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.

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 .

Format of an RfC

Does the format of an RfC always have to have a subsection called "Survey" in which people vote and another subsection called "Discussion" in which people discuss or challenge each other's votes/comments? I ask because an RfC that I began on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi looked like this, where you could view what someone's choice was and how they had responded to queries or challenges to that choice. Several editors, including at least two admins, had already responded and replied to queries or challenges. At this point an editor made this edit with edit summary "standard RfC format", whereupon they proceeded to disconnect the vote from the immediate follow up challenges. The format makes a reply/challenge less effective as it is made in a different section by pinging the commenting editor. If they are not able to respond, or choose not to, then it is hard for a third party reader to figure out who is was that was being questioned and who the one not replying. Most editors will not scroll up and down, back and forth, between these sections to evaluate a response. My own feeling is that such a "survey" and "discussion" format makes it very easy to cast facile or unsupported votes.

So, cutting long story short: is this format compulsory? Is it Wikipedia or RfC policy? Look forward to your answers, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should usually not have such a section. The most popular format has no subdivisions. An RFC is a normal talk-page discussion, and it should therefore not create an artificial separation between votes and interactive discussions. Subdivisions can be useful (e.g., if a very large number of responses is expected), so they're not banned, but they're neither required nor common, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was reinventing the wheel, and a very wobbly one at that. Thank you very much for that link. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add something to the main page about this? I just checked the open RFCs and found that a majority don't have any sub-sections at all, and only about 20% have separate subsections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===. Of those, I'd say that maybe half were warranted (e.g., Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence with 188 comments so far, or my WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species), which has 452 comments so far). That separation was more common for non-articles.

Talk:Asmongold#RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (started by Some1) and Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article? (started by Ad Orientem) were formatted with separate ===Yes=== and ===No=== voting sections, which is standard for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but should be very rare otherwise.

Perhaps another bullet point in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC, to say something like:

Most RfCs should not have separate sub-sections for "Survey" and "Discussion" comments. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting for more information.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am emphatically ambivalent on the question of how to format an RfC. That said, I tend to favor legal minimalism. IMHO an RfC should be formatted in whatever way seems most practicable at the time, and then allowed to develop organically. If a section needs to be added, then add it. If there are too many, then go ahead and boldy merge them if such can be done without causing problems. If there is a disagreement, then discuss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the bullet points you're talking about are the numbered steps to create an RfC, so advice on the discussion format wouldn't fit as another item there. The misnamed section "Example of an RfC" is where advice on formatting of the discussion is. That section implies it's normal not to have survey/discussion format, but if it's important to emphasize that, this is where it would go. It might make sense to refer to this section in step 2 of the instructions. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible RFC

If I think that an RFC is incomprehensible, due to a combination of grammar errors and sloppy construction, and that an uninvolved administrator should end it, because it isn't useful, where should I make that request? It isn't an urgent conduct issue, and so it shouldn't go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, if you post a link here, someone will usually notice and take care of it.

This is not an admin's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.

For an analogous situation, think about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content. We try to give editors some time to fix their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the sequence as that, first, the editor started the RFC, then other editors criticized it harshly, and then the editor spent the next couple of hours trying to fix it. The difference is that they restated it as a question after being told that it was a poorly formed RFC. The difference is that at least two editors responded and criticized before the originator improved it. I have mixed opinions on whether that matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing - Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the question is whether it's okay to imply that the US is providing weapons to that terrorist group, on the grounds that they have acquired some weapons. It rather reminds me of a line in "The Whisky Priest": "Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them". The US sells arms; therefore, some of them will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them. Or who scavenge them off battlefields. Or who steal them out of warehouses. Or any of many other ways that these problems can happen. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article should imply that the US government intentionally, directly, or knowingly provided the weapons to this particular group – unless reliable sources say so, in which case the Wikipedia article should, too. It will ultimately all hinge on the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the question was unintelligible, even after the attempts to fix it, mainly because of the fractured English. I think I figured out what comments the requester meant to request and have reworded it to say that. Ordinarily, it is a bad idea to make a big change to an RfC statement after 5 days, but I think most editors invited to comment will have skipped this RfC because the RfC statement becomes unintelligible after the fourth word, so it's best to start over.

I guess we've found another purpose for the RfC talk page beyond discussing the RfC information page: asking for uninvolved editors to help fix an RfC. We previously (by consensus of editors watching this page) extended the purpose to include asking for help in starting an RfC, so it makes sense. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lower BBC to generally unreliable specifically for hamas israel conflict

This discussion is off-topic for this page; it is a WP:RSN matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-guidelines-more-1500-times-israel-hamas-war NotQualified (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any realistic chance of editors agreeing to do that. The information might be useful in individual cases. I don't know who's still willing to work on the mess that is WP:ARBPIA articles and therefore might be able to help. Maybe @BilledMammal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary use case for that information is if someone were to say something like "We have to say Israel is engaging in genocide because the BBC did", then it would be appropriate to point out that the BBC has been struggling to get this area right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the current summary:

BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.

i believe we should add "Collective)... and statements around the Israeli-Hamas conflict, especially BBC Arabic." NotQualified (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclose relevant RfC via editnotice?

This idea is in the brainstorming stage.
Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas.

