Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

My comments

I like the movement of the editabuse a archive boxes to the same level, but some users don't have screens as wie as mine and it already cuts off editabuse on its own, can someone with another resolution checkthis layout and the 2 column layout? Wikitan and the Mop are good ideas, the Golden Wiki ad Puzze Mop seem to devalue that award. That and there seems to be more white space at the page top (maybe I'm just groggy). I know nothing of TOC coding, but would find it confusing if it was shrunk to being not very wide Maybe something incorporating the boilerplate text next to the TOC? MBisanz ^talk 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Vis the Golden Wiki and Puzzle mop, I was just looking for more images related to adminship, so I pinched the Golden Wiki image from Image:Admin logo.gif. I wondered for ages what to do with the ToC - it varies in size enormously as threads are added and archived - at the moment it's about as long as it gets because of the massive Archtransit thread. I did at one point put it in a collapsible box - is this a good idea? Happy‑melon 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First impression

First impressions are good, but the navbox should have the full page width (so the shortcut box needs to be moved). I would also have moved the archive box within the header instead of in the topics. The TOC is too narrow, and overall the page could do with less images; one good image should suffice. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The hiddentoc is a good idea. I made some tweaks, moving the shortcut box down so it doesn't squeeze the navbox, and also moved the archive box sop it stays next to the TOC. Also, was it ment to stay white or become transparent? — Edokter • Talk • 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I left it white because I couldn't think of a nice colour - transparent is just as good. I like your modifications. Vis the images, I put the two at the bottom mostly to increase the whitespace around the newsection link to give it more prominence. It looks wierd if it's forcibly expanded, and squashed without the images. If anyone can think of better images to use there, do suggest them. Happy‑melon 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it is a lot more aesthetically pleasing to me. However, for ease of usability, I can't say I am a big fan of having the TOC hidden. SorryGuy  Talk  19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please don't hide the TOC - it's usually the most informative thing on the whole page. I would also prefer the images at the top to be smaller. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much fuss, dislike it, and want to see the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unhidden the TOC. — Edokter • Talk • 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good start, but those images at the top are a lot of fuss that just create more scrolling to get to the meat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Images?

The images don't do anything for me at all. They seem out of place and amateurish (both the images themselves and their placement here), IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hide header sections in TOC?

Is there any way to prevent the sections in the header ("Are you in the right place?", "Using this page", and "Current issues") from appearing in the TOC? The TOC is labeled "Current issues" so the header sections are out of place in that listing. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked at WP:VPT but I haven't had anything useful from them. Happy‑melon 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Short of replacing the headers with HTML... no. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And the problem with using HTML is...? --ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Each skin has different HTML. — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I figured there was some reason not use such a simple hack. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done already?

Wanna do Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader next? — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

First, is there any way to put "Click here to start a new discussion thread" at the top, or at least under the nav box? Also, I think "Are you in the right place" and "using this page" should have a border and maybe a different color background to help make those areas stick out better. That said, I like the new design, just thought I would give some suggestions. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New Header, Comments welcome

I created a new header based on the new changes in my sandbox, the only thing I cant figure out is how to make the two tables that are next to each other justify to the same length. I wanted to see what others thought, I think it is a little more pleasing to eye and looks better. Any suggestions or comments? « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD, hope you all like the new design. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SorryGuy  Talk  04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is now a big header saying "Click here to start a new discussion thread" above all the discussion about making sure you're in the right place. In other words, if you don't know how to start a new discussion thread, you probably don't know you're in the wrong place, so ... it seems like the disclaimer should go up top, along with a TOC link (similar to the one in the instructions at WP:FAC) so experienced users can skip all that stuff at the top. What was wrong with the old page design, btw? Wiki pages are getting more complex lately; do we need this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? and I agree the page was fine as it was, but since we have this new design I figured it would be best to make it look good. For reference this is based off of the header for WP:RFPP. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since AN and talk:AN are protected, I've created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts as a place IPs can post concerns. On an as-needed basis, can this be built into the header? MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to reword the sentence to your liking. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, its good, I know I would've destroyed the formatting had I tried. MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, your welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

