Template talk:Noticeboard links

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)

@Giraffer headbomb moved it there as an attempted compromise. But again we don't consider evaluating a deletion close or move close user conduct so I don't think we should consider this a conduct forum. Best,@Giraffer Barkeep49 (talk) 13:06, 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)

• 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 STATUSQUO version. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: regarding your edit summary - because of this lack of consensus is why. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've reverted. I added it just then because I'm not that familiar with the shortcut and had to run around to a bunch of different pages to find the noticeboard. It seems to me that it should be more broadly visible than that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Should WP:TEA be included?

The Teahouse could be a good thing to include on here (potentially after the Village Pump)... Thoughts?

• Wikipedia:Teahouse

BhamBoi (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Has been since 2012 [1]. Cheers. 98.246.75.122 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha, maybe I need to get my vision checked! BhamBoi (talk) 18:19, 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)

@Uwappa sorry, rabbit hole was deeper! I left a note at Template_talk:Skip_to_bottom#TOC_Useless_with_vector-2022. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, cancelled question here. Thank you. Uwappa (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BRD

@AlsoPonyo @Ponyo (wait, are you the same person?)

The reason I made the change was to be consistent within the navbox. No other parenthetical list has a subbullet called "Main", they all simply wikilink the actual parent bullet instead. See these other lists from the current version, for example:

• Sanctions 
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics

[...]

• Usernames (Requests for comment)

[...]

• Edit filters 
  • Requested
  • False positives

[...]

• Village pump 
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

[...]

• XfD 
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
  • Discussions

[...]

• Spam 
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist

For consistency, either these would all need to be changed, or just the very first one. FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• For the ones you've listed, there is a link to the umbrella policy/topic, followed by a list of subpages (of sorts) that fall within that umbrella. There is no overarching page for the administrator boards (unless one wanted to link Wikipedia:Administrators, which I don't think is necessary), so it has the two admin boards listed beside it (main and incidents). This mirrors how the similar Arbitration topic is handled. In my opinion, the current state is clearer for navigational purposes while your proposed change is not.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I see you're re-added the link to Sanctions. That seems confusing; that's definitely not a noticeboard or an aggregation of noticeboards, so I don't understand why it needs to be linked. it will only get confused with a noticebaord and annoy users.

  The only other non-noticeboard wikilinked pages among the ones i sent you is XfD, which I also think should be unlinked. it is not a noticeboard.

  The rest are indeed noticeboard or aggregations of noticeboards. FaviFake (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Actually i guess sanctions could be considered a DAB for noticebaords. Still, except XfD (a full-on guideline!), all of them are noticeboards and they're wikilinked at the first bullet, not inside parentheses. FaviFake (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I reverted back to the version before the edits were made to restore the status quo. For extremely visible navigation templates such as this, there should be some sort of discussion before such changes are made (again, my opinion, others may disagree). Since this specifically changes how the admin noticeboards are linked, I'll drop a quick note at WP:AN.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Arbitration and Questions have the same layout. Is the objection to the word "main"? Schazjmd (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• I like the current arrangement that we all have gotten used to over the years. I see no reason to suddenly make changes for "consistency's" sake. One editor's preferences shouldn't cause major changes with a primary template most of us see and use every day we are working on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• I would prefer we just leave this template alone. I don't understand why Wikipedia users have to spend so much time trying to fix things that aren't broken. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Agreed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Alright then, it'll remain inconsistent! FaviFake (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)