Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard archives

Reformatting

Moved from Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to use a table-based layout for this template and {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}} (see 57429169, 58789934), but Crypticbot is currently using and updating these templates. I tried contacting Cryptic, but he seems to have been away for a few months. Any suggestions? æ² ✆ 2006-06-15t18:07z

WP:RS/N

What about adding WP:RS/N to the box?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see it develop first, I say. --Edokter (Talk) 12:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What about now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Seeing it's not really an administrative board, and it already is included on {{editabuselinks}}, I would have to advice against it. — Edokter • Talk • 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX

Moved from Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I boldly added a {{NOINDEX}} to this template, precisely so that it would affect every archive and that none of the archives would be indexed. A subsequent edit by Edokter reverted it. That was B, and R, so let's discuss. Why would not having these pages be indexed not be a good thing? ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is a very good idea to NOINDEX these pages. The new internal search engine permits restrictive searching of page areas (somewhere on WP:VPT). Right now all the AN and ANI archives show up on google, which means people searching will run across these pages in a rather unfaltering manner that harms the reputation of editors mentioned on the pages negatively. Look at this search for "Troy J. Ross" a barely notable actor who article was deleted [1], but we kept the AN page documenting that we find his bio funny and that his article was a copyvio. That is impacting a real living person who is trying to lead a life that doesn't involve Wikipedia and our search needs are interfering with it. And that is what I found clicking a random archive. I can't imagine how many hundreds of other landmines are in our several hundred archive system that could be wiped from google by adding {{NOINDEX}} to this template. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• This is so obviously correct I'm stunned that hasn't been the case since {{NOINDEX}} exists! — Coren ^(talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Now that we have a very good working search engine internally for these (I've used it myself) there's never again any value to public SEO exposure of this content. rootology (C)(T) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Gotta agree with everyone else here. No longer a good reason to leave this google-able, there is too much nasty stuff on these pages, including lots of nasty things about non-Wikipedians, subjects of articles, etc. I'm fully in favour of NOINDEX here. Risker (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Proposed this large scale at VP so obvious endorse here. Technical questions: 1) do the archives need "purging" for the new transclusion to take effect? 2) if an archive is NOINDEXed rather than blanked does the material stay visible (not overwritten) within googles cache? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • They will self-purge over a week or so as the job-queue cycles through automatically. The google cache will eventually disappear as the page is removed from googles index over time (varies depending on their cycles). MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If we had a NOCACHE function, similar to this, it would clear the caches by virtue of them simply not being there. I've always wondered why we didn't do that by default (keep the defamation down to real time as it were) but thats a mega-war for the future, not today. rootology (C)(T) 03:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, this probably should be noindexed. --NE2 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• I initially thought the NOINDEX was placed to keep the template itself out of search engines. If the archives shouldn't be indexed, then my revert was in error. — Edokter • Talk • 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the template is transcluded in the archives, so is the NOINDEX. --NE2 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Increasing the potential usefulness

Howdy. I'm not sure how many people have this watched, but I thought I would share some thoughts. I think that this template could become more useful if the number of redlinks was reduced and they were replaced with existing archives. It appears that new AN archive pages are made by a bot. If so, then there doesn't appear to be a point to having the red links in the template. So instead of showing archive numbers 221-240 with the last 6 being red links, maybe we could show 216-235 (to reduce the redlinks to 1 per section)? After a new archive is created, the archives shown could be shifted over one?. Any thoughts?--Rockfang (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Came from ANCurrently the nav template appears to be updated manually. As a practical matter, to do what your asking would require a bot to frequently update the template so that it keeps up with the newest archives. I guess you could pursue getting a bot for it, don't see any harm in doing that, but not sure if its worth the effort either. Monty₈₄₅ 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

20 archives

Updates the module to deliver 20 archives per noticeboard for this compact version, rather than a number between 11 and 20 depending on the cardinality of the archives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Community sanction noticeboard

Moved from Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been obsolete for 5 years. I propose to replace the navboxes in the 14 Community sanction noticeboard archives with a compact version, then change the default for this full navbox to leave out the csn. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

 Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Mobile

Moved from Module talk:Admin board archives

 – {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The content of this template doesn't show up at all on mobile. All I see is the words "Noticeboard archives" in bold and the template view/talk/edit links. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to the agreed alternative titles. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• Module:Admin board archives → Module:Administrators' noticeboard navbox

– Match name with template * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Move, but not to the title suggested by the OP. The names of the template and the module should indeed match. However, I think that the current name of the template is not the one that we should use for both. Instead, I think that Module:Admin board archives and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox should be moved to Module:Administrators' noticeboard archives and Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives respectively, because the template clearly shows links to archives of WP:AN. Likewise, Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all should be moved to Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives all. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  That title is fine with me. (when doing this kind of move request, I usually choose the name of the template, unless I see a strong reason to prefer one over the other). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Move per Geoffrey's even more consistent and content/relationship-clarify alternative proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 17 January 2020 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 enable mw-collapsible

Sync with sandbox [2]. This enables collapsiblity. This collapses {{Administrators'_noticeboard_archives_all}} by default but leaves uncollapsed {{Administrators'_noticeboard_archives}}.

The problem is float:right leaving ≤50% screen real-estate reading the first section at >100% zoom. This is inconvenient for readers clicking on a wikilink and ending up at the ANI archives, whereas the actual participants had a convenient reading experience outside the archives.

Ideally, a template editor could make each subheading collapsible, a more complex solution User:Izno might have attempted. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: You had to do this literally right while I'm working on things? :) I've been thinking about making each heading collapsible which will be more possible after my sandbox is done, so yes, let's hold off on this change for now. Izno (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I've been intending since July, and only learned how recently. I thought my incrementalist change'd've been able to fix problems 1 week faster, but my borderless collapsed display might've been a bit confusing. Yeah, let's hold off to not delay you making each heading collapsible. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: Any update on this? Personally, I think collapse-by-default would be much higher quality-of-life for reading part of an noticeboard archive. In the rare situation where it's useful to click on a specific numbered archive, a button to unhide works well enough. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to go for it, go for it. I've been off doing other things.

Probably the better change in all this is to migrate to using Module:Sidebar instead, using the collapsible feature and then at least the behavior is standard. There's no reason this needs to be its own custom table. Izno (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider looking at Module:Sidebar. I think retaining a similar-looking style might be preferred, though (I'd imagine the module probably allows stylistic tweaks). Retro (talk | contribs) 04:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)