IE issues

It's unfortunate that it had to be reverted. I looked great (in Firefox). I hope the issues with its use in IE can be fixed, so the tables can be re-implemented. нмŵוτнτ 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yrah, sorry about that... I test my designs in both IE and FF to avoid these reverts, usually in my sandbox. — Edokter • Talk • 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it would be great if you would maybe contact me or make a thread here before blindly reverting what took me a couple hours to make. Thanks. And yes I test my ideas in both Firefox and IE, I have actually seen the changes in two separate computers on three separate browsers and the only thing I saw in IE was the far right border on the right table wasn't showing, which I didn't think would be so devastating that all the changes would be reverted because one person had a problem with it. How bout in the future you do two thing: contact the person before you revert lots of work, and for everyone's benefit, download FireFox. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for your reference: My sandbox, where I worked on this first. Also see the thread above where I asked for comment on the new header. And the colors are the same, so I dont know what that was about. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be snide about it... Your boldness is appriciated, but if something doesn't work, it is reverted. In IE6, the text had a white background in a blue cell in a table using six different colors. The far right border being off was particularly bad. In writing layout for Wikipedia, just remember to keep it simple and consistent. Do you know how long it took to design the current article message boxes? It took months of small changes to get where it is now, before it was being implemented. So please don't take this personal. Be bold, but don't be reckless. — Edokter • Talk • 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if something doesn't work for many people, it is reverted. But if the problem is only on your screen, should it really be reverted? It was up for like 9 hours and no one had any complaints. Maybe instead it would be better to post on the talk page and see if the problem is more than just your browser. And I don't take things personal, but I hate to see hard work get blindly reverted because someone didnt like it. Imagine if you rewrote an article and I came and reverted it because it didnt look good to me? You probably would have wanted some discussion before the edit was made. That's all I ask for and to say what I did was reckless is...reckless (excuse the repetition). And again, I see nothing wrong in IE, so this problem may be that you havent updated it (ignoring the fact that you are using IE) or just your screen. But whatever, I guess my snideness isnt welcome here ;-) « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing is that no one's work is ever lost - your nine hours work is still just three lines down the revision table. Personally I prefer what's currently up (simpler and less intrusive) but if others prefer your version, and we can work out why it went so horribly wrong for Edokter and possibly others, there's no reason why it can't be restored. There's no time pressure, here or anywhere else. Happy‑melon 10:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, nine hours??? I dont think I would have ever spent that much time on the header for AN. And yes everyone I know that there is no rush, and all that mumbo-jumbo, my point was not so much my work, I really dont care, it was the fact that one user decided he didnt like the changes and just reverted. I personally would have preferred maybe a simple message here saying "Hey Im having issues on IE, is anyone else?" Believe me, I dont really care what the header to AN looks like, I really dont look at that part of AN much. I just wouldve rather had Edokter come here or to me and discuss it before just reverting, especially since so far he is the only one having problems with the header so (I have checked IE and dont see anything wrong except for very minor things). That leads me to believe that there just may be a problem with his browser or his screen, something we could have discussed first before he took it upon himself to revert the table. But again, like I said, I dont care! and like Happy-melon said, the version I made is in the history, so if you all ever feel like bringing it back, it will be there. (For what it is worth, I feel the current version, although better than the original, is bad, it doesnt have the affect that a header should have, this is something we want everyone to read before they post a thread, and it just looks like regular text. I mean look at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, etc, they all have bright colorful headers that draw your attention so that you read it first, so although simplicity usually is better, I think in this case we need something to draw the attention of people who post here, but whatever, thats just my opinion) « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I think "it was up for like 9 hours" got a bit mangled inside my head :D Happy‑melon 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah believe me, there are very few pages I would work on for nine hours here, and this header isnt one of them, lol :-). « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, my browser is just fine. But I do tend to pick up on formatting errors fairly quickly, however minor they are, and try to fix them immediately, or barring complexity, revert. And with regard to reverting "single-handedly", I tend to follow the philosophy of Bold, Revert, Discuss. I think we're at the third stage now... Now, would you like me to try and fix the issues in your sandbox, or do you just want to keep moaping? — Edokter • Talk • 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know, thats a tough decision, because on one hand I am here volunteering my time for this 'pedia and want to make it better, but on the other hand, moaping around is just so much fun... *contemplating tough decision* ...okay, I guess my desire for Wikipedia to be better trumps the extreme fun I was having "moaping" around. Feel free to try and fix it in my sandbox Edokter. And man you assume a lot about me, it actually made me crack a smile. On a side note, I would love to see what you are seeing on your browser, if you felt like taking a screen shot of it... « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a screenshot when I get home. Meanwhile, I did some tweaking. No table-in-table (so no seperate border per section), as that made the right borders disappear, but now everything looks OK. — Edokter • Talk • 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the screenshot: http://www.darcoury.nl/images/ANHeaderScreenshot.gif

