Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Log

Added link to log page. John Reid 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Added in-comment reminder to log changes. John Reid 12:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Show/Hide

Added show/hide button per request by Alphax at the Village Pump (technical), 17 May 2006. J. Finkelstein 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This feature does not actually work for all users. Please don't use it. Thank you. John Reid 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar-mini

Netscott (talk · contribs) added {{tnavbar-mini}} on 2006 May 28. My personal feeling is that it's a step in the right direction but this general solution might be better customized for our special purposes here. John Reid 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cosmetics & links

I've done quite a bit of cosmetic cleanup on the template, added a number of useful links, and rm a great deal of dead code. I've modeled the link section on the popular {{ln}}/{{lt}} series of templates and the box model on the equally popular {{divbox}}. Thus the overall appearance and function should be much more standard than before. There are no instances of double transclusion. John Reid 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is forced centered now instead of floating to the left if needed now (see AFD today or User_talk:SPUI). Also, the tags are unbalanced (2 <center> and 1 </center>). What were you trying to change? Kotepho 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I threw out a great amount of dead code; perhaps I tossed out a bit too much. I wasn't really interested in changing anything substantial. The old behavior was to center in available space; if put with a floating item it did not jam up against it but nicely centered itself in whatever width was left. I'd very much appreciate it if you can restore this behavior without adding in too much boilerplate. John Reid 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Screwed around with a little, but I don't know how to make it work the same without going back to nested tables. Kotepho 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if other people agree with me, but I find the centering of every item within the columns to look somewhat messy. I realize that at least one other person presumably disagrees since they formatted it this way, but I can't figure out how to put it back so being bold isn't even a possibility here. If multiple people agree with me, could the columns be re-formatted to be left-aligned? --Metropolitan90 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In my browser, the contents of each column are left-aligned. The only items that are centered are the top and bottom single-column (colspan=9) cells. Also, the entire template is centered when transcluded.

Centering is a known trouble area, even today. What works on your browser may break on mine. I just did a minor cosmetic facelift; tell me if you see any difference. John Reid 11:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• The centering problem in this template was fixed a while ago, so it's not a concern for me. However, the blue text on black backgrounds at the top and bottom of the box was too hard to read; I decided to try removing the black backgrounds. --Metropolitan90 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• What is the impact of the cosmetic changes on different skins, and for accessibility (e.g. visually impaired users who prefer green on grey or one of the other compbinations)? I note the colour is now more subdued than it was, but I am stiull concerned about the use of hard-coded colours in such a widely-used template. Should we not be referencing a defined class so that people can tweak it? John's rather aggressive comment on my Talk page notwithstanding, I think this is an issue worth considering, and judging fromt he edit logs I am not the only one. It's all well and good to make a change and then challenge anyone reverting it to justify it on talk, but that violates WP:OWN. It's reasonable to ask the person advocating or making a change to provide a proper rationale, and the onus is clearly on them to support it. Blue on blue is terrible for visually impaired users. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• John, your comments on my Talk page are grossly unfair. You accuse me of failing to recognise your experience; how about recognising mine? I did the usability testing for B&Q's online recruitment website (as well as a fair chunk of the coding), and I am friendly with the webmaster of my local talking newspaper. I am not making this up: there are users out there for whom hard-coded colours are a real problem; css is great because they can simply customise their monobook or override the stylesheet, but hard-coding in the text can break that. Colour combinations like black on cream, green on grey, yellow on black, are all in common use by the visually impaired. So rather than giving me an earful about how arrogant I am for daring to question your judgment, how about a civil answer to the question above? This is not your project alone, you know. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You were rude to use the phrase "caused me physical pain in my eyes". Either you understand this or you don't. Another user showed me a screenshot that indicated he had trouble viewing the template when bgcolor was used to control; but CSS was fine. I reacted to that criticism alertly, promptly, and courteously by converting to all CSS.

