Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Editnotice banner

What do people think about updating the edit notice for the Cent template, to request that users include the added wikilink in the edit summary? The current edit notice just includes directions about removing discussions. Many users monitor changes to this template via their watchlists and it is frustrating to have to click through to find a discussion that was added without a wikilink in the edit summary.

See User:Billhpike/centralDiscussionPageNotice

My proposed edit notice is above. Note that I have also added a missing expiration parameter to the existing {{Editnotice}} on removing discussions.

If there is a consensus for this change, I will make a template edit request. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support, sounds good to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support . Suggesting changing "include a wikilink" to "include the wikilink", and perhaps swapping the order of the notes. --Pipetricker (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is needless prescription. Edit summary is a summary of edit not verbatim readdition of edit. It isn't not even mandatory itself much less prescriptive wikilinking. If someone wikilink, fine and same as not doing so. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Entry for the "fuck off" RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The entry being discussed: Use of "fuck off" in discussions – sanctionable or not?

Hi Nihlus, Pigsonthewing as I've written that I won't revert if any other editor reverts my addition again, I'm requesting feedback from you on why do you think the Rfc should not be publicised through the centralised discussion template; you've mentioned "it's not a major issue"; yet I see quite a few editors wishing to comment either way. Thanks, Lourdes 03:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur that it should be removed from cent. It's a very narrow issue. That aside, if we create special rules about "fuck off", savvy editors will just say "piss off", "bugger off", "go the fuck away", etc. I have never used "fuck off" or anything similar here, but I do not think a hard and fast rule about something so specific is due. Rarely, its use may even be defensible. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Godsy, there are around 50 editors who have commented on the RfC before 24 hours are over; and so I believe the community is interested significantly and don't believe it's a narrow issue. I can understand your point about special rules; but that is a point against the RfC's premise, not against informing editors across the project. Lourdes 06:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter I have invited Pigsonthewing here. Waiting to hear their view. But I couldn’t get what you meant by your “couple of hours” statement. Could you clarify pls? Thanks, Lourdes 12:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant that this is not a matter of life and death. Edit-warring is a disruption, and if the discussion (this one) decides by consensus that the RfC should or should not be added to the template, and because of this the notice stays on the template several hours more or does not get added to the template for several more hours no disruption is going to happen. Note that I have no opinion on whether it should be added to the template, and that I protected on a random version, just when I somehow noticed this on my watchlist. My apologies for a not sufficiently clear rationale, I already noticed the problem, but the rationales are not editable, and I decided that to unprotect and then reprotect with a different rationale would not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you fully protected a page in which an administrator is edit warring? I presume this is merely symbolic and not a way to prevent non-administrators from joining in. Nihlus 14:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is what we always do. Every administrator knows that editing fully-protected pages except for adding things via protected edit requests and making purely technical uncontroversial housekeeping changes is taboo. Editng a fully protected page to enforce the administratior's point of view is an abuse of the flag and would immediately result in a desysop request.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was aiming for. Thanks. Nihlus 14:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I learned about this discussion via this notice, which I transclude on my user page. As I do not regularly monitor the action at Wikipedia:Civility, I would not have been aware of this discussion otherwise. The sheer volume of comment on this matter belies the idea that "it's not a major issue", and I think the edit-warring to keep this from being publicized reflects poorly on those who don't want to see the matter widely discussed.

The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions

Yes, discussion about one specific term is narrow, but I think it could reasonably serve as a proxy for discussion about any closely related term using the "f" word. This could be viewed as a !vote on whether such terms constitute rudeness or "gross profanity"... and a debate over whether rudeness or "gross profanity" are sanctionable or not... if not, then what weight does a "policy" really have? Also whether there should be more guidance for admins on what specific enforcement measures should be used. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058, the many comments saying that the RfC is a farce is what needs to be looked at, not the volume of comments taking place. However, this is not the place to rehash the discussion taking place over there. Nihlus 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I searched the page for the word "farce" and found nothing, so I'm not sure which comments you're talking about. The question asked is Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"? and the general tone of several responses is "No. It already is. No need for more bureaucracy." The self-contradictory nature of the aggregate response perhaps makes the discussion a farce, but I think the rationale for keeping this off the central notices should be one of the rationales listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion#Guidance §Inappropriate. Looking at that, this isn't an announcement, a content dispute, a topic-specific discussion or general ideas or a general proposal – that leaves