Notice the background isn't consistent (it wasn't transparent) and that the right sides of each cell, including some words, is being cut off. — Edokter • Talk • 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New header

See User:Carnildo/sandbox6. I've simplified the "Are you in the right place?" section in the hopes that people will actually read it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but that looks really...weird. There is a bunch of text on the right side, and almost nothing on the left. I think compared to our original header, this one is just fine. No matter what we do, people still wont read it if they dont want to. I think the header looks great as it is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I played around with the header in your sandbox and then reverted my changes. If we were to change the wording then I think we would have to do something like how I changed it. The reversion should be in your history, check it out (I hope you dont mind me editing your sandbox) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with the current header is that it uses four typefaces, and averages one typeface change every 2.4 words. This makes it hard to read even if people want to. I don't see "looking weird" as a major problem. The keys are to make it easy to read (therefore, everything is a link) and easy to spot (so the large amount of whitespace is an advantage). --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your sandbox, I made some changes to typeface, would this be better? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Much worse. You're back up to four typefaces, and the bold blue links are yanking your attention away from the rest of the text. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then idk what then. I endorse our current header for what it is worth and would oppose the original idea in your sandbox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the latest version? It's got the verbose wording you seem to like, but only uses two typefaces (normal and link), and only has the essential links. --Carnildo (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support that change, it is easier to read, the only drawback would be that the important lniks kinda get lost, but I wouldnt oppose the change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the improvement over what's currently live. I don't know about you, but in the same way I automatically read WP:NPOV as simply NPOV, I don't really note much or any difference between linked and unlinked text, so I find the 'concern' over "four different typefaces" to be something of an exaggeration. How is the current text "hard to read"? Incidentally, I'm not denying that it's a little verbose, but I don't think it can be drastically condensed. Happy‑melon 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seealso

While there's no question that the see-also template is useful, is it not possible to make it the same width as the archivebox above? It currently looks awful. Happy‑melon 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They're both auto-sizing; fixing their widths could cause problems across different skins and font sizes, so I'd rather not. Anyway, they're nicely tucked away next to the TOC, so I don't thing anyone minds too much. — Edokter • Talk • 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some changes

So I tried to change this header in such a way that somebody might actually read it, but I got reverted. Please object here if you disagree with my changes. — Dan | talk 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree; there's a lot of work being lost. But I'll leave other to comment. — Edokter • Talk • 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Edokter and have reverted to the previous version. Aesthetically, the new version looks much less professional and I don't think the change was an improvement. The previous seems more complete, and the layout was better organized (as opposed to the new version which was a simple list). - auburnpilot talk 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, was a revert in order already? I asked for comments, got none in a reasonable space of time, and implemented my changes. I think it's on you now to make up your previous absence by writing on the talk page before reverting.

"Seems more complete" -- perhaps some specifics? Surely it's better to have something that people will read, than a huge mass of text that will be summarily ignored. (I'll note that the majority of threads on the noticeboard now actually belong elsewhere, so plainly no one is reading the header.) "Better organized" rather than a "simple list"? In my book a simple list is equivalent to better organization, and colored boxes make the eyes glaze over. "Must less professional" -- to the contrary, it's much less cluttered and more straightforward, which is nothing if not more professional. Think Google as opposed to the Druge Report. This revert-with-vague-comments business is disappointing to see on Wikipedia. Notice that, in response, I am not reverting, but waiting for your reply. Rarely does anything on Wikipedia have to happen immediately. I look forward to hearing your detailed opinion. Regards — Dan | talk 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to revert my edit, by all means go right ahead. I honestly don't care enough to argue the point, but I much prefer the previous version to the one you've implemented. Bottom line: I prefer the old version, but not enough to argue it. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the change; I suspect your definition of "professional" is different to mine. "Professionalism" is not measured by length; it is measured by ease of use, quality of appearance, and clarity of presentation. You have replaced a clearly defined header, with formatting to make it stand out, grab the reader's attention, and be more engaging, with a solid block of unformatted bullets which are easily mistaken for just another noticeboard thread. If you're concerned that not enough people are reading the header and introduction now, why do you think making the instructions less visible is going to do anything productive? Although I would applaud any efforts to remove and condense the unnecessary amount of detail in the instructions, I find your first comment highly amusing; in my opinion, this change summarily alters the header from "something that people will read" to "a huge mass of text that will be summarily ignored". Happy‑melon 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[bg:Уикипедия:Заявки към администраторите]]. --Petar Petrov (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for that - Alison ^❤ 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki no:

