Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

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. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Criteria for RFC inclusion
Why was 's addition of an RFC to the Template:Centralized discussion being reverted? GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As I indicated on my user talk it did not seem to me to be something which had The village pump, combined with an RfC tag, felt like the appropriate level of seeking a range of opinions. Courtesy ping to the others who reverted: . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly they should know better than to re-add it 5 times without a discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I didn't notice that it had already been reverted once when I reverted again. If I had, I'd have started a discussion at along with my revert. When I was reverted coupled with a message on my user talk I decided that was enough discussion and I'd wait and see if anyone else came to the same conclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tbh I kind of agree with the premise of getting more editors to that discussion (since I did support the goal of that RfC), but I don't think it's a good use of CENT space, which is limited by definition. CENT's utility is inversely proportioned to its length. Galobtter (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While the RfC needs more input, CENT isn't a good fit, because of the necessarily quite limited mainspace scope of the discussion (even if it were broadened to include AFL, NHL, and other sports leagues with player [d|D]rafts). That said, all the involved parties should have engaged in discussion here instead of revert-warring. Tag-teaming a revert-war doesn't make it better. Having the RfC listed or not listed while discussion ensued would not have broken anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * @RamzyM (WMF) Added to the template, thanks. the wub "?!"  12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, The wub! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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