Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion

Was my addition, which I've removed, appropriate here?

Pinging editors from the above section who have been active in the last 3 days and aren't blocked. @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, Galobtter, and Novem Linguae:. It is Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Block of User:KoA by User:Leyo (A). I thought it was but then wondered if I might be wrong, so to be sure am asking here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixing pings: @CX Zoom, Ganesha811, Frostly, and Galobtter: –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, don't take it as gospel, but I don't think individual user behavior discussions are a great fit for T:CENT. Items posted here are usually policy discussions/RFCs. Thank you for checking, hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem LinguaeAh, I just thought that an Admin review was something to advertise widely. More important than ANI was it usually involves policy issues. What was wrong with my pings, when I hover over them they still look the same. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you ended the template in ]] instead of }}. I edited it earlier and fixed its appearance, but editing it doesnt actually fix the ping because a signature is needed in the same edit. So to be safe I re-pinged. Hope that's OK. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae sounds like something I’d do.😀

Thanks for helping. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged (insert appropriately sad emoji here), but like Novem Linguae, I would not expect discussions of individual editors or admins to be listed here and definitely not on an ad hoc basis. If people really think discussions at WP:ADREV should be publicized on T:CENT, then it should be done similar to the listings for WP:RFA, where every discussion triggers a listing, to avoid bias in what is publicized. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@RL0919 sorry, my bad. I woukd support all of them being listed. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Link to proposal to remove NOTDIR

@Novem Linguae: I linked Proposals re RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR rather than RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR because the second section only contains the proposals; the first section contains advocacy for the proposals, which is against WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

While fixing the problem more directly is difficult, we can at least make it so that the advocacy for the proposal isn't the first thing editors arriving from CENT see. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

My motivation for changing it was it was confusing when I visited the RFC and the background was above the heading instead of the below it. Most people scroll down and not up, and would be unlikely to see it, in my opinion. Personally if I were refactoring that or any RFC, I would suggest that the RFC creator move the non-neutral part into the first !vote. Perhaps @JzG would be willing to do something like that? At the end of the day though this is a pretty small issue, you can change it back if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

JzG moving the part advocating for the change into their vote would be the ideal solution; JzG, are you willing to do that? BilledMammal (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"T:centralised discussion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect T:centralised discussion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2 § T:centralised discussion until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)