Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a fascinating bit of social history. The creator, Radiant, seems to have been looking for a place to discuss issues central to the deletion of large groups of pages all at one time: presumably, to head off redundant debate. This original mission does seem to have had a deletionist bias. Some editors objected in strong terms; Maurreen seems to have had a number of reservations, while Xiong seems to have gone right off the rails on the topic.

Yet the tool has evolved away from the (relatively) trivial mission of mass deletion debate toward the simple maintenance of a template that lists ongoing policy debate. This template then gets transcluded onto a number of pages and provides interested editors with a compact index to these discussions. This is far more convenient than Village Pump, where all manner of talk goes on for screen after screen. (Yes, I'm not entirely innocent either.)

A significant change is that the original author intended all discussions to take place on subpages of this page; while it's used now to index debates wherever they are held.

I think it's time we recognized that this tool has been repurposed, and to our collective benefit. The template {{cent}} is itself the tool.

I'm tempted to suggest a move to something a bit more descriptive of current purpose, but the old title is not far wrong. I do plan to rewrite Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to reflect our current usage. The current text is essentially unchanged since August 2005.

Another area of possible improvement is the content of this talk page. Early discussion was contentious and applied to the original concept; now it is leaning toward discussion of what belongs in the template itself. I plan to archive the old debate as less relevant to current intent.

Meanwhile, I note that Template talk:Cent rd to this talk page. That's a cross-namespace no-no and pre-empts the correct use of a template talk page: to document and discuss the template. I shall restore the talk page and provide short technical documentation.

Lastly, we still need a place to discuss changes to the items included in the template. Unlike technical documentation and discussion of template format, this discussion may be ongoing; it requires its own page, archived at intervals. I'll set that up.

I hope when all this work is done and editors have had an opportunity to contribute, we can then move this process formally to guideline status. It's just too useful to rattle around in limbo. John Reid 02:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Radiant also had archived old discussions on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions. I also updated that page in mid-February 2006. Therefore, I have added a link to that page on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice that; thanks for pointing it out. Do you think it should be kept live as a destination for proposals that pass through? John Reid 20:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

copied from User talk:John Reid:

Concerning Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log, I think some sort of list should be merged onto one page.

If you notice on the Conclusions page that the first half just copies all of the detailed conclusions that were passed, while the second half is a sinmple log of all conclusions. I think this entire page could be modified to something that looks more like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests where you just list a copyedited, one brief paragraph digest of the conclusions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I tell you, Zzyzx, you have opened doors. Conclusions is a gold mine of a page; I don't recall seeing it cited on talk before. It has the potential to settle more than one petty dispute. I think it's probably overreaching to call it a guideline when the centralized discussion process itself has not gained that status; but I can see why the tag is there -- each individual discussion resulted in some sort of rough consensus (or not).

I think it's clear that the master plan of the creator of this process has kind of dribbled off; now {cent} is a clearinghouse or bulletin board for all sorts of unrelated policy initiatives -- and that's fine. Also good that we retain the value already built up; perhaps we can still add to it. I wouldn't want to close the door on subpage-discussion; note the final bullet point under Usage. But as I noted, it seems that a sea change has overtaken the process.

Here's my concern: From a systems point of view, I like to have everything neat and tidy. So, I'd like to see technical discussion of {cent} on its own talk page, just like any other template. But unlike most templates, this one is constantly changing. (If I'd set it up, I probably wouldn't have put it in template namespace.) So the content changes -- distinct from technical changes -- seem to me to require a different page. This is just my way of seeing things: one neat box for each kind of thing. I think it's good for us to keep the log page limited to a straight log of changes to cent; I'm sorry I ever used the word "discuss". Indeed, I hope we can avoid discussing what we plan to discuss -- it's just too meta meta.

Since the process is, in some sense, a unit, it makes sense to me that we keep all discussion here on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion. That's discussion of the process itself, such as this comment. If we must discuss a contentious change to {cent}, let's do it here. For my part, I don't see any problem -- I rm an item, Hiding restored it, I'm content and I hope Hiding is, as well. The template is probably of more use if kept short but I'd like to suggest that the default should be keep if there's any question whether an item should or should not be advertised. Hurt feelings are too high a price to pay for what is, after all, a very abstruse point: Which discussions of what is notable are notable enough to discuss centrally?

