Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

time to update listing standards?

It seems like lately there are 10 or more things in {{Centralized discussion}} all the time. This may be actually lessening its effectiveness. Can there really be 10+ discussions that are important enough that the entire site needs to be notified of them going on all the time, or is it maybe time to tighten the standards for inclusion in the template a bit? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Oversight/Checkuser notice could probably be removed as the comment period is over, and the RFC on outlines may be ready to close soon. Of the remaining, the only one I would question the inclusion of is the RfC on the use of images in section headings. Which of them do you think centralized discussion could do without? Monty₈₄₅ 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The amount of discussions listed on Cent does vary, though there are times when it does get overloaded, and it's worth going through and removing items that have been listed a long time, or are inappropriately listed - or are borderline. It's worth having a discussion about the current listing criteria to check if it's appropriate. Is it too focused - not focused enough? Sometimes it feels that Cent is being regarded as just another way of announcing every RfC, though on the whole people do select carefully which discussions are most important, and I have found over the years that I am removing fewer and fewer items. What may also be useful, is having more people willing to keep an eye on Cent and to remove inappropriate or questionable listings, especially when it gets bloated. My time on Wikipedia varies at the moment, and when I do log on my attention may be pulled in other directions so I don't always get around to maintaining the listings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On that note, the docs here and at Template:Centralized discussion/doc could use some mention of guidance on when to remove items and how to archive them. -- œ^™ 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

• (Discuss)–Republic of Ireland→Ireland (republic) Kauffner (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

changes to the text announcing the WP:V RfC

The WP:V RfC was started on October 6.  There is not a new RfC.  The RfC was closed and reopened, which resulted in a new rfcid, but the name of the RfC has not changed.  There is also an incorrect rumor that there was an "agreement" to change the name of the RfC, see WT:V.  Multiple objections have been raised. 

Also, please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."   Unscintillating (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the RFC name was changed back and forth a few times, but reverting my entire edit based on that was uncalled for. No reason has been given why the incorrect description by removing "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". should be used. It does not accurately represent the proposal, as it is only proposed to remove not truth and explain the idea behind that concept in a separate section. Yoenit (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is correct to say that "not truth" has been removed and explained in another section, because it has not been removed, it has been moved.  Agreeing to not remove (i.e., to not deprecate) VNT is one of the compromises that came out of months of discussion.  IMO, there is no problem with Blueboar's original posting.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The correct name of the RfC can be found in this diff of WT:V from October 10, here.  A stable version of Template:Centralized discussion with both the correct link and a neutral description is here.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the RFC has been renamed, so that link is now incorrect. I have no problem with the rest of the wording, but User:Slimvirgin has repeatedly changed it [1][2], so my version was an attempt at comprise between the two versions. Yoenit (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no agreement to change the name of the RfC, multiple objections have been raised.  I am aware of the problem with keeping the link synchronized, twice today I have restored the WT:V page, and come here to restore this page as well.  One of those two times your edit arrived ahead of me, and it was ok and was appreciated, even though I didn't agree with "improving" the October 6th version.  IMO your most recent edit is incorrect, though, it uses the wrong link and misrepresents the RfC, as I've stated above.  It is difficult to keep the links properly synchronized with editors opposed to stability making changes on three pages simultaneously, and well as other confounding changes and talk page comments in the midst of all of this.  If you are not aware, there is a discussion on WP:ANI.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

When I made the edit that was the correct link, that it has changed back now is not my problem. As I said above I have absolutely no problem with the old version, but I do have a problem with Slimvirgin's version and I was merely trying an attempt at compromise after being reverted by her. I will have a look at the ANI discussion. Yoenit (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are we OK with the current wording? I've just looked at it, and it links to the right place, and the text appears to be informative and neutral, so I have no problems with it. The RfC close has been undone, so the listing should remain as it was - this is not a new listing. And as long as the discussion remains active I'm comfortable with it remaining linked on CENT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I just mentioned at Wt:V, this edit warring must stop. That page is protected now, but this template is not. Anyone who continues the edit war can and will be blocked. Fair warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Health care affecting editor retention

I boldly added:

• RFCs on two templates regarding pending legislation impacting editor retention

because it has a wide impact per the inclusion guidelines. It was deleted with an edit summary suggesting that the topic was less important for centralized discussion. I would like to replace it. Please share your opinion. Dualus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I really don't see how the discussions will impact the project broadly. The templates are transcluded on a combined total of 56 pages, there are no broader policy issues being decided, and the changes are unlikely to have any noticeable impact outside those pages. Monty₈₄₅ 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A large number of editors are in the United States, and their access to health care affects their ability to contribute. Therefore the proposal for inclusion has a wide impact on the project. Dualus (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Discussions on content templates are not appropriate for Cent, see: WP:CENTNOT. Try raising the issue with the appropriate WikiProject, or using a relevant RfC - would health come under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#adding policy RfCs to Article RfC pages, "need" or "spam"?.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed revert

A few days ago I removed a recently added RfC,Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Medians in Usage share of web browsers, because I felt it was a content dispute and fell afoul of WP:CENTNOT. The editor who added the RfC disagrees with its removal (see User talk:Jenks24#Your stealth revert on WP:CENT) and feels it should be re-added. I'd appreciate some outside eyes taking a look at the RfC and the discussion on my talk, and if anyone feels that the RfC is appropriate for CENT please put it back up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was a content discussion which is not appropriate for Cent as per WP:CENTNOT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate listing?

For what are we seeking broad consensus here? That we "Remove property protection from intellectual expressions, patents, creative works and the like, allowing for freedom to duplicate works or re-use works in any form not licensed below"? That we believe that "Any enforcement action must permit the accused a full and fair hearing. There can be no penalties applied based upon an accusation alone"? What's this to do with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and maintenance? Never mind what happens with the MFD, I don't believe that this is an appropriate listing for Central. I wanted to see how others felt before boldly pruning it, in case others feel differently. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Link removed per WP:CENTNOT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Packet Switched Smart Grid NPRFTE

Greetings Chzz,

Thank you very much for your kind support, time and effort to help me compile this description of the PSSG for Wikipedia. I'm having difficulty integrating some of the References and even some don't seem to link within Wikipedia. At the time of writing over a year ago, much of the terminology and references did not exist. The rest are now catching up rapidly however as

I researched onine today using google. The power industry is moving rapidly this way towards packet switched smart grid power supply and demand networking technology (inevitably in my opinion, speaking as a technologist as it's the least complicated and only way to do it in 'universaly applicable' systems with transport network protocols).

With Germany dropping Nuclear Power, the adoption of the PSSG seems inevitable - the 'jobs for the boys' bonanza will be ramping up in ernest there - but am trying get a foot in the door, so your help and support are greatly appreciated. As an inventor, the then G.E.C. founded by Edison and his inventions also gave outsider Nikola Tesla a hard time, so history may be repeating itself, but with a twist! DC gets a comeback over AC, but the inventor still gets given a hard time!

Thanking You and Best Regards,

Nick

Nick Robinson 15:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)NPRFTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPRFTE (talk • contribs)

WP:PC/RFC2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=489073391&oldid=489045158

Can Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 please be restored? It has been extended for another month: [3]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

CISPA

Would it be appropriate to list current discussions of CISPA here? I added something similar to Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Nav. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussions related to articles can be notified to the relevant WikiProjects listed on the article's talkpage. CENT is for discussions regarding the policies and procedures that take place on Wikipedia, which have a wide impact, and so for which a wide consensus is required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would have thought this will likely be such a discussion – a debate about whether or not WP should take action (especially given the precedent set by WP:SOPA), more than a discussion of the "CISPA" article itself. The Founder has stated that action would have to be initiated by the community, and not by him. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA initiative was not part of what Wikipedia is about; it was something exceptional prompted by Jimbo. It would be inappropriate to allow CENT to be used to instigate other such initiatives as though they were part of the purpose of Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:CENT itself talks about "other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed"; doesn't a (potential) discussion about another blackout/site banner/whatever fall under this rubric? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No. CENT is for matters relating to the running of Wikipedia itself, not for attempting to initiate other activities. There are other forums on Wikipedia - the Wikipedia:Village pump is an active forum where you can see if there is support for the idea. If the proposal gathers consensus you could then make a WP:RFC, and if it gathers momentum you could utilise the sitenotice and/or watchnotice. Cent tends to be watched by those who are interested in policy type discussions, and is not watched by the whole community. A sitenotice reaches everyone. But you'd need to get your proposal off the ground before using a sitenotice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC at WT:MMANOT