Should/could a new editnotice template be created to point to one or more closed RfC(s) and their respective outcome(s) for a given article? (naturally excluding "No consensus" ones) This would only be relevant for a handful of pages at any given time.

This would be very helpful in cases where there's an old (and yet still representative), archived RfC on an article's talk page that is still regularly being invoked to restore a given status quo. A brief notice to that effect, could really reduce the amount of similar edits having to be reverted over and over again for some article that happens to be in the public eye at the time.

Yes, a talk page FAQ may serve to do the same, but is less commonly seen or appreciated by newcomers in particular. To be honest, these also sometimes appear very smug and undemocratic to outsiders. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another way this is done is with a comment near the disputed content that says, "If you're thinking of changing this date, see ... where consensus was found to use this date." That is easier and more visible than an edit notice.

Side note: sometimes that comment is worded, "Do not change this ..." I find that inappropriate and always delete it. If the order is followed by a reason (such as an RfC), I leave the reason. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC statistics

If you've ever been curious about past RFCs, see User:BilledMammal/List of RFCs. I think that most of the links won't work, but they should all be findable in the archives via the timestamp. The data is not clean (for example, several of the old RFCs attributed to me were just me making repairs to broken RFC questions), but a few general findings might be fun:

It's a lot of RFCs, but it's less than it used to be: Almost 17,000 RFCs are listed in this data set, going back to 2007. If you want to see the oldest ones, they were on the main page until about August 2005.
- This list shows 752 RFCs in 2023, 913 in 2022, and 995 in 2021. This is down significantly compared to previous years: 1,249 in 2020 [beginning of the pandemic], 1,311 in 2015, and 1,215 in 2010.
- We are currently on track for a record low (around 700) for this year.
- In the 2010s, we ran about three new RFCs per day. This year, we will average about two new RFCs per day.
- The drop in RFCs is interesting in part because I've seen comments saying that more RFCs are greeted with complaints about being unnecessary, because there are too many RFCs.
Most people are first-timers: About 9% of RFCs were unsigned. Almost 6,000 logged-in editors started more than 15,000 (~90%) signed RFCs. Something around 250 RFCs (1.5%) were started by IPs.
- Most people have very little experience with starting RFCs. 60% of editors in this list created one RFC. Another 15% have started only two RFCs. 90% of editors in this list have started four or fewer RFCs; they account for half of all signed RFCs.
- Many RFCs were started by someone who was probably trying to read and follow the directions on this page for the first or second time.
- However, some people start a lot more RFCs than normal: George Ho has started about 200 RFCs, though only a few since 2017. Robert McClenon and Snooganssnoogans have each started more than 100 RFCs. The counts fall off rapidly from there. Only a dozen editors have started 50+ RFCs (pinging Cunard, Binksternet, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Helper201, The Four Deuces; note that some high-volume RFC starters are no longer editing at all, and others have been encouraged to find a different way of contributing to Wikipedia), and another 30 editors have created between 25 and 49 RFCs. The numbers really add up: Just 25 editors account for about 10% of the signed RFCs. Just 1% of the people starting RFCs have created 15% of RFCs; each of them has created at least 20 RFCs. If you've heard the saying that 20% of people do 80% of the work, we're not quite that skewed overall; here, 20% of people start 60% of RFCs.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will certainly look at these statistics. I have been a professional user of statistics, and I usually like to look at statistical reports. I have started a lot of RFCs because most of them have been the quasi-resolution of content disputes that I was mediating. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's typical for some of the higher-volume RFC starters. As I said in the first paragraph, not every RFC attributed to me in this dataset is actually "from" me. I've also been asked to be the person who starts RFCs, since I'm extremely familiar with the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the RfCs I've started have been in the course of acting as a guideline shepherd, to resolve questions about the wording or interpretation of a guideline (or occasionally policy), most often an MoS page. I don't often start RfCs that pertain to something mainspace-localized (e.g. the wording of an article's lead, or which photo should be used in a bio article). I do respond (via WP:FRS) to many such RfCs, though. They seem to serve a useful function when done properly, but the noob factor is palapable, as very often WP:RFCBEFORE is ignored, or the RfC is nowhere near neutrally worded and is trying to force a point that some inexperienced editor isn't "winning" on in a prior and short-circuited discussion. I'm not really sure what could be done to curtail that. Perhaps RfCs should require someone to second them before they are listed as RfCs by the bots that do that work. (The concern is that RfCs draw in editors from all over the project, and are thus expensive of editorial time and attention more broadly that just resolving matters more locally on the pertinent talk page with a regular discussion among the editors most interested. But they couldn't be done away with entirely, because they are a site-wide safety value, a check-and-balance against WP:OWN / WP:CONLEVEL problems.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that RFCs used to require a 'second', but I'm not sure that's true and I haven't looked. Generally, I find that when the question is obviously biased, the community manages to handle it perfectly well anyway. Perhaps, when the need is to tell the POV pusher that the answer is really, truly, absolutely, unquestionably no!, then there's an argument to be made about the biased question being more effective. If you get to ask: "Shall we do it my way, which will result in rainbows, butterflies, peace, and love, or shall we do it the bad, wrong, horrible way that causes poverty, war, and oppression?" and people reject your proposal anyway, then maybe you'll finally get the message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't begun many RFCs this year, as the content disputes I was involved with in my area of interests over nearly 19 years, have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]