{{editprotect}} Could somebody add [[no:Wikipedia:Administratorer/Notisblokk]] to the list of interwikis? Thanks, --Kjetil r (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for letting us know :) - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hidden discussions are bad

May I suggest we redirect this page to the discussion page for the main AN page?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki sv:

Please add sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administreringen av Wikipedia. // habj (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

fixing iw-link

{{editprotected}}

Please change the huWP iw-link [[hu:Wikipédia:Adminisztrátorok üzenőfala/fejrész]], it points to the header of the Hungarian AN, not to the AN-page. :( The right iw should be simply [[hu:Wikipédia:Adminisztrátorok üzenőfala]], without the /fejrész section. Fejrész means actually header in Hungarian. ;) Thx. Bennó (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1000x thx. Bennó (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to AN Header about "complaints"

{{edit protected}} We should probably insert "However <font color="red">'''this is not the Wikipedia complaints department'''</font>." into the lower section of the AN header. I noticed that it says this at AN/I but not here. While AN is probably more general in scope that AN/I, neither are "the complaints department" considering that most complains can be solved without direct and immediate administrator attention. Feel free to ignore this if it has been raised previously. Of course, this is only worthwhile insofar as people actually read the instructions to pages...which is rarely. :) Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this header is already too long and too busy. An additional message would be unlikely to stand out even if it were huge and blinking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar pedantry

{{editprotected}} "Civility" and "Personal Attacks" seem inappropriately capitalised in the first instance of their appearance (though not in the second), as a use/mention ambiguity exists. Capitalisation should only be used in this context when the words in question are names. The name of our personal attacks policy is Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, or more ambiguously simply No Personal Attacks. "Personal Attacks" is not the name of any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of, and its use as such on the banner of the Wikipedia complaints department makes the project look amateurish. Could an editor empowered to do so please resolve this? Muchas gracias, the skomorokh 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

minor proposed modification in header

I've seen comments removed and I've seen people blocked for posting on ANI. Often these are fairly new users. The excuse of "trolling" and "sock" are often used though it doesn't seem to be a fair accusation all of the time. In effect, we are being bitey.

Change is fairly impossible to achieve. However, we could caution others with a notice. Something along the lines of "New users should post with extreme caution because of the possibility of having their remarks labelled as "trolling" or "sockpuppet"." Alternative wordings could be "Users who are not experienced users should consider their posts carefully to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry or trolling." or "New users are cautioned that their inexperience in Wikipedia may subject them to undesired action against them. Such action is not condoned by Wikipedia nor is Wikipedia responsible for such actions." I don't think there is support for "Only established users are welcomed at the board".

Any other suggested wording? Chergles (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these instances where these posts labelled as "trolls" or "sockpuppets" weren't trolls or sockpuppets? I'd say that the vast majority of editors on this board generally do quite well at not biting the genuine newbies. Usually the error is the other way, where innocent and helpful users are trolled extremely effectively. There's a tendency on the part of some individuals to bend over too far backward in assuming good faith — to the point where they might as well be bending over forwards. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where posts were labelled as "trolls" or "sockpuppets" who were not. If there is a desire to tabulate them, should we start here? I have seen a few even without looking. I have no desire to defend an individual editor at this point so I'm not going to look for diffs. Chergles (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We're evidence driven, and rather lazy interested in keeping the size of headers to a minimum. Examples would be helpful. Incidentally, if this is a problem – something of which I am not yet convinced – is changing the header likely to resolve the issue? A polite word to any bitey editors is likely to have more effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to post in good faith. I think it was one of Jimbo's founding principles that complaints be treated fairly--as such a board like this shouldn't have a disclaimer stating that new users post here at their peril./ Most of the cases of "post-->blocked" came because the poster was a new account of an old nuisance. As far as admonitions about socks, it's probably not necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "most" but not "all". I am concerned because Wikipedia is developing a bad reputation of being young adult hotheads chasing away good editors. Chergles (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to diminish that viewpoint, but that has been a complaint about wikipedia for over 5 years. We try hard to get around it, but one of the few iron laws of management is that organizations grow more baroque and insular as they become larger. We also have to weigh potential lost new editors against time wasted due to trolling. This sometimes requires a tradeoff, sometimes does not--in other words, if the boards get filled w/ trolls and no one responds to queries, we lose new editors looking for answers. WP:RBI is the right response to people trying to stir up the pot by trolling an/ani. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 22 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 teh 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)

