This page isnot for seeking help or making test edits. It is solely fordiscussing theCentralized discussion page. Get help at the Teahouse   for using and editing Wikipedia. For common questions about Wikipedia, seeHelp:Contents. To make test edits, please use theSandbox.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than28 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I removedWikipedia: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.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)23:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There 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)[reply]

Pinging @Voorts as they have helped remove a lot of smaller discussions recently.JuxtaposedJacob(talk) | :) | he/him |14:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 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)[reply]