Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks/Archive 2

"Recently" closed
By what definition of recent? None of the cases shown there are have been recently closed imo - all are almost a month stale... –xenotalk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I see this was discussed a long time ago at Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks. FWIW I don't think there's any need to show the "last few cases" - I think they should be removed after 2 weeks, or a month - even if it means "recently closed" is empty. –xenotalk  16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the 18th of April really still recent? Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is some use in knowing which cases were closed last (without being required to trudge through all of the completed requests to date or within the year), so I disagree with xeno on leaving it empty. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If so then I think the section should be "Recent decisions" or "Last N Completed cases" or something like that (where N is probably 2, 3 or 5), and it should definitely contain a link to the archives. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Recent decisions" seems to work better, given the purpose of that section. I think this is a good suggestion. Technically, it already contains a link to the archives (in the words "see all"), but people miss that easily, myself included. That link may be better placed in the N+1 section (so if 2 or 3 recent cases are being listed, then the link to the archives would appear in the 4th or 5th link respectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Amendment/clarification links
Can the sub-templates for amendment and clarification entries be changed in such a way that the first, bolded, main entry on the left has a link not to the original case, but directly to the section on the amendment/clarification page? The first bolded link ought to be the main navigation link, and it ought to lead you to where the current action is. I always, always click on it first, expecting it to take me there, and I always, always end up disoriented when I find myself on some years-old case page instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

parserFunction to automatically flag a particular section as "Pending update"
This edit will automatically changed the "(Currently none)" to "(Pending update)" when there is a case filed needing to be added to the OpenTasks template. Is this useful? If so, please apply to the remaining sections. If not, feel free to revert. – xeno talk 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Russavia-Biophys wrongly categorised
The current request for amendment relating to the Russavia-Biophys has been added to the template in the requests for clarification section. I'd fix this myself, but I'm not sure if this template is only supposed to be edited by arbitrators and clerks or whether any admin can do it - an explicit statement somewhere obvious would be appreciated! Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . In general, I would have no problem with non-clerks/arbs editing the template so long as they know for sure that what they are doing is right. NW ( Talk ) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading this, I went ahead and boldly moved the tree shaping case down a category, I hope that's acceptable. I believe I had the format correct, but please let me know if I made an error.--Noren (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked over your edit, it appears fine. If you're ever not sure, always feel free to give us a ping on WT:AC/C. Best, NW ( Talk ) 18:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing ARCA archives
Please add link to where the ARCA archives are. It's difficult to figure out where the old ones are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently missing case request
The recently initiated Arbitration request "George Galloway" (initiated by JzG) seems to be missing from the "Case Requests" section of this template for some reason. This is despite the fact that the request is included on the Case page. What's going on? Every morning  (there's a halo...)  12:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)