We had a request at WP:AN to add Wikipedia_talk:MMANOT#RfC:_Amending_requirements_for_WP:MMAEVENT to the Centralized Discussion list, if there's consensus. Seems fair, given how much drama we see surrounding this topic, but of course I defer to whatever you all think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 CUOS appointments

Can Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments please be mentioned on the template? Only a small portion of the community knows about it: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments. The deadline to submit comments should also be mentioned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You aren't an IP editor sofixit? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I rather not act unilaterally. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since there's now a message on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, I've decided to add a message to the template. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012

Please add:

• Several proposals to improve various requests for adminship processes.

71.212.226.91 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I am going to saw no for now as there has been no initiative to fix it. So far there are only proposals.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for a second opinion on this. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

I'm uncertain if this should go onto the list or not, please add it, or ok it for me to add as you please.

It is a topic which would expand it's scope of discussion as it progresses. Penyulap ☏ 23:17, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

How to edit ikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.212 (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.154.238 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Single link

I see that the requirement to insert only one link, to the RfC at issue, has been removed. Why? The reason given in the edit-summary is that there might be a second link to the policy under consideration by the RfC; but surely the lead to the RfC will link to this, in context. Tony (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion a while back, and it was agreed that a single link was preferred, as the point of the listing is simply to take you to the discussion with a brief, neutral, unambiguous description. Including several links is distracting. The edit summary does indicate that the editor was being bold under an understanding that the standard use was for more than one link. The standard is still for one link, though sometimes people do use more than one because they are not familiar with the convention. When there is more than one link, the redundant links should be removed. I'll restore the wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Two entries for same issue

I know there is some sort of debate about a closing or something, don't know the details, but there appear to be two entries for the issue of having a slot for GAs on the main page. I don't have time right this moment to sort out which, if any, of these entries should still be listed, hoping someone else has a moment to sort it out. I hate to be that that guy but I noticed this just as I was getting ready to sign off and go to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Both discussions had been closed, so I archived them, and a number of others that had either closed or were inactive. I used to enjoy keeping an eye on Cent, and closing discussions, especially the tricky ones, and then archiving the links; but some of my time and energy has been taken up by ArbCom, so I don't do it very often these days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well your efforts are noted and appreciated, looks much better! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Rfx report from CENT

As per this diff [4], RFx is added to the CENT template. However, there is no option to remove this from display (compact, very etc). I suggest to undo this change and put it back after one of the below suggestion is implemented:

1. the display option compact or very should not show RFx report.
2. there should be a new option to hide the RFx report. EngineerFromVega^★ 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly taken the action of reverting the change per the way the UI looks and knowing of no lack of participation at Rf* I see no need to draw more editors in. Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion or Creation of New Page: Ryan 'Woodie' Wood

I have researched and researched all through Wiki trying to discover exactly why Ryan Wood's page was deleted and can find no reasonable or sensible answer.

His 'notability' is an established fact and blasted throughout all mainstream sites, including MTV and Allmusic (Rovi) just to name the two off the top of my head.

He had released 6 albums, including 'Demonz in my Sleep' [2001], which was released by Koch Records, a subsidiary of Entertainment One and a reputable label that is recognized world-wide, signing some of TODAYS biggest names in music.

His following is enormous, especially in the Northern California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington states... I am sure there are more, but, you get the idea. His fans are loyal and his music was singular.

Understandably, he was a known gangster and a member of the Nortenos, but, if you can show me one rapper on the market that does NOT claim to be a gangster, I will show you a rapper who is not making it.

These few links I have given you should be adequate proof of his 'notability' and provide adequate information for you to investigate further, if you so desire.

If there is more that you may need from me, I will gladly hunt down the information you require. If a NEW page needs to be started for this artist, I will gladly be the on to start it and you can look over my shoulder as I type.

If his page was deleted because of idiots that had no concern for this artist losing his page, then understand that it was just that. Idiots. Ryan Wood should not be the one to pay the price.

