Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

FLRC

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)

As the director of the FL process, I have a good idea why things have become static at FLRC: the overall level of reviewing at all of our content processes has declined sharply in the last couple of years. I don't know why this is, but I have to think that the gradual loss of enthusiastic editors from the project as a whole in recent years is filtering down to the content processes. Even the highly trafficked FAC process has been slower than it should be; I've seen articles take longer to promote or archive than was justified by their merits, and many articles now get only a limited review before being archived. And don't get me started on what happened to WP:PR, which is almost moribund unless you actively request reviews from editors. If processes that significant are struggling, you can imagine why the smaller FLRC process would be in the state it is right now. The good news is that a little bit of care does wonders for these processes. If any of you have an eagle eye and would like to offer your skills in reviewing one or more facets of an article/list (prose quality, photo licensing, source formatting/reliability, etc.) we would appreciate your input, at FLRC and elsewhere. You are a rare commodity in the current editing environment, and your services would be highly valued by project directors and by the editors striving to make content better. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RfAs and RfBs

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)

There is already a template which can be used by editors specifically interested in the topic. (Can't provide name right now because mobile.) --Izno (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits.

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)

If I may carefully suggest, look at the history of the article you edited, History of feminism. The comment left by the person who removed your section reads: "Removing unsourced essay. Please publish your own personal thoughts elsewhere, thanks." You had a few inline citations but not nearly enough. When I edit, I generally take the attitude that nearly every sentence needs to have a source (unless a group of sentences are all from the same source). Also, an article like "History of feminism" is going to have a lot of passionate people involved. I would make additions only very carefully, like 2-4 sentences at a time. Or, I would post it to the talk page and have the editors critique it. Since the article has a long history and a lot of watchers, you are not going to succeed by simply inserting many paragraphs of your own additions. Try again in a different manner. kosboot (talk) 17:38, 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.

Changed an entry's name

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)

• I tried to make it more neutral myself but was accused of "POV pushing", of all things. Best of luck. Alakzi (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've reverted it. Claiming that it is only about a disclaimer is deceitful and dishonest. The big issue here is the bloating of everyone's javascript by adding non-compliant code to Common.js. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine, let's assume that is the big issue. Why should we make absolutely no mention of the aim of the proposal and the output of the "bloating" JavaScript, which is to generate IRC nicknames which closely match people's usernames? Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, that's been long enough. I've now removed the partisan notice. Alakzi (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

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)

Hmm. That didn't show it. Change Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Proposal:_Banner_alert_campaign to te new page at Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015. Thanks in advance. Diphthong (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Diphthong (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is an entry bolded?

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)

I unbolded the text. --Pipetricker 09:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

PUF

Would it be appropriate to include Close down Possibly Unfree Files? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking the question, it's probably OK to include. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion to include the correct pronunciation

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)

Incomplete archives, will try to improve instructions

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)

Admin request text

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 discussion or ... is being discussed?: Noyster (talk), 10:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "discussion" is redundant, because the template is headed "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)

@Andy: I'd prefer "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: That works for me; nicely put. I'm just about to board a plane; please will you post such a request? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested: Noyster (talk), 10:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)- and  Done [1] with thanks to Andy Wang : Noyster (talk), 23:55, 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)

Andy The change is the result of this discussion. (As you'll see I did ping you at the time). The message is still shorter than it was before October. The watchlist notice and the entry on CENT seem to be firmly bound together: Noyster (talk), 00:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

TfD

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)

 Removed I have to agree that there is little to no precedent for listing deletion discussions here no matter how hotly contested they are, and I wouldn't want to open the door to it becoming a regular thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA slot

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)

Movement strategy: draft strategic direction

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)

Size?

