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:MJL/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. ―MJL -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. ―MJL -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]

Information.svg

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)

Shortness of link text[edit]

It is important that we keep the links in {{Centralized discussion}} concise. I have restored some changes that were made with this aim.

For example:

  • replacing "Terms of Use" with {{abbr|ToU|Terms of Use}}
  • "Blanking sandboxes of inactive, but long-term editors" to "Sandboxes of inactive established editors]"
  • Changing "Changing the sitenotice process" to "Sitenotice process"

In the latter example, the words "changing the" are redundant; no centralised discussion exists with out the intent of changing something, and anyone with an interest in the site notice will have their attention captured by the shorter wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't thin these changes are improvement. ToU is not an acronym most Wikipedians are expected to know like RfA, RfC or AfD making it better for readers to read two extra words then having to mouse over the abbreviation or take a second to think what ToU could mean. Sandboxes of inactive established editors could refer to many things. Is it a discussion about a new CSD criteria, excluding them from tracking categories, starting a project to go through them to look for spam. It could be any of these and adding blanking makes it a lot clearer. Changing is often redundant, but rather than removing it I would have "Localizing the sitenotice process" which is more descriptive. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"ToU", being a generic term, is an acrnymn that more people will know than Wikipedia-specific jargon. The point of this template is to alert people to the existence of discussions on topics in which they are interested, not to explain them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Terms of Use certainly makes more sense to the layman than ToU. The point of the template is to let them know the existence of what discussion is going on about the topics they are interested in, and not the topics themselves. If two concurrent RfCs were going on about the sitenotice process, surely you can't call them both sitenotice process or would we name them sitenotice process RfC 1 and sitenotice process RfC 2, and let the readers guess the context? Makes no sense, as I already mentioned twice. --qedk (t c) 12:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Extra two or three words will not kill anyone, it will only help to prevent some confusion. Agree that the condensed version is too condensed. Renata (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Open access to federally funded research[edit]

@Ammarpad: I am reverting [1] per WP:CENTNOT ("Discussions listed on Cent are about matters that are significant enough to require a broad consensus") because of the centrality of this petition issue to the movement. Just because the discussion is occurring off-wiki does not diminish the importance for achieving wide-ranging participation in it.

I am happy to support a watchlist notice in addition or the alternative; please see MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Open access for federally funded research. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see why this petition, which only concerns citizens of one country, should be at WP:CENT. I would oppose a watchlist notice as well, for the same reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
We have geonotices for a reason. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Using a geonotice is fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the original removal. This is a misuse of WP:CENT. There isn't any "centralized discussion" to be had here, just a request to do the equivalent of sign an Internet petition. This may or may not be a worthy goal, but even if it was a worthy goal, it isn't really what this template is intended for. Surely there must be some other place a notification could be placed if there's really a need to popularize this. SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

How do I request a geonotice? EllenCT (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT at WP:GEONOTICE. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Any objections to the OSTP solicitation?[edit]

I would like to ask whether these edits are okay with the movement. Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers[edit]

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is there a straightforward content dispute at the top?[edit]

The Biden rfc is a content dispute about a specific part of one particular article. That's not what this template is for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page (Rhododendrites/Atsme):