Thank you,

Micheal A. Cannata

no1sboy@gmail.com

No1sBoy (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodie (rapper) (2nd nomination). This is not really the place to discus that. If you wish to request another attempt at making an article, you can make your request at: Wikipedia:Requested articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Single link

It is stated that only a single link should be used on each line. However, this is not done, for good reason. Wikipedians are smart enough to know which link to click for the proposal/discussion, and which to click for background information. I think this particular guideline should be removed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Background information is usually given in the introduction to the discussion. It aids navigation for the reader to have just the one link to the discussion. If the reader feels they need more information than is provided on the discussion page, they can follow the links there, returning back to the discussion page. CENT is not the only link to the discussion page, so the discussion page should be as clear as possible. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you think that :) I'd be particularly interested to hear from others on this matter. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in having links to background pages as long as there's enough information to clearly identify which one is the link to the discussion. I listed an entry recently and I didn't even noticed the request to include only the link to the talk page - the instructions at How to list are so lean that I just took a quick peek. But, had I noticed it, I may as well not have followed it - frankly, each time I see a policy stating that something should be done or "is preferred", but not why, I turn automatically to WP:IAR and do whatever I feel is best for the case at hand. Instructions based on "because I say so" are useless in a consensus-based community. Diego (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "why" is understood to be because the CENT template is intended to only provide a link to the discussion. Background information, and the actual discussion, and necessary links are given in the linked discussion page. If there is not enough information on the discussion page, then perhaps that issue should be addressed on the discussion page, rather than on the link template. The template from the start in 2005 was used with just one link (for many years the whole sentence was the link). Around 2009 extra links started to creep in as Stifle started to lose interest in maintaining the template and - oddly - I started. I wasn't paying attention to the extra links until Andy Mabbet pointed out in 2010 some web accessibility guidelines, and suggested providing additional guidelines to the template, such as only having the one link. Not all Andy's idea's were accepted, though some were, including the advise to only have one link, which was simply putting into words the past five years of usage. It's probably worth saying that though I keep this talkpage on my watchlist, I rarely edit the template these days (other than a bit of archiving today as I was looking at the template anyway!). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we put the link to the actual discussion in bold, as Did You Know and In the News do? ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. That way, we can use multiple links in each bullet, while avoiding confusion. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

March

Uh... the archive only has one entry for the entire month of March. That can't be right. Anyone feel like doing the research to find what is missing? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility

To meet international, industry-standard web accessibility guidelines. We need to be more careful to use unique link text for each link, instead of multiple occurrences of "RfC". Instead of:

• RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
• RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
• RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.

for example, we might have:

• RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
• RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
• RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.

or:

• RfC about a new user right called "Protected page editor".
• RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions.
• RfC about project practices on April Fools' Day jokes.

To see why this matters, compare:

• RfC
• RfC
• RfC

to:

• Protected page editor
• new speedy deletion criterion
• project practices on April Fools' Day jokes

or:

• RfC about a new user right
• RfC about a new speedy deletion criterion
• RfC about project practices

How can we best achieve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 6#Clarity of listings. You were a participant, it seems. --Izno (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it has; that was three years ago and there was no consensus. Hopefully, we can find consensus this time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Show-hide box for user pages and elsewhere

Add this show-hide box to pages with {{User:Timeshifter/Centralized discussion}}

Centralized discussion -- See also: Village pump.
Add this show-hide box to pages with {{User:Timeshifter/Centralized discussion}}

After playing around awhile I found a way to put Template:Centralized discussion on pages in a collapsed show-hide box. This saves a lot of space, and would probably encourage more people to post Template:Centralized discussion on their user pages.

It would be nice if this show-hide functionality could be built in here as an option. I assume that would be done at Template:Centralized discussion/core. But that page is beyond my current understanding of template coding. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please mention which item is edited, in the edit summary

When adding, removing or modifying entries, would people please refer to the entry unambiguously in the edit summary? This makes it much easier to track changes wen viewing the template revision history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Deb? Why is my page being deleted?

