Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

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


Deb? Why is my page being deleted?[edit]

I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BodyofEvidenceB (talkcontribs) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Rum page[edit]

Hi,

I might be wrong (forgive me if so) but it looks like you undid a correction I made to the quotation of Peter O'Sullevan's commentary as Red Rum won his third Grand National. However, my correction - "it's hats off and a tremendous reception..." Is correct. This can be easily verified via YouTube, and also via the reference source I have now added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinabbey1 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My Tea At Sea post got deleted, I would like to know why?[edit]

I posted 3 sentences about the company. It's just the beginning, I plan to make a full detailed description within the next couple of days. But the 3 sentences already got deleted. I have read the post guidelines and don't feel like I violated anything. Please explain so I can make better posts in the future. Thank youJason blogger (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article was deleted because it was "an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article (preferably the first version) should indicate why the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (e.g. "the first . . .", "the largest . . ."). As well as this, sources to back this up should be given, indicating that the subject of the article is discussed in reliable sources, such as books, scholarly journals, etc. --Boson (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) gives some criteria showing which organizations will generally be considered notable. I have provided some more links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page. --Boson (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Close[edit]

Close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.101 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible?[edit]

Can Template:Centralized discussion get collapsed in the same way Template:Signpost-subscription does (collapse=yes)? As far as I can see in documentation, this option is unavailable currently. If I'm correct, can it be made possible? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC[edit]

Should this RFC, which has closed, be archived and removed from {{centralized discussion}}? Chris857 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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.


Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats


You can also send direct email to wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org. 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.

You edited out "propaganda" and replaced it with "patriotic literature"[edit]

You edited my change to Wikipedia's "man without a country," article. I changed "patriotic literature" to propaganda. That book is propaganda-- it's one of the biggest pieces of propaganda in American history, and it's been used to manipulate people for generations. Your change was unethical and unwarranted. I am a professional journalist and I know what propaganda is, I'm sure much better than you do.

Wikipedia asked for money all the time, and I will never give Wikipedia a dime, because it will IT IS A WASTE. Any change that is made to an article that isn't status quo with the idea that everything is just hunky-dory here in the United States, and the world over is quickly edited out by a troll like you--who is probably employed by the CIA. Wikipedia claims to be the free encyclopedia--WHAT A LIE. — Preceding unsigned comment by 99.92.249.53 at 17:18, October 19, 2013‎

At "The Man Without a Country", you were reverted here by User:Liz. Note that Wikipedia has no centralized editorial board, so it is incongruous to refer to Wikipedia as whole in referring to the revert. If you can provide a wp:reliable source referring to it as propaganda, it could be added back. Chris857 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"Propaganda" is an emotionally-laden word, implying falsehood and manipulation, and that doesn't reflect neutrality. But Chris857 is correct, if you can find a critique of the book that labels it as propaganda (and it isn't WP:OR), we can include that in a criticism section. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fundraising[edit]

Your headline banner asking for financial support will be limiting your chances of success. You say 'If everyone reading this right now gave £3, our fundraiser would be done in an hour.' The problem is that you will never get everyone to give, and those that will give have been directed by you to consider giving £3. This means that you are bound to fall a long way short of success.

If you plan on securing leading donations from 8% of your constituency and modest (£3 - £30) from 20% of your constituency, you may just achieve your objective. All independent research into donors (certainly in the UK) suggests that you would be unlikely to receive gifts from more than 28% of the audience. This critical information then allows you to present the case for financial support at the right level. Be bold. Do not depress expectation by asking everyone for £3. Publish the vision that you expect a few leading donors to make the running, and everyone else to add some icing. I don't know how much you need, but if you tell me, I will construct a table of giving which will demonstrate to individuals how much they can make a difference.

The core point is that if you set low objectives, you deserve to achieve them!

Very pleased to help, but please feed me some information. I will then draft something that will give you a better chance of success

Eric Grounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.221.67 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014[edit]

Kasba village is a very beautiful,the village in banka district. Post office-maikiata Ps- dhoriya Dist-banka My name is Deepak Kumar bhaskar son of indradeep Singh. House no- 3 Contact number 09709614699

if U want to see my village then U will come to my village.

Welcome to all of U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.105.255 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this qualify for RfC?[edit]

Regards, Lesion 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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 71.193.250.68 (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? 84.13.7.223 (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)

FLRC[edit]

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)