I sort of half agree with you that Conclusions should be merged with the log. The log is a record of what went into the process; rm a topic from the list is not so much output from the process as it is the termination of input. I do think it was a big oversight on my part not to realize that we ought to maintain a record of output as well -- which is what the first part of Conclusions is. It seems to me that the second major section of Conclusions is more like our current log page.

So, here's my suggestions:

• Let's split the list of Concluded topics off as an archive of the log -- suitably annotated. I'll sort it chronologically.

• Let's reactivate Conclusions by pulling the minor sections out as major sections, or perhaps even refactoring the page to group like topics. This page should not be sorted by date but by topic.

• Let's suggest that editors who drop discussions, polls, and proposals from {cent} not only log the mechanical change to the template but also record the conclusions on the reactivated Conclusions page. That way the hard work is not lost.

Comments? John Reid 12:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: record conclusions is only useful if consensus has been acheived. Otherwise there's nothing useful to record, so the log is sufficient. John Reid 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC) I reverse myself on this point; churning or stalling is still a result.

Absent comment, I finally refactored the entire Conclusions page (permalink). I'm hoping this will make process output more useful to all.

As for the log itself, I think it should be archived to history. Important for the archiver to check that all issues that close with some sort of result have been added to Conclusions. John Reid 11:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The long list of Notability discussions are now inactive, but I fear I'm far too biased to wade into the discussion. Anyone else care to take a crack at some/all? --InShaneee 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to Be Bold here. This is my log entry for the action:

• rm all Notability-related discussions; replaced with general notice at bottom of template. Notability has simply become too large of a topic to be handled on cent. It has its own directory template and interested parties are thrashing out dozens of issues in their own ways, on at least 40 pages. There isn't much virtue in highlighting only a handful of these pages here and to list them all would be needless duplication. John Reid 11:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I ask, what is the point of this log and how is it not redundant with the template's history tab (which frankly isn't all that huge)? >Radiant< 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent has been edited by a great many people since it became a general clearinghouse or billboard for all kinds of centralized discussions, not only those held on subpages of Centralized discussion. Not everyone has agreed with all the changes made but mostly it's been extremely civil. I'm sure we'd all like to keep it this way. I'm willing to go the extra mile with you to explain the need for the log.

There are, as yet, no formal restrictions on what can and cannot be put on Cent. You and I probably agree that such formal restrictions are true instruction creep. But we obviously cannot just put up every policy/proposal/poll that comes down the pike. There are far too many and the utility of Cent is in inverse proportion to its size. On the other hand, a slot on Cent is a way to get air for an idea -- it's valuable real estate. Dead proposals need to be hustled off as quickly as possible but of course the disappointed proponent's first idea is to revert the removal. Logging acts as a brake on speedy reverts and encourages thought instead of reaction.

Cent is a process template; items -- pages -- pass in and out. If all the template did was to give air to proposals it would be of limited value. But there is more value in archiving stuff as it comes out. Cent/Conclusions may prove a good resource for those researching past discussions. The centralized nature of an item that has passed through Cent tends to legitimize its conclusion, as opposed to a page that may not have had many eyeballs. In theory, every item that comes off Cent -- if it had any determinable outcome -- should earn an edit to Cent/Conclusions. But what has worked very well up to now has been the practice of logging removals (and moves from active to old, etc.) and explaining why or what happened in slightly greater detail than is common in an edit sum. So far this log has been archived once; I expect to do it more frequently -- whatever is needed to keep the active page of moderate length.

Ordinarily, a template's talk page might be suitable for this kind of logging. But Cent -- like any other template -- undergoes technical changes from time to time; its talk page is like any other template's. The log is intended to handle the verbose, frequent, rapid changes to Cent's content.

The orientation of an edit summary is to tell what edit was made and perhaps why. The purpose of the log is to tell what was done to Cent but also to record, very briefly, the status of an item as it enters, moves, or leaves. There simply isn't enough room in an edit sum to keep all this information on every change.