Hi Izno - my reason for inclusion in the Centralized discussion template was, in a nutshell states: The {{Centralized discussion}} template is a widely-transcluded listing of ongoing discussions, specifically those which have potentially wide-ranging impacts and therefore require input from the community at large. This particular RfC fits that description because of the weight of the allegations and the fact that the BLP happens to be the Democratic presumptive nominee for POTUS - all of which takes it beyond a simple "article content discussion" (it is a wide-ranging RfC) and it is a WP:BLP which carries other consequences; therefore, not your typical article. Furthermore, the article is PP so only admins can edit it. I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion in the CD template. Atsme Talk 📧 15:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, none of those reasons explain how this discussion has wide-ranging impact. What changes will be made to a guideline or policy as a result of a discussion? I expect none given that this is specific to one page. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it will have a wide-ranging impact on how sexual allegations are handled in the future vs the way they were handled in the past - not just for one presidential candidate or a candidate for SCOTUS regarding how WP will handle salacious allegations, and whether WP:RECENTISM, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:NOTNEWS may need to be modified. It may also have an indirect influence on WP's systemic gender gap since we are dealing with a female issue here - to believe or not believe what she says - and also how a majority of male editors view the incident vs female editors. Yes, the discussion and result will have a wide-ranging impact...even with politics aside. Atsme Talk 📧 16:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The specific question asked is Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?. How does that lead to systemic change across many other articles? The question is fairly specific. RFCs that are specific don't typically tend to change policy and guideline (and when someone tries to force that into a policy/guideline, there is usually a swift revert under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). As for the references to SHORTCUTS, and you truly believe those may be impacted, I would have expected you to advertise the RFC at those pages. Have you? I see the rest of your comment as hyperbole, to be frank. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
That appears to be a very limited scope even for a WP article. We are an encyclopedia, and our articles have far more meaning to our readers than what some of our editors might focus on. If it was just about copyediting, I doubt Project Med would be as diligent in what is or isn't included in related articles about medicine, health, sickness and disease. Of course it is far-reaching but to see it, we have to look beyond the written word and look at the message those words send. Atsme Talk 📧 20:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See this section of that RfC for background. Sorry that my comment to Snooganssnoogans in that controversy precipitated another controversy. This was kind of a rhetorical suggestion that I didn't think anyone would follow up on, but I realize now that I shouldn't be surprised someone did. I admit to not being totally up to speed on the criteria for inclusion here, so let me share the responsibility for any trouble caused here. Atsme makes some good points, but this sort of thing will always be harder for us to settle under our consensus-based decision-making system than than it is for our sources who have editorial boards. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No controversy as it relates to my questions/concerns. Regardless, the Reddit issue was an allegation, not a controversy, and it has nothing to do with the RS cited material for inclusion. It is inclusion of the material itself that needs consideration by a wider audience because it reaches deeply into gender, politics, and systemic biases to limit it to notification of a few projects. Anyway...it doesn't matter at this point because there is an ongoing discussion about closing the RfC as I type this comment. I am of the mind that use of the Cd template to reach a broader audience in such instances is something we should re-visit in the future. Thank you Izno and Wbm1058 for your input. Atsme Talk 📧 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I get Atsme's point that because it's such a high-profile dispute, the result of the RfC will likely be cited in related disputes. If that were the case, pretty much any dispute that rises to an RfC at any high-profile page could be added here, though. It's undoubtedly important, but I don't think any article-specific dispute should be listed here unless the discussion in question is specifically framed to have an impact outside of that article, too. The RfC process is the mechanism we have to try to bring in uninvolved voices. Publicizing that RfC at WikiProjects, and maybe even a Village Pump mention could be in order, but I think CENT should be used sparingly, and, again, never for a specific content dispute. (sorry to come in a couple days later -- the ping above didn't go through). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Appearing on mobile?[edit]

The template doesn't seem to appear on mobile. It's not as though there are many experienced editors using mobile, but still, since it appears at the community portal/dashboard, it'd be nice to remedy this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk`

This is caused by vertical-navbox in Template:Centralized discussion/core.
Probably what needs to happen is that this template needs to be converted to use WP:TemplateStyles and then the mode switches and classing can be adjusted. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what pages you're looking at but it appears on my mobile device. Go to User talk:Atsme and scroll down a bit and you'll see it. Atsme Talk 📧 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
On the mobile domain? (Or better link, my user page.) --Izno (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD[edit]

As a possible interested party, I am providing notice to this WikiProject about a new Request for Proposal that is proposing an exception to the guideline WP:OCAWARD in the policy Overcategorization. The Rfc is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And also in the proposals Rfc. It is ready for comment directly in the guideline talk page: Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD. Your insights would be appreciated. Please let me know if this is not central enough for this project. Thank you.dawnleelynn(talk) 20:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Village pump line[edit]

For the Village Pump line, it doesn't make much sense to me that "proposals" and "discussions" are separated; it's only five links, so no need for the subcategorization, and the distinction isn't that clean (proposals sometimes appear on the non-proposals tabs, and vice versa). The new WMF link should also be placed before the misc. link to mirror the ordering we've used elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Going ahead and requesting. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2020[edit]

Please adopt the sandbox version per talk here. This removes subcategorization that's not needed when there's only five links (and not that accurate), adopts the standardized ordering, and changes the "ideas" label to "idea lab" to make it clearer that it's an incubation space. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To Sdkb:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on notability of political candidates[edit]

I have created an RfC to help clarify notability for unelected candidates. Your participation is welcome and encouraged. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal on whether the RFA process should be changed[edit]

I saw that a discussion is going on in WT:RFA regarding Wikipedia's RFA process. Would you please add this one fo the Centralized discussions list? 139.192.206.157 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Not an edit request. JTP (talkcontribs) 18:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
(User added to their request after this). I don't think this should be added to CENT for now because it is just an informal dicussion / brainstorming and not an RFC that all of us need to comment on. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced discussions on this talk page[edit]

Some of the discussions on this talk appear to misplaced attempts to alert editors of a community wide discussion. I believe that these editors may be editting this page instead of Template:Centralized discussion. To help avoid confusion, I propose adding this edit notice:

Proposed edit notice

If there is a consensus, I'll ask a template editor to add the edit notice. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding the meta discussion about Scots Wikipedia[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add m:Requests for comment/Disruptive editing on sco.wikipedia on an unparalleled scale to the template? --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say no, though an announcement in one of the noticeboards would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Kiev/Kyiv[edit]

@Barkeep49: Per WP:CENTNOT, it seems we're not supposed to add content disputes or topic-specific discussions, and this would appear to be both of those. It does look like a pretty major discussion, but do you think it's something that we need to advertise at the CENT level, or will it work out alright with just the attention already being given to it? (I haven't read through it/paid close attention, so that's a genuine question.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, it needs attention from more than the crowd who might normally go to an RM. So it needs to be advertised widely, especially given that it was paused for quite a while and has now resumed. Out of respect for CENTNOT I get that CENT might not be the place for it but it was the first place I thought of (especially because before it was paused it had been listed there). So long story short, if you feel it should be removed I won't object but still think in a IAR sense it should be there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, makes sense; I'm fine with IAR-ing it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I get mildly uneasy with specific content disputes being linked here. Tons of discussions could benefit from the extra attention this brings; the point is restricting it to a few narrow types. If the Kiev/Kyiv discussion were framed to change the spelling of the place across Wikipedia, then it would make sense but a single article page move, even highly contentious? Wonder if we need a bot for recruiting for RM discussions like we have for RfCs... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
If the article gets moved all Kiev/Kyiv spelling across the whole project, including historical instances, will be changed within a week, at best with references to that discussion, but mainly even without any references. We have the whole propaganda machine of the 50-million-population state working to change this spelling in the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm less sure about that (like I wrote below). A decision at one article, unless it explicitly states it applies to other articles, will certainly be subject to debate when applied elsewhere. I recall a well attended RfC at The Matrix changing "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis". When it was closed with consensus to do so, it was also changed in the articles about the other Matrix films, leading to edit warring and wikilawyering and ultimately a decision that a new RfC would be needed. This is the first to come to mind, but there have been many other similar cases of "you didn't say it would apply anywhere else" or "if it was to apply anywhere else, it needed to be somewhere other than the article talk page". Say what you will about those kinds of arguments -- I'm just saying all I see is a single article move discussion, which seems outside the purpose of this tool. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The statement I made is not a statement of policy (on which I would rather agree with you), it is a statement of fact. Already now, and already for many years, Kiev in the article texts is being routinely replaced by Kyiv by driveby editors, mainly (but not exclusively) coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Those articles which are not move protected and contain Kiev in the title are being routinely moved to titles containing Kyiv. Sometimes, they use automatic tools, so that they for example replace Kiev also in the names of files used on the page, and the image becomes a redlink. Right now, when I see this, I revert citing the name of the main article. Now, if the main article gets moved and the stream of moves and replacements follows, and users in good standing join (and some of them feel very strongly about the name), it will be impossible to stop. At best you would be able to revert historical instances, and may be not even those. I am sire people wouild argue that since Kiev is now Kyiv, Kievan Rus must be moved to Kyivan Rus. De facto what is being discussed now is moving every single instance of Kiev everywhere in Wikipedia to Kyiv.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

[Shooting/killing] of Greg Gunn[edit]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: This seems like straightforwrd WP:CENTNOT, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I am not too sure how this was works, but the outcome of this RM can affect the titles of more than 100 articles with similar titles. The same four or five editors that participate on these types of discussion have established what they believe is a WP:CONSISTENTy, which I believe is not based on good judgement or consensus . I believe a sort of local consensus has been established and wider attention is need. If that is not enough for CENT, ok. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I think with something as contentious as this it will be difficult to get past the argument of spelling being decided on a case-by-case/article-by-article basis without explicitly stating such applicability in the RfC. Meh. I'm not removing it -- it just seems like NOTCENT to me. Will defer to others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Somehow I thought I was replying about Kiev/Kyiv when I wrote this (hence "spelling"), but now that I'm going back to adjust I find that the response more or less remains the same. If you want it to apply more broadly, it needs to be framed as such explicitly IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Volunteers / paid editors[edit]

