Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 5
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Compact settings
Looking at {{cent/core}}, I notice we can set {{{compact}}} to yes and very -- I'm not sure if I spotted any differences in output, between the two, but I didn't look very hard. I also notice that it's impossible to include the bottom row of links (archive, talk, edit, history, watch) without also including the large-size, bolded line about archiving old discussions.
Would anyone else be interested in a transclusion that includes those links without including the archives note? Seems it would be a useful distinction between "yes" compact (no note, yes links) and "very" compact (no note, no links), or we could add a third enumeration.
Shouldn't be hard to do, if people like the idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
... doesn't need to exist and we have two separate talk pages for one template. I propose
- Merge the contents of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion into Template:Centralized discussion/doc.
- Redirect Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to Template:Centralized discussion.
- Move discussions on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion to this page.
- Redirect Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion to here.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with merging Wikipedia:Centralized discussion with Template:Centralized discussion/doc. IIRC, when WP:CENT was created five years ago, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion was suppose to be a very detailed policy/guideline page, similar to Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:In the news. And then Template:Centralized discussion was suppose to be brief and short, similar to Template:Did you know and Template:In the news. IMO, a very detailed policy/guideline page should not be on a template doc page. Instead, I would prefer merging Template talk:Centralized discussion to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion, similar to how Template talk:In the news redirects to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Issue to add
Hi. Anomie suggested here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#RfC_re_template_naming that this RfC is added to the Centralized discussion template, so here is my request. Thanks. 212.84.103.144 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
please remove the pedofilia one
{{editsemiprotected}}
The pedofilia discussion has ended already. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't use
{{editprotected}}for pages that are only semi-protected- you'll likely get a faster response this way, anyway. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)- Thank you, I didn't know there was a semi-protected template. 71.139.2.170 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think this is significant enough to merit inclusion as a centralized discussion? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Alleged dispute-tag mess -- World War II overview
User:Gavia_immer removed one of three dispute tags at above article. There was no "tag mess" as alleged by User:Gavia_immer. The particular tag in question stated clearly the nature of the complex and multi-faceted dispute. So I've undone User:Gavia_immer's tag deletion. Am baffled by his/her talk page, so I've placed this posting here in the hope that it reaches him/her. Communicat (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahnentafels (ancestry tables)
User:SilkTork removed my RfC (Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1) as not meeting WP:CENTNOT. I restored it. I didn't put something this arcane-looking on Centralized Discussion thoughtlessly, but because it's one of the few ways I could think of to inform the editors of over 2,500 articles that are noticeably affected by the change in an obscure, protected template that must be on very few watchlists (and one that took me some time to find, although the effects of its uncollapsing last May had been quite dramatic). I have put separate notices in the WikiProjects for Royalty & nobility and for British Royalty,† but it was only after putting it on Centralized Discussion that (coincidentally or not) that the RfC got a few comments. It's not practical to put this notice on the talk pages of 2,500 separate biographical articles (not all of them about royalty or nobility), and probably only a fraction of their editors are active in the royalty WikiProjects. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- † [I have since put notices on the History and Biography WikiProjects.] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You could try Wikipedia:Village pump - that's where most discussions go. CENT is mainly used for policy discussions, or matters that have a wide impact or a relevance to the whole Wikipedia community. SilkTork *YES! 19:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Over 2,500 articles were written using this template, and there's no one other place to reach even a fraction of their editors. This isn't a matter for the Village Pump because I'm not proposing a new idea or some far-reaching change of general application to how Wikipedia works. I was planning to take this down in a week anyway unless there's a huge increase in comments. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I have put it on Village Pump. People are now informed here, here, here, here and here. That is fair notice for a minor question on one specific template which is only used on a narrow range of articles. If the question was regarding - "Should all templates be collapsed by default", that would be a CENT issue. If CENT were used for every time there were a question regarding a specific template, it would be too large to be practical, let alone if it were used for every question that is raised every day on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)