Thus the log has 3 distinct purposes: to moderate contention over a prominent resource; to record outcomes of the items that this process handles; and to serve as grist for the mill when archiving the log and updating Cent/Conclusions. So far, it's worked very well in all 3 roles. I'm strongly against unnecessary process and if the log didn't work, I'd be the first to toss it. But it's proven itself, indeed outperforming expectations.

You may find these arguments unconvincing and that's okay. But the group of editors that work with Cent on a regular basis -- and those that edit only occasionally -- have consistently endorsed logging. Actions speak loudly; nearly every change made to Cent in the last 5 months has been logged. I'm sure that, whatever your personal opinions about this process may be, you'll be happy to work with us in the way we've found most useful. Thank you. John Reid 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out there has been disagreement with this idea of logging stuff, I've noted it's instruction creep and redundant with the history. John has however, been quite thorough in maintaining the log, to the point of issuing messages on people's talk pages where they don't log things here. It has been a disputed idea along the way. Hiding Talk 13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Deffo instruction creep. Rich Farmbrough, 16:48 21 September 2006 (GMT).

• In response to the arguments that (1) it makes it harder for people to revert removal of a discussion they care about; (2) it is useful for archiving the results of CENT; and (3) in the history the actual logging is mingled with layout changes - I must point out that (1) there is hardly any evidence of actual revert warring here (and we have existing mechanisms to counter that); (2) the logging of results is redundant to Cent/Conclusions (which in turn is mostly redundant to CAT:G anyway); and (3) {{cent}} doesn't have all that many layout changes. So I agree with Hiding and rather fail to see the point of the log. That said, I don't see any harm in it either so don't let that stop you. >Radiant< 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is like a lot of things. Theory can be elaborated in support of any point of view but the log works. Yes, there have been objections and failures but that can be said of any process. Yes, I'd probably rather see a greater number of more detailed log entries. By and large, the subcommunity that edits Cent has done well with the log. That reality trumps all discussion.

That said, please allow a tiresome old man a few more words. I'm extraordinarily pleased with the performance of the log, the template, and the rest of the process and I'd like everyone to share the joy.

I suspect one reason some editors object to the log is that it appears novel. It might be more palatable if Template talk:Cent were used for the purpose instead -- in exactly the same way. And I'd be fine with that; indeed it's tempting to move the log on top of the talk page and see if that appeals. I didn't do that to start with because I thought it better to allow the talk page to discuss strictly technical aspects of the template as a template, as most template talk pages do. Perhaps I was wrong. It's not too late to swap things around. The log is really nothing more than a second talk page for the template.

I don't think the log archive or Cent/Conclusions is redundant to Category:Wikipedia guidelines. Not at all. Conclusions, I dare hope, is a far more useful tool. Each item carries with it a brief summary of the discussion; see also links are provided; related discussions are grouped. Best of all, the no consensus discussions are also listed. At one time, I thought there was no need for this but when I tabulated the old results I saw several such inconclusive listings and kept them on page. Now, I think that an outcome of no consensus may be important information in its own right. I have not been shy to label outcomes in various shades of gray; that's how things work out sometimes. You don't get this in a category listing.

You're right that there has been next to no edit warring here. I think the log can take some credit for that. All the gods know that there's enough squabbling on practically every page in this project.

Consider my edit to Cent of 2006 August 30 [1] and matching log entries [2]. I made 13 distinct changes to Cent, any one of which might have been questioned by later editors. I can't think of any way in which to compress all of those log entries into a single edit sum. I suppose I could have made 13 different edits?

All those changes were potentially controversial but peace reigns. Cent advertises policy issues; all policy discussions are somewhat controversial; therefore all changes to Cent risk contention as well. Too much is at stake not to put all the cards on the table, face up. I particularly like the fact that those who edit the log automatically view previous entries -- if not before making new changes, at least after. Some people never visit page history at all.

Another problem with edit sums is that they cannot be edited. We can nag editors to log changes after the fact and they can go back and cure. If they don't want to get on the bus, we can insert log entries for them. Edit sums read from history may be incomplete or misleading and there's no help for it; but the log can always be maintained to be clear, consistent, comprehensive, and legible.

With Cent branching out as a general policy discussion billboard, the potential for squabbling is very high. We have no explicit rules at all that govern what may stay and what must go.