Color is a unifying element; it doesn't matter much what it is so long as it's consistent. I have no problem with black on cream; if you like, you can go around to all the cent-related pages and make the change. Just don't whinge into my ear about it, please. John Reid 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, John, I was factually accurate, it did cause me physical pain, and I was astonished by that. Maybe I was having a bad eye day (I get migraines, sometimes the eyes are on the brink of the abyss). You are rather missing the point here, which is that some people use unusual colour combinations in order to be able to use web pages more easily, something I learned a bit about while I was doing work on sites for major retailers (and in helping a friend who runs the local talking newspaper website). We handled this by offering different css options through the accessibility links. It's not about what colour I like, it's about giving due consideration to accessibility issues when making changes to widely-used elements (I think the meta guys are careful when changing the framework elements as well). I'm sorry you feel the need to personalise the whole thing, and I'm very sorry you feel unable to make a civil response to this point, but it's not outrageous to point out that blue-on-blue, for example, is problematic. Guy 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. Your comment was extremely rude. m:Don't be a dick. Either you undertand this or you don't. If not, talk it over with a friend. You do not say such things to people, even if they are exactly, factually, literally true. There is nothing at all permissible in polite society past "I don't like those colors". If I did you real harm, then go hire a lawyer and sue me for damages. Otherwise, no matter how much you suffer, expressing your pain is just plain rude. "That hurts my eyes" is already a bit too much; "physical pain in my eyes" is just gratuitous whinging. It's entirely sufficient to say "You might want to reconsider that color" and very effective to suggest an alternative.

Besides, I think you're exaggerating -- quite a lot. If anything your monitor can display causes you pain, you need to get a new monitor. There is nothing "unusual" about black on aqua on white. These are all standard CSS colors. Get over it.

And for all the gods' sakes, drop it. Your concerns have been addressed, even though you were insufferable when presenting them. You can always offer an alternate color combination. Your constant self-justification makes you ten times the dick of your original comment. It takes a great deal of offense to make me come out and say someone is a dick to his face but you have gone way over the line, buddy. Drop it and move on. John Reid 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Other users have expressed dissatisfaction with the current color so I've changed it again. Please, let's have a little civil discussion here. If you don't like #dee, tell me what you do want. No need to scream in agony, just suggest a different tint. John Reid 09:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One-column makeover

Copied from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log

Moved Ref reform to old discussions from the straw poll section. Radiant has added the historical tag to the poll, so I figure it's not a current poll. I wasn't sure whether old straw polls go in the old discussions section, but someone can always fix that if it's wrong. Hiding Talk 18:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I've been putting all old stuff in old before rm entirely; Radiant has indirectly suggested that may not be needed. I'd be up for a two-column format and no old section at all. For that matter, I'd be up for a one-column format; I'm not sure breaking out polls is useful. John Reid 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) I can get behind that. Any poll could just mark itself as such in the name, for example Ref reform - polling. Certainly a way to go forward. Might actually make this log a lot more useful in my eyes, to be honest. Be a better archive of stuff. Hiding Talk 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Well, I'm learning to avoid drastic changes. This truly is a monstrous template; needs to be cut down to something manageable that doesn't hog the entire page. Let me think about it and maybe throw up some demos. John Reid 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, point me to them when you have something. You're certainly right about the way it's bloated. I seem to remember it smaller, but I suppose that's the burden of popularity. Hiding Talk 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Template:Cent/work. Rfrisbie has got a version there and I just added another. I think the right solution will draw from both. Comment? John Reid 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, for me, I think you're right that the answer lies in the middle of the two. Personally I like the clarity of the lower one, with less info on it and the stark background, but I like the banded headers of the top one, the fuller name and the fewer template related links under the name, so definitely a mix and match. Not really fussed either way on the logo, it's a nice touch, does draw the eye, but adds bulk. Hiding Talk 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see more links but they could be more compact. We could saw off the last two sections of the first demo; they do seem to be unnecessary. I've formatted the link to /Conclusions so that it can be used as a section header if something really warrants advertisement.

