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.

WikiProject Dispute Resolution

(Inactive)

	This page 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 (FAQ)

The RFC question is non-neutral! We need to stop this RFC now!: Your side is losing, isn't it?
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 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

Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by .

Should I open a RfC?[edit]

I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_reword_text_above_the_source-editing_window that looks like it can be better organized with the more structured nature of RfC process. I am quite inexperienced within the area of RfC processes so I am asking for a confirmation here first. Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything especially structured about the RfC process. The only difference between the RfC process and what you're currently doing is that the RfC process invites more people to participate. Do you think you have a problem with not enough input in the existing discussion? Maybe an impasse? If not, I don't think it would be appropriate to do an RfC, which could greatly complicate the discussion with too many participants, while unnecessarily absorbing precious RfC commenter time. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some newer editors have only seen a few RFCs, so they might expect them to be structured like votes, instead of like discussions. This is generally not appropriate, but that style usually works for RFCs that are both large and simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFCs as tools for canvassing[edit]

An editor has made several comments recently about RFCs being a tool for Wikipedia:Canvassing, e.g., "The RfC system, in the case of infobox discussions, has basically become a canvassing system". (I don't want to single out the editor because I think it can be important to hear criticism without making people justify and explain their concerns.)

Starting an RFC is obviously not a letter-of-the-law violation, but does anyone have any ideas about how to prevent such problems, or the perception of such problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template tag[edit]

@Giraffedata, I don't think this is quite correct. We have Special:Tags and we have <ref>...</ref> tags (and all sorts of similar tags, e.g., <gallery>...</gallery> and <code>...</code> and <u>...</u>), but a plain old transcluded template isn't really a tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know any other word but "tag" for the text that transcludes a template, but I know "template" isn't the word for that, because that word is already well defined as something else: the Wikipedia page that generates the text that gets transcluded. I looked at Help:Template and found that it manages to avoid ever giving that text a name, but it uses "template" exclusively to refer to the page that is referenced, applied, called, etc. by the text in question. I sometimes say "template tag" to be more specific. I do know that people often call the text "template", but that's not a good enough reason to misuse the word. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we have clear jargon for this. A template could add a tag, but nobody would call an infobox a tag, and we do call it a template. It is a case of identifying the object by the mechanism instead of the output, but it's what we say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we do have a pretty clear definition in the jargon for "template", based on the template help pages, and we also have the plain English word "template", which does not describe the {{}} wikitext that transcludes a template. I don't get the infobox analogy. I would not call an infobox a template and would not call the markup one uses to generate an infobox (by transcluding a template) a template either, for fear of confusing someone. If I say I'm going to modify the infobox template, do I mean the page that generates infoboxes or the parameters in the {{infobox ...}} markup in an article?

"Tag" seems to fit what {{rfc ...}} is, but there are other words that fit too. It's markup, wikitext, text, or just "{{rfc}}". There's no need to use a word that has another documented meaning. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Glossary#T gives nine separate definitions for tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. I see Definition #1 is the way I propose to use it here. Or maybe not, because there's a third common definition of "template" that might be what is meant here: The rendered text generated on a page by a template. This glossary entry is incredibly sloppy, making it hard to rely on for anything. (For one thing, the only definition that matches the term's most official usage, WP:TAGS, is the last of the nine). The varied use of the word "template" and the relationship of the word "tag" to templates really ought to be clarified on Help:Template. I'll see what editors on that talk page think. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that "the rendered text generated on a page by a template" is a fair understanding of "tag" in this instance, but I agree that it's complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help talk: Template#Terminology: Template Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Reply" tool in subpages[edit]

As I now see, the "Reply" button is now in subpages due to the signature. I thought about adding __ARCHIVEDTALK__ in, but I feared that Legobot would revert the change. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@George Ho: Legobot doesn't touch what's in transcluded templates, so this does it. Of course, I could have put it in Template:Rfclistintro with the same effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue about basing party colors on logos or popular association (media color)[edit]

Me and Number 5 7 have been arguing over color codes for two Danish parties, namely Green Left and Red Green Alliance.

I'm trying to argue that Green Left should use Hot Pink, and Red-Green Alliance should use Orange, while Number 5 7 argues that both parties should use red, based on their party logo. He argues that this is how party colors on wikipedia are determined. However I don't think we can conclude that this is how party colors are chosen on wikipedia, when at least all these parties (Die Linke - Liberal Alliance - Danish People's Party - DUP - Socialist Left Party - Christian Democratic Party - Swedish People's Party of Finland - Fine Gael - Lega - Forza Italia) have their color based on the media color instead of their logo color. An issue I find with basing it on logo color, is that Green Left i.e. have both a red and white logo on their website, and also uses a Green logo on their election posters. Therefore it seems that the party doesn't have a clear color they associate themselves with.

So instead of deciding which of those 3 logos to use, I think that using the color that DR, TV2 and the official site of the parliament Folketinget uses is better.

We've gotten 3 outside opinions, with 1 arguing for Number 5 7's case, and 2 editors arguing for my case. However Number 5 7 didn't give me permission to change the color codes, and asked me to start a broader discussion here instead.

Best regards, Thomas Thomediter (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thomediter: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so it's the wrong venue for your question.

Anyway, you say We've gotten 3 outside opinions, but have not linked to where such opinions were stated; I can guess that one was Talk:Green Left (Denmark)#Changing the color of Green Left and a discussion there is entirely appropriate for matters specific to that particular article; but whilst you also started Talk:Red–Green Alliance (Denmark)#Color change to Orange, nobody else has contributed there yet.

Since the matter affects more than one article, I suggest that you leave a note at some central location, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, directing people to contribute to the ongoing discussions. Don't start a formal RfC at this stage, at least not until the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the missing links.

Talk:Green Left (Denmark)#Changing the color of Green Left, Amakuru and Gust Justice both supported the change, Braganza didn't.

For Module talk:Political party#Edit request 23 April 2023 Red Green Alliance - Request for a color change to Orange (Solution needed) vorrt and Amakuru both supported the change.

Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC about party colours, here Howard the Duck also supports using the color code from reliable sources instead of the logo.

Cheers, thomediter :) Thomediter (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Since posting above, I've found the following (and included the first two in this list for completeness):

Module talk:Political party#Edit request 23 April 2023 Red Green Alliance - Request for a color change to Orange (Solution needed) - initiated 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Red–Green Alliance (Denmark)#Color change to Orange - initiated 18:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Green Left (Denmark)#Changing the color of Green Left - initiated 15:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Thomediter#Warning - initiated 20:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User talk:Braganza#Your opinion on Talk:Green Left (Denmark) - initiated 22:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC about party colours - initiated 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Number 57/Archive 16#Suggested solution for our dispute - initiated 11:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Seven discussions, plus this one making eight; there may be others. Thomediter, you really should have linked those in your original post; and whilst you didn't start all of these, you are getting seriously into WP:OTHERPARENT territory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, but It was just I didn't get a reply in all of these, and didn't know user talk was considered public talks. I'm still learning on wikipedia, apologies, but thanks for informing me.

Cheers, thomediter :) Thomediter (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moxy, I wonder if you'd be interested in this dispute. I think the relevant RFC question might sound something like "Are the colors used to identify parties in Module:Political party exempt from the normal Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility rules?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: there already is an RfC, although not with that question, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC about party colours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]