• I'd really rather not try to formalize any rules beyond a general statement that Cent is for centralized discussions -- multi-page discussions should not appear here. One might view this restriction as a carrot -- advertisement on Cent is a reward for keeping a discussion centralized, as opposed to forum-shopping and fort-building.

The log, among other things, is an implicit guideline for inclusion of items on Cent. By example, we see what is and is not permitted. No rulebook waits on the horizon.

I agree that the log incurs a small cost -- a labor cost if not a significant machine cost. You don't get something for nothing. The regular, slight chore of logging changes is infinitely preferable to:

• The elaboration of a wordy policy governing inclusion, exclusion, and how long an item stays on before becoming "old" or getting moved out entirely;

• Nagging Cent editors to leave more explicit edit sums;

• Rooting through history to see when and why items went in or out with poor edit sums;

• Nagging Cent editors to update Cent/Conclusions immediately when removing old items; and most of all

• Squabbling over Cent content.

Absolutely no doubt that the log is not essential. Your car will function perfectly well without seat belts; it will move down the road, start, stop, turn, and carry passengers and cargo. But I always buckle up. John Reid 08:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind the log, what I object to is that if people are sent nagging notes it becomes instruction creep. I think we have to remember WP:IAR at times. The most important thing to me is that the template itself is maintained. I don't mind anyone maintaining the log, but I don't think it should be mandatory to do so, and I don't think editors should be criticised or badgered for not doing so. As long as John wants to maintain it I'm happy for it to stay, but I'm not convinced that messages and the arguments they can cause are conducive to the actual project. We are, after all, supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. With regards what gets listed on the cent template, to me, if it's a high level change, discussion or issue, it should go on. I can see the point about limiting access to discussions on one page, certainly. Hiding Talk 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every nag I got on my talk page... I'd have a lot of nickels. The log is current process, therefore we encourage all to participate. I don't have the authority to use the bludgeon on those who refuse and if I did, I wouldn't. John Reid 02:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Still, Hiding has a point. Since you're the main (and so far, sole) proponent of this process, you should be willing to do the work yourself. Authority on Wikipedia is an oft-misinterpreted thing and it all depends on how you word your talk page message. >Radiant< 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no. The overwhelming majority of Cent editors happily log and do it well. You and Hiding are the only ones to sustain opposition of any kind. Please, man, get on the bus -- or just try another bus. We've really got things running smoothly here; let's keep it that way. Oh, and there is no authority on Wikipedia, so no need to disclaim. Editors who don't start off with that understanding either acquire it or choose their own gods to worship. John Reid 01:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, but there is plenty of authority on Wikipedia. That's what makes it so confusing. I'm not opposed to anything; I'm simply saying that if people aren't using the log for whatever reason, you can't make them. >Radiant< 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, are you just one of those people who have a need to win every argument? You win. You're right. Log your changes, please. That's that. If you can't participate in the process the way everyone else is participating, please go do something else. There's plenty to do around here. You're absolutely right: you can do exactly as you like, you can run around with your hair on fire if that's your preference -- nobody can stop you. I'm asking you, very nicely -- and I've been asking you, as politely as I know how, not to burn down the little shack of twigs and grass I've been patiently building here. That's all. Have a little respect for a person who never did you any harm. Thank you. John Reid 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't understand that comment. As I recall I have been logging my changes at your request, and amending my log entry when you thought it was too short. Is it still not good enough as a log entry? What more do you want? >Radiant< 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Hiding. I think the log is redundant with the history and edit summaries. The fact that you have to write something in a log is not what keeps people civil, because they can add or remove or revert the template at will anyway, and anyone can request or give explanation for any changes at any time, whether or not there's a log. Many of the log entries don't give any rationale anyway. If certain editors want to maintain the log for their own reasons, that's fine, but I think that should really be their responsibility and not pushed upon everyone else. It's already cumbersome enough to start or stop or archive a central discussion without having to make all changes in quadruplicate (on article talk pages and on the central discussion page and in the cent template and on top of that in the cent template log). -- Beland 20:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I haven't been clear. You started this process. Even though the method and scope changed during your vacation, the goal has not -- at least, what I perceive your original intent to have been: to avoid forum-shopping and fort-building. This also acts as a brake on necrodebate. When I blundered in here half a year ago, I saw an effort to bring warring parties to a single table, have them thrash out their differences, and then record the results, summarize them, and essentially put up a little flag that said Hey folks. This has already been discussed by a number of people. Sure, you can reopen the discussion with your own comment but don't start up a brand new page on the old topic, make a noise, and claim instant consensus.

