Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion
 | This page is not for seeking help or making test edits. It is solely for discussing the Centralized discussion page. for using and editing Wikipedia. For common questions about Wikipedia, see Help:Contents. To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. |
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
Archive?
editDoes there exist, anywhere, an archive of all the items that have been added to the central discussion notice? Apart from dumpster-diving them out of the template history, of course. jp×g🗯️ 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Should we really be telling people to create subpages of this talk page to have discussions?
editThere are a goodly number of subpages of this page (apart from the archives) -- 71 of them to be exact, see this search. Most seem to have been created an extremely long time ago. The same seems to be true for the same search in talk space; search including both. Likewise, most seem to be from an extremely long time ago (eg the '00s). All of the recent ones seem to have been made in error, or else weird stuff like Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Color_Bars (created by a user and then never responded to by anyone, in all likelihood never looked at).
I note that, on the main page here, we are telling people to create these subpages. Is this a good idea? I would say no, since there are already a large number of venues available for a general discussion (e.g. the village pump or a dedicated RfC subpage, and if you really want eyes on it, you can ad it to the CENT template) -- I don't see the need for another venue (especially one that's almost never used). For this reason I am going to remove this instruction from the main CENT page; I expect this to be uncontroversial but I'm posting here so that others may have a chance to object or clarify or agree or disagree or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 21:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Good call. (I'd never even noticed that was there.) The modern equivalent is creating a subpage of either a village pump or Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but I'm neutral on whether that's worth mentioning. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Meta RfC
edit@Chaotic Enby@Sohom Datta Since Meta RfCs notoriously go on forever, often remaining unclosed for years, I'm thinking we should remove the Meta RfC on paid editing as a CU one month from when it was posted [1], which would be the 30th (in five days). Does that sound good? Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Toadspike To me, it sounds like you are proposing an RfC close bot on Meta. Maybe they could use the same one that does that task here. Maybe it is a good idea to ask @Legoktm:. Polygnotus (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- ...we have an RfC close bot? Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Toadspike Affirmative. And it automatically closes inactive RfCs after ~30 days. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, it removes the RfC tag. That's a little different from closing the discussion, and since Meta RfCs don't have a tag anyways (they each have their own page), I'm not sure a bot would help them. Toadspike [Talk] 13:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- True, removing the tag is not the same as closing, but closing requires a human. But it does unlist the RfC IIRC. Perhaps it could tag stale RfCs on Meta. Polygnotus (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, it removes the RfC tag. That's a little different from closing the discussion, and since Meta RfCs don't have a tag anyways (they each have their own page), I'm not sure a bot would help them. Toadspike [Talk] 13:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Toadspike Affirmative. And it automatically closes inactive RfCs after ~30 days. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- ...we have an RfC close bot? Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- That works for me, although I'm wondering if there is a way to formally request a closure as the discussion has been dying down. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Requested a formal closure by a stew at meta:SRM. No issues with delisting it from CD. Sohom (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- While you're at it, would you mind asking for closes of the 16 RfCs that are over a year old? :P /s Toadspike [Talk] 17:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Requested a formal closure by a stew at meta:SRM. No issues with delisting it from CD. Sohom (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- On a similar note, I think we should remove the WikiNews consultation tomorrow, which would be one month from when it was posted. Toadspike [Talk] 12:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Caesar DePaço AfD
editI removed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço (which was first removed by @Levivich before self-reverting), as I don't think there's a precedent for keeping discussions on CENT beyond their closure in order to inform as many people as possible of the outcome. While I understand not removing them immediately, CENT is, as its name indicates, there to centralize ongoing discussions. Notably, the CENT placement might give the impression that the discussion is still ongoing.
A good compromise (that could maybe be implemented if there is willingness for it) would be to add a "recently closed discussions" section to CENT where people can be informed of these discussions for a few days to a week after their closure. This could be especially helpful for discussions that get delisted from CENT before being formally closed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, CE. I originally removed it because I thought it was closed on the 13th and it was the 15th (where I was), and I thought it not having been removed for two days was an oversight. When I went to post it to the archive, I realized it was the 14th wiki-time, and the discussion had actually been closed late on the 13th, about 24hrs before. I restored it because I recall in the past some editors saying that a closed discussion should remain for a bit so people know it's closed/can find it easily to read the close (I don't remember the specific postings where this came up), and I didn't want to deal with it if my removal created any kind of issue. But ultimately I agree with you that it needn't stay posted post-closing, and I don't think there is any kind of precedent to the contrary. No objection to a "recently closed" section, but I wonder if even that is necessary. My thinking is that editors who care about the close will have watchlisted or subscribed to the discussion, and thereby be informed of the close, or they can just manually check it later if they want to. IMO it's better if CENT is limited to ongoing discussions. Presumably, all or almost all CENT discussions are eventually closed, so the CENT archives essentially are the "recently closed" sections, and there is already a link to the archives on the CENT template, which I think is sufficient to help editors find recently closed CENT-listed discussions. Levivich (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)