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. |
- RfC on using non-free photos of low-profile victims in articles about death-related events
- Administrator elections RFC workshopping phase
- WMF Community Tech team disbandment, related petition and community-proposed direction for the wishlist
- Guidance on infobox use
Criteria for inclusion
editThere seems to have been quite a few recent additions of wedge proposals for major issues (i.e., we need to change this huge thing because of my minor issue with it) by INVOLVED editors (often the proposers), often without very much RFCBEFORE.
I think that we should create an inclusion rule where only non-INVOLVED people can add discussions to the template. At the very least, proposers and RFC creators should not be allowed to add their proposals directly on to the template. Further, I am curious whether discussions should have a certain level of activity before being posted here.
There is certainly a difference, however, between someone like @Novem Linguae reasonably posting the RFCAELECT stuff before it got much discussion, given how central the RFC was and how much RFCBEFORE it had gone through; and a new editor saying that we need to remove all artists' names from song pages because they don't like them being there (satirical example).
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 14:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Voorts as they have helped remove a lot of smaller discussions recently. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 14:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the status quo is OK. If something is too minor, a T:CENT watcher will typically revert it. However I am happy to see how the comments go here and am happy to consider other opinions! –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Bundle recall entries?
editThe template seems a bit bigger than usual. Would there be any objections to somehow bundling the two recall-related things into one bulleted sentence that includes the two separate links? And if so, what would be the best way to do it? Left guide (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Simplifying the footer?
editThe footer adds a bit of bloat to a template that aims to direct the reader's eyes at the most important ongoing discussion, and I believe it could be trimmed down a bit. The sentence that shows up in most places only adds a single link, and can probably fit next to the village pumps in the same horizontal bullet list. The second sentence may stay as it only shows up on the template page itself, although I wouldn't be opposed to it being moved to an editnotice and/or a hidden comment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2026
edit | This edit request to Template:Centralized discussion has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Today's Featured Picture, should "the morning after a Ship Cafe shooting" at the end of the blurb read "the morning after the Ship Cafe shooting", to tie the picture back to the shooting mentioned earlier, and so indicate its date? Since there was only one incident at the Ship Cafe, the shooting mentioned previously, the definite article seems more appropriate. ~2026-21007-98 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-21007-98 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. This also isn't the right place; you can try WP:ERRORS maybe if you think there's a problem with the caption. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)