Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TE Protection[edit]

Seems like CENT was mistakenly TE protected again. Curbon7 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Scottywong. Would you please consider removing your template editor protection of Template:Centralized discussion? If you look at the history, the majority of editors to this template do not have the template editor perm. Seems to me that precedent and consensus for this particular page is to not apply TE protection to it, it is an exception to the "apply TE protection to highly visible templates" guidance. Thanks for your consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an idea to solve the problem that just happened. What if this template transcluded a standalone bullet list with all the discussions on it, which remained semi/30-500 whatever protected it was. Then we can template-protect the main template to prevent formatting issues from breaking everything. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, great idea. Galobtter (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an excellent idea. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to try and make it—User:Snowmanonahoe/Centralized discussion, User:Snowmanonahoe/local, User:Snowmanonahoe/meta. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think that a single Template:Centralized discussion/list would be enough, divided into two parts, each of which can be separately called by {{\list|local}} and {{\list|meta}} respectively. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 20:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to mock it up at Template:Centralized discussion/list and Template:Centralized discussion/sandbox. Probably the quickest way to get it implemented. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the whole point should be to keep it simple, so that people can't break it. So two separate lists might be easier. Galobtter (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 20:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this can be implemented, it's a good solution. If not, the template should be unprotected. Full template protection is an overreaction. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all, I've reduced the protection to ECP, since there is a legitimate need for non-TE editors to make changes to this template frequently. Apologies for overlooking that. I don't think that non-extended-confirmed editors should have a legitimate need to add/remove centralized discussions very frequently, so hopefully ECP strikes the right balance. Of course, if there is a better way to structure things such that the content is easily editable but the structure of the template is not (as discussed above), then have at it. And as always, if any admin has a valid reason to disagree with ECP protection, feel free to reduce to semi. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 for ECP. Frostly (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was my addition, which I've removed, appropriate here?[edit]

Pinging editors from the above section who have been active in the last 3 days and aren't blocked. @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, Galobtter, and Novem Linguae:. It is Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Block of User:KoA by User:Leyo (A). I thought it was but then wondered if I might be wrong, so to be sure am asking here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixing pings: @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, and Galobtter:Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just my opinion, don't take it as gospel, but I don't think individual user behavior discussions are a great fit for T:CENT. Items posted here are usually policy discussions/RFCs. Thank you for checking, hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Novem LinguaeAh, I just thought that an Admin review was something to advertise widely. More important than ANI was it usually involves policy issues. What was wrong with my pings, when I hover over them they still look the same. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you ended the template in ]] instead of }}. I edited it earlier and fixed its appearance, but editing it doesnt actually fix the ping because a signature is needed in the same edit. So to be safe I re-pinged. Hope that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Novem Linguae sounds like something I’d do.😀
Thanks for helping. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't pinged (insert appropriately sad emoji here), but like Novem Linguae, I would not expect discussions of individual editors or admins to be listed here and definitely not on an ad hoc basis. If people really think discussions at WP:ADREV should be publicized on T:CENT, then it should be done similar to the listings for WP:RFA, where every discussion triggers a listing, to avoid bias in what is publicized. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RL0919 sorry, my bad. I woukd support all of them being listed. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to proposal to remove NOTDIR[edit]

@Novem Linguae: I linked Proposals re RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR rather than RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR because the second section only contains the proposals; the first section contains advocacy for the proposals, which is against WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

While fixing the problem more directly is difficult, we can at least make it so that the advocacy for the proposal isn't the first thing editors arriving from CENT see. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My motivation for changing it was it was confusing when I visited the RFC and the background was above the heading instead of the below it. Most people scroll down and not up, and would be unlikely to see it, in my opinion. Personally if I were refactoring that or any RFC, I would suggest that the RFC creator move the non-neutral part into the first !vote. Perhaps @JzG would be willing to do something like that? At the end of the day though this is a pretty small issue, you can change it back if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JzG moving the part advocating for the change into their vote would be the ideal solution; JzG, are you willing to do that? BilledMammal (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect T:centralised discussion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2 § T:centralised discussion until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]