Template talk:Administrators' noticeboard archives

Reformatting
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 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 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
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, 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! &mdash; 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 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 AN Currently 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. Monty  845  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
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).


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

Mobile
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)

– Match name with template * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Module:Admin board archives → Module:Administrators' noticeboard navbox
 * 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.