Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

WT:CENT

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 than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

LLM wording

Currently: Should editors be required to disclose the usage of large language models, and verify the text they generate?

But that's misleading. It's not asking whether these should be required, but whether a specific block of text should be promoted to policy/guideline status. Users are already responsible for the text they add to Wikipedia (the second part), and indeed many people have opined that existing policy already covers this, but to read this language you'd think that wasn't actually the case. It should be "Should a paragraph of text dealing with large language model use on Wikipedia be promoted to policy or guideline status?" (too wordy, but that's the idea). I'd change it myself, but I'm already involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guess nobody else sees this as an issue. Well, IMO examples like this and the current edit war over the NFL draft capitalization (about which I would agree with those removing it) are good reasons to disallow the person who started an RfC from adding it to CENT themselves. That person is simply too close to the issue to be best suited to determine whether it's applicable to a sufficiently broad audience and whether the summary is neutral. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather WP:CREEPish. We do not need more rule bureaucracy, especially not about announcement of discussions that are almost always about rule bureaucracy. The majority of additions to CENT are in good-faith, editwars don't seem frequent, and lots of us know what the page is really for and use it responsibly. E.g., I only (and very rarely) list something here if the outcome could affect a large number of articles or editors, across various different subjects, and it has nothing to do with who opened the discussion or why. If we could not trust a particular editor to gauge whether they were too close to a subject when it comes to internal documentation and disputes about it, they would also be incompetent to edit the encyclopedia at all, for being unable to follow NPOV and COI and SOAPBOX policies. It is much more likely that an editor hasn't fully read the CENT instructional material and thinks this is the "get more attention to any RfC" page rather than the "get more attention to an RfC with broad potential impact" page, and that's an internal education matter not a competency one. We should assume in good faith that editors unclear on it will become clear on it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C call for candidates

Hi, the call for candidates for UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open until April 1st (VPM announcement). I would propose to consider adding the announcement to this template. Many thanks, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a courtesy note that questions for U4C candidates period is ongoing from April 10 to April 24. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RamzyM (WMF) Added to the template, thanks. the wub "?!" 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, The wub! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contents thread has been archived

The "Link to Wikipedia:Contents from the main page" thread has been archived (archival diff). No idea whether the thread should be unarchived or the entry should be removed. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by Extraordinary Writ (diff). LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with WikiProject LGBT being added here

It's not clear to me why a discussion about what a WikiProject should call itself needs the broadest possible participation from outside the WikiProject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections Results

Hello all,

Should someone add a link to Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Results to this template somewhere, or is this template reserved more for things that require discussion?

Thanks! Have a good day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

^[1]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected template at Template:Centralized discussion.
(edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

2600:8804:8883:C900:5F9:310E:E0DF:27B5 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ closed

[1] sed

[1]