StrategyWiki talk:Noticeboard

Table or list format

I've converted this to a table format so it's easier to see which are the older/newer additions. I'm not sure if the added complexity warrants the multiple sorting methods. -- Prod (Talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I think the tabular format is inconsistent with the purpose of the noticeboard and makes adding a notice unnecessarily complex (not that adding a row is all that complicated, it's just more complicated than adding a list item). It's important that this page doesn't become an administrator tool for dealing with backlogs or tracking issues. This page is for everyone else. Administrators should be checking the links on the Cleanup project or the categories they're interested in. The whole point of this page is for less involved/less active editors to watchlist one page instead many, and to avoid the necessity of routinely checking cleanup categories for new links. Dates only matter to admin and anyone who wishes to comment on one of the actions listed here should go to the actual page first to see the reason in the tag, rather than going directly to a talk page, especially if it doesn't exist yet. For the sake of simplicity and the clarity of the page's purpose, I'd like to go back to simple list format under appropriate sections. If a link to the talk page is highly wanted, adding items could be templated, like {{notice|Page name}}. — najzere^T 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The talk page link was added to show if a discussion about the topic has been started or not, I feel it's too early to tell if that's useful or not. As you mentioned on my talk page, some things are resolved after a set period of time (deletion), or when someone gets around to them (renames), so the date is very important (older means you have less time to have your voice heard). I'd actually go so far as to say that a bulleted list sorted by date would be more useful. I've actually got an idea for a slightly different implementation/use for this. Leave a message on my talk page the next time you're available on IRC and I'll try to join (preferably before Sunday night). -- Prod (Talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy

Should wording be added to Template:Delete/Documentation that you must post here and on involved parties' talk pages if the deletion may be controversial? As I see it there are three levels of deletion:

1. Routine maintenance (e.g. request by author, redirect from page move, etc.)
2. Good faith deletion that no one is likely to have a problem with per wp:WP:PROD (most likely policy-adherence stuff)
3. Good faith deletion where it's possible that it won't be uncontested

It's the third one I'd like to see always come to the noticeboard. If that's acceptable, a note should be added to the admin guide that the reviewing admin should verify the noticeboard has been updated and all parties have been informed. — najzere^T 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

When noticeboard entries become stale (3+ months and already resolved), should we archive them on a separate page, or leave them archived in page history? --Sigma 7 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

These are transient, and generally only relevant while they're in progress. There's no policy being set, they're just things that other people may find useful at the time. I don't think it's necessary to archive them to another page (or even the same page). -- Prod (Talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)