Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How to request a courtesy vanishing [edit]

First, consider whether you really want to vanish, or whether a simple retirement or clean start might be more appropriate. Vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever and also to hide as much of your past associations as possible.

If you decide to vanish, you may wish to blank or delete your user page and any subpages in your userspace. To request deletion, add the {{db-user}} tag to the top of each page, and an admin will delete the page for you. Note that your user talk pages will normally not be deleted (see below).

Finally, contact the bureaucrats via e-mail and ask that your account be renamed, giving "request for courtesy vanishing" as the reason. Use the link below to send a secure e-mail from your Wikipedia account, so that the bureaucrats can verify that it is a legitimate request.


You can also send direct email to There is a public request page for name change requests, but this is not recommended because it will leave a public record of your request to vanish that cannot itself be hidden.

If you have questions about vanishing, or have concerns that might be addressable by a less permanent method, you may want to contact a Bureaucrat (above) or a Functionary for advice.

Accessibility and readability[edit]

As discussed above, last year, I propose changing the style of the contents of {{Centralized discussion}} from the current example:

  • An RfC on the captitalisation of bird names.
  • An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
  • A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
  • An RfC regarding changing the username policy to allow role accounts.
  • A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

to, say:

This has several advantages:

  • Shorter entries
  • Redundant verbiage (such as "about", "regarding", "on ways to") removed
  • Each link has unique text (no repetition of RfC)
  • The proposition is the first item
  • The link text includes the proposition
  • Type of discussion clearly and consistently identified as last item, in parentheses
  • Improved readability
  • Satisfies WCAG accessibility guidelines.

I also propose to include an edit notice, requesting that future additions follow this pattern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks a good change, I second using that style. Diego (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's an improvement here. However, we can go further, as we don't need to include RFC in the description. It's not an essential point. What is important is what the discussion is about, and that should be clear in the description. RfC is just a way of advertising a discussion. CENT is another way of advertising a discussion. We shouldn't need to say "discussion" or "RfC" - what is important is what the discussion is about, not how it has been advertised. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template link[edit]

This comment is about the template {{cent}}. One of the links, "Recurrent proposals", takes you to WP:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals. However, that page has seen no significant activity for many months, and surely does not merit being linked from what seems intended to be an up-to-the-minute signpost to the most vital current discussions. The link could be replaced by one to WP:Village pump (policy): Noyster (talk), 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Too wide[edit]

At WP:RFD this is far too wide and knocks the lede text down below it. The specific RFD header ([[Wikipedia::Redirects for discussion/header]]) is much narrower. I am on 1280x768 screen and it is too wide; heaven forbid mobile users. I only noticed this yesterday, has something changed in it? Can you make it as narrow as the RfD "infobox" in the header? Is it just me? I've knocked it out of the RfD heaer for now, but of course it is useful to have it there. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Charts in articles in PDF format don't download[edit]

Hello: I download articles in the PDF format. When I tried to download the "John Ford Filmography", which contains several lengthy charts, they wouldn't download.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is it even possible to do this? Is there a work-around solution?

Thanks very much for any help or solution. Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A better place to ask this would be the Technical Village Pump at WP:VPT. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Call out menu for keywords in the content area[edit]

Contents have have keywords and a hyperlink takes us to a new page when clicked. It impedes the flow of reading nor we could skip it. So, i suggest to have a call out menu on mouse over option just to give a brief description on it.

A better place to make this suggestion would be at either WP:VPR (Village Pump - Proposals) or WP:VPT (village Pump - Technical). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for addition of NAC Deletes discussion to CENT[edit]

I'm requesting that a neutral non-involved editor please add a listing for the topic of NAC Deletes to the CENT template with a neutral wording to improve the number of contributors to the discussion. The level of discussion on this topic has been excessively low considering the nature of the topic which would seem to me to be a topic of much more interest as a step towards moving away from a general public consensus that administrators have some kind of additional authority that non-admins do not have and are more than just trusted individuals for using certain tools that could cause a great number of headaches in the hand of a non-experienced or ill-intentioned editor. Thank you for your assistance. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done I've added this to the template myself. Please feel free to revise if you don't think it is neutrally enough worded or inappropriately worded in any way. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Userfication discussion[edit]

At time of writing the {{Centralized discussion}} panel includes a link to a discussion on "Userfication: elevate to guideline status"; but the link only takes you to the top of the Village Pump (policy) page, the discussion itself having been archived. It was a well-attended thread, started less than a month ago, with no conclusion arrived at and the last contribution only 10 days ago, on 24 December. Should we remove the link from Centralized discussion, or pull the discussion itself out of archive? (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've removed the discussion from CENT and will list at WP:ANRFC for a proper close. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


WP:FLRC has three active listings, not a single one of which has had any action since November. Any idea why the listings are so inactive? FLRC apparently has a history of being even slower than FARC, as one talk page notice pointed out that a listing sat around for 16 months before anything happened.

