Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is not the page to ask for help.
Emblem-important.svg This page is for discussion of the Centralized discussion page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

Archive Inactive Discussions[edit]

Not a COI, but I am INVOLVED.

Archive the following from CENT:

  1. "Rename Category:Republic of Macedonia and subcats?" per this
  2. Add Main Page banner for EU Copyright/Article 13? per WP:SNOW
  3. Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions per WP:CENT#trial balloons

In Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive, add the following (if applicable):

  • {{subst:User:MattLongCT/sandbox4}}
  • *[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Encyclopedias for Deletion banner campaign for EU Copyright/Article 13|Add Main Page banner for EU Copyright/Article 13?]] Added 18 February 2019, archived 2 March 2019
  • *[[Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions|Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions]] Added 26 February 2019, archived 2 March 2019

Thank you. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 20:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Why should we archive open discussions? --Izno (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Izno, this is not a request to archive the discussion (that would be handled at WP:ANRFC). This is a request to remove these from WP:CENT as they don't meet the criteria listed there. I listed them in order of what makes the most sense to be removed. The first one, as another editor stated, has eclipsed a week's worth of discussion. If WP:CfD did not have such a backlog, it could already have been closed.
The second one has near unanimous support against it. However, the RfC is still ongoing, but removing it from WP:CENT not prevent it from receiving additional comments. Though, I can see why one would want it to stay up.
The third one really doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of inclusion. The CENT information page (under WP:CENTNOT) clearly states the following as inappropriate use of CENT, General ideas or proposals, reviving dead projects, technical issues, or any other matters that would be better suited to Wikipedia:Village pump. It just got included in it, so that is up to you whether it qualifies for WP:CENTNOT. That is all. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 21:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Puzzling that you would choose to call this thread Archive Inactive Discussions if we are not archiving the actual discussions. ;) Yes, I did in fact understand that what you wanted was to remove their listing from the template. What you did not originally provide was any significant reasoning.
The criteria are guidelines and may (or not) have kept up with what we think is acceptable on this page.
You can be involved and still remove things from this template yourself generally (they are not typically added here without someone's involvement). I would agree that #1 should be removed. I think #2 has a sufficiently interesting topic that although headed for a 'close oppose' that we should continue to advertise the discussion. As for #3, I'm not sure I agree with #Cautions. Even if I did, I suspect the intent of #Cautions is to give pause to newbies who may not have thought their idea through to completion or whom may not have any clue about how proposals work on Wikipedia. (Such newbies probably don't read the page there, mind you.) SMC is not a newbie, clearly has considered his idea in some detail, and has been around the block regarding proposals. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions"[edit]

I fell asleep reading this entry. Seriously though, this wording is terrible and not suitable for CENT in my opinion. If we're trying to draw people into a discussion, this clunky, jargon-filled notice seems likely to do the opposite. Suggestions? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Maybe "Proposal to streamline TfD discussions"? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the purpose is Centralize template change discussions. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Or possibly Use TFD as a clearinghouse for template discussions. Probably more accurate. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Either of those is better, although I'd prefer to see "Templates for Discussion" spelled out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CEN listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CEN. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJLTalk 19:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)