I think this is a sterling idea; maybe you should get a barnstar for thinking of it. Forum-shopping exhausts the entire community as a group of tireless fanatics drags their pet beef from page to page, demanding attention. Cent tells them, Here, you have maximum exposure, at least for a time. Fort-building destroys any possibility of consensus; this faction declares "victory" on "their" page; that on theirs; nothing is decided. Cent tells warring parties, Come together here. Necrodiscussion is not always evil; sometimes old discussion needs to be exhumed and reexamined -- but Cent tells new editors with old ideas, At least look at the corpse of the last reincarnation before building another. All laudable goals, all worthy efforts; worthy even in partial success.

The only substantial difference is that Cent now does not focus on subpages of this page. That doesn't seem like a particularly useful restriction to me anyway; I say a discussion is usually appropriate on whatever page it begins; just let it stay there. I get a feeling -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that your intent was to provide an absolutely neutral ground. But people don't have much interest in neutral grounds; they like to begin someplace that has existing "flavor". You might be right (neutral ground is better) but I won't fight the entire community.

After your departure, Cent -- the process -- decayed into pretty much nothing. All the pages went stale and the only action was at {{cent}}, the template. People just started throwing up whatever pages they wanted to get air for. The template had pretty much become a billboard with nothing behind it. All this is visible through various page histories but I understand you've not had time to catch up.

I looked at the situation, particularly at the large body of work you'd already done, and wondered what could be done to revive the concept of centralized discussion. As you see, I've refactored /Conclusions by tabulating the results and adding new conclusions. I'm sure you'll agree the new format is more accessible. I did some basic housekeeping, sorting stuff between Cent-related pages. This is all metadebate, very slippery stuff -- not debate about article content. Sometimes it's not not even metadebate about how debate can be conducted; it's metametadebate about how the metadebate can be conducted. This is like political quicksilver; you can hardly get your finger on it and if there's any contention, boy, all you have is a mess -- because nobody is entirely sure what's under discussion. Organizing the metametametatalk is very important.

So:

• Description of the process to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion.

• Discussion of the process to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion.

• The process itself (the front end), Template:Cent.

• It's a template, so it requires documentation just like any other template, using {{doctl}}, at Template talk:Cent.

• The output of the process as before, to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions.

• There needs to be a bridge between the front end and the output; when an item comes off the template it cannot "wait" to be factored into /Conclusions. This is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log.

You've got plenty of experience around here; I think you should see the point without having it thrashed to death. A job's not over until the paperwork is done. Edit an article, leave an edit sum. Close an AfD, determine consensus and record it -- or the lack thereof. Tag a proposal as {{guideline}} or {{rejected}}, you need to leave some sort of comment on talk, some rationale. "Vote" for a candidate at RfA, you need to supply some sort of comment or your vote is insubstantial. When ArbCom decides to de-admin somebody, they don't just ask a Steward to do it; they publish findings and outcomes. It all comes down to transparancy -- not just in the present tense but in the sense of leaving a clear record for future editors to ponder. You need to have the humility to believe that a rational person, now or later, may not automatically understand why you did something.

So, when you rm a discussion from Cent, you record in the log a reason for the rm. There are no fixed limits on how long an item can stay in "Discussions" before becoming "Old"; no limits on how long an "Old" discussion stays up before coming off entirely. Few rules on Cent -- very few rules -- and I hope we don't open the door to some ruleslawyer by getting into a disagreement. The surest guarantee against this is to defuse beforehand any possibility of contention. Instead of nitpicking rules that somehow attempt to categorize every possible status of a discussion page and determine eligibility for continued stay on Cent, we have a very general rule: Put it up if you like. Take it down if you like but tell us why you took it off.