• Minor matters, housekeeping, article content discussions, or maintenance – see WP:Bold or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

In other words, the rationale is that Lourdes doesn't need to ask. This doesn't need to be discussed. She should just be bold, consider it sanctionable, and just start sanctioning those who do it. I know she hasn't been exactly bold in using the administrator privileges she was granted by the community some time ago, so perhaps this is good advice for her. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058, I suggest you review this for a reason as to why that is horrible advice. It's what led to this RfC in the first place. Nihlus 15:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; I was not aware of that noticeboard discussion. TL;DR but I skimmed enough to see where Lourdes was involved and from that it seems obvious to me that "minor matters" is not a valid reason for excluding the link from {{centralized discussion}}. Thus there doesn't seem to be any valid reason for the exclusion, short of WP:IAR, and I've yet to see any compelling rationale for ignoring rules in this case. I'll add another reason for posting the centralized notice: WP:CONLIMITED, in that noticeboards where foul-mouthed behavior is discussed are more likely to form a limited consensus based on the disproportionate likelihood of those exhibiting such behavior to be participating on those noticeboards. Editors who are more naturally civil are more likely to join the discussion when prompted to by a central notice. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support a link to the discussion. The topic seems ripe for the community, given the involvement already. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that we should link to the discussion, as it seems to have a wide potential impact and per wbm1058. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, per Wbm, Izno, Enterprise, as is obvious, I would support the re-insertion of the RfC details into the template and invite the wider community than, as I mentioned above, the usual suspects. Thanks, Lourdes 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Add entry The issue is not a narrow one because it would set the tone of discussion across the entire project at a time when banter and bullying are regular headline news. The discussion is already quite active and so all editors should have an opportunity to have their say. And it certainly seems more significant than the cosmetic issues like the design of an icon. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Izno, Andrew D, and the others who support including this RfC in the list. 28bytes (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I am about to close this as (weak) consensus to include RfC to the template and unprotect the template - but will still wait for several hours, just in case very strong arguments against inclusion have been forthcoming. Remember, we are not discussing the RfC itself, we are discussing whether it is of sufficient interest to the community to include it to the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I would say add the entry. At this point it is gaining significant community input on a topic that would affect editing site wide. I do not see it as a narrow issue given how it would touch just about every non-article space project page. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikfiable

This navbox could be wikified/standardised, as seen in its Swedish equivalent: sv:Mall:Aktuella diskussioner. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? That's not necessary. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive Inactive Discussions

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"

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

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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Shortness of link text

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 桜 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

@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?

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

RfC on notability of political candidates

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)

Misplaced discussions on this talk page

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)

Proposal on whether the RFA process should be changed

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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)

Adding the meta discussion about Scots Wikipedia

Would it be appropriate to add m:Requests for comment/Disruptive editing on sco.wikipedia on an unparalleled scale to the template? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is 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)

[Shooting/killing] of Greg Gunn

@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)

Adding Kiev/Kyiv

@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)

Volunteers / paid editors

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

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

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

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)

Parameter "simple" does not work

Hello; the template documentation states that:

Alternately, a simple version of the template can be used, displaying only the list/text without a surrounding navbox.

{{centralized discussion|simple=yes}}

However, this does not work (see Permalink to my sandbox). I'll see if I can get this to work in the sandbox. I'm not a template editor, so I'll then get an edit request filed. I don't know what happened here. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done; apparently there was a (removed, now restored) switch to use Template:Centralized discussion/simple instead of /core if simple was yes. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because there are 5 people using it. We should not support a parameter used by 5 people. Izno (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

See “Adirondack Railroad” page. I am a prominent railroad preservationist who has been trying to update this page for two months. Every time I do so, one or two unscrupulous and anonymous “editors” delete my own edits! These worthies are politically-motivated and are deceiving readers and violating Wikipedia principles. I request prompt mediation here. Please call me ASAP at (redacted), or email me at(redacted) Thank you.

Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-ar-Law (pro Bono publico) 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: Offending edit removals occurred today, June 3, 2021 at GMT-4. 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done wrong venue, I believe the correct place to ask edits to this page is over at Talk:Adirondack Railroad. I'm assuming you and the ip users are one and the same. those edits were reverted due to being unsourced additions. these editors are not violating wikipedia principles as in wikipedia, we have to verify information we put through mentions in WP:Reliable sources instead of sourcing from our own knowledge, unsourced information when challenged is typically removed. ◎ | melecie | t 03:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia:Notability (television) regarding guideline status

Hi, should the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) § Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG be maybe added to the template? JBchrch talk 02:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

UCoC discussion

@Xeno (WMF): any reason you think we need to link both a local and global discussion for the enforcement draft? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49: Just the local link should be fine I think? I wanted to respect the original insertion, but do feel free to modify. The local page links to Meta already. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• BillHPike: for what it’s worth I think the original link posted by Nosebagbear would be better; the enforcement draft guidelines are now outdated. New comments are invited at the talk page of the enforcement guidelines. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Xeno (WMF): Good point. I've changed the target back to m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is drifting, no racing toward being an editorial websit

Tools that used to be regarded as aiding in neutrality are now weaponized for “righteous causes”. Merging content so that it can be deleted, building silos of opinion citations in opposition to other opinion citation silos, deletion wars, edit wars, talk wars are common, even on pages that seem relatively straight forward. Editor tribalism and politicking for votes is also probably common, but that’s harder to track, though I imagine combing through public user data would be enlightening.

I think the editors believe no one sees this activity, but it is more visible than ever. I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m debating ending my financial support for Wikipedia. 50.4.136.195 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Current transclusion

@Xeno (WMF) and Wugapodes: The current link that both of you edited currently leads to a nonexistent page at :meta. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

IAmChaos: Thank you! I fixed that link. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Please add a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Shut down Wikipedia:Administrative action review 2409:4071:D9A:88D6:0:0:4348:A50A (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: RFC already closed as non-neutral. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Section for stuff on meta-wiki

We've been including a lot of discussions on Meta-wiki recently, which I think has been a great development. I'm wondering if it might be helpful to section the CENT template to distinguish discussions at meta-wiki and those locally. Even something as simple as a horizontal rule with local discussions above and meta discussions below. I think it would help draw more attention and lead to more meta discussions getting advertised. Thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 horizontal rule Levivich 18:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I too support the idea. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Wugapodes/Levivich/CX Zoom: Thanks for the suggestion/comments - is this what you imagined? (Feel free to adjust!) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  +1. I'm not sure we even need "On Meta-Wiki:", maybe just the horizontal rule, but either looks good to me. Thanks! Levivich 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't like it. Either we're saying something is work Enwiki editors' time, whether here or on meta, or it's not. I think adding the extra line clutters a box that is intentionally kept "slim". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just noting I've taken out the On Meta-Wiki. I left the horizontal rule for now, though thinking about it the purpose may not be obvious unless someone looks at this thread. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's a huge problem. The critical info is "here's a discussion you might want to join". Whether you understand the hrule or not, that's still very clear and the hrule is easily ignored. For those who do know it's useful subcategorization to help prioritize discussions, and for those who would like to know it's easily discovered. Click link above line, go to enWiki. Click link below line, go to meta. Simple enough pattern to pick up on, and no critical information is lost if you don't. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the simple line works better than the "on meta-wiki" phraseology and we should add instructions in the template documentation, and probably as comments on the template itself, to help users place their links in the correct place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's participation in the Board election is down a good amount, as a percentage of the overall electorate. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with this change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple pronouns