Aargh! We're in the wrong place ---> Template talk:Editabuselinks!! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Search bar

Please add below the main nav box for all the boards? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Search_bar_for_AN

rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nub question: where specifically should it go? I don't want to put it in the wrong place out of ignorance. :) Protonk (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• The navbox already contains searchlinks. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't find those already-existing links very helpful. (They're hard to find, too.) Maybe it's my stupidity, but they don't seem to find much of what I look for. I would like to have the new one, as being better for stupid people. I suggest either at the top or the bottom of the top box—the one with General/Content/User issues/Noticeboards. That would be extremely prominent, but so it should be. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
  • This does all the same things but better and easier, for anyone to trivially find things without having to know the layout of the page and syntax of the searches. rootology (C)(T) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Edokter, this search bar includes all AN boards and archives in one swoop. The others are only for specific archives. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and how about directly below the main nav table, so it's prominent...? I'll find the right template/code. rootology (C)(T) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• This seems to be our culprit: Template:Editabuselinks. Probably just right on the bottom; every noticeboard will have it then. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, scratch that. Let me look again, we only want this on AN & ANI, since it only searches those. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I added it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader which is only semi prot but probably should be fully protected right now, and an admin needs to put it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header directly below {{editabuselinks}}. rootology (C)(T) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ho, I'm not more clever than MediaWiki. It should go on Template:editabuselinks instead actually, since I see now it does search all the noticeboards. Nice clever coding. rootology (C)(T) 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it only includes AN and it's current subpages: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and their archives. My initial thinking was it should be placed on each one's header individually, bottom-right corner, minus "bgcolor=#CAE1FF", which I initially only included to make the inputbox easier to see on WP:AN. The color of the header should provide enough contrast. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like this?

-like that? Protonk (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with putting it in the editabuselinks is that it looks like it searches all of those noticboards, and it only searches the ones I listed above. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, like that. It searches others. 3rr, for example. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We can also move a few more noticeboards to subpages of WP:AN - I've already proposed to move Community sanctions (feel free to comment). Maybe WP:WQA? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So... is this dead already? This box is really useful. rootology (C)(T) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Search Bar

The search box should have a thin border surrounding like the other navigational and page headers displayed above and below it respectively and some padding so the search bar and button don't hit the top of the box. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice link?

Shouldn't the code shown on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader be {{subst:ANI-notice}} to encourage substing user talk space messages? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've BOLDly done this; WP:SUB states that all items in CAT:UWT should be subst'd, and {{ANI-notice}} is in that cat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents header - column widths not equal?

An editor is telling me that the table looks weird, with the left side table cells being narrower than the right side, following my edit to put "purge this page" into a separate cell on the left, with Search in a cell to the right.

I do not see this uneven-ness in either IE 7.0.5730.13 or Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP SP3 running at 1280x1024. The cells look evenly split 50% / 50% so I don't know what is the issue...

File:AdminIncidNoticeWidth2-FF3.PNG	File:AdminIncidNoticeWidth2-IE7.PNG
Firefox 3.0.10	Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.13

Incidents Header page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader

DMahalko (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, dragging the window border around has illuminated this a bit. DMahalko, it looks like your tabling of the Purge and Search boxes has also extended down to the existing tablation of the "Are you in" and "Using this page" table columns. The rendering engine thus selects a width appropriate for the overall column contents, in this case observing the minimum width needed for the archive search box, source HTML is:

<input class="searchboxInput" name="search" type="text" value="" size="60" /><input name="prefix" type="hidden" value="Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard" /><br /> <input type="submit" name="fulltext" class="searchboxSearchButton" value="Search all administrators' noticeboards and archives" /><input name="fulltext" type="hidden" value="Search" />

Try dragging your own window smaller, I predict that you will see the left-hand "Are you in the right place?" column get smaller, whilst the "Using this page" column keeps its fattiness.