That rationale for removal is also the very outcome of the Cent process -- the meat we cracked the nut to get at. "The discussion ended with a general statement of community endorsement." Cool, excellent. Log it. Did the discussion end (inactive, no consensus)? Cool. Log it. When the log is archived and /Conclusions updated, your judgement call at this point counts heavily. John Reid 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been no set list of possible outcomes for a Cent discussion -- no key to log entries. Perhaps this is lacking. I lean away from prescriptions here; I don't much care what is noted so long as it is reasonably short, accurate, and descriptive. John Reid 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some log entries for discussion actions on Cent, together with an interpretation. Please note that this is not intended to close off other possible outcomes -- the range is nigh infinite. Often, two or more outcomes apply to one discussion. Other Cent actions may also be tagged in log, to avoid possible misunderstanding and contention.

The most common actions are adds, moves from one column to another, and rms due to some sort of clear consensus or discussion inactive. The most unusual actions are often given verbose explanations. Anyone is welcome to extend this list.

(reopened)

Page previously advertised on Cent is re-added.

(restored, dispute inactive)

Given as reason for re-add.

(object moved)

Name of page itself changed so Cent link changed to follow.

(poll closed inconclusive, discussion still active)

Given as a reason to move from Polls to Discussions

(poll closed)

Poll moved to Old.

(redlink)

Discussion page does not exist.

(duplicate entry)

Page is already listed on Cent

(inactive new proposal)

Nobody came to the table.

(chose not to put under old discussions because frankly it never attracted much attention anyway)

Nobody came to the table.

(stalled)

There was some discussion but it petered out without much participation.

(inactive)

Page is dead, no interest.

(consensus achieved)

Something was decided.

(endorsed)

Consensus of discussion to endorse proposal.

(rejected)

Consensus of discussion to reject proposal.

(marked as policy)

Tagged policy on proposal itself

(marked as guideline)

Tagged guideline on proposal itself

(marked as rejected)

Tagged rejected on proposal itself

(has become an essay), (essayified)

Began as proposal but now is tagged essay.

(implemented)

Evolved into call for a directory, which was established.

(no conclusion)

Nothing can be salvaged from the discussion.

(superceded)

Discussion itself moved to another page while page remains in place.

(keep and deprecate)

Outcome of a template discussion.

(no need to debate, just do it), (policy exists)

Re-states existing policy.

(voluntary process)

Nothing to discuss.

(forum-shopping)

Page removed as substantially duplicating a discussion already advertised on Cent.

(this general issue has a centralized discussion page)

Given as reason to rm page in favor of the more central discussion, from which the former is linked.

(voting on policy proposals is a Bad Idea)

Given as reason to rm poll entirely before its conclusion.

• Imho, attempting to make an exhaustive list of tags is m:instruction creep. use your common sense. (Radiant) 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was perusing what links here for certain pages on the Wikiproject on user warnings and noticed you have linked our projects overview page. In the long term this would be a very good idea, but currently the new user warning templates are not due for roll out until around the end of January. Once we are finished then a link to us would be perfect. In the mean time I would like to suggest either linking to the existing system WP:UTM or to our project page. Any further question please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I linked to WP:UW/O was that it wasn't very obvious that was the high entropy page for the proposed changes, however I've now added a prominent link at the top of WP:UW to WP:UW/O so I'll change the cent link to WP:UW. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 05:52Z

In Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions, it'd be nice to have a column of the date of conclusion of the debate, and even nicer if we make the table sortable by date. Any objections? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 05:52Z

I'm having a really hard time understanding why this is transcluded on all AFD pages for months and months years. It's making Special:Whatlinkshere very hard to read, for one thing, even with the new option to sort it by namespace. -- nae'blis 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

