Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:RFC

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

The RfC question isn't neutral!: Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?: The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.: RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?: As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?: Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?: No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?: Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.

Archives

For why RfC was created, see:
- Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by .

URGENT: I have an issue starting with my RfC, and some errors too.

So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff. on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing.

Location of my rfc: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.

I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings

Kindly help me with this. thanks Rainbluetiful (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbluetiful, you have an WP:RFCBRIEF problem. The bot will not post a 1400+ word long "question". Look at the others in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and see if you can add a similarly short "question" to the top of your RFC section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh i see, thanks for the tip. I'm new to these kinds of stuff. Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how many words can the bot accept in order for it to show? Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbluetiful: Please don't try to start another RfC. I have replied at Talk:Light skin#RfC about East Asians. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Req. inputs @ WT:BRD about Responding to RfC

Requesting inputs @ WT:BRD .. and/Vs #Responding to RfC. Thanks Bookku (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. suggest format for RfC

I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.

After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.

Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, Please refer to one of your Apr 2024 DRN close, where in you said ".. they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".

I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC. Bookku (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would wait and look forward to. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and leave the others for another day.

As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.

For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break for navigation

User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.

Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users What part of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far? so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.

What is clear and what is confusing in of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1? and how we can improve grammar, meaning, understanding of RfC intent?

Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?

1) Heading of RfC?

2) Question of RfC?

3) There is no clear support oppose request in RfC question? or Question is too neutral to understand significance to involved users?

4) Sentence/ paragrapha requested to be added is confusing?

5) Ref-List and author brief provided in collapse template.

6) Brief of general content disagreement of involved user provided in collapse template at beginning of discussion section? and it's connect with RfC question?

7) User sandbox which provides glimpse how the change would look?

8) List of questions at user sandbox which will come to RfC one by one?

9) It's some thing else then pl. help understand.

Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in present RfC to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in on going RfC format.

@Eucalyptusmint and Zero0000: @Toadspike and EEng: @TFD and Austronesier: @Maproom and Blueboar:

Fyi:@Louis P. Boog:

Why set of above users pinged?
above users may have heard a bit about Talk:Jinn discussion previous at WP:NRON still uninvolved at this moment in on going RfC. - though WP:NRON related RfC question is planned later.

Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “Too long, didn’t read”. You are asking too many questions at one time.

I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down boxes.

My advice is: keep it simple. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.

Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and Blueboar have a point.

Average per day page views in 2023 for Talk:Jinn were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.

@Louis P. Boog scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAID: It was worse before this fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Louis P. Boog Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least what they are finding difficult with RfC? Bookku (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors

When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an {{anchor}} for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?

On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now, it would need to be a manual action, as Legoktm is reluctant to amend Legobot (and wants to unload it to somebody else if a volunteer steps forward). But {{rfc}} tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when WP:RFCEND or WP:RFCNOT apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the {{rfc|id=123454678}} tag on the talk page with {{anchor|12345678}}, where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC. The other parameters should be removed."

BTW, do you know enough Lua to give us an |id= parameter/alias in Module:Anchor? It might be easier to tell people to keep the |id= parameter intact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g. {{rfc|bio|rfcid=1234567}} the corresponding anchor would be {{anchor|rfc_1234567}} - you need to add in the rfc_ part. The |rfcid= is a hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However much you think you'll need, add three zeroes"? 73 years would have been overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFCNEUTRAL question

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#c-BilledMammal-20240730013200-WhatamIdoing-20240730012800. A concern has been raised about a suggested RFC question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]