![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
WP:FLRC has three active listings, not a single one of which has had any action since November. Any idea why the listings are so inactive? FLRC apparently has a history of being even slower than FARC, as one talk page notice pointed out that a listing sat around for 16 months before anything happened.
No process on Wikipedia should be this agonizingly slow or inactive. FARCs usually take a long time, but most of the time, stuff is at least happening in them. Not so on FLRC, where three discussions, one opened in November, have had absolutely no action whatsoever. Any suggestions on how to breathe some life into this seemingly moribund part of the process? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What do we think about including RfAs and RfBs in the centralized discussion template? They're clearly of importance to everybody on the site, and it's not like there are a ton to clog up the process, it would just be another helpful way to notify users about these. Kharkiv07 Talk 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a source for everyone of my quotes used. I don't understand how I am not citing my sources. Every outside idea was cited. Could you please point out where my ideas were uncited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osharifali ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. What you are saying makes a lot of sense. This addition was apart of a college level English assignment where we had to insert our final copy into Wikipedia. Thank you for informing me of more correct Wiki practices. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Osharifali (
talk •
contribs) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I concur. Considering the express fact that entering and linking sources to any given page should and can take time per the rigor of research, it is therefore at the very least premature to dismiss any submitted article for immediate deletion under an assertion that EACH and EVERY sentence yet provides a ready citation. In the presence of willful error and knowing purporting to defraud or feign some achievement or connection undeserved or unearned, which I've seen on many occasions in articles that have clearly passed your criteria for immediate deletion, it just appears to me that there should be "time" permitted to allow for the citations and hyperlinks to be added. Considering also that such direction is available from your chat room and expressly so, the time to seek the assistance and guidance of your article development team appears to be a necessary implement BEFORE setting a page for immediate deletion. This issue is primary cause for the resounding lack of support Wikipedia has amongst the academic, professional circles. If this is merely just a partial front promulgated under the guise of objective impartiality, I'd say by evidence it's failing.
I've
changed an entry's name from "Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help
" to "Proposal to add a disclaimer before connecting users to the IRC help channel and prefill their IRC nick to their username using site javascript
in accordance with my reading of
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. In the interest of full disclosure, I supported the proposal, but I think the new text is a lot more neutral. Comments? Thanks, --
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Centralized discussion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could some kind person please change
* An RfC for a banner alert campaign on the threat to Freedom of Panorama in Europe
to be
* An RfC for a banner alert campaign on the threat to Freedom of Panorama in Europe
Diphthong ( talk) 22:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason one of the Centralized discussion entries is currently bolded? That's easily misinterpreted as a newly updated entry or as an unclicked link. Is the entry especially important? -- Pipetricker 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would it be appropriate to include Close down Possibly Unfree Files? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion I shall like to put forth, if the correct pronunciation (a recorded voice) could be included of the matter in discussion, names etc. it would serve as a tremendous advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.149.254 ( talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess the Centralized discussion archive is for making it easy to find old discussions, but I have noticed entries sometimes (or often? – I haven't looked deeply into that) are removed from the Centralized discussion list without being added to the archive. So I will try to improve the template's note about archiving. -- Pipetricker ( talk) 17:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The text "There is currently a request for adminship open for discussion."
is too long, and tautological, but I can't see where to change it. I suggest trimming to, say, "A request for adminship is underway."
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 09:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A request for adminship is open for discussionor
... is being discussed? : Noyster (talk), 10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"Centralized discussion". "Underway" is shorter than either of your alternatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
"A request for adminship is in progress."The nautical metaphor "underway" is probably less universally recognised: it's not given as a single word in my Concise Oxford. Anyway
{{
RfA watchlist notice/text}}
is where to make a change and as it's fully protected we need an admin to oblige
: Noyster
(talk), 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@
Noyster: What happened? The template currently reads "Four requests for adminship are open for discussion."
>
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm involved in the Infobox person/Wikidata TfD discussion recently added to {{ Cent}}, as is the editor who added it. We don't usually lists TfDs here, and I think this one should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not taking a position, just reporting the facts, and you guys can make the call. At WT:TFA, the last relevant comment was on the 22nd, and the last edit was on the 23rd. Option 1, at least, has nearly unanimous support. It may or may not be time to remove this from CENT. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The "Movement strategy" entry has become a long-stay resident at the bottom of the CENT list. Should it be sent on holiday for now, based on this? : Noyster (talk), 11:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove some of the conversations on the template. We currently have 10 running (plus an RfA), which decreases the value of CENT: everything gets crowded so conversations get less participants. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (RFCs especially). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. Thanks in advance! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Galobtter: I figured I'd open this thread if you have any questions about my re-addition of those links. DYK is on the main page, and biographical content is site-wide. Therefore, per WP:CENTNOT there is no reason to not list them. Nothing personal, just wanted to give you a heads up and give you a place to let me know if you still disagree. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I restored this because there have been numerous move discussions over the years, and it has come to represent the problems Wikipedia has in finding non-sexist ways to name and write about women. It needs broad input. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
WP's problems in finding non-sexist ways to name and write about womenis not much relevant, IMO.Whilst more heads are definitely better, this is just going down the slippery slope of mentioning any content-dispute, which is heavily contentious at CENT. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way for me to improve my article because on the list of suicides that have been attributed to bullying article hamed's name was on the list of suicides and there was no article about him so I decided to create an article to reduce the risk of his name being deleted on the suicide list. Please tell me some tips on how to improve my article that way it doesn't get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1941 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I made a quiet proposal here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_147#Topical_discussion,_centralized, and wish to promote it further.
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Centralized discussion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the Template
Thanks 122.163.11.63 ( talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 122.163.11.63 ( talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This item should probably be updated along conventional naxbox template look, as seen on its Swedish version sv:Mall:Aktuella diskussioner. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I think
this discussion would profit from sitewide editor opinions, given that it sets precedent on how outside influences affect our style guide. I'm not a CENT regular, so dropping here for your consideration. If anyone agrees, please list it. (not
watching, please
{{
ping}}
)
czar 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Centralized discussion/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Implemented in {{ Centralized discussion/core/sandbox}}.
— andrybak ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)