I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BodyofEvidenceB (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Rum page

Hi,

I might be wrong (forgive me if so) but it looks like you undid a correction I made to the quotation of Peter O'Sullevan's commentary as Red Rum won his third Grand National. However, my correction - "it's hats off and a tremendous reception..." Is correct. This can be easily verified via YouTube, and also via the reference source I have now added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilinabbey1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Close

Close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.47.101 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My Tea At Sea post got deleted, I would like to know why?

I posted 3 sentences about the company. It's just the beginning, I plan to make a full detailed description within the next couple of days. But the 3 sentences already got deleted. I have read the post guidelines and don't feel like I violated anything. Please explain so I can make better posts in the future. Thank youJason blogger (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article was deleted because it was "an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article (preferably the first version) should indicate why the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (e.g. "the first . . .", "the largest . . ."). As well as this, sources to back this up should be given, indicating that the subject of the article is discussed in reliable sources, such as books, scholarly journals, etc. --Boson (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) gives some criteria showing which organizations will generally be considered notable. I have provided some more links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page. --Boson (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible?

Can Template:Centralized discussion get collapsed in the same way Template:Signpost-subscription does (collapse=yes)? As far as I can see in documentation, this option is unavailable currently. If I'm correct, can it be made possible? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC

Should this RFC, which has closed, be archived and removed from {{centralized discussion}}? Chris857 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You edited out "propaganda" and replaced it with "patriotic literature"

You edited my change to Wikipedia's "man without a country," article. I changed "patriotic literature" to propaganda. That book is propaganda-- it's one of the biggest pieces of propaganda in American history, and it's been used to manipulate people for generations. Your change was unethical and unwarranted. I am a professional journalist and I know what propaganda is, I'm sure much better than you do.

Wikipedia asked for money all the time, and I will never give Wikipedia a dime, because it will IT IS A WASTE. Any change that is made to an article that isn't status quo with the idea that everything is just hunky-dory here in the United States, and the world over is quickly edited out by a troll like you--who is probably employed by the CIA. Wikipedia claims to be the free encyclopedia--WHAT A LIE. — Preceding unsigned comment by 99.92.249.53 at 17:18, October 19, 2013‎

At "The Man Without a Country", you were reverted here by User:Liz. Note that Wikipedia has no centralized editorial board, so it is incongruous to refer to Wikipedia as whole in referring to the revert. If you can provide a wp:reliable source referring to it as propaganda, it could be added back. Chris857 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is an emotionally-laden word, implying falsehood and manipulation, and that doesn't reflect neutrality. But Chris857 is correct, if you can find a critique of the book that labels it as propaganda (and it isn't WP:OR), we can include that in a criticism section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fundraising

Your headline banner asking for financial support will be limiting your chances of success. You say 'If everyone reading this right now gave £3, our fundraiser would be done in an hour.' The problem is that you will never get everyone to give, and those that will give have been directed by you to consider giving £3. This means that you are bound to fall a long way short of success.

If you plan on securing leading donations from 8% of your constituency and modest (£3 - £30) from 20% of your constituency, you may just achieve your objective. All independent research into donors (certainly in the UK) suggests that you would be unlikely to receive gifts from more than 28% of the audience. This critical information then allows you to present the case for financial support at the right level. Be bold. Do not depress expectation by asking everyone for £3. Publish the vision that you expect a few leading donors to make the running, and everyone else to add some icing. I don't know how much you need, but if you tell me, I will construct a table of giving which will demonstrate to individuals how much they can make a difference.

The core point is that if you set low objectives, you deserve to achieve them!

Very pleased to help, but please feed me some information. I will then draft something that will give you a better chance of success

Eric Grounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.221.67 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Kasba village is a very beautiful,the village in banka district. Post office-maikiata Ps- dhoriya Dist-banka My name is Deepak Kumar bhaskar son of indradeep Singh. House no- 3 Contact number 09709614699

if U want to see my village then U will come to my village.

Welcome to all of U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.105.255 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this qualify for RfC?

