Contents
- 1 Request for addition of NAC Deletes discussion to CENT
- 2 Userfication discussion
- 3 FLRC
- 4 John Coates (Businessman) Not Showing Up in Wiki Search
- 5 RfAs and RfBs
- 6 Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
- 7 Edits.
- 8 Changed an entry's name
- 9 Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015
- 10 REMOVE APARTHEID IN WIKIPEDIA
- 11 Why is an entry bolded?
Request for addition of NAC Deletes discussion to CENT
I'm requesting that a neutral non-involved editor please add a listing for the topic of NAC Deletes to the CENT template with a neutral wording to improve the number of contributors to the discussion. The level of discussion on this topic has been excessively low considering the nature of the topic which would seem to me to be a topic of much more interest as a step towards moving away from a general public consensus that administrators have some kind of additional authority that non-admins do not have and are more than just trusted individuals for using certain tools that could cause a great number of headaches in the hand of a non-experienced or ill-intentioned editor. Thank you for your assistance. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Done I've added this to the template myself. Please feel free to revise if you don't think it is neutrally enough worded or inappropriately worded in any way. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Userfication discussion
At time of writing the {{Centralized discussion}} panel includes a link to a discussion on "Userfication: elevate to guideline status"; but the link only takes you to the top of the Village Pump (policy) page, the discussion itself having been archived. It was a well-attended thread, started less than a month ago, with no conclusion arrived at and the last contribution only 10 days ago, on 24 December. Should we remove the link from Centralized discussion, or pull the discussion itself out of archive? 84.13.7.223 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the discussion from CENT and will list at WP:ANRFC for a proper close. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
John Coates (Businessman) Not Showing Up in Wiki Search
When I type in John Coates into the wiki search bar John Coates (businessman) doesn't show up. Around 9 other John Coates are listed. The one I'm looking for is the CEO of bet365.
However, when I type in John Coates businessman, he does show up.
Is there any way of resolving this issue?
Cheers,
Alex
--AlexMoscow74 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't belong here. Resolved at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#John Coates (Businessman) Not Showing Up in Wiki Search. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 23 March 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. Kharkiv07Talk 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015
80.84.1.29 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:33, 13 April 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)
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)
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)
REMOVE APARTHEID IN WIKIPEDIA
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT RACIAL SEGREGATION IN WIKIPEDIA BE REMOVED. THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE A CATEGORY CALLED WHITE ZIMBABWEAN SPORT PERSON AFTER ALL THEY ARE ZIMBABWEAN SPORTS PERSONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.208.44.88 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:192.208.44.88 As it says at the top of this page This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centralized discussion page. Please post this topic at a more appropriate location: to discuss one category or a small set of categories, please nominate them at WP:Categories for discussion. If you wish to make a more general point about our use of categories then Wikipedia talk:Categorization may be the best place. Whichever you choose, please don't type in ALL CAPITALS and please do sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you: Noyster (talk), 20:37, 9 July 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)