Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.212.226.91 (talk) at 21:56, 24 June 2012 (→‎2012 CUOS appointments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

time to update listing standards?

It seems like lately there are 10 or more things in {{Centralized discussion}} all the time. This may be actually lessening its effectiveness. Can there really be 10+ discussions that are important enough that the entire site needs to be notified of them going on all the time, or is it maybe time to tighten the standards for inclusion in the template a bit? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oversight/Checkuser notice could probably be removed as the comment period is over, and the RFC on outlines may be ready to close soon. Of the remaining, the only one I would question the inclusion of is the RfC on the use of images in section headings. Which of them do you think centralized discussion could do without? Monty845 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of discussions listed on Cent does vary, though there are times when it does get overloaded, and it's worth going through and removing items that have been listed a long time, or are inappropriately listed - or are borderline. It's worth having a discussion about the current listing criteria to check if it's appropriate. Is it too focused - not focused enough? Sometimes it feels that Cent is being regarded as just another way of announcing every RfC, though on the whole people do select carefully which discussions are most important, and I have found over the years that I am removing fewer and fewer items. What may also be useful, is having more people willing to keep an eye on Cent and to remove inappropriate or questionable listings, especially when it gets bloated. My time on Wikipedia varies at the moment, and when I do log on my attention may be pulled in other directions so I don't always get around to maintaining the listings. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, the docs here and at Template:Centralized discussion/doc could use some mention of guidance on when to remove items and how to archive them. -- Ϫ 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

changes to the text announcing the WP:V RfC

The WP:V RfC was started on October 6.  There is not a new RfC.  The RfC was closed and reopened, which resulted in a new rfcid, but the name of the RfC has not changed.  There is also an incorrect rumor that there was an "agreement" to change the name of the RfC, see WT:V.  Multiple objections have been raised. 

Also, please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."   Unscintillating (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the RFC name was changed back and forth a few times, but reverting my entire edit based on that was uncalled for. No reason has been given why the incorrect description by removing "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". should be used. It does not accurately represent the proposal, as it is only proposed to remove not truth and explain the idea behind that concept in a separate section. Yoenit (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is correct to say that "not truth" has been removed and explained in another section, because it has not been removed, it has been moved.  Agreeing to not remove (i.e., to not deprecate) VNT is one of the compromises that came out of months of discussion.  IMO, there is no problem with Blueboar's original posting.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name of the RfC can be found in this diff of WT:V from October 10, here.  A stable version of Template:Centralized discussion with both the correct link and a neutral description is here.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the RFC has been renamed, so that link is now incorrect. I have no problem with the rest of the wording, but User:Slimvirgin has repeatedly changed it [1][2], so my version was an attempt at comprise between the two versions. Yoenit (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agreement to change the name of the RfC, multiple objections have been raised.  I am aware of the problem with keeping the link synchronized, twice today I have restored the WT:V page, and come here to restore this page as well.  One of those two times your edit arrived ahead of me, and it was ok and was appreciated, even though I didn't agree with "improving" the October 6th version.  IMO your most recent edit is incorrect, though, it uses the wrong link and misrepresents the RfC, as I've stated above.  It is difficult to keep the links properly synchronized with editors opposed to stability making changes on three pages simultaneously, and well as other confounding changes and talk page comments in the midst of all of this.  If you are not aware, there is a discussion on WP:ANI.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I made the edit that was the correct link, that it has changed back now is not my problem. As I said above I have absolutely no problem with the old version, but I do have a problem with Slimvirgin's version and I was merely trying an attempt at compromise after being reverted by her. I will have a look at the ANI discussion. Yoenit (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we OK with the current wording? I've just looked at it, and it links to the right place, and the text appears to be informative and neutral, so I have no problems with it. The RfC close has been undone, so the listing should remain as it was - this is not a new listing. And as long as the discussion remains active I'm comfortable with it remaining linked on CENT. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I just mentioned at Wt:V, this edit warring must stop. That page is protected now, but this template is not. Anyone who continues the edit war can and will be blocked. Fair warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health care affecting editor retention

I boldly added:

because it has a wide impact per the inclusion guidelines. It was deleted with an edit summary suggesting that the topic was less important for centralized discussion. I would like to replace it. Please share your opinion. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't see how the discussions will impact the project broadly. The templates are transcluded on a combined total of 56 pages, there are no broader policy issues being decided, and the changes are unlikely to have any noticeable impact outside those pages. Monty845 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of editors are in the United States, and their access to health care affects their ability to contribute. Therefore the proposal for inclusion has a wide impact on the project. Dualus (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#adding policy RfCs to Article RfC pages, "need" or "spam"?.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed revert