• [5]

Regards, Lesion 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility and readability

As discussed above, last year, I propose changing the style of the contents of {{Centralized discussion}} from the current example:

• An RfC on the captitalisation of bird names.
• An RfC about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the enwiki edit counter.
• A proposal to reimplement the Main Page with an alternative framework.
• An RfC regarding changing the username policy to allow role accounts.
• A discussion on ways to improve the "Today's featured article requests" system.

to, say:

• Captitalisation of bird names (RfC).
• Removal of opt-in requirement from the enwiki edit counter (RfC).
• Main Page - alternative framework (proposal).
• Allow role accounts in username policy (RfC).
• Improving "Today's featured article requests" system (discussion).

This has several advantages:

• Shorter entries
• Redundant verbiage (such as "about", "regarding", "on ways to") removed
• Each link has unique text (no repetition of RfC)
• The proposition is the first item
• The link text includes the proposition
• Type of discussion clearly and consistently identified as last item, in parentheses
• Improved readability
• Satisfies WCAG accessibility guidelines.

I also propose to include an edit notice, requesting that future additions follow this pattern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks a good change, I second using that style. Diego (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's an improvement here. However, we can go further, as we don't need to include RFC in the description. It's not an essential point. What is important is what the discussion is about, and that should be clear in the description. RfC is just a way of advertising a discussion. CENT is another way of advertising a discussion. We shouldn't need to say "discussion" or "RfC" - what is important is what the discussion is about, not how it has been advertised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template link

This comment is about the template {{cent}}. One of the links, "Recurrent proposals", takes you to WP:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals. However, that page has seen no significant activity for many months, and surely does not merit being linked from what seems intended to be an up-to-the-minute signpost to the most vital current discussions. The link could be replaced by one to WP:Village pump (policy): Noyster (talk), 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Too wide

At WP:RFD this is far too wide and knocks the lede text down below it. The specific RFD header ([[Wikipedia::Redirects for discussion/header]]) is much narrower. I am on 1280x768 screen and it is too wide; heaven forbid mobile users. I only noticed this yesterday, has something changed in it? Can you make it as narrow as the RfD "infobox" in the header? Is it just me? I've knocked it out of the RfD heaer for now, but of course it is useful to have it there. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Charts in articles in PDF format don't download

Hello: I download articles in the PDF format. When I tried to download the "John Ford Filmography", which contains several lengthy charts, they wouldn't download.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is it even possible to do this? Is there a work-around solution?

Thanks very much for any help or solution. Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.250.68 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A better place to ask this would be the Technical Village Pump at WP:VPT. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Call out menu for keywords in the content area

Contents have have keywords and a hyperlink takes us to a new page when clicked. It impedes the flow of reading nor we could skip it. So, i suggest to have a call out menu on mouse over option just to give a brief description on it.

A better place to make this suggestion would be at either WP:VPR (Village Pump - Proposals) or WP:VPT (village Pump - Technical). – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for addition of NAC Deletes discussion to CENT

I'm requesting that a neutral non-involved editor please add a listing for the topic of NAC Deletes to the CENT template with a neutral wording to improve the number of contributors to the discussion. The level of discussion on this topic has been excessively low considering the nature of the topic which would seem to me to be a topic of much more interest as a step towards moving away from a general public consensus that administrators have some kind of additional authority that non-admins do not have and are more than just trusted individuals for using certain tools that could cause a great number of headaches in the hand of a non-experienced or ill-intentioned editor. Thank you for your assistance. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I've added this to the template myself. Please feel free to revise if you don't think it is neutrally enough worded or inappropriately worded in any way. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Userfication discussion

At time of writing the {{Centralized discussion}} panel includes a link to a discussion on "Userfication: elevate to guideline status"; but the link only takes you to the top of the Village Pump (policy) page, the discussion itself having been archived. It was a well-attended thread, started less than a month ago, with no conclusion arrived at and the last contribution only 10 days ago, on 24 December. Should we remove the link from Centralized discussion, or pull the discussion itself out of archive? 84.13.7.223 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the discussion from CENT and will list at WP:ANRFC for a proper close. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Tenex Software Solutions

Hi Liz-

I'm curious as to why you believe this page is an attack? All information provided has been accurately sourced from legitimate news sources. The events that occurred in Ohio and Florida were notable news events in their local communities and have affected how other cities determine if they will engage with new election systems or not.

Thank you for your time.

Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stevenjohnson14: You appear to be on the wrong page. Did you mean to ask at User talk:Liz? --Izno (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)