Template talk:ANI-notice

Removed sentence
I've removed the following sentence from this template :


 * You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

The warning seemed unnecessary and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

where does topic param is supposed to point to
I changed the wording for the topic parameter because it seemed to indicate that cliking on that link would bring you to the noticeboard section under which the discussion was, but instead it links a page with the name of the topic.

I thought of linking instead to WP:ANI/topic but this would cause problems because, if the discussion gets archived ,then it becomes a red link and it will confuse the heck out of unexperienced users. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was confused about the topic parameter as well, and eventually just removed it (especially since I couldn't get it to accept a piped link). Maybe we should take it out entirely, leaving only thread, reason and noticeboard? Protonk (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

May have been involved
There's no criterion to notify users about an AN/I topic to which they "may have been involved," so why this pointless wording on this template?

It says, "You must notify any user that you discuss."

There is nothing about having to notify users who may have been involved in the issue. The template should state simply what is going on, rather than being so half-baked as to obscure facts.

It doesn't even due its stated purpose, "To inform editors that they are being discussed on the Administrative Noticeboards." It simply says an issue they may have been involved in is being discussed!

It's inaccurate. It doesn't serve its purpose. It's misleading.

"Hello, ANI-notice. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."

How about changing it to say something along the lines of:

"Hello, ANI-notice. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding you. Thank you."

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The "regarding you" is unnecessarily pointy (whether or not as a point of logic the notice is only given if the discussion is "regarding you"). The current "an issue with which you may have been involved" removes the unnecessarily confrontationaly approach, and covers a wide range of purposes (the notice may be to a "good" editor who has been combatting a problem, or to a "bad" editor who has been causing the problem). Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What? The purpose of this template is to, " inform editors that they are being discussed on the Administrative Noticeboards."
 * You're joking? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

removal of editor's name
I've removed: , from the template as it isn't properly inserting the editor's name on the talk page. It was appearing as:

If someone knows how to make it work, please fix it and move it back. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, seems to work fine now (see the /sandbox page). .  Also note that you need to subst: this message for it to work correctly.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @035, i.e. 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Could someone please fix this, preferably to say "To so-and-so:" which is more formal than "Hello so-and-so."? Formality is appropriate here, and a template that begins with the sentence "Hello." should only end with "My name is Inigo Montoya.  Prepare to die."  ;-) 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. We don't want to get someone's hackles up, we don't want to sound like a formal letter, there's just something involving that person that they should take a look at.  Something like, "Perhaps it's justified, perhaps not, but in any case here's a friendly notice just to clue you in." Banaticus (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording a bit; the "Hello." as a complete sentence has been bugging the heck out of me, especially considering the bureaucratic language of the rest of the template. I hope the current version is sufficiently informal without being patronizing.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

currently is ?
Shouldn't it read 'is currently' rather than 'currently is'? The former sounds better.  raseaC talk to me

Possible bug?
Unless I am mistaken, this template didn't fill in the "The discussion is about the topic..." field properly here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AX_Nilloc_X&diff=492592516&oldid=492177327

I hand-fixed it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AX_Nilloc_X&diff=492627494&oldid=492621151

If I am mistaken, please tell me where I went wrong. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Section title included?
I cannot see or check whether this template adds a section title. Please add to the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Signature
Over at my talk page, I recently put the ANI template because of an issue I raised at the noticeboard. I noticed there was no signature, and apparently, so did another user. I was wondering if it would be feasible to auto insert the signature at the end of the template. Thanks, TheOneSean &#124; Talk to me 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please vs required
I recently changed the template to read "Please participate in the current discussion" given that the template is intended to inform admins of their requirement to participate in the discussion rather than to simply inform them it is going on. It should probably be worded more strongly, such as "You are required to participate in the current discussion". Hyacinth (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't really think that is a useful change. Nobody is normally "required" to do pretty much anything at all on Wikipedia, and not even an admin is automatically "required" to participate in an ANI thread just because he's being discussed there. This template should continue to be for what its original purpose always has been: simply notifying people that there's something going on. To what extent such a thread then necessitates a user's participation ought to be left to the addressee to decide, and in those specific cases where some kind of reaction may really be seen as obligatory because of WP:ADMINACCT, the admins in question ought to know their role well enough to be able to figure it out themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage and Example?
Excuse me but is it possible for a senior editor to actually provide an example of a successful usage of the ' There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ' code. Those of us - like me - who are inexperienced in the ways of Wiki editing may be unsure of how to use it, what terms should be included within the curly brackets and where the code should be placed (On the complaints page? On the complained against editor's talk page?). I cannot find a page on wikipedia that explains these things.

I hope my request is not too rudimentary. Hubertgrove (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. After reporting a user on the administrators' noticeboard it is obligatory to notify them of the discussion. The easiest and most neutral way to do that is to past  on their talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the story is more like the following: If an editor is mentioned in a discussion at ANI, that editor needs to be notified. At their talk page, click "new section" at the top of the page. In the subject/headline box put a heading such as "ANI notification". In the box for the comment write: . Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no section header?
Is there a particular reason why this template doesn't automatically create a section header? Many of the other similar templates (e.g., Template:Coin-notice) do so and it would be nice if these templates were consistent. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a central discussion where the templates that add a header are listed. It might be better to remove the auto-headers because a heading should normally be entered in a new talk page section. Re the question: this template might be added to an existing section and no new heading is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be okay with me; I'm more concerned that there is inconsistent behavior between templates that appear (to me, at least) to be so functionally similar that they should behave the same. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Add a section header?
This template is usually in its own section, and as such, it makes sense to add a section header. Until then, I'll check out the doc and add that this does NOT create its own section header unless it is already metnioned. ☢️Plutonical☢️ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Section heading again - optional header?
Perhaps an optional parameter can be added to the template to add a section heading (something like )? Just a thought. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)