I don't care for the official Wikipedia logo in the template; I think it's inappropriate. How about this? John Reid 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's a nice image, the only worry I have with it is it's a bit square, and would that unbalance the template, which is rectangular? I guess it's hard to know without seeing it in situ. I like what you've done with the size progression up there though. Hiding Talk 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's just a selection of different sizes; pick one. Smaller is probably better, right up to the point it's a muddle. John Reid ° 04:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. I worked up a third attempt then that merges what I think are the best aspects of the two at Template:Cent/work. Probably more mud in the water, but that looks nice and compact. Links to other meta-data I'm not over bothered on, I like the white background, I like the striping, although looking at it I think the headings maybe aligned right like on yours would work better. Definitely a white background works best for me, it's stark and draws the eye. The image at that size is clear on my screen and is perfect, I have to say, although I had to pad the cell it is in to get it on a complete white background, but the colour on it is just right, you ask me. So that's my attempt, now how to marry it all up into one? Hiding Talk 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent improvement. I'd still prefer /Conclusions as a heading at the bottom; should look okay when empty, too. All the internal/meta links up top. Prefer no link to this talk page, it's almost certainly not where people want to go. I don't know if some sort of formatting might be preferred that puts text next to the icon, rather than centered icon with white on both sides. But in general, I think it's great. John Reid ° 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've piddled around with it a little. Changed my mind about the link to this talk; kept. My ambivalence revolves around the fact that I see this page and the log as being two sides of the same coin. This is the usage/appearance/format talk page; the log is the social/political/discussion talk page. Most templates cram both into one talk page but I always thought Cent needed more. I've resolved this by pipelinking this page as use. (I like the watch link.)

Check out the demo transclusions. I'm very pleased with the forced width demos. I gave up trying to offer a centered option when I realized that the whole point of the makeover was to eliminate the page-width hog.

Template:Cent/work2a (suitably updated) is my preference to replace the current content. You'll see there's a blank table row under /Conclusions. This doesn't seem to blow up, at least not on my browser. If we have something that really deserves to go there, we can put it in. I'm happy to move away from the habit of shuffling stuff from one pocket to another; if it didn't go anywhere, just drop it. But I think a suitable reward for a successful conclusion is a short stay there. Make sense? And no heading for polls; don't like 'em anyway. John Reid ° 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks great my end on firefox, and I even viewed it in IE just to check and it all works there too. Yeah, I reckon if something concluded well then it should get a mention, it's compact and it makes sense to keep the metadata together. Nice piddling. What do you reckon next, a bold move or a consensus building exercise? Hiding Talk 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind talking first and I love working with other people but I think it's absurd to demand prior consensus for everything. If we had fewer dicks around here, we'd have more bold action and a better project. It's time to do maintenance anyway. John Reid ° 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better cent template I like the new change. Whispering 14:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Automatic discussion listing

It would be nice if this template featured an automatic discussion listing via {{watt list}}. Any objections? MessedRocker (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections. We would, however, need to add the tag to articles on this template and not on Template:Watt_list, and we would need to provide documentation on this template as to procedure. --Iamunknown 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this template would work as always what with the manual listing, and {{watt list}} would just be supplementary. MessedRocker (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that the watt list was for discussions that needed more participation to reach a consensus - not as a general noticeboard. :: maelgwntalk 02:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Discussions

Can we remove the "Discussion on anon page creation" (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation)? There's been like 10 comments in a month.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the purpose of this template? Just to gather a few discussions at one centralized point for admins to look at? Just curious. thanks Enigma ^msg! 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the top of the page says "maintains a compact index to ongoing policy discussion." Enigma ^msg! 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Removing WMF logos from userspace"