A few days ago I removed a recently added RfC,Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Medians in Usage share of web browsers, because I felt it was a content dispute and fell afoul of WP:CENTNOT. The editor who added the RfC disagrees with its removal (see User talk:Jenks24#Your stealth revert on WP:CENT) and feels it should be re-added. I'd appreciate some outside eyes taking a look at the RfC and the discussion on my talk, and if anyone feels that the RfC is appropriate for CENT please put it back up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was a content discussion which is not appropriate for Cent as per WP:CENTNOT. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate listing?

For what are we seeking broad consensus here? That we "Remove property protection from intellectual expressions, patents, creative works and the like, allowing for freedom to duplicate works or re-use works in any form not licensed below"? That we believe that "Any enforcement action must permit the accused a full and fair hearing. There can be no penalties applied based upon an accusation alone"? What's this to do with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and maintenance? Never mind what happens with the MFD, I don't believe that this is an appropriate listing for Central. I wanted to see how others felt before boldly pruning it, in case others feel differently. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed per WP:CENTNOT. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Packet Switched Smart Grid NPRFTE

Greetings Chzz,

Thank you very much for your kind support, time and effort to help me compile this description of the PSSG for Wikipedia. I'm having difficulty integrating some of the References and even some don't seem to link within Wikipedia. At the time of writing over a year ago, much of the terminology and references did not exist. The rest are now catching up rapidly however as

I researched onine today using google. The power industry is moving rapidly this way towards packet switched smart grid power supply and demand networking technology (inevitably in my opinion, speaking as a technologist as it's the least complicated and only way to do it in 'universaly applicable' systems with transport network protocols).

With Germany dropping Nuclear Power, the adoption of the PSSG seems inevitable - the 'jobs for the boys' bonanza will be ramping up in ernest there - but am trying get a foot in the door, so your help and support are greatly appreciated. As an inventor, the then G.E.C. founded by Edison and his inventions also gave outsider Nikola Tesla a hard time, so history may be repeating itself, but with a twist! DC gets a comeback over AC, but the inventor still gets given a hard time!

Thanking You and Best Regards,

Nick

Nick Robinson 15:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)NPRFTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPRFTE (talk • contribs)

WP:PC/RFC2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=489073391&oldid=489045158

Can Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 please be restored? It has been extended for another month: [3]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CISPA

Would it be appropriate to list current discussions of CISPA here? I added something similar to Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Nav. It Is Me Here t / c 11:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions related to articles can be notified to the relevant WikiProjects listed on the article's talkpage. CENT is for discussions regarding the policies and procedures that take place on Wikipedia, which have a wide impact, and so for which a wide consensus is required. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would have thought this will likely be such a discussion – a debate about whether or not WP should take action (especially given the precedent set by WP:SOPA), more than a discussion of the "CISPA" article itself. The Founder has stated that action would have to be initiated by the community, and not by him. It Is Me Here t / c 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SOPA initiative was not part of what Wikipedia is about; it was something exceptional prompted by Jimbo. It would be inappropriate to allow CENT to be used to instigate other such initiatives as though they were part of the purpose of Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:CENT itself talks about "other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed"; doesn't a (potential) discussion about another blackout/site banner/whatever fall under this rubric? It Is Me Here t / c 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. CENT is for matters relating to the running of Wikipedia itself, not for attempting to initiate other activities. There are other forums on Wikipedia - the Wikipedia:Village pump is an active forum where you can see if there is support for the idea. If the proposal gathers consensus you could then make a WP:RFC, and if it gathers momentum you could utilise the sitenotice and/or watchnotice. Cent tends to be watched by those who are interested in policy type discussions, and is not watched by the whole community. A sitenotice reaches everyone. But you'd need to get your proposal off the ground before using a sitenotice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at WT:MMANOT

We had a request at WP:AN to add Wikipedia_talk:MMANOT#RfC:_Amending_requirements_for_WP:MMAEVENT to the Centralized Discussion list, if there's consensus. Seems fair, given how much drama we see surrounding this topic, but of course I defer to whatever you all think. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 CUOS appointments

Can Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments please be mentioned on the template? Only a small portion of the community knows about it: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments. The deadline to submit comments should also be mentioned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't an IP editor sofixit? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012

Please add:

71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion&oldid=499194074"