I read alot of Wikipedia, and I've noticed that in articles on public figures who are members of the LGBTQ community and use multiple pronouns, one pronoun is always chosen & just defaulted to for the entire article. It's also always the binary pronoun (ie. If a person uses she/they, she would be chosen). I can understand wanting to streamline editing, especially with the way Wikipedia works, however, when a member of the LGBTQ community chooses to use multiple pronouns, it is for a specific reason. It's not an either/or situation (unless specified as such). Multiple pronouns are meant to be used interchangeably. Choosing a single pronoun for a person who uses multiple (especially the binary pronoun) and defaulting to it all the time is disregarding their identity and is completely disrespectful. Jadyn81 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Stonewall's guidance on multiple pronouns, "They may prefer you use all of them interchangeably, or keep to one set." Editors are not in a position to ask the article subject which approach they prefer. As these are encyclopedia articles, consistent pronouns are clearer for the readers. Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

TE Protection

Seems like CENT was mistakenly TE protected again. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Scottywong. Would you please consider removing your template editor protection of Template:Centralized discussion? If you look at the history, the majority of editors to this template do not have the template editor perm. Seems to me that precedent and consensus for this particular page is to not apply TE protection to it, it is an exception to the "apply TE protection to highly visible templates" guidance. Thanks for your consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's an idea to solve the problem that just happened. What if this template transcluded a standalone bullet list with all the discussions on it, which remained semi/30-500 whatever protected it was. Then we can template-protect the main template to prevent formatting issues from breaking everything. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

+1, great idea. Galobtter (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I decided to try and make it—User:Snowmanonahoe/Centralized discussion, User:Snowmanonahoe/local, User:Snowmanonahoe/meta. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I would think that a single Template:Centralized discussion/list would be enough, divided into two parts, each of which can be separately called by {{\list|local}} and {{\list|meta}} respectively. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to mock it up at Template:Centralized discussion/list and Template:Centralized discussion/sandbox. Probably the quickest way to get it implemented. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole point should be to keep it simple, so that people can't break it. So two separate lists might be easier. Galobtter (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If this can be implemented, it's a good solution. If not, the template should be unprotected. Full template protection is an overreaction. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I've reduced the protection to ECP, since there is a legitimate need for non-TE editors to make changes to this template frequently. Apologies for overlooking that. I don't think that non-extended-confirmed editors should have a legitimate need to add/remove centralized discussions very frequently, so hopefully ECP strikes the right balance. Of course, if there is a better way to structure things such that the content is easily editable but the structure of the template is not (as discussed above), then have at it. And as always, if any admin has a valid reason to disagree with ECP protection, feel free to reduce to semi. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 for ECP. Frostly (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Was my addition, which I've removed, appropriate here?

Pinging editors from the above section who have been active in the last 3 days and aren't blocked. @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, Galobtter, and Novem Linguae:. It is Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Block of User:KoA by User:Leyo (A). I thought it was but then wondered if I might be wrong, so to be sure am asking here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixing pings: @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, and Galobtter: –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, don't take it as gospel, but I don't think individual user behavior discussions are a great fit for T:CENT. Items posted here are usually policy discussions/RFCs. Thank you for checking, hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem LinguaeAh, I just thought that an Admin review was something to advertise widely. More important than ANI was it usually involves policy issues. What was wrong with my pings, when I hover over them they still look the same. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you ended the template in ]] instead of }}. I edited it earlier and fixed its appearance, but editing it doesnt actually fix the ping because a signature is needed in the same edit. So to be safe I re-pinged. Hope that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae sounds like something I’d do.😀

Thanks for helping. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged (insert appropriately sad emoji here), but like Novem Linguae, I would not expect discussions of individual editors or admins to be listed here and definitely not on an ad hoc basis. If people really think discussions at WP:ADREV should be publicized on T:CENT, then it should be done similar to the listings for WP:RFA, where every discussion triggers a listing, to avoid bias in what is publicized. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@RL0919 sorry, my bad. I woukd support all of them being listed. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)