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.
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?: No. However, an RFC is usually an effective way of determining what editors agree to do, and that agreement – which we call consensus – is binding, as long as the agreement holds.
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. 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 .

RFC clerk volunteer for upcoming DYK RFC[edit]

Hi all. The DYK community is preparing for a future RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK. It would be good for the project to have an experienced RFC clerk who is not a regular editor at DYK to clerk the upcoming RFC. If someone here is willing to do that for us please let me know. Also, any experienced editors at organizing RFCs, please take a look at what we are doing and make any constructive comments at the linked discussion. I appreciate any and all assistance. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, I've looked through the questions you initially proposed and the discussion. You might be best off with a series of RFCs (which do not need to be 30 days long; that's a default for the bot, not a mandatory minimum).

The first problem I see in the discussion is that "negative hooks" isn't defined, and people don't seem to have a good shared understanding of what it means. The definition should acknowledge that editors come from different cultures and have different life experiences, so there will inevitably be some editors who disagree. It should also differentiate between contentious (=people fight over it) and negative (=editors think it says something bad about the person, even if they all agree that it's 100% accurate and well-sourced). Some examples will probably help, but they don't need to be real. You could give examples like "... that Chris Criminal was convicted of a crime last week?" or "... that Rae Risktaker has claimed to dislike the Thai monarchy?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I will work to craft some language and may come back for further input once I have.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I added a note per your suggestion in the questions section at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK. Does this solve this issue, or do you suggest something further?4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've started the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy and you're getting some answers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I make an RfC for this situation?[edit]

Hi! I want to know if I can make an RfC for this situation: Talk:Valencia#Valencia climate is hot semi-arid. Since this discussion is going nowhere and there is no consensus, would it be necessary to do an RfC to see what people think about Valencia's climate? The climate data demonstrates this, but there is one user who disagrees with this and that's why no consensus was reached. So I wanted to know what I could do in this situation. My idea was to do an RfC, but I don't know if it's appropriate. Farell37 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would make a good RfC. It's not actually a question about Valencia's climate and doesn't require any technical understanding of Valencia or even climate; it seems to be nothing more than a question of Wikipedia policy -- whether synthesizing climate data from one source with definitions of climate categories from another constitutes acceptable paraphrasing of sources or is unacceptable original research.

To keep it focused, I would make the question something like, "Do sources support saying Valencia has a semi-arid climate?" But to avoid wasting time on an RfC that doesn't resolve anything, you should get agreement on the question from the other disputant first. I may have misunderstood the issue. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a good idea! It seems that the discussion won't reach a consensus, so I'll just try to make an RfC to ask community if this is considered original research or not. If the majority says yes, then we will have to make drastic changes to many Wikipedia pages, as most of them do not cite a specific source that classifies climate, but rather only climate data. If not, we will reach a consensus more easily. Thanks! Farell37 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is an RfC the correct way to go about the following problem?[edit]

In my opinion the article on Reiki is uncomfortably biased and shows bad writing. There are pages and pages of archived and active talk discussions spanning nearly 20 years, and it always seems to revolve around the issue of tone. I think the article is seriously in violation of NPOV and may go against the Manual of Style, but there are some people who seem to take that criticism very personally, and thus reject any neutral debate.

I would like to escalate the issue of the article′s quality to outside of the few people who have consistently been pushing for or against change to neutral third parties within Wikipedia who have more knowledge about editing pages and the Manual of Style than I do. Is an RfC procedure with the question “Does this article comply with NPOV and Manual of Style requirements?” the correct action to take? Maybe some other, less vague or less leading question might be appropriate, but I cannot think of one. Thank you in advance! --Konanen (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Konanen: Well, for a start, try leaving notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the swift reply! I will look at those templates and how they are used, and get on it. Konanen (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should expect that to be mirrored at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.

You might be better off picking something small and not in the first paragraph, and trying to improve that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see value in merging the questions of NPOV and style. It just looks like something intended as an attack on people who support the current text. If it comes to an RfC, I would start with the NPOV question alone. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I fail to see how the inclusion of a question about the MOS turns an RfC into a personal attack, especially considering that the two overlap quite a bit when looking at the “Words to Watch” section? –Konanen (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't turn an RfC into a personal attack; it makes it look like one. If someone calls into question a bunch of beliefs that have nothing in common except that they are all held by a particular party, a reader can easily conclude that the questioner is really looking for a victory over that party.

I didn't know WP:WTW was part of MOS; it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with editorial style. If that's the part of MOS that you think the article might violate, you should specify that, because if you just say "Manual of Style requirements", readers are going to think you're talking about use of boldface, formatting of dates, and punctuation of quotations. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[edit]

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

Pl. suggest format for RfC[edit]

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]