Can someone fix this link to go to the correct locatin? I couldn't find it. Chris M. (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That section's been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#WMF Logos. Is there an ongoing discussion about it somewhere? WODUP 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. I removed that item from the template. Of course, if there is an ongoing discussion, a link can be added again. WODUP 08:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AOR Deletion discussion

Personally, I think the Deletion Discussion of Category:Administrators open to recall is a large scale issue that could benefit from community input beyond that of the regulars at the category page. There is also a substantial thread at AN. As a participant in that discussion, I'm biased, and so I don't want to add the discussion to Cent myself. However, I would appreciate it if people would consider whether or not such inclusion is appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I found your post cause I monitor this page. I don't think it takes an unbiased party to add, and I've done so with a neutral statement. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion brought over from Village Pump archive

Proposal to include template {{cent}} on every discussion page

refers to {{cent}}

I am concerned about the number of discussions regarding important WP policy matters, of which the vast majority of editors are unaware. Placing this template on ALL talkpages would be of enormous help in keeping users in touch with policy discussions and developments, enabling them to participate in debates of their choosing. Rotational (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When you say "all talkpages", do you mean a more comprehensive collection of discussion forums, policy talkpages, and the like, or do you genuinely mean we should transclude this template on all five million talk pages on en.wiki? If the latter, strongly oppose: at that level of instrusion, we might as well put it on the main page. I exaggerate, but the point remains: such would be a ludicrous overreaction. I agree that this helpful template should be more widely deployed, but certainly not universally. Discression is the better part of valour. Happy‑melon 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

On every discussion page? No thanks. On a greater number of Wikipedia related pages? sure. Resolute 23:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would be very doubtful of its usefullness on every talk page. There are editors who are completely detached from the policy/admin side of Wiki by choice. To suddenly assume that 100% of editors want reminding 100% of the time of every new proposal would, I suggest, turn off a lot of single-use or 'part time' editors completely. Advertising proposals to the right crowd in a proper manner is far more appealing. doktorb _words^deeds 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this arose out of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Forcing Lead image, where Rotational expressed concern that only a handful of editors were contributing on an issue that affects all editors. I therefore guess Rotational meant "on all Talk pages relevant to WP:MOS or policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:N". I'd favour a mechanism that advertises all such debates, but allows users to turn off such notifications. Is that possible?--Philcha (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people want to jump on these issues as soon as they pop up, but then, these people often watchlist the relevant pages. You may find WP:Update useful; it only gives you updates to the 7 content policy pages and the general style guidelines (that was in there and I'm going to put it back in tomorrow) once a month, but hopefully that will be often enough so that you have a chance to push back against any changes you don't like. I know that on style guidelines pages, people are not generally in any hurry to declare issues closed, there's plenty of time to weigh in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Every discussion page is impractical and likely unwanted. But I would definitely support a much wider set of pages. Should be on Wikipedia:Community portal for a start. CIreland (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be okay to transclude {{cent}} at the top of every talk page of every policy and guideline, about 300 pages. Althought that would be a big (and very noticeable) change, so more feedback should be gathered before actually doing it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a software developer, but I know that placing the template on every user's page is not only technically possible, but simple. If the user doesn't want to be kept informed of the important issues of the day, then it is again a simple matter for him to turn it off (see the "Funds appeal banner" which can be turned off permanently by accessing 'preferences/gadgets'). I don't think the template should be rammed down anyone's throat, but it should rather be seen as an obvious means of keeping in touch with developments, and to be turned off at the user's convenience. This touches on the far greater issue of being informed about discussions on ALL matters, and not just policy developments - in other words a bulletin board where the user chooses his areas of interest and doesn't clutter his screen with notices that fall outside those areas. This is not a pipe dream - it is actually possible. ciao Rotational (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Resolute. People are welcome to put {{cent}} on their user page, their user talk page, some more Wikipedia talk page, but everywhere? No. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna transclude Cent on talk pages, it could be done like this now since I changed the structure a bit so that we can transclude the list as its own template. ViperSnake151 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is spilling into the next thread, so here's a {{clear}} --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everywhere, with the option of removing it if you don't want to see it. The vast majority of editors don't know of the template's existence, so that the whole exercise is aimed at publicising the template, and if one doesn't like it, then remove it. And considering the amount of irrelevant clutter everyone puts on their user and talk pages, I honestly can't see how ViperSnake's streamlined version can possibly give offence - it's a bulletin board for gawds sakes, not a Mona Lisa. Rotational (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• This should not go on article talk pages as it would be duplicative and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The last thing we need is more clutter on talk pages distracting from the actual discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• This is not a good idea. Transcluding it on Wikipedia Talk pages (there are plenty of those) is fine. Dropping it on user talk pages with the presumption that they care about date autoformatting or some crap is not fine. Protonk (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I presume the issues you call "crap", are the issues you don't care about and which other editors could very well be passionate about - there's no accounting for taste. The whole point of this template is that it can be turned on or off at will. Those editors who want to keep their heads under the sand are free to do so - those that want to stay informed will benefit. Rotational (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some talk pages are really cluttered already: Talk:Rickrolling has 8 templates and a table of contents before reaching actual discussion (you have to scroll down!). Do you want to put more burden on that poor talk page? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• This template would not pertain to the content of the overwhelming majority of articles for which the talk pages are designed; therefore, I am against putting it on every talk page. kilbad (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I support putting it on a wider variety of project talk pages, but putting this on every single talk page on the largest website in existence? No thankyou--Patton123 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist might be a nice place to put it. — Werdna • talk 07:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