::edit:: Ahh, I see. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus redirects to the template, and has been in the AFD template for ages. Weird little artifact...I'll be blanking that now from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current, as it currently serves none of the original purpose. Will check tomorrow to see if LDBot is using that template or some other. -- nae'blis 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the page has always been to put it at the top of the daily AFD logs, so that people will see it. Yes, it still serves the original purpose. >Radiant< 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see placing it on the current AFD log, or on the main page, but placing it in every log for the last three years is playing merry hell with Special:Whatlinkshere, when one is trying to find out where a proposal has been advertised for example. -- nae'blis 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Really? I'd figure I'd whatlinkshere the proposal, and if it is linked from CENT that'd mean it's pretty well advertised. I should note you removed the template from the main AFD page, what was the point of that? At any rate, I've fixed the redirect by changing it to a soft one, does that help? >Radiant< 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but when Whatlinkshere for just the Wikipedia namespace is bumping up against the 500-page limit, it gets a little hard to sift (I wish that page was alphabetical or something). I think your change made things more readable, I was just trying to figure out a better system overall. I'll see if I can place it in /Log/Today to get back the functionality you want. -- nae'blis 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we could simply put it at the top of WP:AFD, that may help? >Radiant< 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • yeah, and as soon as I can get LDBot to play nice with my change, I'll do something like that (though finding a place for it on the AFD page is problematic). More later at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion when I get an answer on the bot. -- nae'blis 16:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: the limit on whatlinkshere is actually 5000, not 500. —Random832 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may enjoy reading my ingenious proposal for solving the problem of not knowing whether something has been discussed before: [3]. On a more serious note, perhaps there should be some community effort to greatly expand Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions to make it complete and comprehensive, or is past inclusion in the {{cent}} box the criterion for inclusion? nadav 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders began on 12 April and was closed on 23 April. Since then the remaining editors have not succeeded in writing a conclusion. Over 50 people took part in the discussion but only six or seven are left now. Are there any procedures that can be recommended for breaking the deadlock? I'd be grateful for any ideas. Are there any precedents for this? Have other centralized discussions failed in the past? Thanks and apologies if this is inappropriate here. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach, you've been doing a lot of work on this. Hope you don't mind my saying so, but I think the process is getting to you unnecessarily. I don't think there's anybody else involved in the discussion who would consider it a failure. If I could suggest, I'd say take a break and see what happens. -Pete (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know why the conclusions page is divided into Process/Social/Content/Technical and what criteria are supposed to be used to divide them up? Stifle (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that only discussions that already have a large number of participants should be listed on the {{Cent}} template. Centralized discussion is not the place to advertise your new idea. The Village pump is for that. If the discussion grows, and especially if it spreads out over multiple locations, then add it here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to add some things for a shorter time. Like we have done with the watchlist notice sometimes, just add an item for a day or so. That's often enough to bring in enough knowledgeable people to a discussion. Thus in one week 7 different items will still only take up one line in {{cent}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

Per seeing the recent discussion could i and other editors who were involved in the creation of or otherwise involved in the future templates have been told that the discussion was happening in the first place? Simply south (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed almost all my Biblical references in "Names and Titles of Jesus". I used the reference http://www.bible.cc because people can clearly see and compare the same verse with several Bible translations. (e.g., Some Bibles leave out the trinity, where Jesus is equal to God, and some translations have minimized Jesus.) Also, http://www.bible.cc gives excellent easy-to-understand commentaries at the end of the verses, which people can read if they don't understand the verse.

The person has changed the links to http://www.biblegateway.com. I did not use this website because the single verse may not be accurate, and the explanations of the verses are not very good. There are too many "weeds" among the "wheat" at that website. I will change the Bible links to the way I originally had it; so please do not change them back to www.biblegateway.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.21 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be directing this to the wrong page. This page is for discussing the Centralized Discussion template itself, rather than any of the topic discussions to which it refers editors. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive is as useful as it could be. But that's perhaps partly because it isn't entirely clear what the purpose is, beyond having some kind of record. Thoughts? I'm thinking, for instance, that proposals that have been implemented should be archived separately, because they're less likely to be of relevance in future. But it depends, really, what we're trying to achieve here. What could we try to achieve? Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently looking to request wider feedback about the new Commons proposed policy commons:Commons:Sexual content. Since this affects everyone it might be nice to include in CENT, but I wanted to run this by you guys (and figure out how to do it cross-wiki). Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The CENT template lists the discussion about RfA and adminship with a link to User talk:Jimbo Wales but it has already been archived there. I'm not familiar with the procedures here; someone (else) should decide whether to remove the listing or to copy the discussion to a different place. --Pgallert (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on whether we should suppress uploading "your own work" to en.wiki is taking place here, and I feel it deserves a wider participation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)