No process on Wikipedia should be this agonizingly slow or inactive. FARCs usually take a long time, but most of the time, stuff is at least happening in them. Not so on FLRC, where three discussions, one opened in November, have had absolutely no action whatsoever. Any suggestions on how to breathe some life into this seemingly moribund part of the process? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the director of the FL process, I have a good idea why things have become static at FLRC: the overall level of reviewing at all of our content processes has declined sharply in the last couple of years. I don't know why this is, but I have to think that the gradual loss of enthusiastic editors from the project as a whole in recent years is filtering down to the content processes. Even the highly trafficked FAC process has been slower than it should be; I've seen articles take longer to promote or archive than was justified by their merits, and many articles now get only a limited review before being archived. And don't get me started on what happened to WP:PR, which is almost moribund unless you actively request reviews from editors. If processes that significant are struggling, you can imagine why the smaller FLRC process would be in the state it is right now. The good news is that a little bit of care does wonders for these processes. If any of you have an eagle eye and would like to offer your skills in reviewing one or more facets of an article/list (prose quality, photo licensing, source formatting/reliability, etc.) we would appreciate your input, at FLRC and elsewhere. You are a rare commodity in the current editing environment, and your services would be highly valued by project directors and by the editors striving to make content better. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

John Coates (Businessman) Not Showing Up in Wiki Search[edit]

When I type in John Coates into the wiki search bar John Coates (businessman) doesn't show up. Around 9 other John Coates are listed. The one I'm looking for is the CEO of bet365.

However, when I type in John Coates businessman, he does show up.

Is there any way of resolving this issue?



--AlexMoscow74 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here. Resolved at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#John Coates (Businessman) Not Showing Up in Wiki Search. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RfAs and RfBs[edit]

What do we think about including RfAs and RfBs in the centralized discussion template? They're clearly of importance to everybody on the site, and it's not like there are a ton to clog up the process, it would just be another helpful way to notify users about these. Kharkiv07Talk 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already a template which can be used by editors specifically interested in the topic. (Can't provide name right now because mobile.) --Izno (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015[edit] (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


I added a source for everyone of my quotes used. I don't understand how I am not citing my sources. Every outside idea was cited. Could you please point out where my ideas were uncited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharifali (talkcontribs) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may carefully suggest, look at the history of the article you edited, History of feminism. The comment left by the person who removed your section reads: "Removing unsourced essay. Please publish your own personal thoughts elsewhere, thanks." You had a few inline citations but not nearly enough. When I edit, I generally take the attitude that nearly every sentence needs to have a source (unless a group of sentences are all from the same source). Also, an article like "History of feminism" is going to have a lot of passionate people involved. I would make additions only very carefully, like 2-4 sentences at a time. Or, I would post it to the talk page and have the editors critique it. Since the article has a long history and a lot of watchers, you are not going to succeed by simply inserting many paragraphs of your own additions. Try again in a different manner. kosboot (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. What you are saying makes a lot of sense. This addition was apart of a college level English assignment where we had to insert our final copy into Wikipedia. Thank you for informing me of more correct Wiki practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharifali (talkcontribs) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed an entry's name[edit]

I've changed an entry's name from "Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help" to "Proposal to add a disclaimer before connecting users to the IRC help channel and prefill their IRC nick to their username using site javascript in accordance with my reading of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. In the interest of full disclosure, I supported the proposal, but I think the new text is a lot more neutral. Comments? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I tried to make it more neutral myself but was accused of "POV pushing", of all things. Best of luck. Alakzi (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it. Claiming that it is only about a disclaimer is deceitful and dishonest. The big issue here is the bloating of everyone's javascript by adding non-compliant code to Common.js. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Fine, let's assume that is the big issue. Why should we make absolutely no mention of the aim of the proposal and the output of the "bloating" JavaScript, which is to generate IRC nicknames which closely match people's usernames? Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, that's been long enough. I've now removed the partisan notice. Alakzi (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)