if it's on the mediawiki watchlist notice, then it doesn't need to be here

Items removed with this edit summary. Where is it? Ben MacDui 09:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Cent for April Fool jokes

A dispute has arisen over the use of Cent to advertise three practical jokes.

Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. However, of neccessity we form a community to assist in the building of the encyclopedia, and that community bonds in certain activities.

The question here is: should we use a valued asset to serious discussion as a means to convey a community joke.

One view is that "it's only one day", and it's a means of lightening up and having a good time.

Another view would be that such links waste the time of those editors who are primarily interested in building the encyclopedia, and devalue an important resource. Jokes are taking place in various places on Wikipedia, and there should be an exercise in restraint. At the very least, THREE joke links is certainly too many. Also, when an editor objects to the frustrating time-wasting of the practical jokes, then such an objection should be acknowledged.

I will replace the three links with a link to this discussion, as that seems an appropriate and pertinent use of the Cent template in relation to today's date. SilkTork *^YES! 10:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

These are the three links in question -

• Wikipedia:Requests for process are now being accepted again
• A deletion discussion is underway.
• A discussion regarding malicious redirects is open for comment

Harmless, but distracting from the purpose of encylopedia building. SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, far too many jokes. The funniest has to be the one about the date linking and autoformatting discussion. Come on, do you really expect people to believe that issue hasn't been settled yet;)--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that has to be the biggest joke of all. But Wikipedia does attract the autistic in us all, so some repetitive behaviour is to be expected! SilkTork *^YES! 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit of harmless fun. Three is probably the upper limit for the number of links; it's not that much of a time-waste. filetS (atlk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I personally dislike the joke links, but I regard their inclusion here as an acceptable compromise between not having them at all (my preference) and placing them somewhere like the main page, site notice or watchlist (a problem in the past). —David Levy 15:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for process seems a good choice of topic to list here on any day. The issue it highlights is beyond a joke. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose use of this template for jokes. Please delete from this template the joke about whether we should discuss jokes in this template (and that date formatting joke too, I almost fell for that), and replace it with the serious deletion discussion and redirect discussion links. I note that SilkTork has already been blocked for messing with the template to insert this joke. Thanks! JJB 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• A better question might be if THIS discussion deserves being on cent. Lighten up once in while. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be a bigger waste of time then a few links being inserted for a day. §hep^Talk 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)