Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Archive 7

Re: Centralized discussion/Archive
{subpage talk link redirected me here)

Regarding the " Listed: Archived: " style with which entries are added to the archive page:

Shouldn't the "Archived: " date be the one from the archives of the actual noticeboard it's on? ie. the archive date of when the actual discussion got moved to its respective archive page, rather than the date that it gets added to the WP:Centralized discussion/Archive list. Doesn't that make much better sense? Because sooner or later these links are going to go stale, and will need to be updated once the discussions themselves get archived, whether by a bot or whomever, and then there will be a mismatch between the "Archived:" date as stated here.

Or even better, why not just wait until the discussions get archived before adding them to the list? For an example of what prompted me to suggest this, see this diff: here a user adds a link to a discussion that's currently still sitting on the External links/Noticeboard. The discussion has gone stale, but it is not archived yet. Once the bot archives it, the link will need to be updated and the "Archived:" date will not match the date that it was actually archived by the bot. (Furthermore, I'm confused as to how the "Listed:" date is determined, because it's not the date of the first post in the thread, so I'm not sure how he arrived at 3 January 2011, but that's a separate matter hopefully someone can clarify for me).

So anyway, hopefully we can solve this by adding a note to the WP:Centralized discussion/Archive page instructing users to not add links to discussions until they are at their final archive subpages. But I'm open to suggestions if perhaps someone has an altogether better method of organizing the RfC/Centralized discussion archives. Finally, if you're thinking why am I making a big fuss about this, it's because you're underestimating the importance of these discussions. Most are precedent-setting, and guaranteed all will be of interest to future wiki-historians, so yes, proper archival and linking is a big deal and it needs to be maintained.

Thanks for reading, sorry for the length. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that nobody has replied to this comment. I have now watchlisted this talkpage so that comments will get at least one response from somebody involved in maintaining the Cent template. The current set up of the archiving of Cent listings was modified by myself from theprevious situation which was too complicated to maintain. People were removing old listings from Cent without archiving the link. I also did not wish to get involved in such a complicated process so initially I simply moved old listings to a To be filed section. These were not being filed away, and the list was growing, so I added a date stamp for archived listings so that anyone wishing to do the appropriate filing would have some additional useful information. This date stamp grouping of archived listings simply grew. Marking the date of initial listing was added by This, that and the other in Jan 2010. This seemed useful information - so in Feb 2010 I added the date when the listing was archived. This now provided a time span for the listing so that a person can see at a glance when a listing was added to Cent and when it was removed. This, I thought, would be valuable information for both searching the archives, and for making a record of how long a discussion had been advertised on Cent. The dates are, though, purely related to the placing and removing of the links to discussion on the Cent template. The dates are not related at all to when a discussion started or when it finished. Listings may sometimes be removed some time after a discussion has finished purely because nobody has got around to removing and archiving the listing. The dates are purely related to Cent. I later added a searchable archive box, so the Cent listing archive now has an archive. This could be tidied up, but seems to work OK.
 * Anyway. Your point regarding linking to the archived discussion is one that I have considered. It would be useful. However, it would be inappropriate to keep a link on Cent to an inactive discussion while waiting for it to be formally closed and then later archived, so links to inactive discussions would still need to be removed. My thinking is that either when doing the monthly section closing and/or at the annual deep archiving, the links could be tested, and updated for those which had been archived. However, at the least, there is a record kept here of links to important discussions which can be searched, and if the discussions have been archived, they can be found in the appropriate archive by using information kept here, so this link archive is still providing a useful service.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the reply :) I was under the impression that WP:CENT was more encompassing than a focus on just what's currently listed on the cent template, and that WP:Centralized discussion/Archive is meant for archival of any and all important discussions, whether they've been listed on cent or not. That's why I was confused by the listed/archived dates.
 * Broken links to archived discussions are a pet peeve of mine, and I'm sure it must be frustrating and confusing to newbies or non-Wikipedian researchers going through these archives and clicking on a link that takes them to an irrelevant discussion, which they then have to go searching for it in the archives, and some may or may not know how to do that. Yes I agree that at "monthly section closing and/or at the annual deep archiving, the links could be tested, and updated for those which had been archived". I would be willing to volunteer to do this once a month, maybe in case others will volunteer too you could write up some formal instructions on how to do this monthly maintenance of the archive links? Or maybe if a bot could pe programmed to update the links automatically that would be even better but I don't know if this is technically possible. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, please pitch in and help! I'll look into putting some appropriate wording on the guideline.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge talk pages
After a suggestion by Zzyzx11, I have merged Template talk:Centralized discussion with this page, so that all cent-related discussion can happen in one place. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Makes good sense.  SilkTork  *Tea time 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How to list
Yes. How to list. I'm wondering exactly that. Centralized discussion says:

"...To add a new item, edit Template:Cent, and place the item at the top of the list..."

So, where's the list??

Please, if you could, paste the following there:

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species
Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The list is here, but I'm afraid that what you want to add is not properly formatted for it. This page uses the following form:
 * RfC about eliminating problems with linkrot
 * So a proper listing might look like this:
 * RfC about clarifying style on capitalization of common names of animal species.
 * I've added that text in courtesy to you. You're welcome to modify it if it doesn't say exactly what you'd like, but you need to keep the listing brief with no more links than necessary to clarify what's being discussed and where. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! I see. You add the new entry to the infobox top right! I wouldn't have guessed. I'm a dumdum. Many thanks for the clarification and the addition. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Code updates
I've removed some of the cruft from the template code and converted it to use wikitable syntax rather than raw HTML in the sandbox. Please test to make sure there are no new bugs. If there are no objections I'll get this synced in a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now synced this. Let me know if it has any unforeseen side-effects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the change from } to just causes a bit of an issue.  Since Centralized discussion calls Centralized discussion/core with width, I think it's automatically setting (null string) in the core, making the template take the full width.  See this version of my dashboard or the current Centralized discussion as an example.  A similar issue might occur with other parameters, if they're supposed to do anything at default.
 * I'd think that the easiest way to fix this would be to make Centralized discussion/core just use, and have Centralized discussion pass width to it, which has the added benefit of making the templates even simpler. Cheers.   lifebaka ++ 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the most elegant way to do it, but I can leave that for the future. For now I've just re-bulletproofed the core against being passed a null width. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with watchlist message
Why do we have both cent and watchlist messages? I usually only follow the latter. These should probably display the same set of topics. —Ruud 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion on cent is much lower. Take for example the OTRS member group proposal. Interesting to a wider range of editors than those who watchlist the village pumps? yes. Interesting to all editors? no (most of them wont even know OTRS exists). Yoenit (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have both because they serve different purposes. Watchlist messages are to announce a range of events and activities - such as elections and meetings, cent is for discussions which have a wide impact on Wikipedia. Generally they don't carry the same listings, though sometimes people place an announcement on cent that more properly only belongs on the watchlist.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Sikat
Hi Moray (29/09/11)

We wanted to contact you directly regarding your concerns that led to the deletion of Skiat on Wikipedia.

Sikat is a very small charitable trust and we are trying to build our profile by utilising social media and public domains such as Wikipedia. We do have a website which is www.sikat.org that you can find lots more information our main aim is to support the children of the Philipines in having a more positive future. We are registered with the charity commision, and the organisation is entirely run by volunteers. We are confused to why our page was deleted and we would very much like to renew it as soon as possible.

We also fully appreciate your concern as there are organisations set up with less than charitable aims!

We appreciate your concerns but hope the explanation has relieved them. Please do get in touch with us directly if you have any questions I noticed you are a resident of the Philipines, please do let us know if you would be interested in volunteering with us, especially with your interest in education. It would be great to have you on board.

Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Kind Regards Linda & Jen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.110.236 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who you are trying to adress, but you seem to have ended up on the wrong talkpage. I have removed the emailadres as you do not want to spam that it will attract. With regards to your question, I suggest you read FAQ/Organizations. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)