Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

Meta RfC

@Chaotic Enby@Sohom Datta Since Meta RfCs notoriously go on forever, often remaining unclosed for years, I'm thinking we should remove the Meta RfC on paid editing as a CU one month from when it was posted [1], which would be the 30th (in five days). Does that sound good? Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike To me, it sounds like you are proposing an RfC close bot on Meta. Maybe they could use the same one that does that task here. Maybe it is a good idea to ask @Legoktm:. Polygnotus (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

...we have an RfC close bot? Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Affirmative. And it automatically closes inactive RfCs after ~30 days. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. Polygnotus (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it removes the RfC tag. That's a little different from closing the discussion, and since Meta RfCs don't have a tag anyways (they each have their own page), I'm not sure a bot would help them. Toadspike [Talk] 13:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

True, removing the tag is not the same as closing, but closing requires a human. But it does unlist the RfC IIRC. Perhaps it could tag stale RfCs on Meta. Polygnotus (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That works for me, although I'm wondering if there is a way to formally request a closure as the discussion has been dying down. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested a formal closure by a stew at meta:SRM. No issues with delisting it from CD. Sohom (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

While you're at it, would you mind asking for closes of the 16 RfCs that are over a year old? :P /s Toadspike [Talk] 17:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

On a similar note, I think we should remove the WikiNews consultation tomorrow, which would be one month from when it was posted. Toadspike [Talk] 12:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço AfD

I removed Wikipedia: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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Criteria for inclusion

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)

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?

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)