Parameter "simple" does not work

Hello; the template documentation states that:

Alternately, a simple version of the template can be used, displaying only the list/text without a surrounding navbox.

((centralized discussion|simple=yes))

However, this does not work (see Permalink to my sandbox). I'll see if I can get this to work in the sandbox. I'm not a template editor, so I'll then get an edit request filed. I don't know what happened here. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done; apparently there was a (removed, now restored) switch to use Template:Centralized discussion/simple instead of /core if simple was yes. Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because there are 5 people using it. We should not support a parameter used by 5 people. Izno (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

This edit request to Template:Centralized discussion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See “Adirondack Railroad” page. I am a prominent railroad preservationist who has been trying to update this page for two months. Every time I do so, one or two unscrupulous and anonymous “editors” delete my own edits! These worthies are politically-motivated and are deceiving readers and violating Wikipedia principles. I request prompt mediation here. Please call me ASAP at (redacted), or email me at(redacted) Thank you.

              Donald L. Pevsner
              Attorney-ar-Law (pro Bono publico) 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Offending edit removals occurred today, June 3, 2021 at GMT-4. 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done wrong venue, I believe the correct place to ask edits to this page is over at Talk:Adirondack Railroad. I'm assuming you and the ip users are one and the same. those edits were reverted due to being unsourced additions. these editors are not violating wikipedia principles as in wikipedia, we have to verify information we put through mentions in WP:Reliable sources instead of sourcing from our own knowledge, unsourced information when challenged is typically removed. ◎ | melecie | t 03:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UCoC discussion

@Xeno (WMF): any reason you think we need to link both a local and global discussion for the enforcement draft? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49: Just the local link should be fine I think? I wanted to respect the original insertion, but do feel free to modify. The local page links to Meta already. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BillHPike: for what it’s worth I think the original link posted by Nosebagbear would be better; the enforcement draft guidelines are now outdated. New comments are invited at the talk page of the enforcement guidelines. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xeno (WMF): Good point. I've changed the target back to m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Wikipedia:Notability (television) regarding guideline status

Hi, should the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) § Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG be maybe added to the template? JBchrch talk 02:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]