I believe that this doesn't warrant inclusion at WP:CENT, but my removal has been reverted by the discussion initiator with "nice try" as edit summary"[2]. As far as I am concerned, this is a minor dispute over a change at WP:PAID which had lasted over a year, after discussion (Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 7#unpaid worker and on-loan staff). The same editor who reverted me also edit warred already over that same issue on WP:PAID[3]. So, should this be included in WP:CENT or removed? Fram (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Requiring unpaid volunteers to make a declaration that they are paid editors seems somewhere towards the wtf end of the spectrum. Why would you want to even suggest that? What was wrong with merely requiring them to disclose that they are interns? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That's for the village pump discussion, this is just a place to determine whether this warrants a wp:cent inclusion. There are new questions at village pumps every day, only a handful of these get included here. Fram (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh. On whether it should be included I'm ambivalent, but maybe don't edit war to include a link you added to begin with, with an obviously non-neutral description, to a discussion you initiated, about one of your edits that was challenged... I would assume that centralized discussion would operate under an implied BRD/1RR/whatever process, but maybe that needs to be spelled out. Might also add guidance cautioning people to think twice before adding a link to a discussion they opened themselves, given it's less likely they'll be able to give a dispassionate evaluation of its broad interest (this isn't to say I think the practice should be prohibited, of course, nor whether that factored into the present item). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians,

I draw your attention to this MfD nomination. I think this discussion, which openly seeks to remove all anti-same sex marriage userboxes from Wikipedia, requires input from the wider community, and not through limited participation in an obscure backwater forum like MfD. What the discussion calls for far exceeds the mere "deletion of userboxes", but represents a wider discussion of WP:UBCR and the userbox policy, and a change in precedent which, if the MfD is passed, would have the de facto effect of outlawing all anti-same sex marriage userboxes. As such, this discussion falls within the categories: Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures (userbox policy) and Discussions on matters that have a wide impact and should be advertised on CENT. Not to mention this topic has been hotly debated in many similar previous discussions. All editors are free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks.

Disclaimer: I am an involved party in the discussion. This message only serves to notify interested users of the discussion, and is not intended to sway the outcome of the discussion in any particular way. --Dps04 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I think this should be listed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

RSN listings[edit]

There have been a lot of "reliability of X" listings lately. It definitely made sense for Fox News, but I'm not so sure about some of the smaller publications now being considered. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I came here to say this myself. If I wanted to participate in RSN discussions, I would watch that page. The majority of those discussions are not of interest to the entire project. I've never even heard of Entrepreneur (magazine) let alone used it as a source in an article, so I really don't care how that discussion turns out. @Sdkb: I'd recommend following WP:BRD for posts you don't think need project-wide input. If anyone disagrees it will help spur discussion. Wug·a·po·des 23:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I get wanting to include them. RSN discussions do not, as a rule, need to be included here because they have historically mostly been about "is X source useful for Y claim on Z article". But now that we're regularly talking about banning certain sources across the project, that makes more sense to advertise widely. That said, there are some sources that come up which people aren't really actually using. So maybe if people feel like it's too much then set a minimum # of articles in which the source is in use? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, a minimum usage requirement sounds like a good idea. Any thoughts on where we should set the thresshold? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I'm frankly not sold on the idea that it's necessary. I'd rather just see better gatekeeping for adding things to cent, so those who maintain it can just make the call on a case-by-case basis rather than imposing a numeric value. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, done. The archiving of CENT listings throws me for a loop, but hopefully I'm not neglecting anything by removing a listing only recently added. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Users interested in having an easily-referenced listing of current source discussions should consider making a {{RSP discussions}}, either populated by hand for specific source discussions or perhaps by a bot watching WP:RSN. Probably the former would be easier. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Most RSN discussions do not belong here. I am also inclined to WP:Avoid instruction creep, so I would only support a firm guideline if other solutions are not tractble. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a "Meta:" prefix to descriptions of discussions located on Meta-Wiki[edit]

Today Fyrisdal made an edit that added back a "Meta:" prefix to the descriptions of discussions located on Meta-Wiki that were removed, and suggested that since it's been "mostly consistent convention" as of late it should be added to the instructions.

This might be something worthy of a discussion. If the addition of a "meta:" prefix to descriptions of discussions located on Meta-Wiki really is something we should be doing, should it be added to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion#How to list so people don't forget to omit it? Or should this practice be done away with altogether? SkyWarrior 04:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it adds clarity regarding the scope of discussions, and I think consistency is helpful, so I'm in favor of the convention (and of documenting it). Examples can be found in Archive 11 (since July 2018), 12 and 13. --Fyrisdal (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree and think we should do away with this convention. Point 3 of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion#How to list state that "it is not necessary to label the type of discussion", and I would argue that this is exactly what is occurring when adding a "Meta:" prefix to descriptions. Furthermore, there is precedent of the prefix being removed and it not being re-added. SkyWarrior 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I think labeling the entries which are on another wiki - having a different scope than our local discussions - is quite different to labeling discussions by types such as RfC, deletion discussion etc. --Fyrisdal (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)