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)

I've removed the two meta discussions that were dead [2]. I think some more could use to be removed, but didn't want to do that unilaterally. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

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)

Two discussions

@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)

​ DYK thing, yeah I guess main page stuff; very minor in relation to that but whatever...unsure about Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_Births_and_Deaths_sections_of_Wikipedia_date_articles since it only affects 365 articles (that mostly people don't care about even) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Can't hurt to get a few more voices into any discussion IMO. I'd say the second one also effects the project though, because quite frequently it is those date pages we get material to place in WP:OTD. Just my 2 cents. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTD appropriate stuff would probably be there anyhow but won't be overly contesting it; indeed more discussion is not generally harmful.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah DYK thing is fine, people do care a lot about the main page. But the date thing I believe should be removed, mostly project specific discussion (that is actually inappropriate for WP:VPP not being about a policy or guideline and should probably be there in Wikipedia talk:Days of the year/WP:VPR at most..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the births and deaths discussion on CENT, due to its wide scope. Under the present system, there is nothing to stop all the 800,000 BLPs and a lot more BDPs having their names added to the date articles. That's around 3,000 names for each date's list of births. Additionally, the discussion is of interest to the 6,800 pending changes reviewers, as all the date articles are under PC-protection and every added name has to be checked and approved: Noyster (talk), 18:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown

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)

I agree that the issue should be listed. I have not yet had the strength to participate in the current nonsense and an influx of uninvolved editors is needed to resolve the issue which has dragged on and on for years. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the question is more general than the title of a single article because it concerns the WP:Article titles policy and whether the full name of a person is or is not a suitable title. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look I’m fine with it. That RFC is a train wreck. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sarah, this squarely fits into WP:CENTNOT, as neatly as possible.One's views on whether it represent WP's problems in finding non-sexist ways to name and write about women is 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)

It does seem like it kind of opened a can of worms [3]. We shouldn’t start listing move discussions here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York RM was listed here last year, which is something I was fine with given that New York City is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, and the titling surrounding that page was very significant because of that. I don't really consider the title for the wife of a former British Prime Minister to be at the same level, especially given that the UK doesn't have a similar position to First Lady in the United States or other countries where the spouse of the Head of Government has a significant role. I think it can be appropriate to list RMs here per IAR, but not sure the current one fits it. At the same time, I don't think it does much good to remove it now. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Improvement

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)

Centralization around topic

I made a quiet proposal here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_147#Topical_discussion,_centralized, and wish to promote it further.

Propose discussion area organized around the most intuitive of principles, namely topics, so that for example Topic:Science would be too general but would lead to Topic:Science/Physics, Topic:Science/Health, Topic:Science/Mathematics, Topic:Science/Chemistry, Topic:Science/Materials. Thanks, -Inowen (NLFTE) 05:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

Please add the following to the Template

• Proposal to change the main page

Thanks122.163.11.63 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 122.163.11.63 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Navbox harmonisation

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)

e-sports/esports

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)

@Czar: This page is for discussion of the Centralized discussion page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Village pump. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realize that the template's talk page redirected... I think it would be useful to have a venue for the above vetting as it doesn't seem like VP is the right place to elevating items to CENT. Anyway, thanks. czar 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Czar:I think advertising the RFC at WT:MOS is pretty reasonable. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 September 2018 — add link & alt to the image + more Village pump links

Implemented in {{Centralized discussion/core/sandbox}}.

Add link= to image

The image looks very much like a button, and I suspect readers may be confused by not getting anywhere after clicking or tapping on it.

Add alt= to image

I'm not sure what User:Gnevin meant by this edit in 2010, but it seems to be the opposite of what MOS:ICON#Remember accessibility for the visually impaired recommends today.

Add more Village pump links

Currently, {{Centralized discussion}} links to policy, proposals, and ideas sections of Village pump. The word "Discussions" doesn't do much before the "ideas" link. I added two links to other Village pump sections, and made the formatting consistent in that row.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I agree the extra Pump links are necessary (though I've changed it so "Proposals:" is not linked). I have not done the other requests because I feel these changes likely need a consensus and/or more discussion. Specifically, not all CENT discussions are at the Pump, and adding a link there might actually cause more confusion (and I suspect the "confusion" of having an image that isn't a link lasts for about half a second). This invalidates the alt= request, as MOS:ICON says that functional images should have alt text (which this is currently not) and thus adding alt text is not necessarily required. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Primefac, maybe a link to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion would be more appropriate? —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any reason why people would visit WP:CD. The "view" link at the bottom of T:CD links to a good location, anyway. Really what we should do is merge T:CD and WP:CD, as they duplicate each other anyway, but that's not a discussion for this thread. I don't think the current icon looks too much like a button; I think the fix for that would be changing the icon, not making it a link. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)