Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 15 March 2016

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archive links for one click archiver missing

I notice that one click archiver links are gone now, they were there not long ago. When the page is long its sometimes easier to archive things manually. I have done it in the past and usually wait two days before doing it. I have no idea if this was done on purpose or how to fix it if it wasnt. AlbinoFerret 05:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The most recent change to the page's structure was this edit which changed the close sections from level-four headers to level-three headers by combining all the discussions into one section. I don't know if this has to do with that change or if something with the MediaWiki software has changed. Unfortunately, Technical 13 (talk · contribs), who maintained the script at User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver is banned and Equazcion (talk · contribs) who wrote the original script at User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver is inactive.

I've asked for help at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical).

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by looking at the documentation. In it it says that it respected ClueBot III's |headerlevel= and it was set to 4 on the page. But all the headers were at 3 ===. So I changed it to 3. This would have stopped the bot from archiving also. AlbinoFerret 11:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the {{Do not archive until}} show something visible on the page.

I am questuioning this here because we have used it, but shouldnt the tag have something visible to humans to stop inadvertent archiving by humans? AlbinoFerret 15:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I found that {{Bump}} is a visible wrapper for {{Do not archive until}}, but I am not sure if its appropriate for the page. AlbinoFerret 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think either {{Do not archive until}} or {{Bump}} is fine. But if you use {{Do not archive until}}, I recommend mentioning that you are using the tag in your comment. I use {{Do not archive until}}; see the example here, where I wrote:

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

Thank you for your consistent quality work at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

CfD

Is it really necessary to list so many CfD discussions here? This seems redundant to the Discussions awaiting closure section there. If more closing needs doing at CfD then perhaps a note on WP:AN would be more appropriate than filling this page up with every old discussion. Pinging Lugnuts. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The backlog was getting silly. It was raised at AN, but no-one looked at it. Since I've listed all the CfDs older than one month, several have now been closed. Lugnuts 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed you're an admin too! Maybe you could get stuck in and close a few while you're here? Lugnuts 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: - how many CfDs have you closed since this was raised? Lugnuts 07:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: None, nor have I done any other substantial editing. Sam Walton (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's super! One more onto the backlog pile this morning. Lugnuts 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Look at that @Samwalton9: - the backlog slowly is clearing. You can thank me later. Lugnuts 10:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having cleaned up a number of CFDs, the fact that I have to then clean up both Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure and this page is redundancy (although *I* don't have to do it, still...). I'm fine with with listing them but we don't need a mountain of separate headings as I personally am just going to gloss it over at this point and it eats up the entire AN page header for no reason. List them under the CFD backlog page like at the awaiting closure section I say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is actually closing CFDs, I removed the headers. MFD has a backlog of a few weeks too, we don't need to clog up this page with each individual listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN: RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion about whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to remove unclosed close requests

Nyttend (talk · contribs) removed close requests with the edit summary "Stale". I have reverted. There is no consensus to remove unclosed close requests that have been listed on the board for between 12 and 64 days. Pinging the editors who had their closure requests removed: Godsy (talk · contribs), Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs), FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs), Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs), and Tom29739 (talk · contribs).

There is a previous discussion related to Nyttend's removals at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 2#Archiving and restoring removed request from User:Kahastok. Cunard (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This being a page for requesting admin action, don't restore requests that have already been answered. Go ask someone privately and don't continue clogging up a board with requests over a month old; you may have noticed that this is how we handle similar old-and-not-answered things at pages like WP:RFPP and WP:AN3. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#ANRFC_again; if you continue spamming ANRFC with requests and/or reverting admins when they remove piles of requests, a block will be sought as a method of ensuring that you don't continue making ANRFC useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)