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 (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 .

Question about RfC sections[edit]

On 05:59, 8 October 2023, I made an edit with the rationale, "moved threaded discussion to threaded discussion section". User:M.Bitton made a revert, with the rationale, "That discussion was part of the !vote (essential for context)". I don't quite understand the revert or its basis or whether it is correct or not. Can someone illuminate the issue? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you moved my comment without my authorization and in any case, why wait until now to pretend (yes pretend) that you have an issue with it? Do you expect me to believe that what your sudden care for what happened weeks ago has nothing to do with the crap that you left on my talk page yesterday? The word pathetic doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinker78 and @M.Bitton, most RFCs don't have separate sections for voting and discussion, and even in the minority that do, there is no RFC-specific rule at the English Wikipedia that prohibits editors from carrying on conversations wherever they want. (That rule does exist at the German Wikipedia, but not here.)

Thinker, I suggest that you look at the FAQ at the top of this page and think about how many of the ideas mentioned there might prove to be practical and relevant advice about How to Win Friends and Influence People. I suggest in particular that if you have any reason to suspect that even one of the other editors might view you as "the opposition", you should not be clerking the discussion (e.g., rearranging comments or deciding when it's over) at all. You can be absolutely correct, but it's better to step back and let others take the lead (and the blame) in deciding what the result is.

Bitton, for future RFCs, unless you are expecting comments from, say, 30 or more editors, please consider not having any subsections. The fact that a ===Threaded discussion=== subsection exists (not to mention providing a labeled list of voting options) encourages editors to believe that you wanted threaded discussion in a different place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience, separating a discussion into votes and threaded discussion rarely works, because contributors won't follow that format. They can't resist explaining their vote, in a place where readers will see it, and when someone disagrees with an explanation, can't resist appending an argument to it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has less to do with RFCs and more to do with the behaviour of two editors. I'd suggest editors continue this discussion somewhere more appropriate, or better yet, disengage before things heat up even more. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

@WhatamIdoing: Your comment about practical and relevant advice about How to Win Friends and Influence People is in the wrong paragraph. Thinker may have made a tactical error, but M.Bitton has been off-scale hostile here and on their user talk page. That's about as un-Wikipedian as it gets, there is no excuse for it, and it should be clearly and unequivocally condemned whenever we see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mandruss. I am perplexed that the completely uncollegial behavior of M.Bitton in gross violation of the civility policy hasn't been called out by anyone, not even administrators. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is very interesting: so when you insult me, it's a "tactical error" (as if we are in some kind of battle), but when I tell you what I think of what you did, it's "gross violation of a policy". If you truly believe that's the case, then you take it to ANI because I stand by everything I said. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you quote and link when I insulted you? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you left on my talk page was insulting and you know it all too well, so don't play games with me. Like I said, If you truly believe that your behaviour is irreproachable, then you take it to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not the least bit surprised that you stand by everything you said (and the way you said it). Kindly show me where Thinker "insulted" you, I apparently missed it. So far, all I've seen is civil criticism on their part. The willingness to offer civil criticism and the ability to receive it without blowing a gasket – whether it's well-founded or not – are both parts of being a Wikipedia editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I. on the other hand, am surprised by your choice of words. "Offer civil criticism"? Is that how we call insults now? How would you like it if someone described you perfectly adequate edit as "disruptive"? M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can only repeat: The willingness to offer civil criticism and the ability to receive it without blowing a gasket – whether it's well-founded or not – are both parts of being a Wikipedia editor. Do you accept that in principle? If so, can you give an example of criticism that you would not view as "insult" if you disagreed with it?

If someone described my perfectly adequate edit as "disruptive", I wouldn't like it much at all. Then I would either accept the criticism and acknowledge my error or calmly and respectfully defend my perfectly adequate edit. You have done neither. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The theory is perfect, but sadly, I don't see much of it being practised in this discussion. As for your question, let's just say that I know an insult when I see one. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communication feedback noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This proposal is somewhat similar to the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed new noticeboard for closing summary reviews[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a new Close review page (CLRV/RFCRV) to be split from AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC whilst relevant AfDs are running[edit]

Please can someone help me with the etiquette of opening an RfC discussion whilst relevant AfDs are open.

In brief, I am thinking that we need a broad discussion on the notability of a (potentially) large number of geographical features in Antarctica. I'll not start it here - but it is obvious from recent (open and closed) AfD that there is significant disagreement about how to assess the notability of these features and the available sources.

Should I wait until the current AfDs are closed? Should I start an RfC and note it in the AfD discussion? I was thinking of maybe starting the RfC on a talkpage of something like Category:Landforms of Antarctica as this would probably include many of the relevant pages. JMWt (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly suggest you WAIT. Let the AFDs play out before you open an RFC. Otherwise you will likely be accused (by one side or the other) of “venue shopping” to influence the outcome of the AFDs (even though this isn’t your intent). Also, the outcome of the AFDs can help focus the discussion in a subsequent RFC. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the meantime, @JMWt, I don't see any pages like a List of beaches in Antarctica, and you might consider making those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying or why it is relevant to this discussion about a RfC. JMWt (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's our official policy that Wikipedia is best when it contains as much "accepted knowledge" as possible. Therefore, Wikipedia is worse when appropriate, encyclopedic, accepted knowledge is completely removed.

If you are concerned about the existence of separate articles about accepted knowledge for subjects you believe are unimportant, then you're more likely to meet your goal if you provide people with an alternative that meets the policy requirement to WP:PRESERVE accepted knowledge while also getting rid of the separate page. Generally, this means creating something like a List of mountain passes in Antarctica (to which existing articles can be merged and redirected) than by removing information completely from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting RfCs[edit]

We explain how to relist RfCs but we don't offer any guidance on when it's appropriate to relist them. I think perhaps we should?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We haven't added it yet because it's not a source of disputes. Adding unnecessary advice is WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]