Yes, this is an artifact of my particular rendering style (which is default) but it does seem to be due to your change in the colspan variables. I appreciate your change to properly locate the "Purge" button, but it seems to have had unintended consequences. Dang WML (and HTML) does have that element of wackiness to it sometimes. Franamax (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see what it is, the search field/button is of fixed width and does not compress when the window is narrowed. Meanwhile all table cells must align on a grid so the cells below follow the search/button width above.

The easy fix is to split off the purge / search into a separate embedded mini-table, which can have its own cell spacing that doesn't affect the rest of the layout. I have applied this edit to the header.. DMahalko (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'tis all appearing tickety-boo now. Thanks for the fix!

BTW, I think on technical terms you should request {{db-auth}} deletion of the images above, since they contain the Wikipedia logo, a reggistered trademark of the blah blah, not licensed under the GFDL blah blah... No biggie, but I've seen the issue come up before now. I'm going to request deletion of the image I uploaded myself but never got to place here because you fixed the problem so fast. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions affecting these headers

Discussions affecting these headers are occurring at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13#ANI page rename - discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Copy-edit

On a whim I copy-edited the header. It just looked like so much uninviting text that would make new readers and posters uneasy when they see this page. I removed all non-essential language but didn't remove or change any content. If this seems like an improvement, I might do a similar thing at WP:AN/I. These aren't major issues, but if the bee's nest of oversight seems a little less confusing, it's probably a good thing all around. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Time for another trim? Jan 2011, now February 2012

Can the sections Are You in the right place and Using this page please, maybe, be truncated about half-way down. That way it might look less like a wall of text. Well, maybe... NewbyG ( talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Ihave been attempting to include the thread= parameter into the incident header but failed. Most of us who do not start threads on a regular basis have to remember the syntax and with the size of the noticeboard a directlink should be encouraged. Anybody able to do that? Agathoclea (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You would do that by replacing the current template code with <code>{{tlsp|ANI-notice|2=thread=}}</code>. I'm not sure if this is wise though. The code in the header is not meant so much as a convenience for copy/pasting, as much as it is a simple-as-possible caution for inexperienced users to notify people they report. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:48, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Header change

I made a bold change on the header to remove the bucket load of white space that was in the template before. Feel free to revert if you wish :)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For me (using IE on Windows 7) that produces a large blue space on the right. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For me also (Firefox on OS X). And it's irregularly shaped (not just a single rectangular region). And also causes side-scrolling (mandates wider width for the content), which is a worse problem than whitespace. I'm undoing the change. DMacks (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The whitespace seems to be because the TOC is very wide. Is there a way to force it into a narrower space so that it sits adjacent to (rather than pushed below) the centralized-discussion/RfC/archives boxes? Maybe the centralized-discussion and RfC boxes should be placed side-by-side, since they together are a set of notices of ongoing discussions. I often find myself looking for "recently archived" material (following links from other talkpages, only to find that it's bubbled off the live page TOC), so I often go right from TOC to the archives (plus "TOC-->archive" is the flow of time). So maybe keeping the archive box adjacent to TOC would be logical? DMacks (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There were two very long sub-headings, which I have shortened [1][2][3]. That seems to improve the TOC placement. DrKiernan (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm using Firefox and the change looked fine on my browser, but yeah, the change was made to reduce the amount of whitespace between the header and the ANI list. Either way, the extra whitespace is gone. Good job !  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Please add the following instruction:

This page only concerns issues on English Wikipedia. If you have a problem on an other project, please request help there. 147.161.8.191 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Once in a great while someone post about a problem on another project. I don't think it's worth bloating the header to address this. EEng 10:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter

Please can we alter

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:AN-notice|AN-notice]]<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which displays as

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

to

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:AN-notice|AN-notice]]{{!}}thread=''thread name of the discussion''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which will display as

You may use {{subst:AN-notice|thread=thread name of the discussion}} ~~~~ to do so.

This is so that the recipient (and other people reading the notice) can reach the relevant thread directly. See also Template talk:You should notify any user that you discuss#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)