending changes trial a link to the noticeboard for issues might be a good idea?. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Noticeboard. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about adding WP:NFCR? It's missing from the copyright related links. Ocaasi t | c 01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
There is a proposal at the Village Pump to close the Wikiquette page. The consensus appears to be moving in favor of closing, but the discussion is still on-going. If it were closed, this project page would need to be modified to remove WQA and perhaps replace it with something (perhaps a link to Dispute Resolution process or Third Opinion because the latter may take on much of the workload). Please comment at the Village Pump discussion (not here, so the talk is colocated) if you have any thoughts. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
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)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)
@ Anna Frodesiak: The "Other" menu category is poorly named and contains noticeboard links that would be better placed elsewhere. Arbitration should not be something "other". In that category, many of the questions should be linked in the first menu (editor assistance, help desk, teahouse) general or not. The organization here is very poor. New user menus are currently buried at the bottom. This is ridiculous. We need to imply in the design that there are new users, experienced users, and power users. So there should be a three menu interface allowing the initial click to change the entire menu to the suggested user experience menu on top. In other words, the destination board has one of the three color coded menus. For example, a user clicks ANI. At the board you get the power user interface. But wait, a user clicks on editor assistance. Then it changes to more of a new user menu. So the first click on any menu will bring you to one of three interfaces. So I'm proposing three different menus to cover all of the linked articles sorted by user expertise instead of one single template menu. That's why the sort is so off. A new user clicking on the arbitration board should get a menu of power user links, not a link to editor assistance. Of course, it's possible that those links are still accessible but grayed out, highlighting the current menu. In that case, we could keep the current menu but change the color scheme depending on which noticeboard you were visiting. Of course, this menu should interface with others universally, such as {{ Help navigation}}. Viriditas ( talk) 10:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)How about adding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to the navbox? Seems to follow criteria for inclusion. -- Mrjulesd (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a link to WP:REPAIR.
[[Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen|History merges]]
(immediately after
Moves) By the way, why should this page be protected?
SD0001 (
talk) 13:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[Wikipedia:Deletion process|XfD]]
to [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|Deletion]]
although in no way incorrect, but changes like this to a highly visible template and I think you should ask the users of this template if they want this type of change. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 16:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think some links are not used very often and could be moved to a collapsed section (or removed entirely). In particular, WP:Sanctions, WP:EDR, and WP:GS aren't noticeboards and probably could be collapsed. WP:SVG help and WP:SPLICE don't get that many edits either. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: Per WP:BIDI, constituents of navboxes are expected to have the navbox on the page. Do you have an opinion on that? -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
There does not seem to be consensus for inclusion of the link and so I am going to restore the STATUSQUO version. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussions for discussion is a moderately new board for discussion closers to discuss evaluation of consensus in discussions. Given that it died down for about six months in participation due to not being advertised, as seen by MJL's comments on the talk page, could it be sensible to add the board to the noticeboard list? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:249F:60D4:52C:AF89 ( talk) 05:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Noticeboard links template. |
|
Archives: 1 |
The result of the move request was moved to Template:Noticeboard links. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:Editabuselinks → ? — I'm not sure what to call this template, but considering that it includes links to generic help boards such as "requests for feedback", I think that a more inclusive name is in order. @ harej 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since very few of these things are about dispute resolution, how about "Template:Noticeboard links"? @ harej 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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. -- œ ™ 18:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. the "Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement" links have also been moved to different titles.
I suggest linking the new Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard in the Content section. (Noticeboard has been discussed/approved at WT:EL). Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Added -- Hu12 ( talk) 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} As part of the total revamp of the old Abuse Report system we have moved and renamed the project to Wikipedia:Abuse response. As part of the last stage of the rename the main page was recently moved. While there is a redirect from the old Wikipedia:Abuse report main page we are trying to change all the links we can. Since this high visibility template links to the abuse response system we were wondering if you could make the following change:
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)
I saw a thread at WP:ANI that had a suggestion to have an indicator on this template for backlogs. Is this feasible? N/ A 0 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
sudo}}
I don't see any reason to have this be fully protected. Thanks. --
MZMcBride (
talk) 19:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps during the pending changes trial a link to the noticeboard for issues might be a good idea?. Wikipedia:Pending changes/Noticeboard. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about adding WP:NFCR? It's missing from the copyright related links. Ocaasi t | c 01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
There is a proposal at the Village Pump to close the Wikiquette page. The consensus appears to be moving in favor of closing, but the discussion is still on-going. If it were closed, this project page would need to be modified to remove WQA and perhaps replace it with something (perhaps a link to Dispute Resolution process or Third Opinion because the latter may take on much of the workload). Please comment at the Village Pump discussion (not here, so the talk is colocated) if you have any thoughts. -- Noleander ( talk) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
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)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)
@ Anna Frodesiak: The "Other" menu category is poorly named and contains noticeboard links that would be better placed elsewhere. Arbitration should not be something "other". In that category, many of the questions should be linked in the first menu (editor assistance, help desk, teahouse) general or not. The organization here is very poor. New user menus are currently buried at the bottom. This is ridiculous. We need to imply in the design that there are new users, experienced users, and power users. So there should be a three menu interface allowing the initial click to change the entire menu to the suggested user experience menu on top. In other words, the destination board has one of the three color coded menus. For example, a user clicks ANI. At the board you get the power user interface. But wait, a user clicks on editor assistance. Then it changes to more of a new user menu. So the first click on any menu will bring you to one of three interfaces. So I'm proposing three different menus to cover all of the linked articles sorted by user expertise instead of one single template menu. That's why the sort is so off. A new user clicking on the arbitration board should get a menu of power user links, not a link to editor assistance. Of course, it's possible that those links are still accessible but grayed out, highlighting the current menu. In that case, we could keep the current menu but change the color scheme depending on which noticeboard you were visiting. Of course, this menu should interface with others universally, such as {{ Help navigation}}. Viriditas ( talk) 10:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)How about adding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to the navbox? Seems to follow criteria for inclusion. -- Mrjulesd (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a link to WP:REPAIR.
[[Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen|History merges]]
(immediately after
Moves) By the way, why should this page be protected?
SD0001 (
talk) 13:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[Wikipedia:Deletion process|XfD]]
to [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|Deletion]]
although in no way incorrect, but changes like this to a highly visible template and I think you should ask the users of this template if they want this type of change. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 16:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think some links are not used very often and could be moved to a collapsed section (or removed entirely). In particular, WP:Sanctions, WP:EDR, and WP:GS aren't noticeboards and probably could be collapsed. WP:SVG help and WP:SPLICE don't get that many edits either. Thoughts? Enterprisey ( talk!) 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: Per WP:BIDI, constituents of navboxes are expected to have the navbox on the page. Do you have an opinion on that? -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
There does not seem to be consensus for inclusion of the link and so I am going to restore the STATUSQUO version. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussions for discussion is a moderately new board for discussion closers to discuss evaluation of consensus in discussions. Given that it died down for about six months in participation due to not being advertised, as seen by MJL's comments on the talk page, could it be sensible to add the board to the noticeboard list? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:249F:60D4:52C:AF89 ( talk) 05:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)