Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Top notice[edit]

I have removed the top notice, asking people not to post deletion request at this page. I see no problem with having information about copyvios on the administrators' noticeboard. As long as they get deleted... sometimes it might be useful to have other administrators' looking at the issue. / Fred Chess 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


In preparation for merging COM:AN/A into COM:AN, I'm going to remove it from this template, directing users to the main noticeboard (since the other one will disappear soon).  — Mike.lifeguard 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I have renamed this mainspace page to a template space, since this is a template. Rehman 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputes noticeboard[edit]

The text in the link to Commons:Disputes noticeboard is misleading, since it is not a noticeboard - maybe it was, but it is now redirected to Commons:Dispute resolution. I suggest changing the text in order to avoid implying that the link leads to a noticeboard.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course: The page you want to change is Template:Administrators' noticeboard lead translations/User problems. Thank you! -- Rillke(q?) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


@FDMS4, Steinsplitter: I've fully protected template for a day - because of your unproductive edit war. Please discuss first. Revicomplaint? 12:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's discuss. I don't think that non-edit links should be titled "edit", and I don't think there is need for watch links in this template for all four noticeboards (there are already watch links in the Wikimedia interface, in case anyone didn't know that). These were my reasons for making the change to the template. Yes, I didn't post here first or put up a RFC, but I swear that I would have done so if I knew that the edit would be controversial. Still, to be honest, I'm afraid I can't understand the reason why it turned out to be that controversial, not even after the very detailed explanation Steinsplitter provided in his edit summaries.    FDMS  4    22:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Hym411: How long am I supposed to wait for a reply?    FDMS  4    13:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I simply don't see the need and not every post is a report. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

New archive links[edit]

We're getting ready to be in the need of new archive links for the "Blocks and protections" and "Other" sections. I was going to get consensus before making this change, as seemingly it would be major. Thanks. DLindsley Need something? 17:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: How many do we really need? @B dash extended the number of redlinked COM:AN archive links to three in this edit, but shouldn't one be sufficient for each board, or even zero if the archiving bots can handle the task?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@B dash: Why do we need more than one redlinked archive per board?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: We keep two red links for each board. This is a practice for years. You may discuss it if you disagree. --B dash (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@B dash: That looks unprofessional, I think the redlinks could be reduced by humans and eliminated by bots.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)